Remember me
▼ Content

Consensus of Scientists and Proof



Page 5 of 8<<<34567>>>
16-04-2017 23:28
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
LifeIsThermal wrote:
We use sources in science, not pulling shit out of our asses. So please show if this is shit or not, by providing a source.

So, would you be so kind to give us a source for how your theory does this:

240W=390W

without creating energy.

Since you asked so nicely, here's a helpful diagram produced by NASA that illustrates the flows of energy to and from the Earth:



Note that the 1st LoT is not violated because no energy is destroyed or created at any point. The net effect is a heat flux of 0.6 W-m2 to the Earth. This is what is making the temperature of the Earth rise.


Rather than giving all that dumbshit numbers why have you ignored NASA?

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page4.php

As you can see in more easily understood numbers only 48% of the Sun's energy gets down to the Earth.

Of that the majority moves into the tropopause via conduction etc. and only 17% of it moves from the surface as radiation and the overwhelming majority of that energy is totally outside of the absorption bands of CO2.

As anyone would expect, when only one molecule of 2,499 is CO2 energy travels though far more other paths than from CO2.

Erm, the image in my post was produced by NASA. You can see the little NASA logo in the corner. It contains the same information as your link, and more, but expressed as absolute values rather than percentages.

It doesn't say anything about only 17% of the energy moving from the surface as radiation, though. Where did you find that little snippet of misinformation?
16-04-2017 23:36
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
LifeIsThermal wrote:
We use sources in science, not pulling shit out of our asses. So please show if this is shit or not, by providing a source.

So, would you be so kind to give us a source for how your theory does this:

240W=390W

without creating energy.

Since you asked so nicely, here's a helpful diagram produced by NASA that illustrates the flows of energy to and from the Earth:



Note that the 1st LoT is not violated because no energy is destroyed or created at any point. The net effect is a heat flux of 0.6 W-m2 to the Earth. This is what is making the temperature of the Earth rise.


Rather than giving all that dumbshit numbers why have you ignored NASA?

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page4.php

As you can see in more easily understood numbers only 48% of the Sun's energy gets down to the Earth.

Of that the majority moves into the tropopause via conduction etc. and only 17% of it moves from the surface as radiation and the overwhelming majority of that energy is totally outside of the absorption bands of CO2.

As anyone would expect, when only one molecule of 2,499 is CO2 energy travels though far more other paths than from CO2.

Erm, the image in my post was produced by NASA. You can see the little NASA logo in the corner. It contains the same information as your link, and more, but expressed as absolute values rather than percentages.

It doesn't say anything about only 17% of the energy moving from the surface as radiation, though. Where did you find that little snippet of misinformation?


Why am I not surprised that you can't figure out how to turn the page.
16-04-2017 23:41
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
LifeIsThermal wrote:
We use sources in science, not pulling shit out of our asses. So please show if this is shit or not, by providing a source.

So, would you be so kind to give us a source for how your theory does this:

240W=390W

without creating energy.

Since you asked so nicely, here's a helpful diagram produced by NASA that illustrates the flows of energy to and from the Earth:



Note that the 1st LoT is not violated because no energy is destroyed or created at any point. The net effect is a heat flux of 0.6 W-m2 to the Earth. This is what is making the temperature of the Earth rise.


Rather than giving all that dumbshit numbers why have you ignored NASA?

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page4.php

As you can see in more easily understood numbers only 48% of the Sun's energy gets down to the Earth.

Of that the majority moves into the tropopause via conduction etc. and only 17% of it moves from the surface as radiation and the overwhelming majority of that energy is totally outside of the absorption bands of CO2.

As anyone would expect, when only one molecule of 2,499 is CO2 energy travels though far more other paths than from CO2.

Erm, the image in my post was produced by NASA. You can see the little NASA logo in the corner. It contains the same information as your link, and more, but expressed as absolute values rather than percentages.

It doesn't say anything about only 17% of the energy moving from the surface as radiation, though. Where did you find that little snippet of misinformation?


Why am I not surprised that you can't figure out how to turn the page.

Oops, my apologies. Note, though, that the 17% is a net figure, i.e. the difference between the outgoing and incoming infrared radiation. As the page explains:

This net upward flux results from two large but opposing fluxes: heat flowing upward from the surface to the atmosphere (117%) and heat flowing downward from the atmosphere to the ground (100%). (These competing fluxes are part of the greenhouse effect, described on page 6.)
17-04-2017 00:00
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
[quote]LifeIsThermal wrote:
We use sources in science, not pulling shit out of our asses. So please show if this is shit or not, by providing a source.

So, would you be so kind to give us a source for how your theory does this:

240W=390W

without creating energy.

Since you asked so nicely, here's a helpful diagram produced by NASA that illustrates the flows of energy to and from the Earth:



Note that the 1st LoT is not violated because no energy is destroyed or created at any point. The net effect is a heat flux of 0.6 W-m2 to the Earth. This is what is making the temperature of the Earth rise.


Rather than giving all that dumbshit numbers why have you ignored NASA?

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page4.php

As you can see in more easily understood numbers only 48% of the Sun's energy gets down to the Earth.

Of that the majority moves into the tropopause via conduction etc. and only 17% of it moves from the surface as radiation and the overwhelming majority of that energy is totally outside of the absorption bands of CO2.

As anyone would expect, when only one molecule of 2,499 is CO2 energy travels though far more other paths than from CO2.

Erm, the image in my post was produced by NASA. You can see the little NASA logo in the corner. It contains the same information as your link, and more, but expressed as absolute values rather than percentages.

It doesn't say anything about only 17% of the energy moving from the surface as radiation, though. Where did you find that little snippet of misinformation?


Why am I not surprised that you can't figure out how to turn the page.

Oops, my apologies. Note, though, that the 17% is a net figure, i.e. the difference between the outgoing and incoming infrared radiation. As the page explains:

This net upward flux results from two large but opposing fluxes: heat flowing upward from the surface to the atmosphere (117%) and heat flowing downward from the atmosphere to the ground (100%). (These competing fluxes are part of the greenhouse effect, described on page 6.)
[/quote

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

Explains that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas and that it was falsified long before this idea was every invented in order to give political protection to the IPCC.
17-04-2017 00:21
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Surface Detail wrote:
LifeIsThermal wrote:
We use sources in science, not pulling shit out of our asses. So please show if this is shit or not, by providing a source.

So, would you be so kind to give us a source for how your theory does this:

240W=390W

without creating energy.

Since you asked so nicely, here's a helpful diagram produced by NASA that illustrates the flows of energy to and from the Earth:



Note that the 1st LoT is not violated because no energy is destroyed or created at any point. The net effect is a heat flux of 0.6 W-m2 to the Earth. This is what is making the temperature of the Earth rise.


This energy budget poster strikes me as a made up picture to promote a preconceived result. For example what data can satellites possibly record that differentiates the solar energy reflected by clouds and atmosphere, and reflected by the earth, as well as the total outgoing infrared energy? Plus where did they get the measurements of the other energy fluxes bouncing around from greenhouse gases, latent heat, clouds, atmospheric window, and thermals. Come on, where is the data?
17-04-2017 00:34
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
LifeIsThermal wrote:
We use sources in science, not pulling shit out of our asses. So please show if this is shit or not, by providing a source.

So, would you be so kind to give us a source for how your theory does this:

240W=390W

without creating energy.

Since you asked so nicely, here's a helpful diagram produced by NASA that illustrates the flows of energy to and from the Earth:



Note that the 1st LoT is not violated because no energy is destroyed or created at any point. The net effect is a heat flux of 0.6 W-m2 to the Earth. This is what is making the temperature of the Earth rise.


This energy budget poster strikes me as a made up picture to promote a preconceived result. For example what data can satellites possibly record that differentiates the solar energy reflected by clouds and atmosphere, and reflected by the earth, as well as the total outgoing infrared energy? Plus where did they get the measurements of the other energy fluxes bouncing around from greenhouse gases, latent heat, clouds, atmospheric window, and thermals. Come on, where is the data?

Well, the picture is obviously a summary of the results from a large number of experiments and observations performed by atmospheric scientists. There's no particular reason why NASA should lie about the numbers.

However, the main point that I wanted to make is that - even if you don't believe it - the greenhouse effect, as represented by this picture, would not violate the 1st LoT. It does not rely on energy being created or destroyed anywhere. If, for example, you sum the energy flows into and out of the atmosphere, you get zero.
17-04-2017 02:24
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
LifeIsThermal wrote:
We use sources in science, not pulling shit out of our asses. So please show if this is shit or not, by providing a source.

So, would you be so kind to give us a source for how your theory does this:

240W=390W

without creating energy.

Since you asked so nicely, here's a helpful diagram produced by NASA that illustrates the flows of energy to and from the Earth:



Note that the 1st LoT is not violated because no energy is destroyed or created at any point. The net effect is a heat flux of 0.6 W-m2 to the Earth. This is what is making the temperature of the Earth rise.


This energy budget poster strikes me as a made up picture to promote a preconceived result. For example what data can satellites possibly record that differentiates the solar energy reflected by clouds and atmosphere, and reflected by the earth, as well as the total outgoing infrared energy? Plus where did they get the measurements of the other energy fluxes bouncing around from greenhouse gases, latent heat, clouds, atmospheric window, and thermals. Come on, where is the data?

Well, the picture is obviously a summary of the results from a large number of experiments and observations performed by atmospheric scientists. There's no particular reason why NASA should lie about the numbers.

However, the main point that I wanted to make is that - even if you don't believe it - the greenhouse effect, as represented by this picture, would not violate the 1st LoT. It does not rely on energy being created or destroyed anywhere. If, for example, you sum the energy flows into and out of the atmosphere, you get zero.


There you go again demonstrating your fine understanding of science. Tell me, why do you think that papers all have these things called "footnotes" at the bottom? I suggest that until you learn what science is you stop commenting.
Edited on 17-04-2017 02:26
17-04-2017 02:57
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
LifeIsThermal wrote:
We use sources in science, not pulling shit out of our asses. So please show if this is shit or not, by providing a source.

So, would you be so kind to give us a source for how your theory does this:

240W=390W

without creating energy.

Since you asked so nicely, here's a helpful diagram produced by NASA that illustrates the flows of energy to and from the Earth:



Note that the 1st LoT is not violated because no energy is destroyed or created at any point. The net effect is a heat flux of 0.6 W-m2 to the Earth. This is what is making the temperature of the Earth rise.


This energy budget poster strikes me as a made up picture to promote a preconceived result. For example what data can satellites possibly record that differentiates the solar energy reflected by clouds and atmosphere, and reflected by the earth, as well as the total outgoing infrared energy? Plus where did they get the measurements of the other energy fluxes bouncing around from greenhouse gases, latent heat, clouds, atmospheric window, and thermals. Come on, where is the data?

Well, the picture is obviously a summary of the results from a large number of experiments and observations performed by atmospheric scientists. There's no particular reason why NASA should lie about the numbers.

However, the main point that I wanted to make is that - even if you don't believe it - the greenhouse effect, as represented by this picture, would not violate the 1st LoT. It does not rely on energy being created or destroyed anywhere. If, for example, you sum the energy flows into and out of the atmosphere, you get zero.


There you go again demonstrating your fine understanding of science. Tell me, why do you think that papers all have these things called "footnotes" at the bottom? I suggest that until you learn what science is you stop commenting.

What does the presence or otherwise of footnotes in papers have to do with this discussion?
17-04-2017 03:13
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
What does the presence or otherwise of footnotes in papers have to do with this discussion?


That is the entire point - you don't know anything at all about science.
17-04-2017 03:35
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
What does the presence or otherwise of footnotes in papers have to do with this discussion?


That is the entire point - you don't know anything at all about science.

If I don't understand something, I ask. That's how people learn. And if I do know something, then I'm happy to explain it, which is why I enjoy physics tutoring so much. So please answer the question: What does the presence or otherwise of footnotes in papers have to do with this discussion?
17-04-2017 03:52
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
What does the presence or otherwise of footnotes in papers have to do with this discussion?


That is the entire point - you don't know anything at all about science.

If I don't understand something, I ask. That's how people learn. And if I do know something, then I'm happy to explain it, which is why I enjoy physics tutoring so much. So please answer the question: What does the presence or otherwise of footnotes in papers have to do with this discussion?


Most papers are about something new using old knowledge. And that knowledge if it APPEARS to be well supported is NOT QUESTIONED.

That's what the problem is with the IPCC that used a theory that has become known as a fact that has neither the support in theory nor in the mathematics and has been disproven 30 years before.

Ask yourself WHY they would not do a simple search and discover the mathematics that disproves the greenhouse gas idea?

And all you have to do is to read the paper I referenced to discover that they are simply providing the mathematical background for what I have been saying all along.

Another question is - if you do not understand the mathematics showing that none of the crap you've been spouting has the slightest foundation in reality then why are you even daring to mention "tutoring"?
17-04-2017 04:07
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
What does the presence or otherwise of footnotes in papers have to do with this discussion?


That is the entire point - you don't know anything at all about science.

If I don't understand something, I ask. That's how people learn. And if I do know something, then I'm happy to explain it, which is why I enjoy physics tutoring so much. So please answer the question: What does the presence or otherwise of footnotes in papers have to do with this discussion?


Most papers are about something new using old knowledge. And that knowledge if it APPEARS to be well supported is NOT QUESTIONED.

That's what the problem is with the IPCC that used a theory that has become known as a fact that has neither the support in theory nor in the mathematics and has been disproven 30 years before.

Ask yourself WHY they would not do a simple search and discover the mathematics that disproves the greenhouse gas idea?

And all you have to do is to read the paper I referenced to discover that they are simply providing the mathematical background for what I have been saying all along.

Another question is - if you do not understand the mathematics showing that none of the crap you've been spouting has the slightest foundation in reality then why are you even daring to mention "tutoring"?

You still haven't explained what footnotes in papers have to do with this discussion.
17-04-2017 05:27
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
What does the presence or otherwise of footnotes in papers have to do with this discussion?


That is the entire point - you don't know anything at all about science.

If I don't understand something, I ask. That's how people learn. And if I do know something, then I'm happy to explain it, which is why I enjoy physics tutoring so much. So please answer the question: What does the presence or otherwise of footnotes in papers have to do with this discussion?


Most papers are about something new using old knowledge. And that knowledge if it APPEARS to be well supported is NOT QUESTIONED.

That's what the problem is with the IPCC that used a theory that has become known as a fact that has neither the support in theory nor in the mathematics and has been disproven 30 years before.

Ask yourself WHY they would not do a simple search and discover the mathematics that disproves the greenhouse gas idea?

And all you have to do is to read the paper I referenced to discover that they are simply providing the mathematical background for what I have been saying all along.

Another question is - if you do not understand the mathematics showing that none of the crap you've been spouting has the slightest foundation in reality then why are you even daring to mention "tutoring"?

You still haven't explained what footnotes in papers have to do with this discussion.


But you continue to expose your total ignorance of science. Footnotes my dear ignorant fool are references to previous science that supposedly prove points in the newer paper.

You understand that muttenhead? There WERE no "separately proven" anything. They simply went back and forth quoting each other as sources with NO SCIENCE being done.

And the most preposterous thing about it is that you don't even know that it's being done.
17-04-2017 05:51
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:

This energy budget poster strikes me as a made up picture to promote a preconceived result. For example what data can satellites possibly record that differentiates the solar energy reflected by clouds and atmosphere, and reflected by the earth, as well as the total outgoing infrared energy? Plus where did they get the measurements of the other energy fluxes bouncing around from greenhouse gases, latent heat, clouds, atmospheric window, and thermals. Come on, where is the data?

Well, the picture is obviously a summary of the results from a large number of experiments and observations performed by atmospheric scientists. There's no particular reason why NASA should lie about the numbers.

However, the main point that I wanted to make is that - even if you don't believe it - the greenhouse effect, as represented by this picture, would not violate the 1st LoT. It does not rely on energy being created or destroyed anywhere. If, for example, you sum the energy flows into and out of the atmosphere, you get zero.


No, it is not obvious that the picture is a summary of a large number of experiments and observations. It's just a picture with NASA's logo in the corner. I am not accusing NASA of lying, and I expect that scientists made a large number of measurements and observations. If this were a controlled experiment, because this is a dynamic scenario, all of these measurements would have to be recorded at the same time, and we know that didn't happen. I doubt they were even recorded at the same time in different years, but even that wouldn't help much. What probably happened is they took their best shot at it so that the budget would balance. Maybe their shot was accurate, or close enough, or maybe not. But if it were accurate, why aren't their predictions reflecting actual conditions.

I know this is a tough field to work with, and I am not accusing them of not trying, but the stakes are enormous in terms of dangerous climate change, if they are right; and in terms of wasted expenditures, and stunted progress, if they are wrong.
17-04-2017 11:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13766)
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:

This energy budget poster strikes me as a made up picture to promote a preconceived result. For example what data can satellites possibly record that differentiates the solar energy reflected by clouds and atmosphere, and reflected by the earth, as well as the total outgoing infrared energy? Plus where did they get the measurements of the other energy fluxes bouncing around from greenhouse gases, latent heat, clouds, atmospheric window, and thermals. Come on, where is the data?

Well, the picture is obviously a summary of the results from a large number of experiments and observations performed by atmospheric scientists. There's no particular reason why NASA should lie about the numbers.

However, the main point that I wanted to make is that - even if you don't believe it - the greenhouse effect, as represented by this picture, would not violate the 1st LoT. It does not rely on energy being created or destroyed anywhere. If, for example, you sum the energy flows into and out of the atmosphere, you get zero.


No, it is not obvious that the picture is a summary of a large number of experiments and observations. It's just a picture with NASA's logo in the corner. I am not accusing NASA of lying, and I expect that scientists made a large number of measurements and observations. If this were a controlled experiment, because this is a dynamic scenario, all of these measurements would have to be recorded at the same time, and we know that didn't happen. I doubt they were even recorded at the same time in different years, but even that wouldn't help much. What probably happened is they took their best shot at it so that the budget would balance. Maybe their shot was accurate, or close enough, or maybe not. But if it were accurate, why aren't their predictions reflecting actual conditions.

I know this is a tough field to work with, and I am not accusing them of not trying, but the stakes are enormous in terms of dangerous climate change, if they are right; and in terms of wasted expenditures, and stunted progress, if they are wrong.


I would accuse NASA of lying. I also accuse NOAA of lying. They are both government agencies with assigned agendas that come from the President. That means Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, etc.

There are people who are hired at NASA specifically to handle the distribution of Global Warming doctrine, including producing manufactured data, such as Dr Hanson.

NOAA also publishes manufactured data, such as the global 'temperature'. Which NASA of course copies. Looks suspiciously like a copy of the IPCC 'data'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
17-04-2017 17:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
Frescomexico wrote: This energy budget poster strikes me as a made up picture to promote a preconceived result.

Correct. The model depicted does not violate the 1st LoT. It violates Stefan-Boltzmann and the science of blackbody radiation.

It is to be dismissed.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-04-2017 17:38
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]Frescomexico wrote:......if they are right...

Meanwhile:
These minimum temperatures for Milbank, SD are interesting:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=395536&_PROGRAM=prog.gplot_meanclim_mon_yr2014.sas&_SERVICE=default&param=TMIN&minyear=1886&maxyear=2014
During the time the solar TSI was languid for decades & low for the last 10 years (including a 3+ year period where the solar TSI set a 100 year record low TSI). Why does the temperature record show a rise after 1990, instead of a drop? AGW shows much stronger than the solar TSI drop.
Oh, yeah. What a blessing fer "badnight's" recommended website.
17-04-2017 17:51
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Frescomexico wrote:......if they are right...
///////
Meanwhile:
These minimum temperatures for Hillsboro, OH are interesting:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=333758&_PROGRAM=prog.gplot_meanclim_mon_yr2014.sas&_SERVICE=default&param=TMIN&minyear=1855&maxyear=2014
During the time the solar TSI was languid for decades & low for the last 10 years (including a 3+ year period where the solar TSI set a 100 year record low TSI). Why does the temperature record show a rise after 1990, instead of a drop? AGW shows much stronger than the solar TSI drop.
Oh, yeah. What a blessing fer "badnight's" recommended website.
17-04-2017 18:02
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:

This energy budget poster strikes me as a made up picture to promote a preconceived result. For example what data can satellites possibly record that differentiates the solar energy reflected by clouds and atmosphere, and reflected by the earth, as well as the total outgoing infrared energy? Plus where did they get the measurements of the other energy fluxes bouncing around from greenhouse gases, latent heat, clouds, atmospheric window, and thermals. Come on, where is the data?

Well, the picture is obviously a summary of the results from a large number of experiments and observations performed by atmospheric scientists. There's no particular reason why NASA should lie about the numbers.

However, the main point that I wanted to make is that - even if you don't believe it - the greenhouse effect, as represented by this picture, would not violate the 1st LoT. It does not rely on energy being created or destroyed anywhere. If, for example, you sum the energy flows into and out of the atmosphere, you get zero.


No, it is not obvious that the picture is a summary of a large number of experiments and observations. It's just a picture with NASA's logo in the corner. I am not accusing NASA of lying, and I expect that scientists made a large number of measurements and observations. If this were a controlled experiment, because this is a dynamic scenario, all of these measurements would have to be recorded at the same time, and we know that didn't happen. I doubt they were even recorded at the same time in different years, but even that wouldn't help much. What probably happened is they took their best shot at it so that the budget would balance. Maybe their shot was accurate, or close enough, or maybe not. But if it were accurate, why aren't their predictions reflecting actual conditions.

I know this is a tough field to work with, and I am not accusing them of not trying, but the stakes are enormous in terms of dangerous climate change, if they are right; and in terms of wasted expenditures, and stunted progress, if they are wrong.


I would accuse NASA of lying. I also accuse NOAA of lying. They are both government agencies with assigned agendas that come from the President. That means Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, etc.

There are people who are hired at NASA specifically to handle the distribution of Global Warming doctrine, including producing manufactured data, such as Dr Hanson.

NOAA also publishes manufactured data, such as the global 'temperature'. Which NASA of course copies. Looks suspiciously like a copy of the IPCC 'data'.


I would be extremely concerned with the political appointees that are part of NASA and NOAA. Everywhere we turn now we are discovering data that was faked often in such a manner that it is difficult to detect.

More and more it is looking like Trump is going to have to replace anyone that had so much as a nodding acquaintance with Obama.

The problem then becomes - how to you replace them when you know that a great deal of the advice you may get can be equally distorted in the opposite direction? Trump is a businessman and he is used to being able to fire and hire at will. This way you can continue to do so until you find someone that is good in any particular position. But government political appointees are a great deal better protected.
17-04-2017 20:12
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
What does the presence or otherwise of footnotes in papers have to do with this discussion?


That is the entire point - you don't know anything at all about science.

If I don't understand something, I ask. That's how people learn. And if I do know something, then I'm happy to explain it, which is why I enjoy physics tutoring so much. So please answer the question: What does the presence or otherwise of footnotes in papers have to do with this discussion?


Most papers are about something new using old knowledge. And that knowledge if it APPEARS to be well supported is NOT QUESTIONED.

That's what the problem is with the IPCC that used a theory that has become known as a fact that has neither the support in theory nor in the mathematics and has been disproven 30 years before.

Ask yourself WHY they would not do a simple search and discover the mathematics that disproves the greenhouse gas idea?

And all you have to do is to read the paper I referenced to discover that they are simply providing the mathematical background for what I have been saying all along.

Another question is - if you do not understand the mathematics showing that none of the crap you've been spouting has the slightest foundation in reality then why are you even daring to mention "tutoring"?

You still haven't explained what footnotes in papers have to do with this discussion.


But you continue to expose your total ignorance of science. Footnotes my dear ignorant fool are references to previous science that supposedly prove points in the newer paper.

You understand that muttenhead? There WERE no "separately proven" anything. They simply went back and forth quoting each other as sources with NO SCIENCE being done.

And the most preposterous thing about it is that you don't even know that it's being done.

Your meant references, didn't you, not "footnotes".


References are the mechanism by which we stand on the shoulders of giants to see further, as Newton might have put it. We use references to build on the work of others; scientific advance would be impossible without them since everything would otherwise have to be constantly rediscovered from scratch.

Not that this has anything at all to do with the subject we were discussing.
17-04-2017 20:16
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
What does the presence or otherwise of footnotes in papers have to do with this discussion?


That is the entire point - you don't know anything at all about science.

If I don't understand something, I ask. That's how people learn. And if I do know something, then I'm happy to explain it, which is why I enjoy physics tutoring so much. So please answer the question: What does the presence or otherwise of footnotes in papers have to do with this discussion?


Most papers are about something new using old knowledge. And that knowledge if it APPEARS to be well supported is NOT QUESTIONED.

That's what the problem is with the IPCC that used a theory that has become known as a fact that has neither the support in theory nor in the mathematics and has been disproven 30 years before.

Ask yourself WHY they would not do a simple search and discover the mathematics that disproves the greenhouse gas idea?

And all you have to do is to read the paper I referenced to discover that they are simply providing the mathematical background for what I have been saying all along.

Another question is - if you do not understand the mathematics showing that none of the crap you've been spouting has the slightest foundation in reality then why are you even daring to mention "tutoring"?

You still haven't explained what footnotes in papers have to do with this discussion.


But you continue to expose your total ignorance of science. Footnotes my dear ignorant fool are references to previous science that supposedly prove points in the newer paper.

You understand that muttenhead? There WERE no "separately proven" anything. They simply went back and forth quoting each other as sources with NO SCIENCE being done.

And the most preposterous thing about it is that you don't even know that it's being done.

Your meant references, didn't you, not "footnotes".


References are the mechanism by which we stand on the shoulders of giants to see further, as Newton might have put it. We use references to build on the work of others; scientific advance would be impossible without them since everything would otherwise have to be constantly rediscovered from scratch.

Not that this has anything at all to do with the subject we were discussing.


So now you want to argue not only about whether "heat" is energy or the movement of energy and now whether footnotes are references.

Here's a clue - you have reached the level of litesong. If you prove to be as insane as he is we can just completely ignore you as well.
17-04-2017 20:16
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
The model depicted does not violate the 1st LoT.

Thank you. I'm glad we've finally put that myth to bed.

It violates Stefan-Boltzmann and the science of blackbody radiation.

What makes you think so?
17-04-2017 22:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13766)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
What does the presence or otherwise of footnotes in papers have to do with this discussion?


That is the entire point - you don't know anything at all about science.

If I don't understand something, I ask. That's how people learn. And if I do know something, then I'm happy to explain it, which is why I enjoy physics tutoring so much. So please answer the question: What does the presence or otherwise of footnotes in papers have to do with this discussion?


Most papers are about something new using old knowledge. And that knowledge if it APPEARS to be well supported is NOT QUESTIONED.

That's what the problem is with the IPCC that used a theory that has become known as a fact that has neither the support in theory nor in the mathematics and has been disproven 30 years before.

Ask yourself WHY they would not do a simple search and discover the mathematics that disproves the greenhouse gas idea?

And all you have to do is to read the paper I referenced to discover that they are simply providing the mathematical background for what I have been saying all along.

Another question is - if you do not understand the mathematics showing that none of the crap you've been spouting has the slightest foundation in reality then why are you even daring to mention "tutoring"?

You still haven't explained what footnotes in papers have to do with this discussion.


But you continue to expose your total ignorance of science. Footnotes my dear ignorant fool are references to previous science that supposedly prove points in the newer paper.

You understand that muttenhead? There WERE no "separately proven" anything. They simply went back and forth quoting each other as sources with NO SCIENCE being done.

And the most preposterous thing about it is that you don't even know that it's being done.

Your meant references, didn't you, not "footnotes".


References are the mechanism by which we stand on the shoulders of giants to see further, as Newton might have put it. We use references to build on the work of others; scientific advance would be impossible without them since everything would otherwise have to be constantly rediscovered from scratch.

Not that this has anything at all to do with the subject we were discussing.


So now you want to argue not only about whether "heat" is energy or the movement of energy and now whether footnotes are references.

Here's a clue - you have reached the level of litesong. If you prove to be as insane as he is we can just completely ignore you as well.


Litebeer's English is far worse.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 17-04-2017 23:00
17-04-2017 23:42
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
What does the presence or otherwise of footnotes in papers have to do with this discussion?


That is the entire point - you don't know anything at all about science.

If I don't understand something, I ask. That's how people learn. And if I do know something, then I'm happy to explain it, which is why I enjoy physics tutoring so much. So please answer the question: What does the presence or otherwise of footnotes in papers have to do with this discussion?


Most papers are about something new using old knowledge. And that knowledge if it APPEARS to be well supported is NOT QUESTIONED.

That's what the problem is with the IPCC that used a theory that has become known as a fact that has neither the support in theory nor in the mathematics and has been disproven 30 years before.

Ask yourself WHY they would not do a simple search and discover the mathematics that disproves the greenhouse gas idea?

And all you have to do is to read the paper I referenced to discover that they are simply providing the mathematical background for what I have been saying all along.

Another question is - if you do not understand the mathematics showing that none of the crap you've been spouting has the slightest foundation in reality then why are you even daring to mention "tutoring"?

You still haven't explained what footnotes in papers have to do with this discussion.


But you continue to expose your total ignorance of science. Footnotes my dear ignorant fool are references to previous science that supposedly prove points in the newer paper.

You understand that muttenhead? There WERE no "separately proven" anything. They simply went back and forth quoting each other as sources with NO SCIENCE being done.

And the most preposterous thing about it is that you don't even know that it's being done.

Your meant references, didn't you, not "footnotes".


References are the mechanism by which we stand on the shoulders of giants to see further, as Newton might have put it. We use references to build on the work of others; scientific advance would be impossible without them since everything would otherwise have to be constantly rediscovered from scratch.

Not that this has anything at all to do with the subject we were discussing.


So now you want to argue not only about whether "heat" is energy or the movement of energy and now whether footnotes are references.

Here's a clue - you have reached the level of litesong. If you prove to be as insane as he is we can just completely ignore you as well.


Litebeer's English is far worse.


In my first pass through the "Greenhouse Gas Falsification" paper (written in 2009 and receiving not ONE single mention in the science press) I jumped through it checking the match the first time. Going back through it it has many grade school tests that children could do to prove the rest of the paper correct.

One of these was performed in 1909 by Dr. R. W. Wood, in philosophical which was the Science of the day. The article explained a simple experiment to prove that greenhouses do not act as if they were thought to work. He proved that greenhouse grow hotter because they lack convection cooling and nothing at all to do with radiation of any sort.

Then going through much of the rest of the stories it turns out that a great many papers have been written that falsified the idea of "greenhouse gases". In Germany in particular they had MUCH science papers published showing that there was no possible connection between "greenhouse gases" and global warming. Books and papers were written showing it to be a fraud and even a movie countering Al Gores supreme ignorance.

"In a recent paper on the effects of carbon dioxide, Professor Ellsaesser of
the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, a major US research establishment in
California, concluded that a doubling of carbon dioxide would have little or
no effect on the temperature at the surface and, if anything, might cause the
surface to cool." (I worked at Lawrence Berkeley Labs and Lawrence Livermore Labs and they are two of the foremost scientific research establishments in the world.)

This is completely what I have been saying from two years ago. And with only my own slowly learning calculations to use.

So what we're looking at isn't mistaken scientific beliefs but a clear case of scientific fraud being committed on the world and this is only for one reason - establishing MORE government power and a move towards One World Government and the socialism that implies.
18-04-2017 01:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13766)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
What does the presence or otherwise of footnotes in papers have to do with this discussion?


That is the entire point - you don't know anything at all about science.

If I don't understand something, I ask. That's how people learn. And if I do know something, then I'm happy to explain it, which is why I enjoy physics tutoring so much. So please answer the question: What does the presence or otherwise of footnotes in papers have to do with this discussion?


Most papers are about something new using old knowledge. And that knowledge if it APPEARS to be well supported is NOT QUESTIONED.

That's what the problem is with the IPCC that used a theory that has become known as a fact that has neither the support in theory nor in the mathematics and has been disproven 30 years before.

Ask yourself WHY they would not do a simple search and discover the mathematics that disproves the greenhouse gas idea?

And all you have to do is to read the paper I referenced to discover that they are simply providing the mathematical background for what I have been saying all along.

Another question is - if you do not understand the mathematics showing that none of the crap you've been spouting has the slightest foundation in reality then why are you even daring to mention "tutoring"?

You still haven't explained what footnotes in papers have to do with this discussion.


But you continue to expose your total ignorance of science. Footnotes my dear ignorant fool are references to previous science that supposedly prove points in the newer paper.

You understand that muttenhead? There WERE no "separately proven" anything. They simply went back and forth quoting each other as sources with NO SCIENCE being done.

And the most preposterous thing about it is that you don't even know that it's being done.

Your meant references, didn't you, not "footnotes".


References are the mechanism by which we stand on the shoulders of giants to see further, as Newton might have put it. We use references to build on the work of others; scientific advance would be impossible without them since everything would otherwise have to be constantly rediscovered from scratch.

Not that this has anything at all to do with the subject we were discussing.


So now you want to argue not only about whether "heat" is energy or the movement of energy and now whether footnotes are references.

Here's a clue - you have reached the level of litesong. If you prove to be as insane as he is we can just completely ignore you as well.


Litebeer's English is far worse.


In my first pass through the "Greenhouse Gas Falsification" paper (written in 2009 and receiving not ONE single mention in the science press) I jumped through it checking the match the first time. Going back through it it has many grade school tests that children could do to prove the rest of the paper correct.

One of these was performed in 1909 by Dr. R. W. Wood, in philosophical which was the Science of the day. The article explained a simple experiment to prove that greenhouses do not act as if they were thought to work. He proved that greenhouse grow hotter because they lack convection cooling and nothing at all to do with radiation of any sort.

Then going through much of the rest of the stories it turns out that a great many papers have been written that falsified the idea of "greenhouse gases". In Germany in particular they had MUCH science papers published showing that there was no possible connection between "greenhouse gases" and global warming. Books and papers were written showing it to be a fraud and even a movie countering Al Gores supreme ignorance.

"In a recent paper on the effects of carbon dioxide, Professor Ellsaesser of
the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, a major US research establishment in
California, concluded that a doubling of carbon dioxide would have little or
no effect on the temperature at the surface and, if anything, might cause the
surface to cool." (I worked at Lawrence Berkeley Labs and Lawrence Livermore Labs and they are two of the foremost scientific research establishments in the world.)

This is completely what I have been saying from two years ago. And with only my own slowly learning calculations to use.

So what we're looking at isn't mistaken scientific beliefs but a clear case of scientific fraud being committed on the world and this is only for one reason - establishing MORE government power and a move towards One World Government and the socialism that implies.

You've done your homework. Good for you! I don't think you fully appreciate how few people bother to do what you've done!

This is the reason I consider the Church of Global Warming a child of that larger religion, the Church of Karl Marx.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
18-04-2017 01:28
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Wake, your scaring me. I have been trying to discern the motive for this " fraud " as you call it. I have read of the conspiracy theories which perpetuated the AGW story, and I have trouble believing a citizen of this world would shoot his/herself and their progeny in the foot by subscribing to this theory. I want to believe that there must be something to this theory. But each time I follow this trail I come up empty. It is hard to believe that this "consensus " of scientists would fabricate a theory without evidence, but where is the evidence? Models don't cut it. Everyone knows they tell you what you want to hear. I think we all need to go back to the basics and find out what is really happening.
18-04-2017 02:15
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake, your scaring me. I have been trying to discern the motive for this " fraud " as you call it. I have read of the conspiracy theories which perpetuated the AGW story, and I have trouble believing a citizen of this world would shoot his/herself and their progeny in the foot by subscribing to this theory. I want to believe that there must be something to this theory. But each time I follow this trail I come up empty. It is hard to believe that this "consensus " of scientists would fabricate a theory without evidence, but where is the evidence? Models don't cut it. Everyone knows they tell you what you want to hear. I think we all need to go back to the basics and find out what is really happening.

What scares me is the sheer number of scientifically naive people who seem to find the lies and pseudoscientific nonsense peddled by denialist newspapers and websites more credible than actual science reported in scientific journals.

If you actually want to learn the facts about climate change, here is as good a place to start as any: NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming. Anything that you want to know more about - simply follow the references.
18-04-2017 02:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13766)
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake, your scaring me. I have been trying to discern the motive for this " fraud " as you call it. I have read of the conspiracy theories which perpetuated the AGW story, and I have trouble believing a citizen of this world would shoot his/herself and their progeny in the foot by subscribing to this theory. I want to believe that there must be something to this theory. But each time I follow this trail I come up empty. It is hard to believe that this "consensus " of scientists would fabricate a theory without evidence, but where is the evidence? Models don't cut it. Everyone knows they tell you what you want to hear. I think we all need to go back to the basics and find out what is really happening.


What is happening as an attempt to use the Church of Global Warming to justify an oligarchy. The 'elite' of this oligarchy will tell you where to live, how much power you can use and when, what kind of car you can drive and how fast and where, determine if you can justify the use of things like aircraft and ships, ...in short run your life. They think they can do a better job of it than you can.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
18-04-2017 03:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13766)
Surface Detail wrote:
What scares me is the sheer number of scientifically naive people who seem to find the lies and pseudoscientific nonsense peddled by denialist newspapers and websites more credible than actual science reported in scientific journals.

Science isn't a magazine or journal. It isn't a government organization. It isn't a political group, not even of scientists. It's not even people at all

Science is just the collection of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

Surface Detail wrote:
If you actually want to learn the facts about climate change, here is as good a place to start as any: NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming. Anything that you want to know more about - simply follow the references.


So your solution is to direct him to a bunch of newspapers and websites that deny science, eh?

NASA is not science. It is a government organization.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
18-04-2017 08:24
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake, your scaring me. I have been trying to discern the motive for this " fraud " as you call it. I have read of the conspiracy theories which perpetuated the AGW story, and I have trouble believing a citizen of this world would shoot his/herself and their progeny in the foot by subscribing to this theory. I want to believe that there must be something to this theory. But each time I follow this trail I come up empty. It is hard to believe that this "consensus " of scientists would fabricate a theory without evidence, but where is the evidence? Models don't cut it. Everyone knows they tell you what you want to hear. I think we all need to go back to the basics and find out what is really happening.

What scares me is the sheer number of scientifically naive people who seem to find the lies and pseudoscientific nonsense peddled by denialist newspapers and websites more credible than actual science reported in scientific journals.

If you actually want to learn the facts about climate change, here is as good a place to start as any: NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming. Anything that you want to know more about - simply follow the references.


Thank you for the reference; I had read it before. In fact it is one of the trails that I referred to above that lead nowhere. I has a lot of pretty color pictures but no scientific reference dealing with the greenhouse effect. It has but two references: one dealing with the consensus of scientific opinion and the other dealing with solar radiation cycles.
18-04-2017 15:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
Frescomexico wrote:So, before we run out shouting we should shutdown our fossil fueled power plants and permanently park our cars, we really need more evidence that there is a problem .

I'm joining this thread a little late.

The OP was very well conceived and makes a valid point. The ending of the post, however, is problematic and is contradictory to the post itself.

We do NOT need any more "evidence" of anything. Ignoring the inherently subjective nature of "evidence," both in what qualifies as "evidence" and in what it means, there is no magickal quantity of "evidence" that qualifies for the title of "science" or that thus establishes any theory as absolutely true.

Global Warming is a religion. As such, it is completely unfalsifiable and can never have any associated science. There will never be a Global Warming equation in science. Warmizombies and Climate Lemmings know this, and they do what all ardent religionists do, which is to gather and preach/proclaim "evidence" of their faith and to avoid science which might/will run counter to the religious dogma.

The OP should have ended in "We need to demand falsiable claims first and foremost, and then to compare those claims with what science says. We DON'T need any more 'evidence'"

If we were to do that, we would be struck with amazing clarity on the matter.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-04-2017 15:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
Surface Detail wrote: What scares me is the sheer number of scientifically naive people who seem to find the lies and pseudoscientific nonsense peddled by denialist newspapers and websites more credible than actual science reported in scientific journals.

What scares me is the sheer number of scientifically illiterate warmizombies who refer to science-denying websites and publications as "Scientific Journals."

NASA has adopted a science-denying agenda. Their job is to manage the acquisition of space-launch equipment and vehicles. The Obama-administration political appointees have diverted funds from NASA's purpose so as to integrate the Global Warming Church and State.

Notice that nowhere does NASA formally define "Climate" in any way that makes sense. Nor does NOAA. Nor does the IPCC.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-04-2017 16:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
Frescomexico wrote:Thank you for the reference; I had read it before. In fact it is one of the trails that I referred to above that lead nowhere. I has a lot of pretty color pictures but no scientific reference dealing with the greenhouse effect. It has but two references: one dealing with the consensus of scientific opinion and the other dealing with solar radiation cycles.

Surface Detail has nothing for you but preaching. He is dependent upon warmizombie websites to do his thinking for him. He cannot discuss science honestly so he will forever send you off chasing links, hoping you won't come back.

If you're actually looking for answers then all paths lead to Global Warming being a WACKY cult leftist religion of haters who BELIEVE in a dogma that runs counter to physics.

Counter to physics.

That's where all honest investigation leads.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-04-2017 17:15
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake, your scaring me. I have been trying to discern the motive for this " fraud " as you call it. I have read of the conspiracy theories which perpetuated the AGW story, and I have trouble believing a citizen of this world would shoot his/herself and their progeny in the foot by subscribing to this theory. I want to believe that there must be something to this theory. But each time I follow this trail I come up empty. It is hard to believe that this "consensus " of scientists would fabricate a theory without evidence, but where is the evidence? Models don't cut it. Everyone knows they tell you what you want to hear. I think we all need to go back to the basics and find out what is really happening.

What scares me is the sheer number of scientifically naive people who seem to find the lies and pseudoscientific nonsense peddled by denialist newspapers and websites more credible than actual science reported in scientific journals.

If you actually want to learn the facts about climate change, here is as good a place to start as any: NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming. Anything that you want to know more about - simply follow the references.


Tell you what - if you don't call people that actually know science as "naive" I won't remind you that you think that watt/seconds and watts per second are different. That you can't even READ the definition of heat from the Encyclopedia Britannica and understand it. That you are now to the point where you are actually arguing the definition of words because you have long passed the limits of your education. Or that you are spreading your faith via "tutoring".

The real science in NOAA and NASA plainly shows that there isn't any "AGW" but the Obama political appointees have said EXACTLY the opposite. So take your religion elsewhere.
18-04-2017 20:23
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
I won't remind you that you think that watt/seconds and watts per second are different.

You're lying. I didn't write that.

Watts/second and watts per second are indeed different ways of writing the same thing (Ws-1)

Watt seconds are, however, a different thing (Ws) and are equivalent to joules.

Why would you expect anyone to believe anything you say when you blatantly lie about things that are easily verified, such as what people wrote on this site? Anyone can make a mistake, but by repeating the same lie even after it has been pointed out to you, you are simply destroying your own credibility.
18-04-2017 20:41
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
I won't remind you that you think that watt/seconds and watts per second are different.

You're lying. I didn't write that.

Watts/second and watts per second are indeed different ways of writing the same thing (Ws-1)

Watt seconds are, however, a different thing (Ws) and are equivalent to joules.

Why would you expect anyone to believe anything you say when you blatantly lie about things that are easily verified, such as what people wrote on this site? Anyone can make a mistake, but by repeating the same lie even after it has been pointed out to you, you are simply destroying your own credibility.

Surface Detail.... anti-AGW denier liar whiners are makin' the simple mistakes from the beginning. No wonder they are...... anti-AGW denier liar whiners. ANTI-AGW is built into their DNA.
19-04-2017 04:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13766)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
I won't remind you that you think that watt/seconds and watts per second are different.

You're lying. I didn't write that.

Watts/second and watts per second are indeed different ways of writing the same thing (Ws-1)

Watt seconds are, however, a different thing (Ws) and are equivalent to joules.

Why would you expect anyone to believe anything you say when you blatantly lie about things that are easily verified, such as what people wrote on this site? Anyone can make a mistake, but by repeating the same lie even after it has been pointed out to you, you are simply destroying your own credibility.


One watt sustained for one second is one joule, which is the SAME as saying one watt, or one joule per second.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
19-04-2017 04:17
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
I won't remind you that you think that watt/seconds and watts per second are different.

You're lying. I didn't write that.

Watts/second and watts per second are indeed different ways of writing the same thing (Ws-1)

Watt seconds are, however, a different thing (Ws) and are equivalent to joules.

Why would you expect anyone to believe anything you say when you blatantly lie about things that are easily verified, such as what people wrote on this site? Anyone can make a mistake, but by repeating the same lie even after it has been pointed out to you, you are simply destroying your own credibility.


One watt sustained for one second is one joule, which is the SAME as saying one watt, or one joule per second.

Correct. A joule is a watt second, which is the same as saying that a watt is a joule per second. A watt per second would be something very different though.
19-04-2017 04:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13766)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
I won't remind you that you think that watt/seconds and watts per second are different.

You're lying. I didn't write that.

Watts/second and watts per second are indeed different ways of writing the same thing (Ws-1)

Watt seconds are, however, a different thing (Ws) and are equivalent to joules.

Why would you expect anyone to believe anything you say when you blatantly lie about things that are easily verified, such as what people wrote on this site? Anyone can make a mistake, but by repeating the same lie even after it has been pointed out to you, you are simply destroying your own credibility.


One watt sustained for one second is one joule, which is the SAME as saying one watt, or one joule per second.

Correct. A joule is a watt second, which is the same as saying that a watt is a joule per second. A watt per second would be something very different though.

Not really. It is the same as saying one joule.

Frankly, I'm amazed at how far you'll go to try to redefine the word 'heat'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 19-04-2017 04:20
19-04-2017 04:21
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
I won't remind you that you think that watt/seconds and watts per second are different.

You're lying. I didn't write that.

Watts/second and watts per second are indeed different ways of writing the same thing (Ws-1)

Watt seconds are, however, a different thing (Ws) and are equivalent to joules.

Why would you expect anyone to believe anything you say when you blatantly lie about things that are easily verified, such as what people wrote on this site? Anyone can make a mistake, but by repeating the same lie even after it has been pointed out to you, you are simply destroying your own credibility.


One watt sustained for one second is one joule, which is the SAME as saying one watt, or one joule per second.

Correct. A joule is a watt second, which is the same as saying that a watt is a joule per second. A watt per second would be something very different though.

Not really. It is the same as saying one joule.

No, a watt second (Ws) is the same as a joule (J). A watt per second (Ws-1) would be a rate of change of power with time.

As an example of when you might use such a unit: The Dinorwig pumped storage facility in Wales, UK can ramp up its output from 0 to 1800 MW in 16 seconds to provide a fast response to short-term rapid changes in power demand. This is a rate of change of output of 1,800,000,000 / 16 = 112,500,000 watts per second.
Edited on 19-04-2017 04:27
Page 5 of 8<<<34567>>>





Join the debate Consensus of Scientists and Proof:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Climate change for the non-scientists2903-09-2020 05:01
A Post On Quora Explaining What is Wrong With The 97% Consensus Studies208-03-2020 18:17
Ocean currents are speeding up faster than scientists predicted417-02-2020 14:55
SCIENTISTS: 30 Years Of Data Show The 'Godfather' Global Warming Was Wrong1711-02-2020 17:42
I don't believe CO2 makes air hotter because I don't see any experimental proof509-10-2019 03:15
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact