Consensus of Scientists and Proof

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.

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?

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.

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.)

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.

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.)

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.

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?

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.

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.

Surface Detail wrote:
What does the presence or otherwise of footnotes in papers have to do with this discussion?

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.

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?

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"?

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.

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.

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.

Frescomexico wrote: This energy budget poster strikes me as a made up picture to promote a preconceived result.

[b]Frescomexico wrote:......if they are right...

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'.

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.

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.

IBdaMann wrote:
The model depicted does not violate the 1st LoT.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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 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.

Wake wrote:
I won't remind you that you think that watt/seconds and watts per second are different.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.