Remember me
▼ Content

Heaven Forbid - It's Warming - We may leave our current Ice Age



Page 2 of 3<123>
08-08-2017 19:08
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
The fact is he has threatened people, he threatened me and as I recall he threatened you as a matter of fact. Someone who acts like that has zero credibility.

My saying that he has dementia is not an insult but the only rational explanation for his behaviour.


And believe me - if I can find you I will more than follow up on my threats. So why don't you give me your full proper name and address and you can test my resolve.


Honest answer; Because you are crazy and there is a chance you would buy a plane ticket and fly over here and show up on my door with a gun.


I don't use nor need "guns" which you seem to be frightened of. Of the last three people that tried to start fights with me all three were hauled off in ambulances and one is permanently disabled. I think that such would be something that you could use.
08-08-2017 19:32
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote: No, I didn't say or imply that at all.


You will both say and imply anything. You don't even know who the Nazi were and are talking about Republicans as if they were like them.

You bags of deification speak in socialist terms. And socialism always leads to tyranny given time. The Nazi's were socialists since you don't seem to understand that.

The Republicans are for smaller and less invasive government but you are so stupid that you actually believe that your socialist ideals somehow are more protective of you.

Well, the USA has had enough of socialism. Leave that to California where people with money are leaving and even the high tech sector is leaving. When Facebook and Google have finally had enough excessive taxation they too will move and there will be nothing left.

It is no surprise that the USA is turning completely away from socialism in every form. Republicans are being elected in the very heart of previous strongly Democrat areas. Democrats who have had enough of the socialism from the elites are changing parties - even elected officials. And they are then being re-elected.
08-08-2017 19:42
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
The fact is he has threatened people, he threatened me and as I recall he threatened you as a matter of fact. Someone who acts like that has zero credibility.

My saying that he has dementia is not an insult but the only rational explanation for his behaviour.


And believe me - if I can find you I will more than follow up on my threats. So why don't you give me your full proper name and address and you can test my resolve.


Honest answer; Because you are crazy and there is a chance you would buy a plane ticket and fly over here and show up on my door with a gun.


I don't use nor need "guns" which you seem to be frightened of. Of the last three people that tried to start fights with me all three were hauled off in ambulances and one is permanently disabled. I think that such would be something that you could use.


So you want my name and address so you can come over here and permanently disable me, good to know.


nutter.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
08-08-2017 20:32
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote: So you want my name and address so you can come over here and permanently disable me, good to know.


I see you actually think that I would go to Europe to punch you out. And you think that I'm a nutter. Go pass off your climate lies elsewhere.

This morning on TV they said that "An unknown NASA scientist has released proof that there is global warming and that it is getting hotter."

This year it has had reduced temperatures all over the globe but some "unknown NASA scientist" really has the inside data.
08-08-2017 20:55
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1694)
Didn't we just see a report a couple weeks ago that a NASA jet propulsion engineer (jet mechanic) was confirming for all of us that we were burning up? I wonder if this unknown NASA scientist is the front desk clerk.
08-08-2017 21:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
The fact is he has threatened people, he threatened me and as I recall he threatened you as a matter of fact. Someone who acts like that has zero credibility.

My saying that he has dementia is not an insult but the only rational explanation for his behaviour.


And believe me - if I can find you I will more than follow up on my threats. So why don't you give me your full proper name and address and you can test my resolve.


Honest answer; Because you are crazy and there is a chance you would buy a plane ticket and fly over here and show up on my door with a gun.


I don't use nor need "guns" which you seem to be frightened of. Of the last three people that tried to start fights with me all three were hauled off in ambulances and one is permanently disabled. I think that such would be something that you could use.


Why do you go around threatening people like you were some big shot? That can get you kicked off quite a few forums you know.

You are a nothing.


The Parrot Killer
08-08-2017 21:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: No, I didn't say or imply that at all.


You will both say and imply anything. You don't even know who the Nazi were and are talking about Republicans as if they were like them.

You bags of deification speak in socialist terms. And socialism always leads to tyranny given time. The Nazi's were socialists since you don't seem to understand that.

The Republicans are for smaller and less invasive government but you are so stupid that you actually believe that your socialist ideals somehow are more protective of you.

Well, the USA has had enough of socialism. Leave that to California where people with money are leaving and even the high tech sector is leaving. When Facebook and Google have finally had enough excessive taxation they too will move and there will be nothing left.

It is no surprise that the USA is turning completely away from socialism in every form. Republicans are being elected in the very heart of previous strongly Democrat areas. Democrats who have had enough of the socialism from the elites are changing parties - even elected officials. And they are then being re-elected.


Wish that was true for Western Washington.

I'm tired of the liberal crap here.


The Parrot Killer
08-08-2017 21:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Didn't we just see a report a couple weeks ago that a NASA jet propulsion engineer (jet mechanic) was confirming for all of us that we were burning up? I wonder if this unknown NASA scientist is the front desk clerk.


Probably located behind the jet engine test apparatus.

(GAWD it's getting hot in here again!)


The Parrot Killer
08-08-2017 22:57
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Didn't we just see a report a couple weeks ago that a NASA jet propulsion engineer (jet mechanic) was confirming for all of us that we were burning up? I wonder if this unknown NASA scientist is the front desk clerk.


In all probability. If you look through the actual published papers of NASA scientists you see none of the hysteria that appears to be coming from NASA itself.

NASA has had their budget cut and they have been ordered to do what their job has always been - space and ONLY space.
08-08-2017 23:03
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1694)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Didn't we just see a report a couple weeks ago that a NASA jet propulsion engineer (jet mechanic) was confirming for all of us that we were burning up? I wonder if this unknown NASA scientist is the front desk clerk.


Probably located behind the jet engine test apparatus.

(GAWD it's getting hot in here again!)


LOL!!


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
08-08-2017 23:04
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1694)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Didn't we just see a report a couple weeks ago that a NASA jet propulsion engineer (jet mechanic) was confirming for all of us that we were burning up? I wonder if this unknown NASA scientist is the front desk clerk.


In all probability. If you look through the actual published papers of NASA scientists you see none of the hysteria that appears to be coming from NASA itself.

NASA has had their budget cut and they have been ordered to do what their job has always been - space and ONLY space.


Bout time. Thank you Trump.


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
08-08-2017 23:26
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Didn't we just see a report a couple weeks ago that a NASA jet propulsion engineer (jet mechanic) was confirming for all of us that we were burning up? I wonder if this unknown NASA scientist is the front desk clerk.

I suspect that was just you getting confused with the name of NASA's space and planetary exploration centre, which, for historical reasons, is still called the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
08-08-2017 23:29
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Didn't we just see a report a couple weeks ago that a NASA jet propulsion engineer (jet mechanic) was confirming for all of us that we were burning up? I wonder if this unknown NASA scientist is the front desk clerk.


In all probability. If you look through the actual published papers of NASA scientists you see none of the hysteria that appears to be coming from NASA itself.

NASA has had their budget cut and they have been ordered to do what their job has always been - space and ONLY space.


Bout time. Thank you Trump.

Yes, it's the obvious thing to do. If your experts tell you there's a problem that you need to address, simply sack them. What could possibly go wrong with this approach?
09-08-2017 00:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Didn't we just see a report a couple weeks ago that a NASA jet propulsion engineer (jet mechanic) was confirming for all of us that we were burning up? I wonder if this unknown NASA scientist is the front desk clerk.


In all probability. If you look through the actual published papers of NASA scientists you see none of the hysteria that appears to be coming from NASA itself.

NASA has had their budget cut and they have been ordered to do what their job has always been - space and ONLY space.


Bout time. Thank you Trump.

Yes, it's the obvious thing to do. If your experts tell you there's a problem that you need to address, simply sack them. What could possibly go wrong with this approach?


Science is not a government agency. If Trump decides to get NASA to concentrate on space instead of religion, that's his decision, and a good one.


The Parrot Killer
09-08-2017 00:12
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Didn't we just see a report a couple weeks ago that a NASA jet propulsion engineer (jet mechanic) was confirming for all of us that we were burning up? I wonder if this unknown NASA scientist is the front desk clerk.


In all probability. If you look through the actual published papers of NASA scientists you see none of the hysteria that appears to be coming from NASA itself.

NASA has had their budget cut and they have been ordered to do what their job has always been - space and ONLY space.


Bout time. Thank you Trump.

Yes, it's the obvious thing to do. If your experts tell you there's a problem that you need to address, simply sack them. What could possibly go wrong with this approach?


Science is not a government agency. If Trump decides to get NASA to concentrate on space instead of religion, that's his decision, and a good one.

You're doing the same as Trump. Don't like what the scientists are telling you? Call it religion and ignore it. It's a policy of deliberate ignorance.
09-08-2017 00:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Didn't we just see a report a couple weeks ago that a NASA jet propulsion engineer (jet mechanic) was confirming for all of us that we were burning up? I wonder if this unknown NASA scientist is the front desk clerk.


In all probability. If you look through the actual published papers of NASA scientists you see none of the hysteria that appears to be coming from NASA itself.

NASA has had their budget cut and they have been ordered to do what their job has always been - space and ONLY space.


Bout time. Thank you Trump.

Yes, it's the obvious thing to do. If your experts tell you there's a problem that you need to address, simply sack them. What could possibly go wrong with this approach?


Science is not a government agency. If Trump decides to get NASA to concentrate on space instead of religion, that's his decision, and a good one.

You're doing the same as Trump. Don't like what the scientists are telling you? Call it religion and ignore it. It's a policy of deliberate ignorance.


Where is there any science in the theory of 'greenhouse effect'? Where is there any science in 'global warming'? Where is there any science in something you can't even define without using circular definitions? Where's the beef?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 09-08-2017 00:26
09-08-2017 00:43
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Didn't we just see a report a couple weeks ago that a NASA jet propulsion engineer (jet mechanic) was confirming for all of us that we were burning up? I wonder if this unknown NASA scientist is the front desk clerk.


In all probability. If you look through the actual published papers of NASA scientists you see none of the hysteria that appears to be coming from NASA itself.

NASA has had their budget cut and they have been ordered to do what their job has always been - space and ONLY space.


Bout time. Thank you Trump.

Yes, it's the obvious thing to do. If your experts tell you there's a problem that you need to address, simply sack them. What could possibly go wrong with this approach?


Science is not a government agency. If Trump decides to get NASA to concentrate on space instead of religion, that's his decision, and a good one.

You're doing the same as Trump. Don't like what the scientists are telling you? Call it religion and ignore it. It's a policy of deliberate ignorance.


Where is there any science in the theory of 'greenhouse effect'? Where is there any science in 'global warming'? Where is there any science in something you can't even define without using circular definitions? Where's the beef?

QED
09-08-2017 01:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Didn't we just see a report a couple weeks ago that a NASA jet propulsion engineer (jet mechanic) was confirming for all of us that we were burning up? I wonder if this unknown NASA scientist is the front desk clerk.


In all probability. If you look through the actual published papers of NASA scientists you see none of the hysteria that appears to be coming from NASA itself.

NASA has had their budget cut and they have been ordered to do what their job has always been - space and ONLY space.


Bout time. Thank you Trump.

Yes, it's the obvious thing to do. If your experts tell you there's a problem that you need to address, simply sack them. What could possibly go wrong with this approach?


Science is not a government agency. If Trump decides to get NASA to concentrate on space instead of religion, that's his decision, and a good one.

You're doing the same as Trump. Don't like what the scientists are telling you? Call it religion and ignore it. It's a policy of deliberate ignorance.


Where is there any science in the theory of 'greenhouse effect'? Where is there any science in 'global warming'? Where is there any science in something you can't even define without using circular definitions? Where's the beef?

QED

QED doesn't sound like any kind of science to me.

Care to try again?


The Parrot Killer
09-08-2017 11:44
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote: Wake, the only way you would know if something was hooey or not would be that someone else told you, because you don't have enough intelligence to analyze the simplest of problems, much less complex ones like we are discussing. So your opinion on my Climate Model isn't valid. Analyze it first, then we can talk about it.


I thought that we had settled that you have no scientific credentials? On the other hand I've done the design and programming for a machine that use Polymerase Chain Reaction that won our chief chemist a Nobel Prize, identified HIV in the blood banking system and saved literally millions of lives world wide. Then I expanded it to be the first DNA analyzer. And my partner, Dr. Michael McCown, who handled the chemistry side of the project was given a full professorship at the University of Connecticutt.

I am the go-to man for Charley Button who has many, many engineering awards including at least two Emmy Awards.

I have worked in gas and liquid chromatography, I developed the first working poison gas detector for the military so that they could protect their men from those WMD that jackasses like you were saying weren't there.




Now hold on there bucko. Who you calling a jackass? Jackass. Good for you that you developed a poison gas detector, but it's not really fair to say it is a "working" gas detector, since there was nothing to test it on, since there wasn't really anything there. And no, I didn't say there was nothing there. What I said was that we had no business going there [Iraq], because they had nothing to do with the WTC Attack. And I was right. So were the jackasses that said there were no WMDs in Iraq.




I did the initial calculations on the expansion of the aorta for the first real heart/lung machine.

I increased the power for the UC Berkeley linear accelerator. I worked in quantum physics.



Oh I loved that one, lol. Say you worked in "quantum physics?" Is that when you increased the power for the UC Berkely linear accelerator? I'm thinking that you weren't the one who figured out what to do, but rather the one who did what that guy said. Those things are pretty cool, but have nothing to do with Climate Science. Nor does anything else you have been working on in your career.



Tell us again what YOU have done? That is besides shoot your stupid mouth off pretending to know something because you read it from some man who read it from some man who misinterpreted it from some other man.



I answered that question in the other thread that you set up just for me, and those who want to learn from or belittle me.

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/greenman-d6-e1489.php

Your resume is impressive, and you have done a lot to boost your former boss's careers. They have probably forgotten all about you now, as they enjoy reaping the benefits which your hard work provided. You sound more like a technician than an engineer though, and that means that you are comfortable following instructions given by other, more informed people. And you have also given no indication of any kind of research in Climate Change or Global Warming. I can easily conclude though that what little "research" you have done is reading the latest Climate Change Skeptic Column on the local Internet, and have no real knowledge of anything related to climate [except for that Weather Forecast Rock that you might have hanging outside. [If it's wet, it's raining. If it's dry, it's not raining. If it's moving, the wind is blowing. If it's not moving, the wind is not blowing. If there is snow on it, it's snowing. If it's not there anymore, a hurricane is coming through]

You and quite a lot of people like you don't want to change the way you live, so you want to believe what you read on the Climate Change Skeptic Column. And then to show your faith, you repeat whatever you read there. And you do it at every opportunity you find. You seem to have a lot of time on your hands to do that, so I'm guessing that you are either unemployed currently, or are getting paid to hang out in here and shoot your stupid mouth off.



~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
09-08-2017 17:59
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote: Wake, the only way you would know if something was hooey or not would be that someone else told you, because you don't have enough intelligence to analyze the simplest of problems, much less complex ones like we are discussing. So your opinion on my Climate Model isn't valid. Analyze it first, then we can talk about it.


I thought that we had settled that you have no scientific credentials? On the other hand I've done the design and programming for a machine that use Polymerase Chain Reaction that won our chief chemist a Nobel Prize, identified HIV in the blood banking system and saved literally millions of lives world wide. Then I expanded it to be the first DNA analyzer. And my partner, Dr. Michael McCown, who handled the chemistry side of the project was given a full professorship at the University of Connecticutt.

I am the go-to man for Charley Button who has many, many engineering awards including at least two Emmy Awards.

I have worked in gas and liquid chromatography, I developed the first working poison gas detector for the military so that they could protect their men from those WMD that jackasses like you were saying weren't there.




Now hold on there bucko. Who you calling a jackass? Jackass. Good for you that you developed a poison gas detector, but it's not really fair to say it is a "working" gas detector, since there was nothing to test it on, since there wasn't really anything there. And no, I didn't say there was nothing there. What I said was that we had no business going there [Iraq], because they had nothing to do with the WTC Attack. And I was right. So were the jackasses that said there were no WMDs in Iraq.




I did the initial calculations on the expansion of the aorta for the first real heart/lung machine.

I increased the power for the UC Berkeley linear accelerator. I worked in quantum physics.



Oh I loved that one, lol. Say you worked in "quantum physics?" Is that when you increased the power for the UC Berkely linear accelerator? I'm thinking that you weren't the one who figured out what to do, but rather the one who did what that guy said. Those things are pretty cool, but have nothing to do with Climate Science. Nor does anything else you have been working on in your career.



Tell us again what YOU have done? That is besides shoot your stupid mouth off pretending to know something because you read it from some man who read it from some man who misinterpreted it from some other man.



I answered that question in the other thread that you set up just for me, and those who want to learn from or belittle me.

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/greenman-d6-e1489.php

Your resume is impressive, and you have done a lot to boost your former boss's careers. They have probably forgotten all about you now, as they enjoy reaping the benefits which your hard work provided. You sound more like a technician than an engineer though, and that means that you are comfortable following instructions given by other, more informed people. And you have also given no indication of any kind of research in Climate Change or Global Warming. I can easily conclude though that what little "research" you have done is reading the latest Climate Change Skeptic Column on the local Internet, and have no real knowledge of anything related to climate [except for that Weather Forecast Rock that you might have hanging outside. [If it's wet, it's raining. If it's dry, it's not raining. If it's moving, the wind is blowing. If it's not moving, the wind is not blowing. If there is snow on it, it's snowing. If it's not there anymore, a hurricane is coming through]

You and quite a lot of people like you don't want to change the way you live, so you want to believe what you read on the Climate Change Skeptic Column. And then to show your faith, you repeat whatever you read there. And you do it at every opportunity you find. You seem to have a lot of time on your hands to do that, so I'm guessing that you are either unemployed currently, or are getting paid to hang out in here and shoot your stupid mouth off.


Exactly WHAT do you mean there was nothing to test it on? In the laboratory we had a gas chamber in which it was tested. In the field it was used to detect the gas bunkers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/world/middleeast/army-apologizes-for-handling-of-chemical-weapon-exposure-cases.html

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_01-02/JANFEB-IraqSarin

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/#.WYsUyVGGM2w

If you would like I know several Iraqi vets that would be glad to talk to you in person about there not being anything there.

WW III is about to be triggered by a crazy man in North Korea that people like you have said we shouldn't bother. Global warming is far more of a danger. Hopefully if any nuclear weapon does get through the impenetrable defensive net that awful military that you hate so much has set up it will fall directly on your front step.

As for your supremely ignorant "algorithm that I was able to derive, which shows the ratios of each part of the Heating Element": Remember I designed gas chromatographs and know the behavior of gases. Your idea of taking the fourth power of CO2 totally destroys your credibility. Acting as if one molecule in 2500 is important in the troposphere is about as stupid as you can get.

Heat in the troposphere is moved about not by radiation but by conduction and convection and that makes CO2 a non-starter. It is LESS of a heat carrier because it has a lower specific heat. In fact under these circumstances it is a COOLANT. Give us some more of that silly fourth power. And the heat capacity of the troposphere is dependent upon H2O and not CO2 most especially since it is 50 times greater and all of the "environmentalist" charts are purposely mis-scaled to hide that fact.

I realize that you don't understand anything about physics but my first job out of the Air Force was working at Physics International. This was in the early days of semiconductors and we had to know how they would react under various conditions. So we would bombard them with various quantum particles to see the effects on them. This included electrons and other quantum particles and hard radiation. In case you're unaware of it, semiconductors were developed using quantum mechanical theory. Without theories such as quantum tunneling they would never have been developed. Do you actually believe that semiconductors came out of nowhere? The B^2 facility that I worked on used 6 million volts to strike an arc to various materials to achieve it and the target chamber was totally surrounded by 6 feet of lead infused concrete. There was another larger machine that used 20 million volts.

I also worked on the base leg of the Internet that initially was situated at UC Berkeley. Our computer was 33 times more powerful than the best supercomputer IBM had.

I realize that you get your information from others. That is why you mention things like "Climate Change Skeptic Column" whatever the hell that is. But I have worked in science from my first job out of the Air Force. I don't need anyone to agree with my point of view because it is based in reality unlike yours. The only reason I offer references is because people like you actually think you know what you're saying and these references are a slap in your face. And even then you dispute it. The actual satellite temperature information is denied by people like you.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/31/australia-weather-bureau-caught-tampering-with-climate-numbers/ This is what makes up your kind of "science".

As for boosting my former boss's careers - that's what employees are suppose to do stupid. Do you think that companies go into business to lose money? I was making a quarter of a million dollars a year. Do you suppose that wasn't enough and that I should have credit instead of my vice president? You show what an egotistical jackass you are.
09-08-2017 19:21
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote: Wake, the only way you would know if something was hooey or not would be that someone else told you, because you don't have enough intelligence to analyze the simplest of problems, much less complex ones like we are discussing. So your opinion on my Climate Model isn't valid. Analyze it first, then we can talk about it.


I thought that we had settled that you have no scientific credentials? On the other hand I've done the design and programming for a machine that use Polymerase Chain Reaction that won our chief chemist a Nobel Prize, identified HIV in the blood banking system and saved literally millions of lives world wide. Then I expanded it to be the first DNA analyzer. And my partner, Dr. Michael McCown, who handled the chemistry side of the project was given a full professorship at the University of Connecticutt.

I am the go-to man for Charley Button who has many, many engineering awards including at least two Emmy Awards.

I have worked in gas and liquid chromatography, I developed the first working poison gas detector for the military so that they could protect their men from those WMD that jackasses like you were saying weren't there.




Now hold on there bucko. Who you calling a jackass? Jackass. Good for you that you developed a poison gas detector, but it's not really fair to say it is a "working" gas detector, since there was nothing to test it on, since there wasn't really anything there. And no, I didn't say there was nothing there. What I said was that we had no business going there [Iraq], because they had nothing to do with the WTC Attack. And I was right. So were the jackasses that said there were no WMDs in Iraq.




I did the initial calculations on the expansion of the aorta for the first real heart/lung machine.

I increased the power for the UC Berkeley linear accelerator. I worked in quantum physics.



Oh I loved that one, lol. Say you worked in "quantum physics?" Is that when you increased the power for the UC Berkely linear accelerator? I'm thinking that you weren't the one who figured out what to do, but rather the one who did what that guy said. Those things are pretty cool, but have nothing to do with Climate Science. Nor does anything else you have been working on in your career.



Tell us again what YOU have done? That is besides shoot your stupid mouth off pretending to know something because you read it from some man who read it from some man who misinterpreted it from some other man.



I answered that question in the other thread that you set up just for me, and those who want to learn from or belittle me.

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/greenman-d6-e1489.php

Your resume is impressive, and you have done a lot to boost your former boss's careers. They have probably forgotten all about you now, as they enjoy reaping the benefits which your hard work provided. You sound more like a technician than an engineer though, and that means that you are comfortable following instructions given by other, more informed people. And you have also given no indication of any kind of research in Climate Change or Global Warming. I can easily conclude though that what little "research" you have done is reading the latest Climate Change Skeptic Column on the local Internet, and have no real knowledge of anything related to climate [except for that Weather Forecast Rock that you might have hanging outside. [If it's wet, it's raining. If it's dry, it's not raining. If it's moving, the wind is blowing. If it's not moving, the wind is not blowing. If there is snow on it, it's snowing. If it's not there anymore, a hurricane is coming through]

You and quite a lot of people like you don't want to change the way you live, so you want to believe what you read on the Climate Change Skeptic Column. And then to show your faith, you repeat whatever you read there. And you do it at every opportunity you find. You seem to have a lot of time on your hands to do that, so I'm guessing that you are either unemployed currently, or are getting paid to hang out in here and shoot your stupid mouth off.


Exactly WHAT do you mean there was nothing to test it on? In the laboratory we had a gas chamber in which it was tested. In the field it was used to detect the gas bunkers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/world/middleeast/army-apologizes-for-handling-of-chemical-weapon-exposure-cases.html

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_01-02/JANFEB-IraqSarin

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/#.WYsUyVGGM2w

If you would like I know several Iraqi vets that would be glad to talk to you in person about there not being anything there.

WW III is about to be triggered by a crazy man in North Korea that people like you have said we shouldn't bother. Global warming is far more of a danger. Hopefully if any nuclear weapon does get through the impenetrable defensive net that awful military that you hate so much has set up it will fall directly on your front step.

As for your supremely ignorant "algorithm that I was able to derive, which shows the ratios of each part of the Heating Element": Remember I designed gas chromatographs and know the behavior of gases. Your idea of taking the fourth power of CO2 totally destroys your credibility. Acting as if one molecule in 2500 is important in the troposphere is about as stupid as you can get.

Heat in the troposphere is moved about not by radiation but by conduction and convection and that makes CO2 a non-starter. It is LESS of a heat carrier because it has a lower specific heat. In fact under these circumstances it is a COOLANT. Give us some more of that silly fourth power. And the heat capacity of the troposphere is dependent upon H2O and not CO2 most especially since it is 50 times greater and all of the "environmentalist" charts are purposely mis-scaled to hide that fact.

I realize that you don't understand anything about physics but my first job out of the Air Force was working at Physics International. This was in the early days of semiconductors and we had to know how they would react under various conditions. So we would bombard them with various quantum particles to see the effects on them. This included electrons and other quantum particles and hard radiation. In case you're unaware of it, semiconductors were developed using quantum mechanical theory. Without theories such as quantum tunneling they would never have been developed. Do you actually believe that semiconductors came out of nowhere? The B^2 facility that I worked on used 6 million volts to strike an arc to various materials to achieve it and the target chamber was totally surrounded by 6 feet of lead infused concrete. There was another larger machine that used 20 million volts.

I also worked on the base leg of the Internet that initially was situated at UC Berkeley. Our computer was 33 times more powerful than the best supercomputer IBM had.

I realize that you get your information from others. That is why you mention things like "Climate Change Skeptic Column" whatever the hell that is. But I have worked in science from my first job out of the Air Force. I don't need anyone to agree with my point of view because it is based in reality unlike yours. The only reason I offer references is because people like you actually think you know what you're saying and these references are a slap in your face. And even then you dispute it. The actual satellite temperature information is denied by people like you.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/31/australia-weather-bureau-caught-tampering-with-climate-numbers/ This is what makes up your kind of "science".

As for boosting my former boss's careers - that's what employees are suppose to do stupid. Do you think that companies go into business to lose money? I was making a quarter of a million dollars a year. Do you suppose that wasn't enough and that I should have credit instead of my vice president? You show what an egotistical jackass you are.


Your not on administrative leave for permanently disabling anyone?

You do have an awfull lot of time on your hands.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
09-08-2017 20:31
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote: You do have an awfull lot of time on your hands.


So you are posting from work? I'm sure your employer would approve of that.
09-08-2017 20:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
Wake wrote:
Heat in the troposphere is moved about not by radiation but by conduction and convection and that makes CO2 a non-starter. It is LESS of a heat carrier because it has a lower specific heat. In fact under these circumstances it is a COOLANT. Give us some more of that silly fourth power. And the heat capacity of the troposphere is dependent upon H2O and not CO2 most especially since it is 50 times greater and all of the "environmentalist" charts are purposely mis-scaled to hide that fact.


This part is quite correct.


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2017 09:23
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:

If you would like I know several Iraqi vets that would be glad to talk to you in person about there not being anything there.


It has nothing to do with Climate Change. But yes, I just read the report on WMDs in Iraq. They finally did find some, but they were in no condition to be used.
Wake wrote:

WW III is about to be triggered by a crazy man in North Korea that people like you have said we shouldn't bother. Global warming is far more of a danger. Hopefully if any nuclear weapon does get through the impenetrable defensive net that awful military that you hate so much has set up it will fall directly on your front step.


The two subjects have nothing to do with each other. We can work to resolve both of them at the same time. Or we can ignore both of them at the same time. Funny how we rise to a threat like N Korea with threats of all out war, and all they are doing is waving a nuclear bomb in our face [as we wave a trove of nuclear bombs in everyone else's face], yet we act as if something as deadly as Global Warming gets no attention from our leaders, except for their obsession with covering up any real information on the subject.

What makes you think I hate our military? And could you please explain how a nuclear weapon can get through our "impenetrable defensive net?" And if we do have such an impressive "impenetrable defensive net," then why are we worried about some guy with a worse hair cut than Trump? Why don't we just shoot his little bomb down right after he launches it? And THEN go kick his ass.
Wake wrote:

As for your supremely ignorant "algorithm that I was able to derive, which shows the ratios of each part of the Heating Element": Remember I designed gas chromatographs and know the behavior of gases. Your idea of taking the fourth power of CO2 totally destroys your credibility. Acting as if one molecule in 2500 is important in the troposphere is about as stupid as you can get.

Heat in the troposphere is moved about not by radiation but by conduction and convection and that makes CO2 a non-starter. It is LESS of a heat carrier because it has a lower specific heat. In fact under these circumstances it is a COOLANT. Give us some more of that silly fourth power. And the heat capacity of the troposphere is dependent upon H2O and not CO2 most especially since it is 50 times greater and all of the "environmentalist" charts are purposely mis-scaled to hide that fact.


Oh, pardon me. I didn't realize that you had worked on chromatographs and therefore knew everything there is to know about how gases behave. I guess we should all just take your word for it, and be done with this Global Warming and Climate Change Hoax. I'll change sides now, since I am so enlightened by your powerful wisdom, and start battling with all those nasty "environmentalists" who keep purposely mis-scaling climate data, just to hide facts. How dare them! How can we ever convince ourselves that everything is ok, if they keep misleading us with bogus information? This must stop, and it must stop now. I'm going to go to their next conspiracy meeting, and tell them that Wake says [and Parrot Face] agrees that CO2 can't possible warm the earth. And that they have all kinds of scientific information to prove it. We don't need to stinking algorithms proving otherwise either, so I'll just file 13 my Climate Model, also. Who care if it is the only accurate Climate Model on the planet, that very accurately calculates what the temperature should have been for almost a million years. Means nothing, because Wake doesn't understand how such a minuscule amount of gas can do anything.
Wake wrote:

I realize that you don't understand anything about physics but my first job out of the Air Force was working at Physics International.


Oh wow, that means that you are Mr Physics, for sure. I'll try to remember to present all my physics questions to you first, since I don't understand anything about physics. Who needs Climate Scientists, with you around?
Wake wrote:

This was in the early days of semiconductors and we had to know how they would react under various conditions. So we would bombard them with various quantum particles to see the effects on them. This included electrons and other quantum particles and hard radiation. In case you're unaware of it, semiconductors were developed using quantum mechanical theory. Without theories such as quantum tunneling they would never have been developed.


But isn't quantum mechanical theory just a theory? How can something that is just a theory be used for anything practical, when it is just a theory?
Wake wrote:

Do you actually believe that semiconductors came out of nowhere?


Well yes, as a matter of fact, I am just that stupid. If you hadn't come along and straightened me out on that, I would have forever thought that semiconductors were presented to us by God, so that we could all watch porno flicks on our computers.
Wake wrote:

The B^2 facility that I worked on used 6 million volts to strike an arc to various materials to achieve it and the target chamber was totally surrounded by 6 feet of lead infused concrete. There was another larger machine that used 20 million volts.


So, uh......how did they strike an ark though 6 feet of lead infused concrete, that totally surrounded the target chamber?
Wake wrote:

I also worked on the base leg of the Internet that initially was situated at UC Berkeley. Our computer was 33 times more powerful than the best supercomputer IBM had.


Oh wow, you were up there playing with the big boys then, weren't you. Did you ever let your 33 times more powerful computer tangle with one of those puny IBMs, to prove it's power? And did you meet Al Gore while you were there? He helped invent the Internet too, you know.
Wake wrote:

I realize that you get your information from others.


Nah, who told you that I get information from others? Ain't so. I make up all the information I need, as I go. I've even come up with a few words that are quite useful, just so I wouldn't have to use someone else's words.
Wake wrote:

That is why you mention things like "Climate Change Skeptic Column" whatever the hell that is.


Oh, that's where all the Climate Change Deniers go get their Climate Change Denial information from.
Wake wrote:

But I have worked in science from my first job out of the Air Force. I don't need anyone to agree with my point of view because it is based in reality unlike yours.


How is your insane position that Global Warming isn't real, when it gets hotter with each passing year, based in reality. If your position were based in reality, then you wouldn't have to ignore the tons of data that say otherwise.
Wake wrote:


The only reason I offer references is because people like you actually think you know what you're saying and these references are a slap in your face.


Nah, I wouldn't call your references a slap in my face, lol. But I did notice on another thread that you are quite the little fighter, very capable of whupping up on anyone who jumps on you first. Too bad that doesn't carry over into your ability to win an argument.
Wake wrote:

And even then you dispute it. The actual satellite temperature information is denied by people like you.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/31/australia-weather-bureau-caught-tampering-with-climate-numbers/ This is what makes up your kind of "science".


Nope, I didn't tweak any numbers. I used the data presented.
Wake wrote:

As for boosting my former boss's careers - that's what employees are suppose to do stupid. Do you think that companies go into business to lose money?


No, I think companies go into business just to provide jobs for all the needy people in the world. Are you trying to say that they do it just to make money? How selfish.
Wake wrote:

I was making a quarter of a million dollars a year. Do you suppose that wasn't enough and that I should have credit instead of my vice president? You show what an egotistical jackass you are.


You post your previous salary publicly, and call me egotistical in the same paragraph. I love the irony in that. And no, I don't think you should have had credit, instead of the man who told you what to do. I think you were overcompensated for time.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
10-08-2017 11:40
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Heat in the troposphere is moved about not by radiation but by conduction and convection and that makes CO2 a non-starter. It is LESS of a heat carrier because it has a lower specific heat. In fact under these circumstances it is a COOLANT. Give us some more of that silly fourth power. And the heat capacity of the troposphere is dependent upon H2O and not CO2 most especially since it is 50 times greater and all of the "environmentalist" charts are purposely mis-scaled to hide that fact.


This part is quite correct.


Wonderful to see you too getting along so well. I'm wondering if you two might be related somehow, because you both share the stupid gene.

Do either of you ever bother to just take a peek at what is on the other side of the imaginary wall you have built between you and reality? I know it is scary, but you two are getting to be big boys now. You have both mastered the art of using a keyboard to spew nonsense throughout the known world, and are now ready to take a walk outside, into the real world, so you will be able to say some things that you know about first hand, and stop repeating little bits of other people's nonsense everywhere you go.

Now the first thing we need to do, is open the door in your imaginary wall. Oh, you can't hide that door from me, because I know it is there. So come on now, I know it's scary, but turn the knob and give it a little tug. I promise there are no buggers out there that want to get you.

Ok, good job. Now let's take a step outside, and take a look at those pesky CO2 molecules that are floating around in the air. Here you go, you are going to need a pair of these nifty diffy magnifying glasses that I got right here, because those CO2 molecules are tiny little critters. Ok, now focus real good, and you will notice the the CO2 molecules light up different colors, with you nifty diffy magnifying glasses. That's because those glasses have a special coating, just for looking at CO2 molecules, which have the ability to store heat. The glasses you are wearing will let you see how much heat is being stored in the molecules of CO2. White means it's a cold molecule, and Red means it's a real hot molecule. And of course, the other colors are for all the different amounts of heat each molecule can hold.

You can also see radiation from the Sun with your glasses now. See how radiation just passes right through the CO2 molecules, without affecting them. That's because CO2 molecules are not affected by solar radiation. But the earth is affected by solar radiation. The earth warms up when solar radiation is hitting it, and most of that heat bounces right back into the atmosphere. You can see the heat with your glasses too. Look at what it does as it hits the CO2 molecules. They are changing color, because they are capturing some of that heat energy, and warming up. It's a good thing there aren't many of them, because they can hold a lot of heat energy, for as small as they are. And when the sun goes down, and the air surrounding the CO2 molecules starts to cool down, the CO2 molecules keep them warm for just a little bit longer.

Remember, just because you can't see those molecules of air,without those nifty diffy glasses, it doesn't mean they aren't there. The air is full of those teensy weensy molecules, of all different kinds. We breathe them in, and breathe them out. They warm up when we breathe them in, because air molecules can warm up to their surrounding mass. And then when we exhale them, we can feel the heat. CO2 does the same thing, without having to be trapped inside our body.

Ok, let's go back inside now. You can leave your new glasses right here by the door, so you can look at some more things in greater detail tomorrow.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
10-08-2017 15:40
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs: Heat in the troposphere is moved about not by radiation but by conduction and convection and that makes CO2 a non-starter.....the heat capacity of the troposphere is dependent upon H2O and not CO2 most especially since it is 50 times greater....

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" has been told the following before, but won't use the knowledge:
////////
Increasing man-made non-phase change infra-red energy absorbing GHGs (CO2, methane, oxides of nitrogen, SF6, etc) control & cause phase change infra-red energy absorbing water vapor to be a positive feedback to AGW effects.
10-08-2017 15:57
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote: How is your insane position that Global Warming isn't real, when it gets hotter with each passing year, based in reality. If your position were based in reality, then you wouldn't have to ignore the tons of data that say otherwise.


What is clear is that you are a child of the 80's. You have no life experience so everything that happens today is new and different.

And it has to be the fault of someone else. That WAS the by-word of the Flower children wasn't it? Your parents taught you well. Sheer ignorance is not only to be tolerated but recognized as useful to socialists.
10-08-2017 20:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Heat in the troposphere is moved about not by radiation but by conduction and convection and that makes CO2 a non-starter. It is LESS of a heat carrier because it has a lower specific heat. In fact under these circumstances it is a COOLANT. Give us some more of that silly fourth power. And the heat capacity of the troposphere is dependent upon H2O and not CO2 most especially since it is 50 times greater and all of the "environmentalist" charts are purposely mis-scaled to hide that fact.


This part is quite correct.


Wonderful to see you too getting along so well. I'm wondering if you two might be related somehow, because you both share the stupid gene.

You obviously have not been paying attention, have you?
GreenMan wrote:
...deleted children's book version of the Magick Bouncing Photon argument....


CO2 does indeed absorb infrared energy. That absorption does make the CO2 warmer. That warm CO2 dissipates it's thermal energy into the surrounding air. It is just another way for the surface to heat the air, and thus cool itself.

You cannot use a colder gas to heat a warmer surface. Heat never flows from cold to hot. It is like you are trying to make hot coffee with ice.


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2017 20:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs: Heat in the troposphere is moved about not by radiation but by conduction and convection and that makes CO2 a non-starter.....the heat capacity of the troposphere is dependent upon H2O and not CO2 most especially since it is 50 times greater....

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" has been told the following before, but won't use the knowledge:
////////
Increasing man-made non-phase change infra-red energy absorbing GHGs (CO2, methane, oxides of nitrogen, SF6, etc) control & cause phase change infra-red energy absorbing water vapor to be a positive feedback to AGW effects.


Oooooo...the old 'phase change' buzzword!


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2017 20:52
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
That warm CO2 dissipates it's thermal energy into the surrounding air.

And where does the heat go then? It must go somewhere, otherwise the surrounding air would just keep getting hotter!
10-08-2017 20:56
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
That warm CO2 dissipates it's thermal energy into the surrounding air.

And where does the heat go then? It must go somewhere, otherwise the surrounding air would just keep getting hotter!


You don't expect to get a comprehensible reply from someone that can't perform simple algebraic transposition do you?
10-08-2017 21:00
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
That warm CO2 dissipates it's thermal energy into the surrounding air.

And where does the heat go then? It must go somewhere, otherwise the surrounding air would just keep getting hotter!


You don't expect to get a comprehensible reply from someone that can't perform simple algebraic transposition do you?

I don't suppose ITN's reply will make much sense, but at least it's not likely to be some random rant about Obama, Marxists and homosexuals.
10-08-2017 21:06
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
That warm CO2 dissipates it's thermal energy into the surrounding air.

And where does the heat go then? It must go somewhere, otherwise the surrounding air would just keep getting hotter!


You don't expect to get a comprehensible reply from someone that can't perform simple algebraic transposition do you?

I don't suppose ITN's reply will make much sense, but at least it's not likely to be some random rant about Obama, Marxists and homosexuals.


As you just did?
10-08-2017 22:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
That warm CO2 dissipates it's thermal energy into the surrounding air.

And where does the heat go then? It must go somewhere, otherwise the surrounding air would just keep getting hotter!


Space. The air has a radiance just like the surface does.

You DO know about radiance, don't you? It's proportional to temperature, you know.


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2017 22:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
That warm CO2 dissipates it's thermal energy into the surrounding air.

And where does the heat go then? It must go somewhere, otherwise the surrounding air would just keep getting hotter!


You don't expect to get a comprehensible reply from someone that can't perform simple algebraic transposition do you?

I don't suppose ITN's reply will make much sense, but at least it's not likely to be some random rant about Obama, Marxists and homosexuals.


I keep my rants about Obama and Marxists in the same place (since they are the same thing). Homosexuality is a different topic completely. Why do you associate that with Obama? Do you know something about Obama that we don't?


The Parrot Killer
11-08-2017 02:16
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
That warm CO2 dissipates it's thermal energy into the surrounding air.

And where does the heat go then? It must go somewhere, otherwise the surrounding air would just keep getting hotter!


Space. The air has a radiance just like the surface does.

You DO know about radiance, don't you? It's proportional to temperature, you know.

So you reckon the heat from the atmosphere goes up but not down? How does it know not to go down?
11-08-2017 02:33
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
That warm CO2 dissipates it's thermal energy into the surrounding air.

And where does the heat go then? It must go somewhere, otherwise the surrounding air would just keep getting hotter!


Space. The air has a radiance just like the surface does.

You DO know about radiance, don't you? It's proportional to temperature, you know.

So you reckon the heat from the atmosphere goes up but not down? How does it know not to go down?


I notice I made an entry error so I'll correct that first: H20 in just its vapor stage is 100 more common than CO2. (4% vs .04%) And it absorbs infrared heat from almost the entire bandwidth with only a few openings in its bandwidth.

And in general yes - heat only goes up. It mixes in the atmosphere via conduction and rises due to convection. If the rising air mass is warmer than the air above it convection drives the heavier air mass downwards. If not it uses conduction to pass the heat around until it is warmer than the mass above it.

But then all you have to do is turn on the TV weather reports and they could explain this to you.

Heat in the troposphere can radiate but not much and not far before being absorbed by air-born water vapor causing conduction and convection.

This entirely leaves out the effects of water in micro-droplets in clouds or rain falling unto the ground.

CO2 is not even in the same game.
Edited on 11-08-2017 02:47
11-08-2017 02:38
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
That warm CO2 dissipates it's thermal energy into the surrounding air.

And where does the heat go then? It must go somewhere, otherwise the surrounding air would just keep getting hotter!


Space. The air has a radiance just like the surface does.

You DO know about radiance, don't you? It's proportional to temperature, you know.

So you reckon the heat from the atmosphere goes up but not down? How does it know not to go down?


I notice I made an entry error so I'll correct that first: H20 in just its vapor stage is 10,000 more common than CO2. And it absorbs infrared heat from almost the entire bandwidth with only a few openings in its bandwidth.

And in general yes - heat only goes up. It mixes in the atmosphere via conduction and rises due to convection. If the rising air mass is warmer than the air above it convection drives the heavier air mass downwards. If not it uses conduction to pass the heat around until it is warmer than the mass above it.

But then all you have to do is turn on the TV weather reports and they could explain this to you.

Heat in the troposphere can radiate but not much and not far before being absorbed by air-born water vapor causing conduction and convection.

This entirely leaves out the effects of water in micro-droplets in clouds or rain falling unto the ground.

CO2 is not even in the same game.

We're talking about radiated heat, you idiot. Heat that is radiated by the atmosphere is transmitted equally in all directions. Some of it reaches the ground. We refer to this as back radiation.
11-08-2017 02:49
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
That warm CO2 dissipates it's thermal energy into the surrounding air.

And where does the heat go then? It must go somewhere, otherwise the surrounding air would just keep getting hotter!


Space. The air has a radiance just like the surface does.

You DO know about radiance, don't you? It's proportional to temperature, you know.

So you reckon the heat from the atmosphere goes up but not down? How does it know not to go down?


I notice I made an entry error so I'll correct that first: H20 in just its vapor stage is 10,000 more common than CO2. And it absorbs infrared heat from almost the entire bandwidth with only a few openings in its bandwidth.

And in general yes - heat only goes up. It mixes in the atmosphere via conduction and rises due to convection. If the rising air mass is warmer than the air above it convection drives the heavier air mass downwards. If not it uses conduction to pass the heat around until it is warmer than the mass above it.

But then all you have to do is turn on the TV weather reports and they could explain this to you.

Heat in the troposphere can radiate but not much and not far before being absorbed by air-born water vapor causing conduction and convection.

This entirely leaves out the effects of water in micro-droplets in clouds or rain falling unto the ground.

CO2 is not even in the same game.

We're talking about radiated heat, you idiot. Heat that is radiated by the atmosphere is transmitted equally in all directions. Some of it reaches the ground. We refer to this as back radiation.


Why don't you tell us how this heat is radiated? You really don't have a clue what you're talking about and somehow have the idea that radiation occurs to any sensible amount in the troposphere.
11-08-2017 04:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
That warm CO2 dissipates it's thermal energy into the surrounding air.

And where does the heat go then? It must go somewhere, otherwise the surrounding air would just keep getting hotter!


Space. The air has a radiance just like the surface does.

You DO know about radiance, don't you? It's proportional to temperature, you know.

So you reckon the heat from the atmosphere goes up but not down? How does it know not to go down?


You can't heat a warmer substance with a colder one.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate Heaven Forbid - It's Warming - We may leave our current Ice Age:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Electric cars vs ICE cars2215-05-2020 23:22
the coming little ice age will wreck havoc on global economy613-05-2020 21:36
sea ice717-04-2020 20:39
NASA/GRACE lies about Greenland's ice mass loss1004-04-2020 23:16
Headed For A New Ice Age? Latest Data Says Yes!1811-02-2020 18:00
▲ 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