Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Reply to thread

Message

You have clearly demonstrated that you don't "think" at all. And it isn't "my" graphic.

It is the graphic published by kiehl and trenberth. It is the graphic found in the pal reviewed paper that has formed the basis of AGW as we know it. You operate on some sort of belief system that has nothing to do with any sort of knowledge of the subject matter and especially the mathematics and laws of physics upon which the subject depends. You make so many fundamental errors that it is self evident. Even when the men who created that energy budget state that the budget has the entire surface of the earth being irradiated at once, you can not accept the truth.

Tell me PLC, do you really believe that a solar cooker is an example of energy flowing from a cooler object to a warmer object? Ask yourself how a solar cooker works. If you have a clue, you are going to answer that it works by gathering radiation from an energy source and reflecting it to a focal point. The next question you must ask yourself is what is the temperature of the energy source? What is the energy source? What is the temperature of the energy source? Is the water, or whatever container you place in the cooker anywhere near the temperature of the energy source?

The second law states that a mirror can't produce a higher temperature than the energy source is emitting. The energy source is emitting at around 5700K so even if you had a perefect reflector, that would be your maximum temperature. How basic an error is it to ignore the temperature of your energy source and measure the temperature of the mirror?

And you have not addressed how the solar cooker can realize a cooling effect if it is not aimed at the sun or a drastic cooling effect if aimed at a clear sky at night. According to the energy budget, the entire surface of the earth is receiving over 300 watts per square meter in downdwelling radiation. how could any source gathering and concentrating that amount of energy to a focal point get cooler than the ambient temperature?

Geez guy, do you have a grasp at even the elemtary level of any science whatsoever?
quote="PLC1, post: 179595, member: 301"] Further, I can see that there is no way I'm going to ever be able to convince you otherwise, but then, I knew that going in.

You never had a chance to convince me of anything because you don't know the first thing about the topic. Hell, you remain blissully unaware of how much you don't know. You are a believer, simple as that. When I sent that email to keihl and trenberth I put the question to them explicitly when I said:

Both confirmed my assertion. Tell me genius, how can you spread the solar constant across the entire surface of the earth simultaneously if you are not irradiating a flat earth. The men made no attempt to explain that they had accounted for night, or the curvature of the earth, or the fact that the solar constant could only apply to about 50% of the illuminated surface of a sphere the size of the earth, or any such thing. They simply stated that the person who said that the difference between the solar constant and the incoming solar radiation was a result of spreading the incoming solar radiation over the entire surface of the earth was, IN FACT, CORRECT.

Ahhh, back to the ad hominems in lieu of any rational argument. Why not drag up the old conspiracy theory strawman again. It is clear that you can't argue based on the facts even when they are confirmed by genuine scientists on your side of the argument. I have given you the math and even given you the truth straight from the horse's mouths so to speak and rather than accept the facts, you retreat into impotent ad hominems. When you belive you can construct a coherent rebuttal to the information I have given you, let me know.

[/QUOTE]

<blockquote data-quote="palerider" data-source="post: 179600" data-attributes="member: 176">You have clearly demonstrated that you don&#039;t &quot;think&quot; at all. And it isn&#039;t &quot;my&quot; graphic.&nbsp;It is the graphic published by kiehl and trenberth. It is the graphic found in the pal reviewed paper that has formed the basis of AGW as we know it. You operate on some sort of belief system that has nothing to do with any sort of knowledge of the subject matter and especially the mathematics and laws of physics upon which the subject depends. You make so many fundamental errors that it is self evident.&nbsp; Even when the men who created that energy budget state that the budget has the entire surface of the earth being irradiated at once, you can not accept the truth.&nbsp;&nbsp;Tell me PLC, do you really believe that a solar cooker is an example of energy flowing from a cooler object to a warmer object? Ask yourself how a solar cooker works. If you have a clue, you are going to answer that it works by gathering radiation from an energy source and reflecting it to a focal point. The next question you must ask yourself is what is the temperature of the energy source? What is the energy source? What is the temperature of the energy source? Is the water, or whatever container you place in the cooker anywhere near the temperature of the energy source?&nbsp;The second law states that a mirror can&#039;t produce a higher temperature than the energy source is emitting. The energy source is emitting at around 5700K so even if you had a perefect reflector, that would be your maximum temperature. How basic an error is it to ignore the temperature of your energy source and measure the temperature of the mirror?&nbsp;And you have not addressed how the solar cooker can realize a cooling effect if it is not aimed at the sun or a drastic cooling effect if aimed at a clear sky at night. According to the energy budget, the entire surface of the earth is receiving over 300 watts per square meter in downdwelling radiation. how could any source gathering and concentrating that amount of energy to a focal point get cooler than the ambient temperature?&nbsp;Geez guy, do you have a grasp at even the elemtary level of any science whatsoever?quote=&quot;PLC1, post: 179595, member: 301&quot;] Further, I can see that there is no way I&#039;m going to ever be able to convince you otherwise, but then, I knew that going in.</blockquote>You never had a chance to convince me of anything because you don&#039;t know the first thing about the topic. Hell, you remain blissully unaware of how much you don&#039;t know. You are a believer, simple as that. When I sent that email to keihl and trenberth I put the question to them explicitly when I said:&nbsp;&nbsp;Both confirmed my assertion. Tell me genius, how can you spread the solar constant across the entire surface of the earth simultaneously if you are not irradiating a flat earth. The men made no attempt to explain that they had accounted for night, or the curvature of the earth, or the fact that the solar constant could only apply to about 50% of the illuminated surface of a sphere the size of the earth, or any such thing. They simply stated that the person who said that the difference between the solar constant and the incoming solar radiation was a result of spreading the incoming solar radiation over the entire surface of the earth was, IN FACT, CORRECT.&nbsp;&nbsp;Ahhh, back to the ad hominems in lieu of any rational argument. Why not drag up the old conspiracy theory strawman again. It is clear that you can&#039;t argue based on the facts even when they are confirmed by genuine scientists on your side of the argument. I have given you the math and even given you the truth straight from the horse&#039;s mouths so to speak and rather than accept the facts, you retreat into impotent ad hominems. When you belive you can construct a coherent rebuttal to the information I have given you, let me know.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="palerider, post: 179600, member: 176"] You have clearly demonstrated that you don't "think" at all. And it isn't "my" graphic. It is the graphic published by kiehl and trenberth. It is the graphic found in the pal reviewed paper that has formed the basis of AGW as we know it. You operate on some sort of belief system that has nothing to do with any sort of knowledge of the subject matter and especially the mathematics and laws of physics upon which the subject depends. You make so many fundamental errors that it is self evident. Even when the men who created that energy budget state that the budget has the entire surface of the earth being irradiated at once, you can not accept the truth. Tell me PLC, do you really believe that a solar cooker is an example of energy flowing from a cooler object to a warmer object? Ask yourself how a solar cooker works. If you have a clue, you are going to answer that it works by gathering radiation from an energy source and reflecting it to a focal point. The next question you must ask yourself is what is the temperature of the energy source? What is the energy source? What is the temperature of the energy source? Is the water, or whatever container you place in the cooker anywhere near the temperature of the energy source? The second law states that a mirror can't produce a higher temperature than the energy source is emitting. The energy source is emitting at around 5700K so even if you had a perefect reflector, that would be your maximum temperature. How basic an error is it to ignore the temperature of your energy source and measure the temperature of the mirror? And you have not addressed how the solar cooker can realize a cooling effect if it is not aimed at the sun or a drastic cooling effect if aimed at a clear sky at night. According to the energy budget, the entire surface of the earth is receiving over 300 watts per square meter in downdwelling radiation. how could any source gathering and concentrating that amount of energy to a focal point get cooler than the ambient temperature? Geez guy, do you have a grasp at even the elemtary level of any science whatsoever? quote="PLC1, post: 179595, member: 301"] Further, I can see that there is no way I'm going to ever be able to convince you otherwise, but then, I knew that going in. [/quote] You never had a chance to convince me of anything because you don't know the first thing about the topic. Hell, you remain blissully unaware of how much you don't know. You are a believer, simple as that. When I sent that email to keihl and trenberth I put the question to them explicitly when I said: [FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]Both confirmed my assertion. Tell me genius, how can you spread the solar constant across the entire surface of the earth simultaneously if you are not irradiating a flat earth. The men made no attempt to explain that they had accounted for night, or the curvature of the earth, or the fact that the solar constant could only apply to about 50% of the illuminated surface of a sphere the size of the earth, or any such thing. They simply stated that the person who said that the difference between the solar constant and the incoming solar radiation was a result of spreading the incoming solar radiation over the entire surface of the earth was, [SIZE=5]IN FACT[/SIZE], [SIZE=6]CORRECT[/SIZE].[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT] Ahhh, back to the ad hominems in lieu of any rational argument. Why not drag up the old conspiracy theory strawman again. It is clear that you can't argue based on the facts even when they are confirmed by genuine scientists on your side of the argument. I have given you the math and even given you the truth straight from the horse's mouths so to speak and rather than accept the facts, you retreat into impotent ad hominems. When you belive you can construct a coherent rebuttal to the information I have given you, let me know. [/QUOTE]

Verification