Northern nations warming faster than global average

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Crick, Apr 2, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Wuwei
    Offline

    Wuwei Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2015
    Messages:
    3,438
    Thanks Received:
    519
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Ratings:
    +1,931
    We showed you this many times. This is the derivation from the basic SB form.
    Equation 1 radiation output
    Equation 2 radiation input
    Equation 3 Net. The net is a subtraction of the input from the output. Then an arithmetic collection of terms. The middle two terms define the net. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? Fine. You want to disagree with science, but something as basic as this is grade school arithmetic.

    [​IMG]
     
  2. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    14,623
    Thanks Received:
    1,543
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +8,016
    Yep...seen your bogus equation...seen the assumption tacked to the end of it...

    It was bogus the first few times you posted it..its' still bogus...it ignores the fundamental assumption in the SB law that the temperature of T is greater than the temperature of Tc.
     
  3. Wuwei
    Offline

    Wuwei Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2015
    Messages:
    3,438
    Thanks Received:
    519
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Ratings:
    +1,931
    Of course you are wrong, as you no doubt already know, but I thought I would take this opportunity to point out that you disagree with almost all the basic tenets of thermodynamics, and most of other modern science.

    Although defiance of science is what everyone expects from you, what is quite really off the charts is that your statements concerning what you think the science should be is full of self-contradictions. When it comes to your self-contradictions they are not just flaws in science thinking. They are flaws in the much more fundamental field of logic.

    I will chat with you from time to time in depth about your flaws and self-contradictions as you continue to bring them up and I'm sure the others on this forum who do understand science will do the same.


    .
     
  4. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    14,623
    Thanks Received:
    1,543
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +8,016
    Nice attempt to appear intelligent...failed but nice attempt... The fact remains that you can't produce any actual evidence to support your belief in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models.

    And in case you haven't noticed..."modern science" is in a reproducibility crisis pretty much across the board..

    And maybe you haven't noticed that some real heavyweights in physics, Sabine Hossenfelder and Roger Penrose have begun to state in no uncertain terms that quantum mechanics is wrong....and don't be surprised if even more stop playing the "if you believe it it will be true" game... The reproducibility crisis that science is experiencing now has its beginnings in quantum mechanics.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2019 at 5:33 AM
  5. Wuwei
    Offline

    Wuwei Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2015
    Messages:
    3,438
    Thanks Received:
    519
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Ratings:
    +1,931
    Many examples of evidence were given to you many times by many people.

    It is obvious you don't know enough about QM to be in a position to critique it. Searching the web with key words is not good enough. You have done this before but I will answer you again anyway.

    Modern physics theory is accurately predicted by every experiment to parts per billion or trillion. You don't need string theory, multiverses, quantum gravity and many similar hypotheses to deal with atmospheric physics. QM will still predict the experiments to the same accuracy no matter what underlying hypotheses are changed.


    .
     
  6. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    14,623
    Thanks Received:
    1,543
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +8,016
    Like all the believers in models...all you were able to produce was what was good enough to fool you...unfortunate, but laughably true.
     
  7. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    48,131
    Thanks Received:
    6,030
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +25,921
    And yet, still no sources to back you up. Weird.
     
  8. Wuwei
    Offline

    Wuwei Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2015
    Messages:
    3,438
    Thanks Received:
    519
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Ratings:
    +1,931
    Yes we all know that you laugh at science and call it foolish so you can wallow in your own self-contradictions. You don't need to keep reminding us of that.

    .
     
  9. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    14,623
    Thanks Received:
    1,543
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +8,016
    And the wait continues for anything at all that demonstrates your point...we grow tired watching you prove over and over how easily you are fooled.
     
  10. Wuwei
    Offline

    Wuwei Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2015
    Messages:
    3,438
    Thanks Received:
    519
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Ratings:
    +1,931
    Are you referring to the point I made that you don't believe in current science? You said that yourself.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page