# No Evidence



## SSDD (Nov 2, 2018)

*1.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3.  The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burins of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.

*
I have been asking for just a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the claims of climate alarmists for decades now and have never received the first piece.

I see alarmists claiming that such evidence exists all the time...sometimes they even post what passes for evidence in their minds like THIS.  There is certainly observed, and measured data there, but none of it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, and none of it even begins to establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...those things are certainly assumed in the example linked to, but there certainly is no evidence to support the assumption.  And there is no paper there in which the hypothesized warming due to our production of CO2 has been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called greenhouse gasses.  Again, it is assumed, but assumptions based on lose correlation over a very short period of geological time are less than worthless in any scientific examination of an entity as large, variable, and chaotic as the global climate.

So there you go...I have stuck my chin out...I have made 3 very deliberate, and concise statements regarding the state of climate science and the evidence that mankind is having an effect on the global climate.

It is the complete absence of evidence challenging the 3 statements above that explain why I am a skeptic.

Prove me wrong.  Don't tell me about the evidence that exists......don't tell me about the evidence you might believe you have produced...Step up to the plate and produce the evidence that I have quite clearly declared does not exist...

And when you can't, ask yourself why it is that you believe what you do regarding man made climate change.


----------



## BlackFlag (Nov 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> *1.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
> 
> 2.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
> 
> ...


This OP demonstrates the willful ignorance that cannot possibly be overcome to offset the acceleration of climate change.  Somebody will have to come up with an idea or new technology to address the climate if it becomes necessary.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 2, 2018)

BlackFlag said:


> This OP demonstrates the willful ignorance that cannot possibly be overcome to offset the acceleration of climate change.  Somebody will have to come up with an idea or new technology to address the climate if it becomes necessary.



Congratulations...you are the first one to step up and produce absolutely nothing with which to support your belief.  I doubt that you will be the last....Nice that you also demonstrate the alarmist tendency of name calling in lieu of any actual evidence.


----------



## BlackFlag (Nov 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> > This OP demonstrates the willful ignorance that cannot possibly be overcome to offset the acceleration of climate change.  Somebody will have to come up with an idea or new technology to address the climate if it becomes necessary.
> ...


What name did I call you?  Oops


----------



## Olde Europe (Nov 2, 2018)

Five years, and counting: SSDD


----------



## SSDD (Nov 2, 2018)

BlackFlag said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > BlackFlag said:
> ...



You said that I was willfully ignorant...that is saying that I am ignorant.  Now, considering that you can't provide any actual observed, measured evidence to support your belief in man made climate change, and yet still maintain the belief, who, exactly is being willfully ignorant?

I am just asking for observed, measured evidence that supports the claims being made by climate science..that is, after all, what science is all about....gathering actual evidence to support a hypothesis.  

It is not my fault that no such evidence exists, and perhaps you should lash out at climate science for not having provided you any evidence with which to slap me down rather than lashing out at me for asking why no such evidence exists.


----------



## Slade3200 (Nov 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> > This OP demonstrates the willful ignorance that cannot possibly be overcome to offset the acceleration of climate change.  Somebody will have to come up with an idea or new technology to address the climate if it becomes necessary.
> ...


Wouldn’t you consider a rapid acceleration of climate change as measured evidence of something significant? At least worthy of concern and analysis?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 2, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > BlackFlag said:
> ...



If rapid climate change were unusual in the scheme of climate through the history of the earth, yes, it would be a warning sign.  It would be a reason to set about gathering observed, measured evidence as to precisely why the climate is suddenly changing at a rapid pace.  

Rapid change isn't unusual though.  Here are two gold standard (climate science classifications, not mine) temperature reconstructions covering the past 10,000 years.  One is from an ice core taken above the arctic circle, the second is from Vostok in Antarctica.











Note that as you look across the graphs, the temperature spikes are reflected in both the arctic and antarctic.  Science has been telling us for decades that the arctic regions are the "canary" in the coal mine.  

Canary in the Coal Mine: The Arctic as a National Imperative


The Arctic – Our Climate Canary in the Coal Mine – Issues Further Warnings - Oil Change International

Why the Arctic is climate change's canary in the coal mine - William Chapman

Climate science has been telling us that what happens in the Arctic is an early indicator of what is going to happen in the rest of the globe...as you can see in the graphs above, the temperature dips and spikes are reflect in both the arctic ice cores and the antarctic ice cores....a pretty good indication that the climate changes reflected in the arctic were global in nature...what you can also see is that the amount and rate of change those graphs indicate are both more, and faster than anything we have experienced.  In one instance 8000 years ago, the change was nearly 4 degrees in less than 300 years....far more and far faster than any climate change we have experienced.

The graphs above show that the change we are experiencing is well within the boundaries of natural variability, and in addition, they show that the global climate at present is considerably cooler than it has been for the vast majority of the past 10,000 years.

Natural variability is a very very wide range...in order to step outside of the range of natural variability, we would need to see global mean temperatures in the neighborhood of 22 degrees C as opposed to the present 14 degrees C or so.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 2, 2018)

Why is Sid such a pussy?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 2, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > BlackFlag said:
> ...


Please provide evidence (Empirical) of this supposed acceleration.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 2, 2018)

BlackFlag said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > *1.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
> ...


Please provide evidence of this supposed acceleration. hundreds of proxies have been done showing far faster rises and falls in temperature have occurred in much shorter time spans than that of today's minor rise..  Even the most recent rises (pre-industrialzaiton) are equal to our current rate of rise..  So where is this supposed acceleration?


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 3, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > BlackFlag said:
> ...



Define  "rapid" s0n....that's the whole point. Its makey-uppey science....exactly SSDD's point. It is NOT measurable.

Too, "concern" and "significant" are makey-uppey semantics one always sees associated with climate change. Just like "increased"....."warmer"...."expanding" etc......loose association gobblygook. No operational definitions.....hmmmm!. Science wanting to live comfortably in the world of abstracts. Hmmmm. Highly convenient...works well when your entire play is based upon computer models that are consistently spectacularly wrong!

Nobody knows dick  about why our climate is in constant flux...and more to the point, even if they did, well, they get a big gold star. Because only an incredibly naive dumbass cant connect the dots that there isnt dick that can be done to reverse it. Most of the public recognizes that....they might have "concerns" like the many concerns they have in life. They realize that throwing trillions to address a "concern" is ghey when there are a billion far more pressing concerns in life.

Get some real responsibilities in life....that way, you dont worry about st00pid stuff!


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 3, 2018)

Great thread btw SSDD. The responses from climate crusaders will make for some good chuckles.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.



Evidence? You have shown time and again that you don't understand evidence because you don't believe nor understand the simplest aspects of thermodynamics, you don't believe modern physics, you don't even understand the terminology used in physics that you continually misuse. You openly disparage much of the fundamental science in university text books on physics. You have even called the mathematical models of physics "fairy dust". Yet you continually talk "science" to justify your invented science.

You have to have the capacity to understand evidence before you ask for evidence.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


LOL You are willfully ignorant. That is not name calling, that is statement of fact. As has been pointed out many times, absorption spectra of the GHG's is all you need to prove the effects of GHG's in the atmosphere. That you cannot accept simple physics, and have to make up some wild ass tale about smart photons is all that has to be said about your knowledge of physics.


----------



## Crick (Nov 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> *1.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
> 
> 2.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
> 
> ...




That the material in WG-I of AR5 convinces me that AGW is valid is essentially irrelevant.  Conversely, that you are convinced it is false is also irrelevant.  The FACT that it convinces a very high percentage of the world's climate scientists that AGW is valid is not.  Your opinion, Same Shit, in the face of those of hundreds of thousands of degreed scientists is as worthless as worthless can be.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > *1.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
> ...



So let the equivocating begin...You have been claiming *for years* that there was observed, measured evidence that supported the AGW hypothesis over natural variability over at the IPCC...and you have claimed that there was observed, measured evidence which established a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere over at the IPCC...and just recently you claimed that the hypothesized warming due to mankind's burins of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has been empirically measured, quantifiedand then attributed to so called green house gasses in peer reviewed, published form.

Now you simply claim that what is there is sufficient to convince you. 

*Not a trace of the actual evidence that I have been asking for...never was even though you claimed over and over that it was there  You lied over and over and over and over over the course of years skidmark.*..That is what I have been saying all along...no evidence there, but what was there was good enough to fool you.

Laughing at you skidmark...laughing out loud...


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL You are willfully ignorant. That is not name calling, that is statement of fact. As has been pointed out many times, absorption spectra of the GHG's is all you need to prove the effects of GHG's in the atmosphere. That you cannot accept simple physics, and have to make up some wild ass tale about smart photons is all that has to be said about your knowledge of physics.



Sorry rocks...your ignorance is laughable...you keep pointing to that spectrum as if it were the holy grail...So it shows that some gasses absorb and emit radiation.  Who ever disputed that.  Can you show me a single bit of observed, measured evidence that absorption and emission equals warming?  Can you show me any observed, measured evidence that absorption and emission by so called greenhouse gasses is more than a very small bit player in a troposphere which is overwhelmingly dominated by convection, and conduction?

Do you have anything more than the assumption that that spectrum is anything more than evidence that some gasses absorb and emit radiation?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Nov 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> *1.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
> 
> 2.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
> 
> ...



No evidence because any valid evidence will be labeled "fake news", therefore you won't accept it.

It's a nice circular argument that allows you to ignore anything you find inconvenient.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Evidence? You have shown time and again that you don't understand evidence because you don't believe nor understand the simplest aspects of thermodynamics, you don't believe modern physics, you don't even understand the terminology used in physics that you continually misuse. You openly disparage much of the fundamental science in university text books on physics. You have even called the mathematical models of physics "fairy dust". Yet you continually talk "science" to justify your invented science.



So once again, you admit that there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and you admit that that there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...and you admit that the hypothetical warming caused by mankind's CO2 producing activities has never been measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses in a peer reviewed published paper.

That is what I have been saying all along...and that is what this thread is all about...the absolute lack of any sort of observed, measured evidence to support all of your claims.

I realize there are models out the wazoo...I also realize that the atmosphere, and the climate are observable, measurable quantities and if the models were worth the code it took to write them, there would be observed, measured evidence to support them.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > *1.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
> ...



So you can't post anything that rises to the level of observed, measured evidence either.  It is always interesting to see the excuses you people put forward for not being able to produce observed, measured evidence regarding a topic as observable and measurable as the atmosphere.

Then you write your response in the form of lashing out at me as if it is my fault that climate science hasn't provided you with any observed, measured evidence with which to slap people like me down...

You should be railing at climate science asking why they haven't produced even a single piece of observed measured evidence to support the claims with all the billions upon billions they have wasted...


----------



## Crick (Nov 3, 2018)

To whom should we look for a judgement on whether the results of the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies made of AGW "rise to the level" of empirical evidence?  High school dropout, physics delusionist SSDD or thousands and thousands of published, PhD climate scientists?

Gosh, that's a tough question...


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Crick said:


> To whom should we look for a judgement on whether the results of the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies made of AGW "rise to the level" of empirical evidence?  High school dropout, physics delusionist SSDD or thousands and thousands of published, PhD climate scientists?
> 
> Gosh, that's a tough question...



Where is the observed, measured evidence that supports the claims crick?  Where is a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?  Where is a single piece of observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...where is a single peer reviewed, published paper in which the hypothetical warming due to our production of so called greenhouse gasses has been measured, quantified, and ascribed to said so called greenhouse gasses?

Evidence is what I am asking for...and have been asking for for decades and neither you, nor all of climate science can provide it...why exactly should I believe the claims if there is nothing more than weak correlation taken over a very short geological period of time?

And you should be mortified skidmark...to be telling yourself that a high school dropout and physics delusionist could be making you look so bad...repeatedly pointing out what you can't produce..  If I am so uneducated how is it that I can zero in so precisely on what you can and can't deliver with regard to the claims you make?  If I am that stupid, how much more stupid must you be?  Do you drool on the keyboard?  Are you a mouth breather?  Adult diapers?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Logical fallacies don't cut it...either you can produce the evidence which I stated clearly in the OP did not exist or you can't.  If you can't then my point is made and any thinking person should be wondering why they believe in the claims made by climate science if there is no actual observed, measured evidence to support it.  Assumptions aren't science..and belief is not science...science is about evidence and either you can produce it or you can't.


----------



## Crick (Nov 3, 2018)

Crick said:


> To whom should we look for a judgement on whether the results of the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies made of AGW "rise to the level" of empirical evidence?  High school dropout, physics delusionist SSDD or thousands and thousands of published, PhD climate scientists?
> 
> Gosh, that's a tough question...



Or not.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > To whom should we look for a judgement on whether the results of the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies made of AGW "rise to the level" of empirical evidence?  High school dropout, physics delusionist SSDD or thousands and thousands of published, PhD climate scientists?
> ...



Still nothing...why does that not surprise me?

I do enjoy watching you lash out in your frustration...mewling for all its worth to save a little face and maybe detract from the fact that in spite of the billions upon billions of dollars spent, you can't produce a single piece of evidence that satisfies the very simple requests I made above....


----------



## Crick (Nov 3, 2018)

As I and others have stated dozens and dozens of times, anyone wishing to see and review mountains of the evidence that SSDD claims does not exist should visit www.ipcc.ch and read Working Group I's portion of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Review: "The Physical Science Basis".

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SummaryVolume_FINAL.pdf


----------



## Crepitus (Nov 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> *1.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
> 
> 2.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
> 
> ...


Evidence:

Data.GISS:  GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)

There's tons more, like glacial melt data, borehole analysis, sea level rise, and so on but honestly I don't know why I'm.even bother to post this one, you're only going to ignore or dismiss it because it violates your quasi-religious conviction that it can't be real.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Crick said:


> As I and others have stated dozens and dozens of times, anyone wishing to see and review mountains of the evidence that SSDD claims does not exist should visit www.ipcc.ch and read Working Group I's portion of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Review: "The Physical Science Basis".
> 
> https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SummaryVolume_FINAL.pdf



Yeah...you posted a big chunk of it HERE...and when I asked you to point out any where within it a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, YOU COULDN'T DO IT....and when I asked for you to point out a single piece of observed measured evidence which established a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, YOU COULDN'T DO IT....and when I asked you to point out a single peer reviewed published paper in which the hypothetical warming resulting from human activities was measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses, YOU COULDN'T DO IT.

You are being pwned skidmark...the more you talk, the more opportunity I have to point out that you couldn't produce even a shred of the evidence you claimed existed..,I can do it all day...till I have to leave to play a gig this afternoon anyway...


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Evidence:
> 
> Data.GISS:  GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)
> 
> There's tons more, like glacial melt data, borehole analysis, sea level rise, and so on but honestly I don't know why I'm.even bother to post this one, you're only going to ignore or dismiss it because it violates your quasi-religious conviction that it can't be real.



So are you claiming that glaciers never melted before...or that sea level never rose before, and so on?  No one is denying that glaciers have melted some or that sea level is rising a bit...but the amount of glacier melting and sea level rise we have seen are well within the boundaries of natural variability...and borehole analysis of ice cores tell us that at the present, it is considerably cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.

Here is a gold standard temperature reconstruction made from one of the bore holes you mentioned.  Do explain how you believe this borehole analysis demonstrates evidence that the present climate is doing anything at all that is unusual...except perhaps for the fact that it is a good bit cooler now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.


----------



## Crick (Nov 3, 2018)

And, as almost everyone here knows, Greenland ice core temperature data do NOT jibe well with all other sources. They are most certainly NOT "gold standard" sources.  You obviously know that.  So, from Same Shit, more lies.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 3, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
> ...


Fantasy modeling of systems that they have yet to model correctly in any form is funny as hell to call "evidence"  Science is FACT based on observed, mensurable, and reproducible events.

Talk to any practicing thermodynamics engineer who is creating systems for use in the real world and they will laugh in your face about CAGW...

Talk to me when you get a model that doesn't have to be retrained every year or two because it can not model the systems observed behaviors.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Crick said:


> And, as almost everyone here knows, Greenland ice core temperature data do NOT jibe well with all other sources. They are most certainly NOT "gold standard" sources.  You obviously know that.  So, from Same Shit, more lies.



You are a liar and apparently don't know jack..

The past is the key to the future: Temperature history of the past 10,000 years | Die kalte Sonne

clip: Although the GISP2 ice core data is site specific (Greenland), it has been *well correlated with global glacial fluctuations *and a wide range of other climate proxies and has become the ‘*gold standard’ among global climate reconstructions.* However, keep in mind that temperature variations are latitude specific so actual temperatures from the GISP2 cores show a higher range of values than global data. The GISP2 cores date back 100,000 years, but we will focus here on data from the past 10,000 years (the Holocene) and compare it with recent warming and cooling periods.


The Late Holocene Atmospheric Methane Budget Reconstructed from ...https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/downloads/n296x278h

And I could go on and on with references to ice cores, and specifically the GISP2 and Vostok ice cores being the gold standard for temperature reconstructions...

Further, how many times has climate science told us that the arctic and antarctic regions are the canaries in the coal mine and what happens there follows across the globe?  Were they lying?

Face it crick..You are the one who makes stuff up...I am asking for evidence and you aren't providing...frustrating..isn't it?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Logical fallacies don't cut it...either you can produce the evidence which I stated clearly in the OP did not exist or you can't.  If you can't then my point is made and any thinking person should be wondering why they believe in the claims made by climate science if there is no actual observed, measured evidence to support it.  Assumptions aren't science..and belief is not science...science is about evidence and either you can produce it or you can't.






Its rather amazing the temperature rise and cooling which have far exceed today's run are irrelevant to these people.  It's going to be real hard to prove causation when we have had such swings in the past..





And then to have this kind of disconnect in their correlations...  Makes me laugh at their stupid asses..  And then to have no midtropospheric warming, which kills their hypothesis dead..


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Logical fallacies don't cut it...either you can produce the evidence which I stated clearly in the OP did not exist or you can't.  If you can't then my point is made and any thinking person should be wondering why they believe in the claims made by climate science if there is no actual observed, measured evidence to support it.  Assumptions aren't science..and belief is not science...science is about evidence and either you can produce it or you can't.
> ...



Threads like this expose how completely ridiculous climate science is...post after post lashing out at me for asking for evidence....claiming that plenty exists but not being able to produce it, and on and on...but not the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support the hypothesis.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Its the mountains of natural variation evidence which they are having a problem with.  They simply can not make a fact based link in the face of that evidence.  At this point no one has proven to me man has the ability to stop natural variation and thus make all the changes we see today mans fault.  

The sheer lunacy of the alarmists defies rational, fact based thought.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



And the assumptions...they provide wild assed assumptions that are not based on anything other than models as actual evidence to support their beliefs...is that what science has come to?  Is that what they are teaching in universities today and calling science?


----------



## Slade3200 (Nov 3, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Do NASA studies work for you? I hear those people are pretty smart
New study finds sea level rise accelerating – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


----------



## Slade3200 (Nov 3, 2018)

skookerasbil said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


All I’m saying is this stuff shouldn’t be swept under the rug. This is our planet and ecosystem that we live in. We should be treating it with respect and not trashing it. We should be aware of how our activities effect our ecosystem whether it be small or large.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


I asked a few of my fellow doctoral candidate friends to come up with observed facts on which the IPCC is basing their assumptions, a few months back.  Not one of them has come forward with any empirical evidence but some have come forward with modeling garbage that was easily laid waste due to the MOE of the data used and/or the failure of the model to predict anything.

There simply is no linking evidence.  And yes, this is what science has become. The almighty model, even if it has no predictive capabilities, is touted as empirical evidence. These men have no clue what real observational science is. Its a very sad day in science


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 3, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


LOL

That study was shown flawed a very long time ago.  That is what happens when you add 1.83mm to each months data point.. Making a 1.23mm per year rise a 3mm rise..  It's BULL SHIT!

Physical tidal gauges have not risen in over 100 years by more than 12mm


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So once again, you admit that there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and you admit that that there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...and you admit that the hypothetical warming caused by mankind's CO2 producing activities has never been measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses in a peer reviewed published paper.
> 
> That is what I have been saying all along...and that is what this thread is all about...the absolute lack of any sort of observed, measured evidence to support all of your claims.
> 
> I realize there are models out the wazoo...I also realize that the atmosphere, and the climate are observable, measurable quantities and if the models were worth the code it took to write them, there would be observed, measured evidence to support them.



I obviously was *not *referring to AGW. I was referring to *basic physics*. You admitted you don't believe the simplest thermodynamics as it is in all colleges and text books. You don't believe radiation physics as taught in all colleges and text books.  You don't believe in modern physics as taught in all colleges and text books. You reinvent the definitions of physics terminology. All this to fit your own bias that you don't believe in simplest basic things about gases in physics You definitely can not understand anything more complex, like evidence about the simplest interactions in the atmosphere. 

That is the sign of a troll.


----------



## Crick (Nov 3, 2018)

Yep.


----------



## initforme (Nov 3, 2018)

Whether or not global warming is real or not doesn't do anything to help citizens against slimeball oil companies who have an excess of oil and gas yet prices at the pump keep rising.  I no longer have one good thing to say about any of them.  And if you try to defend this practice you are purely a one percenter who hates working class people.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 3, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So once again, you admit that there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and you admit that that there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...and you admit that the hypothetical warming caused by mankind's CO2 producing activities has never been measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses in a peer reviewed published paper.
> ...


Post science based physics..  The abstract has been the undoing of many basic tenets in science.  Facts are no longer considered for anything.  Proof is not considered important...  We get it... And this is why science is in the mess it is in today...


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 3, 2018)

SSDD.....you know you've made heads explode when thread posts go from 0-100 in 5 minutes! These are the moments that keep me coming back in here....when the perpetually miserable become deranged!

These folks navigate life in loose association eternity suckerdom! Kudos to you for setting up the Sd for triggering the multitude of incoherant angry rants.


----------



## Crick (Nov 3, 2018)

initforme said:


> Whether or not global warming is real or not doesn't do anything to help citizens against slimeball oil companies who have an excess of oil and gas yet prices at the pump keep rising.  I no longer have one good thing to say about any of them.  And if you try to defend this practice you are purely a one percenter who hates working class people.




How about if the government actually starts taking action to dramatically reduce the use of fossil fuels?  I think that could have a very dramatic impact on the behavior of oil companies.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 3, 2018)

initforme said:


> Whether or not global warming is real or not doesn't do anything to help citizens against slimeball oil companies who have an excess of oil and gas yet prices at the pump keep rising.  I no longer have one good thing to say about any of them.  And if you try to defend this practice you are purely a one percenter who hates working class people.



Newsflash s0n.....the question of whether it's real or not is 100% immaterial to the debate. The fact is....not even debatable btw....is that the climate change scientists have yet to make a compelling case. Please show us where "real" transcends outside the field of the science. Yuk.....yuk.....

Taking bows in front of banners and billboards is ghey.

Nobody is caring about the science.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 3, 2018)

Crick said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> > Whether or not global warming is real or not doesn't do anything to help citizens against slimeball oil companies who have an excess of oil and gas yet prices at the pump keep rising.  I no longer have one good thing to say about any of them.  And if you try to defend this practice you are purely a one percenter who hates working class people.
> ...


How about you lead by example... Get rid of your computer, phone, internet, food, house, car, bike, clothing, medicines, medical devices that prolong life and go live in a fucking cave... IDIOT

It's fools like you who call oil evil but without it you and many like you would not be alive today...


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 3, 2018)

Crick said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> > Whether or not global warming is real or not doesn't do anything to help citizens against slimeball oil companies who have an excess of oil and gas yet prices at the pump keep rising.  I no longer have one good thing to say about any of them.  And if you try to defend this practice you are purely a one percenter who hates working class people.
> ...



Oy

Is the problem people like you and Old Rocks live in a fantasy world where costs don't matter. What fascinates me is, you both are over the hill.... like me....and still don't recognize this. How does that possibly happen?

Fossil fuels are going to be with us long long after all of us are in our boxes. Because in the real world costs do matter. They matter to all the people who make policy who are way above our pay grade. How do you miss so many meetings not to understand that? The cost of embracing the ideas that you and Old Rock's promote.... getting rid of fossil fuels..... is in the tens of trillions of dollars! I mean, c'mon now s0n...... renewable energy is always going to be a fringe energy source. Because it has to be.... because costs matter.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 3, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > initforme said:
> ...



These bozos haven't quite connected the dots on this yet


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 3, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*I asked a few of my fellow doctoral candidate friends *

Ohhhh, you should ask them about your "photons cooling warmer matter" claim......


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Nov 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> > This OP demonstrates the willful ignorance that cannot possibly be overcome to offset the acceleration of climate change.  Somebody will have to come up with an idea or new technology to address the climate if it becomes necessary.
> ...


*Psychoses of a Theoretical Mathematician*

I feel your pain. It was pretty cruel of BlackFlag to make the Unabomber bang his head against his cell like that.  Gaia will get Her revenge for Climate Realist' lack of compassion for the Consecrated Pope of Her religion.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Nov 3, 2018)

skookerasbil said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


*The Gaian Religion's Scribes and Pharisees*

No wonder that climatologists come up with buzzwords like "Arctic Canary"; it's because they are birdbrains.  These no-talent minor leaguers are jealous of those capable of creating productive science, so jealous that they are driven to create a self-glorifying dystopia where every useful invention inevitably leads to mass destruction.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Nov 3, 2018)

initforme said:


> Whether or not global warming is real doesn't do anything to help citizens against slimeball oil companies who have an excess of oil and gas yet prices at the pump keep rising.  I no longer have one good thing to say about any of them.  And if you try to defend this practice you are purely a one percenter who hates working class people.


*Socialite Socialism*

Liberals don't have minds of their own; subconsciously, they are driven to benefit the Right Wing they were born in.  The Trustfundie Treehuggers' restrictions on drilling create an artificial scarcity, enabling their Daddies, who own huge wads of Big Oil stocks, to self-righteously extort us with obscene profit margins.

As for the working class, these spoiled and sheltered false-flag snobs, who have never had to do manual labor, kill working-class jobs or higher wages, whether your imaginary allies be lumberjacks, shrimp fishermen, or oilfield roustabouts.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 3, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Read my post again. I have never mentioned CAGW anywhere in this forum. I was talking about basic physics that SSDD disbelieves. Do you believe what he believes?

Do you think EM radiation from a cold body is impeded from hitting a warmer body?
Do you believe that two objects at the same temperature do not radiate anything toward each other?
Do you think the mathematical models of quantum mechanics should be likened to fairy dust?
Do you think radioactivity is not spontaneous decay?
Do you think thermal energy from the cosmic microwave background never hit an uncooled receiving dish on earth. 
The list goes on.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



No one is arguing that sea level is not going up...it has been rising for approximately 14,000 years.  Accelerating?  That is a difficult proposition to demonstrate unless you cut the time you are looking at to a ridiculously short period...and most world tidal gauges don't show any appreciable acceleration of sea level rise and many of those places which are showing an acceleration are actually cases where the land is sinking due to development..

In any case, there is no evidence whatsoever there that we are in any way responsible for anything beyond the development that is causing land to sink in many sea side locations.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



I agree...there are a great many ecological problems we are facing...real problems with real solutions but none of them are being addressed because the climate change scam is sucking all of the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers...they literally want trillions of dollars for climate research to waste on a non problem...how much actual work could be done towards cleaning up our planet with that much money?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So once again, you admit that there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and you admit that that there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...and you admit that the hypothetical warming caused by mankind's CO2 producing activities has never been measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses in a peer reviewed published paper.
> ...



This thread is about the lack of evidence for man made climate change...I am happily kicking your ass on other threads regarding physics.  Keep to the topic or buzz off.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Crick said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> > Whether or not global warming is real or not doesn't do anything to help citizens against slimeball oil companies who have an excess of oil and gas yet prices at the pump keep rising.  I no longer have one good thing to say about any of them.  And if you try to defend this practice you are purely a one percenter who hates working class people.
> ...




Why?  Clearly you can't produce any evidence linking the use of hydrocarbon fuels to the climate...what other reason could you have other than some socialist utopian nightmare?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Right...you are off topic..buzz of to the other threads where I am kicking your ass....


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 3, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Do you think EM radiation from a cold body is impeded from hitting a warmer body?


While not proven by empirical evidence, I do think that EM is propagated in all directions from matter. As I have stated in my posts, the main item which determines how that energy is dealt with is the matter itself and its state.

CO2, once energy positive, can not absorb further energy until it releases what it is holding.  CO2 has a very low residency time and releases energy almost instantaneously and will therefore not warm even when heavily bombarded with energy in the 10-25um spectrum. Water vapor is not being affected like the AGW hypothesis states and is actually acting as a negative influence on our atmosphere, which is why there is no "hot spot".  They got it wrong.

The point being, the CO2 molecule is incapable of warming even in the presence of heavy energy which can affect it.  The answer to your question is both Yes and No. It is dependent on the matter it is reacting with.

Black bodies act differently than grey bodies.  While black bodies can absorb energy in any band, if they are warmer than the energy being sent its way, it creates a dampening effect and cooling until equilibrium of the opposing masses and then a slower decay rate due to total mass size.

I have differing views on energy flow than SSDD but the outcome is the same. WE agree to disagree.  And due to this I have had some very good conversations with him.

In any event, the cooler body does not warm the warmer one. SSDD's position is backed by empirical observation.  I can do the math and see how the objects are affecting each other and their respective decay rates, *but the physical process (exchange) has not been seen by empirical observation. * We hypothesize and we reason that this is what is happening, but we do not know factually.

Most of the bickering is pointless on this. This is primarily semantics and circular BS...


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> In any event, the cooler body does not warm the warmer one. SSDD's position is backed by empirical observation.  I can do the math and see how the objects are affecting each other and their respective decay rates, *but the physical process (exchange) has not been seen by empirical observation. * We hypothesize and we reason that this is what is happening, but we do not know factually.
> 
> Most of the bickering is pointless on this. This is primarily semantics and circular BS...



They know full well that the exchange has never been observed...and it drives them nuts that I won't simply accept the models and shut the f&ck up.  Accepting unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models is what put science in the sticky wicket it finds itself in now.  Post modernism on the whole is an abject failure.  Till such time as observation proves me wrong, I will stick with what can be observed, measured, and quantified.  Stick with that and even if you are eventually proven wrong, you won't be that wrong...go off half cocked believing in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models and you can find yourself so wrong that there really isn't a scale upon which to measure how far wrong you were.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > In any event, the cooler body does not warm the warmer one. SSDD's position is backed by empirical observation.  I can do the math and see how the objects are affecting each other and their respective decay rates, *but the physical process (exchange) has not been seen by empirical observation. * We hypothesize and we reason that this is what is happening, but we do not know factually.
> ...



*They know full well that the exchange has never been observed.*

We've never seen photons from the Sun's surface moving toward the hotter corona?
We've never seen photons from the Earth's surface moving toward the hotter thermosphere?

You smoking weed again?

* I will stick with what can be observed, measured, and quantified. *

Any observation of objects at equilibrium not radiating?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



It is hypothesized that alfven waves are providing the work necessary to move energy to the corona

and the thermosphere is almost a hard vacuum...the molecules are so far apart that they can't conduct heat.  Take a thermometer up there and it will read approximately 0C...in fact the molecules are so far apart that even sound isn't conducted....


You just keep swinging and missing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*It is hypothesized that alfven waves are providing the work necessary to move energy to the corona*

Nobody cares how the corona heats.

We care how the Sun's surface violates your claim, "Energy can never move from cooler to hotter matter".

*thermosphere is almost a hard vacuum...the molecules are so far apart that they can't conduct heat.*

The fact that you're confusing conduction with radiation is further proof of your ignorance.


----------



## Crepitus (Nov 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Evidence:
> ...


Lol, I told you so.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Lol, I told you so.



Not sure what you think that graph says...It is evidence that we are well within the boundaries of natural variability....


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> This thread is about the lack of evidence for man made climate change...I am happily kicking your ass on other threads regarding physics. Keep to the topic or buzz off.


Nope you are lying through your ass in other threads. Yes, this thread is about evidence. I assume you want scientific evidence. Well, your problem is that you don't believe in science so this whole thread is your usual hypocritical farce.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Right...you are off topic..buzz of to the other threads where I am kicking your ass....


As I said this is quite on topic.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> and the thermosphere is almost a hard vacuum...the molecules are so far apart that they can't conduct heat. Take a thermometer up there and it will read approximately 0C...in fact the molecules are so far apart that even sound isn't conducted....



You really think a thermometer that close to the sun will measure 0C?That's the freezing point of water. It is very interesting that you think ice cubes will survive comfortably there. At least that is one way of getting around your object can't radiate to hotter things thinking fallacy.


----------



## Slade3200 (Nov 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...


Where are the trillions of dollars going that you think is such a waste?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Where are the trillions of dollars going that you think is such a waste?



Exactly...where are they going?  It should be clear to even those of you who believe fervently in man made climate change by now that there simply is no observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and no observed, measured data which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...and not a single published paper which measures, and quantifies the hypothetical warming caused by our release of so called greenhouse gasses and then attributes that warming to so called greenhouse gasses.

No actual observed evidence in spite of 120 years to gather it and obscene amounts of money being spent on the topic.

Can you name any single benefit that has derived from all that money?  Anything that has made life, better, more comfortable, more enjoyable, more productive, etc.?  Anything?

The question is where is it going and what good is it doing?  

That amount of money, and they money they are asking for in the future, if targeted specifically, could go a long way towards actually cleaning up our environment, improving use of land and resources, feeding people who are hungry, providing the means to transform the third world into industrialized nations.

What good exactly is coming out of flushing it down the climate change toilet?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > This thread is about the lack of evidence for man made climate change...I am happily kicking your ass on other threads regarding physics. Keep to the topic or buzz off.
> ...



You seem to be having trouble with the concept of observed, measured evidence.  The climate is an observable, measurable entity.  The claims of climate science  relate to observable, measurable phenomena...I am asking for observed, measured evidence.  You are trying to substitute unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models for observed, measured evidence and then call them actual observed, measured evidence.

This thread is about actual, real, observed, measured evidence which supports the hypothesis..either you can provide it or not....blathering on about whether or not I place much stock in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models is a meaningless point.  If you want to talk about such models, start a thread....you will have the entire body of climate science to talk about since there is nothing within that body that amounts to observed, measured evidence that supports the hypothesis.

I can't say where it is going....but I can say that wherever it is going, it isn't doing any good for anyone beyond those who are spending it.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Right...you are off topic..buzz of to the other threads where I am kicking your ass....
> ...


Actually, it isn't...whether or not I have much confidence in unmeasurable, unobservable, untestable mathematical models has little to do with the absence of observed, measured evidence to support the hypotheses associated with climate change.

But then you seem to have great difficulty grasping basic concepts like that.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> [
> 
> You really think a thermometer that close to the sun will measure 0C?That's the freezing point of water. It is very interesting that you think ice cubes will survive comfortably there. At least that is one way of getting around your object can't radiate to hotter things thinking fallacy.



Pay attention...he was talking about the thermosphere of the earth.  Do you ever pay attention to anything or put any thought into what you are going to say before you say it?

According to NASA, If you were to hang out in the thermosphere, though, you would be very cold because there aren’t enough gas molecules to transfer the heat to you.  If there aren't enough molecules there to transfer heat to me, then there wouldn't be enough molecules there to transfer heat to an ice cube and that being the case, an ice cube would survive comfortably there.  For someone who fancies himself a physics wiz...you sure do fail to grasp some very basic concepts.

But we digress...this thread is about observed, measured evidence which supports the greenhouse gas hypothesis an the man made global warming hypothesis...  Got any?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Nobody cares how the corona heats.
> 
> We care how the Sun's surface violates your claim, "Energy can never move from cooler to hotter matter".



Another swing and another miss.  This is pretty basic stuff, why are you having so much trouble with it.  As I have said many many many times, energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm...Are you not able to grasp what spontaneous means?  Its right there in the second law...energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm with some form of *WORK *having been done to make it happen.  Alfven waves are work.  Work is moving the energy from the surface to the corona.  Sorry you can't get it.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> The fact that you're confusing conduction with radiation is further proof of your ignorance.



And yet another swing and yet another miss.  If the molecules are so far apart that they can't conduct energy...or even conduct sound... if it is almost a hard vacuum, exactly what is there to prevent radiation from moving right on through.  It is like spraying water at a chicken wire fence.  The amount that doesn't radiate through is inconsequential.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody cares how the corona heats.
> ...



*Are you not able to grasp what spontaneous means?*

You're the one who said when matter absorbs outside energy, it doesn't emit spontaneously.
So explain how it emits.

*energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm with some form of WORK having been done to make it happen.*

What work is done on the Sun's surface to allow it to emit toward the hotter corona?
What work is done on the Earth's surface to allow it to emit toward the hotter thermosphere?

*Alfven waves are work.  Work is moving the energy from the surface to the corona.  *

Alfven waves aren't the Sun's surface emitting.

*If the molecules are so far apart that they can't conduct energy...or even conduct sound... if it is almost a hard vacuum, exactly what is there to prevent radiation from moving right on through.*

And now we're back to smart photons, picking their way through hotter matter. 
Is the Earth's entire atmosphere a hard vacuum?
Is that why CMB can reach the Earth's surface?
Only those photons that can avoid every atom and molecule in the atmosphere,
were emitted billions of years ago, destined to only hit a cooled receiver?


----------



## Slade3200 (Nov 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Where are the trillions of dollars going that you think is such a waste?
> ...


I haven’t researched the subject in depth sonim asking you. Have you looked into where exactly the trillion dollars have gone? Specifically. If you are going to call it a waste then shouldn’t you know what it was getting wasted on?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Are you not able to grasp what spontaneous means?*
> 
> You're the one who said when matter absorbs outside energy, it doesn't emit spontaneously.
> So explain how it emits.



I can see that you have lost what tenuous grasp you had on the thread of this conversation....Were we not talking about energy moving from the surface of the sun to the corona?  What energy are you claiming that the sun is absorbing than emitting?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> What work is done on the Sun's surface to allow it to emit toward the hotter corona?



As I have said...alven waves are the latest hypothesis..  sorry you are having such a hard time reading.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> What work is done on the Earth's surface to allow it to emit toward the hotter thermosphere?



The thermosphere is mostly empty....as I said...it is like spraying water through a chicken wire fence...what is there in the thermosphere that you think would block off all radiation, or even a significant portion of radiation from a cooler object?  Radiation moves through empty space just fine...and the thermosphere is almost entirely empty space.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Alfven waves aren't the Sun's surface emitting.



But they are thought to be the work that moves the energy from the surface to the corona...you seem to be the only one who thinks that the sun is just spontaneously emitting energy from its cooler surface to the warmer corona...or the only one who can't grasp the concept of work moving energy from the cooler surface to the warmer corona.  In either case, you apparently don't have a clue.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> And now we're back to smart photons, picking their way through hotter matter.



"Picking" their way?  Really?  Exactly what sort of picking is required to move through a space that is mostly empty vacuum...again...you don't seem to have a clue.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Is the Earth's entire atmosphere a hard vacuum?



Were you not talking about the thermosphere?  Now that that notion has lost, you want to try something else?  Typical.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Is that why CMB can reach the Earth's surface?



CMB didn't reach the earth's surface....a resonant radio frequency did..they measured it with a radio telescope remember...not a microwave dish, or an infrared telescope...but that topic is so far over your head that you have already made it perfectly clear that you never will get it.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Only those photons that can avoid every atom and molecule in the atmosphere,



Don't have any idea what you are bleating about.,




Toddsterpatriot said:


> were emitted billions of years ago, destined to only hit a cooled receiver?



I didn't make up the notion of photons....or the rules by which they theoretically exist...but I gave an accurate description of what they do within the rules that theoretical science made up...don't like them...talk to theoretical science...they are the ones who said that time is a meaningless concept to photons..and that distance is a meaningless concept to photons, and that photons exist everywhere along their path simultaneously....don't like the ramifications?  Sorry....not my fault...if you are going to accept photons as real, then you are obliged to accept the properties those who made them up say they have.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 4, 2018)

BlackFlag said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > *1.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
> ...



Um  how come you didn't post any evidence?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> I haven’t researched the subject in depth sonim asking you. Have you looked into where exactly the trillion dollars have gone? Specifically. If you are going to call it a waste then shouldn’t you know what it was getting wasted on?



I thought I made that clear...I don't know where the money is going...paper after paper based on the same old set of models are published...people are traveling about attending conferences...billions are being spent upon creating a sense of anxiety and fear.  Millions more are being spent bringing this non existing problem into schools to create fear among the young so as to keep up a steady stream of adults who fear man made climate change.  None of those things can rightly be called science..they seen to be more closely related to political activism.

What isn't being done is actual research into how our climate works, the factors that bring on changes in the climate and how much those individual factors effect the climate and how much they may interact with each other and how those interactions may alter the client...

What isn't being done is a systematic approach towards gathering observed, measured evidence regarding an observable, measurable entity to further understand how it works and what does and does not have an effect on it.

And isn't the very nature of waste within large organizations, by definition, money going down a hole with no appreciable results in return?  Where does the massive amount of money wasted in other government enterprises go?  For the most part, we don't know...it is gone....someone spent it...we didn't see any real return for the money...ergo, it was wasted.  Every once in a while, some special report, or investigation will enlighten us on some small aspect of the staggering amount of money wasted by government and other large organizations, but for the most part...the money is just gone.

If it is being spent in actual scientific endeavor, should not the return be self evident?  Shouldn't I be able to ask for a single piece of observed, measured evidence and the be deluged from every direction with such evidence?  Shouldn't we see some benefit to humanity...at least something that most of us should be able to name that has been a benefit.  I mean, if you look at past government funded scientific endeavors, like say, the space program, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting something in your life that is either a direct spin off from the program, or very closely related to it.

The fact that neither you, nor I nor anyone else can point to any actual observed, measured evidence, real knowledge, or benefit to humanity from the incredible amount of money that has been spent should make waste self evident.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Are you not able to grasp what spontaneous means?*
> ...



*Were we not talking about energy moving from the surface of the sun to the corona? *

We are talking about energy moving from the cooler surface through the hotter corona.
No one gives a shit WHY the corona is hotter only THAT the corona is hotter.
According to your unique misinterpretation of the 2nd Law, cooler matter is never allowed to emit toward hotter matter. Despite the violations of causality and entropy that would entail.

What work is done on the Sun's surface to allow it to emit toward the hotter corona?

*As I have said...alven waves are the latest hypothesis..  sorry you are having such a hard time reading.*​
Alfven waves are not the hypothesis for the surface emitting toward the hotter corona. Sorry you have such a hard time comprehending.​​*But they are thought to be the work that moves the energy from the surface to the corona.*​
The Sun's magnetic field is thought to be heating the corona, and that's significantly different than photons from the cooler surface heating the much hotter corona. What an embarrassing slip on your part.​​*"Picking" their way?  Really?  *​
Yes, that's what smart photons have to do to avoid hotter matter. Right?

Is the Earth's entire atmosphere a hard vacuum?
​*Were you not talking about the thermosphere?  *​
We're talking about your claim that "cooler photons" can't hit warmer matter.
CMB "picking it's way down though the atmosphere only during those brief times when something 
on Earth is cooled enough?​​*CMB didn't reach the earth's surface....a resonant radio frequency did..*​
CMB hits the Earth non-stop. Since the planet was formed.​​*they measured it with a radio telescope remember...not a microwave dish, or an infrared telescope...*​
Different telescopes capture different waves. They all operate in the same manner.
They all detect photons that hit the receiver.
They don't detect photons that skip past the planet.​​*Don't have any idea what you are bleating about.,*​
About your claim that photons know they aren't allowed to hit the Earth, because it's too warm.

Now, back to the question you keep running away from.

You said when matter absorbs outside energy, it doesn't emit spontaneously.
So explain how it emits.





​


----------



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Were we not talking about energy moving from the surface of the sun to the corona? *
> 
> We are talking about energy moving from the cooler surface through the hotter corona.
> No one gives a shit WHY the corona is hotter only THAT the corona is hotter.
> According to your unique misinterpretation of the 2nd Law, cooler matter is never allowed to emit toward hotter matter. Despite the violations of causality and entropy that would entail.



I will post this one more time...and if you can't understand it I am finished talking to you.  This isn't that difficult and if you aren't bright enough to grasp the concept, then you really aren''t worth talking to.  I will bold the pertinent phrase to try and help you grasp this...and will bookmark this post so if you ever make the claim again, I can easily point out your abject dishonesty.  

Second law of thermodynamics.   It is *not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow.* Energy will *not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
*
Even the simplest of idiots should be able to grasp that the second law is saying that energy can be made to move from cool to warm, if work is being done to make it happen....I have pointed that out over and over to you but you don't seem bright enough to grasp what is being said.  That being the case, what credibility do you think you have when talking on scientific topics?  This is very basic stuff.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> What work is done on the Sun's surface to allow it to emit toward the hotter corona?



Again, read up on alfven waves and the other hypotheses out there seeking to determine what form the work is taking that moves the energy to the hotter corona...No one is saying that it gets there spontaneously...





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Alfven waves are not the hypothesis for the surface emitting toward the hotter corona. Sorry you have such a hard time comprehending.


 ​Alfvén Waves in the Solar Corona

clip:   Alfvén waves, transverse incompressible magnetic oscillations, have been proposed as a possible mechanism to heat the Sun's corona to millions of degrees by transporting convective energy from the photosphere into the diffuse corona.

You really don't have a clue do you?

Alfvén waves, transverse incompressible magnetic oscillations, have been proposed as a possible mechanism to heat the Sun's corona to millions of degrees by transporting convective energy from the photosphere into the diffuse coronaThe Sun's magnetic field is thought to be heating the corona, and that's significantly different than photons from the cooler surface heating the much hotter corona. What an embarrassing slip on your part.[/quote]

The key word there, you buffoon, is "thought"  as I have pointed out, there are lots of hypotheses out there for what sort of work is being done to make the corona so much hotter than the surface...no one is suggesting spontaneous movement of energy from the surface to the corona.  




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, that's what smart photons have to do to avoid hotter matter. Right?



Who, besides you ever said "avoid"?  I certainly didn't but since you are such a liar I am not surprised that you would suggest that I did...I said that they don't even emit towards warmer objects.

The rest of your post, is just more stuff that you have already been schooled on at other threads...just rehash of arguments you have already lost...not interested in going over it with you again....if you get some thrill out of it, go re read the stuff that is already there...my argument isn't going to change by going over it again.

​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Were we not talking about energy moving from the surface of the sun to the corona? *
> ...



_Energy will *not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.*_

Then what is allowing photons from the Sun's surface to move toward the hotter corona?

Tell me about the work done to allow this movement.


*Who, besides you ever said "avoid"? *

I don't think photons avoid warmer matter, must have been based on your claim.

*I said that they don't even emit towards warmer objects.*

Of course, smart emitters. DURR.

You said when matter absorbs outside energy, it doesn't emit spontaneously.
So explain how it emits.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> [
> 
> _Energy will *not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.*_
> 
> ...



Already did...and suggested that you do some research into the multiple hypotheses regarding the work being done to transport that energy...you apparently aren't up to doing it and so will remain ignorant.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> [*I* don't think photons avoid warmer matter, must have been based on your claim.



Nope...I never said anything like that...it is just one more example of you making up arguments to rail against...

*If you don't have anything new...We are done.  You are a waste of time.*


----------



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2018)

So show of hands...

It has been a couple of days...85 posts and pretty clear that my original claim holds and that there is no observed, measured evidence as stated in claims 1 and 2  and no peer reviewed published paper as stated in claim 3.

How many of you who believe in man made climate change are having second thoughts?  Anyone?  Bueller?  Bueller? Bueller?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



*Already did.*

Nope. You never did. Not even once. You said absorbing and emitting isn't work.
Since there is no fusion on the surface, you must have a secret, 3rd way.

*Nope...I never said anything like that...*

Right. You said photons won't be emitted if they would hitter warmer matter, billions of light years away, billions of years in the future. Like that's less ridiculous.

You also said that matter hit by outside energy can never emit spontaneously.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 4, 2018)

Still no evidence s0ns!!


----------



## SSDD (Nov 5, 2018)

skookerasbil said:


> Still no evidence s0ns!!




Never will be.  What amazes me is that those who believe will continue to believe.  It is perfectly clear evidence that their position is political and not science based.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I will post this one more time...and if you can't understand it I am finished talking to you. This isn't that difficult and if you aren't bright enough to grasp the concept, then you really aren''t worth talking to. I will bold the pertinent phrase to try and help you grasp this...and will bookmark this post so if you ever make the claim again, I can easily point out your abject dishonesty.
> 
> Second law of thermodynamics. It is *not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow.* Energy will *not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.*



Every time you cite that definition you leave out a clarification that explains the law refers to net energy. This is at
Second Law of Thermodynamics

_It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.
_​So, Tod is right about the corona and you are are the one with abject dishonesty.
_
_​


----------



## SSDD (Nov 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I will post this one more time...and if you can't understand it I am finished talking to you. This isn't that difficult and if you aren't bright enough to grasp the concept, then you really aren''t worth talking to. I will bold the pertinent phrase to try and help you grasp this...and will bookmark this post so if you ever make the claim again, I can easily point out your abject dishonesty.
> ...



Don't you think that if net energy were actually observed and measured, that the law would say it?  The law doesn't....some people add their opinion that it means net energy, some people refer to unobservable, unmeasurable untestable models and say that they indicate net energy...but the law itself still doesn't state anything whatsoever about net energy..the law still speaks in absolute terms...not possible...will not...those terms don't contain any wiggle room.

So we are back to the lack of any physical evidence and your insistence that I believe in your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...Sorry, but I don't...it is the belief in models that has put post modern science in the position it finds itself...


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You are lying as usual. The CMB, luminescence, radioactivity, the corona, etc. are all measured and observed. *Not mathematical models*. Those observations show you are wrong at your own game.

The popular website hyperphysics is now opinion? Well, it's just another lie on your part because you know the SLoT refers to net energy. Your attempt to reinvent physics is simply ignorant. Of course that is to be expected when you disparage observed and measured science as "fairy dust".


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Nov 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > In any event, the cooler body does not warm the warmer one. SSDD's position is backed by empirical observation.  I can do the math and see how the objects are affecting each other and their respective decay rates, *but the physical process (exchange) has not been seen by empirical observation. * We hypothesize and we reason that this is what is happening, but we do not know factually.
> ...


*Nature Is the Enemy of Man*

This is how far wrong they are, and those opponents who refuse to realize this have been trapped by refusing to consider that even the basic original dogmas of the early Enviros are dead wrong.  Over the decades since the bitter and vindictive lies of _Silent Spring_, whose author knew she was dying of incurable cancer, this revenge of the unfit has grown more and more powerful because no one has called them out on their attacks on pollution, which is antiseptic.

Natural "clean" air is toxic. It is full of deadly bacteria, viruses, and insects—*All of Which Pollution Kills*.  If we ever went totally to alternate energy, expect holocausts from plague after plague after plague, which was the natural (pun intended) condition of mankind before industrialism created these beneficial byproducts.  It is the difference between driving down a rocky "polluted" road and driving down one lined by natural-born killers throwing heavy jagged rocks at you.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 5, 2018)

Still no evidence.....this is getting ghey. These people fold like a cheap wallet when pressed. The regulars in here always ignore the "show me the evidence" questions.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 5, 2018)

skookerasbil said:


> Still no evidence.....this is getting ghey. These people fold like a cheap wallet when pressed. The regulars in here always ignore the "show me the evidence" questions.



*Still no evidence...*

What type of evidence are you looking for?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You are lying as usual. The CMB, luminescence, radioactivity, the corona, etc. are all measured and observed. *Not mathematical models*. Those observations show you are wrong at your own game.



Sorry guy.....none are examples of energy moving spontaneously from cool (low energy) objects to warm (higher energy) objects...

I know you wish you had some actual observed, measured evidence but all you seem to be able to provide is evidence that you are easily fooled.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 5, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Still no evidence.....this is getting ghey. These people fold like a cheap wallet when pressed. The regulars in here always ignore the "show me the evidence" questions.
> ...



Some that displays proof that CO2 is the only factor in a changing climate@


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 5, 2018)

skookerasbil said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



Well, shit, that doesn't exist.

Are you satisfied with the evidence that back radiation exists?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You are lying as usual. The CMB, luminescence, radioactivity, the corona, etc. are all measured and observed. *Not mathematical models*. Those observations show you are wrong at your own game.
> ...


Nope, you are lying. The CMB, luminescence, radioactivity, the corona are measured observed evidence. You know that is accepted verified science and you are lying about it.


SSDD said:


> Sorry guy.....none are examples of energy moving spontaneously from cool (low energy) objects to warm (higher energy) objects...
> 
> I know you wish you had some actual observed, measured evidence but all you seem to be able to provide is evidence that you are easily fooled.


Easily fooled? You are essentially saying the entire body of science is easily fooled. Let's see some documented links that say that CMB, luminescence, radioactivity, the corona are not spontaneous emission. You don't have any links do you.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 6, 2018)

Again...this thread is about evidence, or lack of to support the AGW hypothesis...got any?    Didn't think so...

Take your mewling somewhere else...whining all over the board because you can't prove your point, and because scientific papers are not written in the 5th grade appropriate language you insist on is just childish...


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Again...this thread is about evidence, or lack of to support the AGW hypothesis...got any?    Didn't think so...
> 
> Take your mewling somewhere else...whining all over the board because you can't prove your point, and because scientific papers are not written in the 5th grade appropriate language you insist on is just childish...



The evidence behind behind global warming involves science. However you disbelieve major science that has been repetitively observed and measured.

You disbelieve quantum mechanics
You disbelieve spontaneous emissions of energy
You disbelieve the textbook second law of thermodynamics
You disbelieve the textbook Stefan-Boltzmann equation
You disbelieve radiative equilibrium
You disbelieve mathematical representation of scientific theory
You disbelieve radiation of accelerating charges
You disbelieve equipartition theory of energy in air

You disbelieve all of that so you can proclaim that green house gases don't have an effect on the world climate. Well according to all of science you are wrong. Even scientists that discount the danger of greenhouse gases still believe that they are instrumental in moderating the global earth temperature.

So yes, my topic is about AGW whether you realize it or not.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Nov 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Again...this thread is about evidence, or lack of to support the AGW hypothesis...got any?    Didn't think so...
> ...


*Cooped Up in Sheldon Cooper's Shell*

If he starts college at 18, a science PhD doesn't earn a living until he is 30 years old.  Such an unnatural and permanently damaging youth only produces crooks, quacks, and crackpots.  Hiding from real life, sheltered by the dingy walls of their Ivory Tower dungeon, eventually gets to these escapist misfits and makes them overcompensate by imagining themselves to be comic-book superheroes out to save the world from those who actually and maturely test themselves by going out into this imperfect aggravating world and try to conquer it as it is.  Theory-addicted freaks can never be trusted; your cult imagines that they are disembodied angels who would never be driven by greed and the will to power.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 6, 2018)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> *Cooped Up in Sheldon Cooper's Shell*
> 
> If he starts college at 18, a science PhD doesn't earn a living until he is 30 years old. Such an unnatural and permanently damaging youth only produces crooks, quacks, and crackpots. Hiding from real life, sheltered by the dingy walls of their Ivory Tower dungeon, eventually gets to these escapist misfits and makes them overcompensate by imagining themselves to be comic-book superheroes out to save the world from those who actually and maturely test themselves by going out into this imperfect aggravating world and try to conquer it as it is. Theory-addicted freaks can never be trusted; your cult imagines that they are disembodied angels who would never be driven by greed and the will to power.


Wow. You really hate scientists don't you. It seems a lot of people do these days. Yes, hatred and fear in many guises seems to have ruled the world for a long time. But you have to admit that those scientists you hate did bring you semiconductors, GPS systems, cell phones, computers and the LCD you are looking at right now.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > *Cooped Up in Sheldon Cooper's Shell*
> ...



All the science in the world doesnt matter for dick if policy makers think its ghey. Which they consistently do. So....the science transcends nowhere beyond the science. For 25 years now. But I suppose for some, banner gazing is a hoot. For me, it's all about who's not winning!


----------



## SSDD (Nov 7, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> The evidence behind behind global warming involves science. However you disbelieve major science that has been repetitively observed and measured.
> 
> You disbelieve quantum mechanics
> You disbelieve spontaneous emissions of energy
> ...



You are full of shit...you are a liar...and you are just plain stupid.  The above represent yet another episode of fantasy in which you fabricate statements, claim that I made them, then argue against them.  Keep it up and I will report you.

1.  True, I don't believe quantum mechanics as a whole...The fact that the theory is evolving is good reason to not take it as absolute truth.  When you have a theory on the table this long and those working on it can't even agree on what it means, you don't have a theory that thinking people jump on and accept as truth.  I will wait for the actual evidence to come out rather than accept the output of models which are trying to replicate, and predict processes that, in many cases, we don't even know exist at this point.

2.  What a stupid statement....The SB equation which deals with the radiation of an object in the presence of other matter describes equilibrium perfectly and in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics.  When you set the temperature of the two objects in question to the same temperature, the output of the primary radiation is zero.

I took the time to look up the term equilibrium in the science dictionary....under the heading of physics, equilibrium is, by definition :  Physics The state of a body or physical system that is at rest or in constant and unchanging motion. A system that is in equilibrium shows no tendency to alter over time.

Pretty much describes my position on equilibrium....now, what additions, subtractions, or alterations would you like to make to the definition in order to have it support your opinion of what equilibrium is. 

3.  Again...what a stupid statement.  The textbook statement of the second law of thermodynamics is as follows:

*It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.*

I am in perfect agreement with that statement.  Now, what additions, subtractions, or alterations would you like to make in order to have it agree with your opinion of what it should say?

4.Reference above...we have already been through the whole thing over and over.  The equation describes a one way gross energy flow from warm to cool...just as the second law predicts.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





That equation describes one way energy flow......now, what alterations would you like to make to it in order to have it support your opinion of what it should say?  Let me guess, you want to unsimplify the equation, which would allow you to validate the assumption of the SB law which is that T>Tc.

5.  To the contrary...I am in agreement with both the SB law, and the science dictionary definition of equilibrium...What alterations to those did you want to make in order to have them support your opinion again?

6.  Again, to the contrary...I fully accept the mathematical representations of mathematical theories which agree with observations and measurements.  Take the SB equation above...Set T and Tc to the same number and it states that P=0...I am in perfect agreement with that.  And there exists example after example of mathematical representations of physical laws that I am in perfect agreement with.

I suppose you are referring to the greenhouse hypothesis and associated equations...I have asked you to apply that equation to another planet with an atmosphere and show how well it predicts the temperature in comparison to the equation of the molar version of the ideal gas law.  You declined for obvious reasons.  Of what good, exactly, is an equation that describes a so called physical phenomenon which only works in one location and then only if you apply a completely made up fudge factor?

7.  Of course I don't disbelieve radiation of accelerating charges...I said that we don't understand the underlying mechanism.  You couldn't provide one.  We don't understand the underlying mechanism of gravity or inertia either, but I have no problem with either.    Now claiming that the underlying mechanism of either gravity or inertia proves some point that I want to make, when it is clear that we don't have a handle on the underlying mechanism is just stupid...and that is what you attempted.

8.  Equipartition theory doesn't work in the atmosphere.  The very term equipartition means equal division...Alas that is not possible in an environment as chaotic as our atmosphere.  Here....from one of your favorite sources. 

*Equipartition no longer holds because it is a poor approximation to assume that the energy levels form a smooth continuum, which is required in the derivations of the equipartition theorem above.[5][9] Historically, the failures of the classical equipartition theorem to explain specific heats and blackbody radiation were critical in showing the need for a new theory of matter and radiation, namely, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory.[11]*


Perhaps if you had some ideal set up where you had a perfectly static column of air....but how would you do that...Gareff has demonstrated that even in static columns of air on a laboratory scale, there are minute temperature gradients that eventually result in movement of that air.  The fact of temperature gradients, and constant movement of the air pretty much dash the idea that energy is equally dispersed in such an environment.



Wuwei said:


> You disbelieve all of that so you can proclaim that green house gases don't have an effect on the world climate. Well according to all of science you are wrong. Even scientists that discount the danger of greenhouse gases still believe that they are instrumental in moderating the global earth temperature.



So no, as I have demonstrated, you are just a liar and make up positions for those who you can't defeat in an actual debate and then rail agains those fabricated positions.

I asked in the OP for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.  I can't help but note that you have not provided any such observed, measured evidence.  Can you provide any at this time or does my statement stand?

This why speaking to you is so tedious...I spend half my time correcting the obvious and glaring mischaracterizations you make regarding what I have said.  You are either inherently dishonest, or just to stupid to read what someone says and reply to that statement rather than add your own spin to it, or in many many cases, change the intent of the statement completely.

I tend to think that you are just inherently dishonest and don't have much of a handle on simple, common decency..

And no, your statement is about nothing more than your inability to produce any of the evidence I asked for in the OP.


----------



## Crick (Nov 7, 2018)

Wuwei's observations as to the arguments you've presented here is completely accurate.

Evidence for AGW has been presented here.  You just choose to lie about it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The evidence behind behind global warming involves science. However you disbelieve major science that has been repetitively observed and measured.
> ...



*2. What a stupid statement....The SB equation which deals with the radiation of an object in the presence of other matter describes equilibrium perfectly and in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. When you set the temperature of the two objects in question to the same temperature, the output of the primary radiation is zero.

I took the time to look up the term equilibrium in the science dictionary....under the heading of physics, equilibrium is, by definition : Physics The state of a body or physical system that is at rest or in constant and unchanging motion. A system that is in equilibrium shows no tendency to alter over time.*

Every physicist for the last 100 years, at least, thought that equilibrium is when emission and absorption balance out, you've discovered they're all wrong and that it means both bodies stop radiating.

Hilarious!!!

And of course, you have no backup, because you're the only one. DERP!!


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Nov 7, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > *Cooped Up in Sheldon Cooper's Shell*
> ...


*Pompously Preaching Puffdaddies*

Warmalarmies aren't scientists, no more than the corrupt medieval clergy were Christians.  Postmodern academics have as little to do with being intelligent as sportswriters have to do with being athletic.  These bitter and jealous bean-counters have no right to take credit for any modern invention; they actually preach that creative genius has produced only unnatural and eventually globe-destroying inventions.  Your aggressive and shallow jumping to convenient but illogical conclusions proves that you don't have the natural ability to belong in real science, either.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You are full of shit...etc


More ad hominem doesn't make your point Chill out.

Here are the points one by one... I have countered you many times before about the following, but you obviously “forgot”:

1...Right, as I said you don't believe QM, which was verified to parts per billion or trillion accuracy.

2...I said you don't believe spontaneous emission [as it is understood by all scientists.] You have not responded to my second point. You responded to “radiative equilibrium”.

You should have looked up “radiative equilibrium”, not “equilibrium”. It was understood long long ago. I gave you a list of the many famous scientists that said essentially the same thing. Even over a hundred years ago Planck, Einstein, and many others said that any *two bodies at the same temperature exchange radiation by equal amounts with each other.* ( 2-way radiation flow, not 1-way.) Yet you disbelieve that.

3...In the second law of thermodynamics, radiation flows both ways between hot and cold objects. Any textbook that derives the Stefan-Boltzmann equation says exactly that. So you obviously disbelieve the textbook version of the second law.

4... The text book version of the Stefan-Boltzmann law is derived by emission and absorption of radiation to and from any object. I showed you the derivation many times but you refuse to believe the text book version that all scientists believe.

5...Again you should have looked up “radiative equilibrium”. You choose not to. You have not made your point.

6...The mathematical representations of scientific theory are called “models”. You continually discounted models in most discourses.

7...If you don't disbelieve radiation of accelerating charges, then you must believe that colder objects can radiate anywhere under any conditions. You are contradicting yourself.

8... You often said that GHGs can't warm the atmosphere. The chaos of gases in the atmosphere is precisely why energy is thoroughly mixed and equally partitioned between all vibration, spin, and kinetic modes. That is what the Equipartition Theory means.

The quote you made totally and dishonestly left out the context, and you totally missed the point. You obviously didn't understand the importance of this sentence that preceded your bold faced quote:

_The law of equipartition breaks down when the thermal energy kBT is significantly smaller than the spacing between energy levels._

That refers to *cryogenic temperatures*. The atmosphere is not that cold by a long shot. Your reply is totally wrong. So the EP theory does apply. 
…........
Moral of the story: I told you what I said you disbelieve in physics and you resorted to dishonesty or ignorance. You must not take sentences out of context in technical literature, substitute colloquial definitions and ignore the specific definitions that the science refers to. My claim that you disbelieve the eight points of physics still stands.

You asked, “_for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.”_

Many here gave you that observed, measured evidence many times. In a nutshell, the earth is warmed by solar SW radiation, the earth radiates 400 W/ m^2 of LW radiation. Specific LW frequencies are absorbed by various GHGs. Most of that energy is rapidly distributed to the other gases by the equipartition theorem and warms the atmosphere. Vibration modes of the GHG's gas excited through the equipartition theorem re-emit isotropically and a fraction of the radiation gradually makes it's way to outer space.

When you say nobody gives you observed measured evidence, you mean they don't give it an a way that is compatible with your made-up reinvention of science. The fact is they give evidence as it is accepted by all scientists, not just scientists involved in atmospheric physics – all scientists.

Finally I have given you evidence how GHG's work in the atmosphere. I have purposely kept this discussion clean by not claiming GW, let alone AGW. The point is that if you don't even believe in the fundamental physics underlying the atmosphere, how can you honestly argue anything about GW or AGW.

.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 7, 2018)

Crick said:


> Wuwei's observations as to the arguments you've presented here is completely accurate.
> 
> Evidence for AGW has been presented here.  You just choose to lie about it.



What's the matter skid mark....still stinging over having your ass handed to you?  I can't help but note, all your talking about all the evidence you claimed to have seen, you weren't able to produce the first piece...and admitted that while there was no actual empirical evidence there, it was enough to fool you.

Guess that must sting.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 7, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> 1...Right, as I said you don't believe QM, which was verified to parts per billion or trillion accuracy.



The whole theory, or just some small bit?  Are you under the impression that because some small bit of a theory that attempts to cover so much the theory is proven?



Wuwei said:


> 2...I said you don't believe spontaneous emission [as it is understood by all scientists.] You have not responded to my second point. You responded to “radiative equilibrium”.




No...I said that you are unable to differentiate between spontaneous emission and non spontaneous emission and gave you the dictionary definition of spontaneous as evidence...



Wuwei said:


> You should have looked up “radiative equilibrium”, not “equilibrium”. It was understood long long ago. I gave you a list of the many famous scientists that said essentially the same thing. Even over a hundred years ago Planck, Einstein, and many others said that any *two bodies at the same temperature exchange radiation by equal amounts with each other.* ( 2-way radiation flow, not 1-way.) Yet you disbelieve that.



Still waiting for that observed, measured evidence that the model is true...oh....that's right.. you can't provide any since the instruments just won't cooperate with you.



Wuwei said:


> ...In the second law of thermodynamics, radiation flows both ways between hot and cold objects. Any textbook that derives the Stefan-Boltzmann equation says exactly that. So you obviously disbelieve the textbook version of the second law.



You said textbook statement of the second law...which textbook did you take your quote from?  Or are you just making shit up again?



Wuwei said:


> 4... The text book version of the Stefan-Boltzmann law is derived by emission and absorption of radiation to and from any object. I showed you the derivation many times but you refuse to believe the text book version that all scientists believe.



So you say...but that's not what the equation says...and I am still waiting for you to provide the observed, measured evidence to support that claim as well...we both know that it won't be forthcoming....to bad..



Wuwei said:


> 5...Again you should have looked up “radiative equilibrium”. You choose not to. You have not made your point.



The instruments, and every observation and measurement ever made support my point...where is the observed, measured evidence to support yours?  Again..you don't have any.



Wuwei said:


> 6...The mathematical representations of scientific theory are called “models”. You continually discounted models in most discourses.



A model is only useful if it gives an accurate depiction of reality...so again, where are those observed, measured examples to support your claims?



Wuwei said:


> 7...If you don't disbelieve radiation of accelerating charges, then you must believe that colder objects can radiate anywhere under any conditions. You are contradicting yourself.



Sorry guy, but if accelerating EM charges proved your point, you would be able to provide observed, measured evidence to support your position rather than just mewling and bleating because you don't.



Wuwei said:


> 8... You often said that GHGs can't warm the atmosphere. The chaos of gases in the atmosphere is precisely why energy is thoroughly mixed and equally partitioned between all vibration, spin, and kinetic modes. That is what the Equipartition Theory means.



Still waiting for that observed, measured evidence which supports a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas, and warming in the atmosphere...what's that?  You don't have any of that evidence either?  Too bad.


Face it...you are doing nothing but proving my position...there is no observed, measured evidence to support yours...you accept models over reality...and that is sad...now, if you have nothing new...I am done with this repetitive discussion.


----------



## IanC (Nov 7, 2018)

> . https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2013/503727/



An interesting paper that looks at the movement of energy through the atmosphere by various pathways. Then in combination.

Eg. at relative equilibrium, active heating by surface blackbody radiation, cooling by available radiation frequencies, etc.


As always, the science presented in this paper is in direct opposition to SSDDs bizarroland version of physics.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The whole theory, or just some small bit? Are you under the impression that because some small bit of a theory that attempts to cover so much the theory is proven?


Quantum electrodynamics, QED is the relativistic version of Schrodinger's equation. The theory was tested against every possible measurement. QED applies to all the physics of the atmosphere.

But my point is you said you disbelieve it, and that's what I posted.



SSDD said:


> No...I said that you are unable to differentiate between spontaneous emission and non spontaneous emission and gave you the dictionary definition of spontaneous as evidence...


That doesn't cut it. Look up "spontaneous emission". You said it was not spontaneous, so you proved my point, that you disbelieve it.



SSDD said:


> You said textbook statement of the second law...which textbook did you take your quote from? Or are you just making shit up again?


I gave that to you maybe a dozen times. I even copied a text page that showed the net energy is derived by the emission minus absorption of radiation.
But you continue to claim one way emission. You don't believe the text book version. Again that proves my point.



SSDD said:


> So you say...but that's not what the equation says...and I am still waiting for you to provide the observed, measured evidence to support that claim as well...we both know that it won't be forthcoming....to bad..


Observed measured evidence is not the point. The point is that you disbelieve the what science has discovered. That makes my point again.



SSDD said:


> The instruments, and every observation and measurement ever made support my point...where is the observed, measured evidence to support yours? Again..you don't have any.


Again you are going against what the science is. That makes my point again.



SSDD said:


> A model is only useful if it gives an accurate depiction of reality...so again, where are those observed, measured examples to support your claims?


The mathematical model of QED underlies atmospheric physics. If you disbelieve the model you disbelieve a fundamental aspect of physics.



SSDD said:


> Sorry guy, but if accelerating EM charges proved your point, you would be able to provide observed, measured evidence to support your position rather than just mewling and bleating because you don't.


Those measurements were done over a century ago. If you say accelerating charges don't radiate then you disbelieve QED. That makes my point.



SSDD said:


> Still waiting for that observed, measured evidence which supports a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas, and warming in the atmosphere...what's that? You don't have any of that evidence either? Too bad.


A GHG gas absorbs the energy of the photon and the photon disappears. That energy of the GHG molecule is rapidly transfered to other molecules in the chaos of the gas. That comes from the conservation of energy.
That is obvious and basic science, but you don't believe it. That makes my point again.



SSDD said:


> Face it...you are doing nothing but proving my position...there is no observed, measured evidence to support yours...you accept models over reality...and that is sad...now, if you have nothing new...I am done with this repetitive discussion.


Proving your position?

My position is that you disbelieve many major aspects of physics that are either measured or are obvious from the models, (which you don't believe.) You have proven that point over and over -- you disagree with accepted basic physics and how physics is used. That was my entire point.

Listen closely I am not trying to convince you of anything. Nobody can. I am simply saying you don't believe in the fundamental tenets of physics. When I elaborated on that you had a hissy fit, yet you continued to prove my point. You don't have to try to prove your disbelief to me because I agree that you disbelieve all the above. 

The point is that if you don't even believe the fundamental physics underlying the atmosphere, how can you honestly argue anything about GW or AGW to people that understand the textbook tenets of science, and disagree with your reinvention of science.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 7, 2018)

IanC said:


> > . https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2013/503727/
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I skimmed through it just to see what it covered. It seems to have everything you wanted to know about atmospheric physics.


----------



## Crick (Nov 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei's observations as to the arguments you've presented here is completely accurate.
> ...




Hahahahahahahaaaaaa.. Oh FUCK are you stupid.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 8, 2018)

IanC said:


> > . https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2013/503727/
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Still waiting for that measurement of discrete frequencies of radiation moving from the atmosphere to the surface made with an instrument at ambient temperature...there certainly is no problem measuring discrete frequencies of energy moving from the surface with an instrument at ambient temperature.  Ever wonder why that is or do you just accept models as reality because that's the way you are wired?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 8, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Quantum electrodynamics, QED is the relativistic version of Schrodinger's equation. The theory was tested against every possible measurement. QED applies to all the physics of the atmosphere.
> 
> But my point is you said you disbelieve it, and that's what I posted.



Guess you don't get out much...Hard to get news when you wrap yourself in your faith and refuse to accept the fact that you might be wrong.

Why quantum mechanics might need an overhaul

 Quantum mechanics is science’s equivalent of political polarization.

_Voters either take sides and argue with each other endlessly, or stay home and accept politics as it is. Physicists either just accept quantum mechanics and do their calculations, or take sides in the never-ending debate over what quantum mechanics is actually saying about reality.
_
New Evidence Could Break The Standard View of Quantum Mechanics

By the way...here is what Schrodinger had to say on QM...and I quote  *" I don't like it and I am sorry that I ever had anything to do with it."*

In addition, Weinberg is still giving talks about the inherent problems with QM...He points out that there are two interpretations to Schrödinger’s wave functions as solutions of Schrödinger’s multi-dimensional wave equation as the basic model of QM  and physics is a very long way from choosing one that is correct and that physicists who agree that QM is correct can't agree on what is correct.

So you go ahead and take it on faith...and assume that it is all just fine...I will wait for the evidence to emerge and watch the theory change over time.

Note:  QM goes far beyond the relativistic version of Schrodinger's equation.




Wuwei said:


> I gave that to you maybe a dozen times. I even copied a text page that showed the net energy is derived by the emission minus absorption of radiation.
> But you continue to claim one way emission. You don't believe the text book version. Again that proves my point.



You gave me someone's opinion of what the second law says...I never asked for anyone's opinion..I asked for observed, measured evidence of spontaneous two way energy movement...you continue to argue that evidence is not necessary...there is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model out there that says that energy does move spontaneously in both directions and because of that, we don't need to actually see it...we just need to believe.  Sorry, I'm a natural born skeptic...I need evidence as should any thinking person.



Wuwei said:


> Observed measured evidence is not the point. The point is that you disbelieve the what science has discovered. That makes my point again.



What do you know...you just said it...Observed evidence is not the point...beileve the models and don't worry about what we observe and measure every time we look.



Wuwei said:


> Again you are going against what the science is. That makes my point again.



The science that says ignore what we observe and measure and accept what the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models say...that science?  No thanks...that isn't science...that is faith.



Wuwei said:


> The mathematical model of QED underlies atmospheric physics. If you disbelieve the model you disbelieve a fundamental aspect of physics.



So do a lot of other physicists...including Schrodinger himself.  I am in good company.



Wuwei said:


> Those measurements were done over a century ago. If you say accelerating charges don't radiate then you disbelieve QED. That makes my point.



And they provide measured examples of discrete frequencies moving in both directions between objects of different temperatures?  Goody...bring them here...Lets see the observed measured evidence...My bet is that no such evidence will be forthcoming though, because you simply fail to understand what those experiments meant...you do that a lot...claiming that you have evidence, and it turns out that all you have is misunderstanding.



Wuwei said:


> A GHG gas absorbs the energy of the photon and the photon disappears. That energy of the GHG molecule is rapidly transfered to other molecules in the chaos of the gas. That comes from the conservation of energy.
> That is obvious and basic science, but you don't believe it. That makes my point again.



So you are saying that there is no radiative greenhouse effect..that the atmosphere is dominated by conduction...which is the result of gravity, and the weight of the atmosphere...yeah...that's what I think to.



Wuwei said:


> Proving your position?



Yes.  Proving my position.  I saId:

*1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses..
*
Neither you, nor anyone else has posted anything that even remotely challenges those 3 statements...You have talked enough to bore everyone on the board to tears...you have gone on and on about your faith in models, and how they are more real to you than reality...and on and on and on..what you haven't done is posted the first thing that challenges my statements...therefore, you have done nothing more than prove my point...you guys can talk and talk and talk, and then talk some more...what you can't do is provide the first piece of observed, measured evidence call my statements into question.

So unless you can provide some observed measured evidence to challenge the 3 statements I made above, you have nothing.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 8, 2018)

Crick said:


> Hahahahahahahaaaaaa.. Oh FUCK are you stupid.



Alas skidmark....I am not the one trying to save face after he got his ass handed to him...The wait continues for a single piece of observed, measured data that challenges any one of the 3 statements I made in the OP...and by your own words, simple, straight forward observed, measured evidence is just to much to ask a whole branch of science for.  And you think I am stupid?  Laughing in your face skid mark.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > > . https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2013/503727/
> ...



*
there certainly is no problem measuring discrete frequencies of energy moving from the surface with an instrument at ambient temperature. *

Of course, because we all know that energy doesn't exist if we can't measure it with an instrument at ambient temperature.

*Still waiting for that measurement of discrete frequencies of radiation moving from the atmosphere to the surface made with an instrument at ambient temperature.*

Because before matter emits, it detects the temperature of potential targets.

That's why gas in the atmosphere will refuse to emit down toward an instrument at ambient temperature, but at the precise moment when the instrument is cooled to below the temperature of the gas,  suddenly, inexplicably, photons are allowed to travel downward.

It is weird that you never post any source which agrees with your claim of these magic emitters.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Nov 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum electrodynamics, QED is the relativistic version of Schrodinger's equation. The theory was tested against every possible measurement. QED applies to all the physics of the atmosphere.
> ...


*In History, "Postclassical" Means the Dark Ages
*
Starting with its Original Sin, the Quantum "Leap" was an illusion that pushed weak-minded scientists into irrational explanations and theoretical fantasies.  It is absolutely impossible to change one's place without moving through a space between the starting point and the end point.  In the real world, this illusion can only be produced by theoretically restricting the dimensions within which the displacement takes place.  So if a scientist's obsession is with rejecting the old but tried-and-true ways of logic and determinism, in a sophomoric youth rebellion to impress his contemporaries, he can restrict the apparent leap to the three-dimensional world instead of risking criticism for proposing that there had to be an extra outside dimension that the particle went into.  The reason for the scientist's gutless fear of being called silly was that the extra dimension had been speculated on back in the 1880s (_Flatland_) but, through no fault of the theory itself, had degenerated into supernaturalist explanations.

Yet this fudged misconception can happen in the macro world, too.  Suppose you pretend you can only go from Boston to New York by traveling along at ground level.  Then airplane flights would leap to that destination without touching any place between. 

 The motto of these neurotic escapist geeks is, "If It's Weird, It's Wise."  However, they're only looked up to if they come up with a new weirdness, and not the adults' weirdness of supernatural explanations.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 8, 2018)

SSDD: Here is the story so far.

In post #102 I said the following:
_You disbelieve quantum mechanics
You disbelieve spontaneous emissions of energy
You disbelieve the textbook second law of thermodynamics
You disbelieve the textbook Stefan-Boltzmann equation
You disbelieve radiative equilibrium
You disbelieve mathematical representation of scientific theory
You disbelieve radiation of accelerating charges
You disbelieve equipartition theory of energy in air _​
Your reply in post #106 was a total melt down and started with this:
_You are full of shit...you are a liar...and you are just plain stupid. The above represent yet another episode of fantasy in which you fabricate statements, claim that I made them, then argue against them. Keep it up and I will report you._

Then in that same post you methodically lambasted accepted science point by point and tried to prove that the accepted science was wrong. You were actually agreeing with my post #102! You called me a liar and then agreed with me. That is more than weird.

That whole circus repeated in my post #110 and your reply #112 which ended with,
_Face it...you are doing nothing but proving my position._​
Actually you were proving my position that you don't believe the science.

That whole circus repeated yet another time in my post #114 and your reply in post #118 again emphasized that you don't believe in the science.

OK, we both get it. You don't believe in some classical and all of modern physics.

So along with your misunderstanding of my posts, you kept saying there was no evidence concerning AGW. My concluding replies related to your position.  You have not addressed them:

_Post #110 When you say nobody gives you observed measured evidence, you mean they don't give it an a way that is compatible with your made-up reinvention of science. _

_Post #114. The point is that if you don't even believe the fundamental physics underlying the atmosphere, how can you honestly argue anything about GW or AGW to people that understand the textbook tenets of science, and disagree with your reinvention of science._​
With that preamble, now to address your position specifically.



SSDD said:


> *1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.*
> 
> *2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.*
> 
> *3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.*.



My two conclusions in posts #110 and 114 already said your positions are untenable because someone knowledgeable in science has no basis for a rational discussion with someone who thinks science is fairy dust. We have seen that impasse many times.

I'm still not taking a stance on AGW, however, your position 2 is patently false. Why do you think absorption of IR by GHG's does not warm the atmosphere. Where do you think the 400 W/m² radiated from the earth goes?

.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 8, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD: Here is the story so far.



The story so far is that I said:

*1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.
*
To date, neither you nor any of the other faithful have posted a single piece of observed, measured evidence which challenges any of those 3 statements...nor will you because it simply doesn't exist.  As an amusing side bar to the story, you have been whining, mewling, bleating, bawling, bleating, crying, and baaahing because I don't place the same faith in unmeasurable, unobservable, untestable models as you without regard to who else places their faith in them.  

Since you can't provide the first piece of observed, measured evidence to challenge any of the 3 statements above, you have done what all people of very low character have done for as long as anyone can remember...you have attacked me personally in every way you can think of to do it.  You have complained about what I believe, and what I don't believe, and attempted to suggest that because I don't believe, somehow that has anything whatsoever to do with your inability to provide observed, measured evidence to challenge the assertions I made in the OP.

Either you can or you can't...and by now we all know you can't...so continue to cry, wail, gnash your teeth, piss and moan or whatever lament you care to engage in...The end result however, is going to be that my statements stand because the actual observed, measured evidence does not exist.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The story so far is that I said:
> *...
> 2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.*


I disagree. Why do you think absorption of IR by GHG's does not warm the atmosphere. Where do you think the 400 W/m² radiated from the earth goes?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 9, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The story so far is that I said:
> ...



Why do I think that the absorption of IR by so called GHG's does not warm the atmosphere?  How many times have I told you.  Begin with the fact that over a million hours of experiment, development, and commercial and residential observation in the infrared heating industry has demonstrated beyond question that infrared can not, and does not heat the air....OBSERVATION AND MEASUREMENT...that is the whole point of infrared heating systems...they don't waste energy heating air...they heat objects.

Then there is the fact that in spite of your belief that absorption of IR results in warming of the atmosphere, there is not the first piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by so called greenhouse gasses and warming in the atmosphere.  

Then there is the fact that when the energy that has been absorbed by a molecule of a so called greenhouse gas, it is emitted at the same frequency it was absorbed, or at a slightly lower frequency.  If you want to warm, you must increase the frequency of the energy being emitted.  How do you think you get warming without an increase of the frequency of the radiation that is supposedly causing the warming.  You don't get warming by simply adding more energy at the same frequency.  As I have pointed out, you can pump as much 70 degree air into a space as you like but the temperature is never going to rise above 70 degrees. 

If you believe there is a coherent relationship between the absorption and emission of IR by gas and warming in the atmosphere, lets see the evidence.  And a spectrum is not evidence that absorption and emission equals warming...Describe how you believe absorption and emission increase the frequency of the radiation being absorbed and emitted....then provide some observed measured evidence because models and thought experiments will never be actual evidence...

As I have pointed out several times already...I made 3 statements in the OP and none of them have been challenged by the first piece of observed, measured evidence...and to date, there has not been the first peer reviewed paper published which the supposed warming resulting from our production of so called greenhouse gases has been empirically measured, quantified, and then ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses.  Your belief and claims are based on pseudoscience, and media hype...not any actual observed, measured evidence or even published, peer reviewed literature.

Of the claimed 400  wm^2 that is supposedly emitted from the whole surface of the earth, better than 99% is conducted, and convected through the troposphere to the upper atmosphere where it is radiated into space.  Radiation plays almost no part in energy movement through the troposphere where the greenhouse effect is supposed to exert its influence.  The very idea of a radiative greenhouse effect in a troposphere which is so completely dominated by conduction and convection is laughable...and again, there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support the belief.  The concept has been in dispute since it was first laid on the table by Arrhenius and again, no less giants than Maxwell, Carnot, and Clausius dismissed the idea of a radiative greenhouse effect as nonsense and after 120 years there still isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support the hypothesis.  There are miles and miles of double-talk, unfounded claims, appeals to complexity, etc...what there isn't is actual empirical evidence.

You live in this mental trap in which you think that if someone can't explain the underlying mechanism of a thing that the explanation you accept must be correct even though its underlying mechanism remains unexplained and there is no physical evidence to support it.  The fact is that with regard to how energy moves through the atmosphere, and the effect that energy has on climate, we are just now beginning to scratch the surface, and the more we learn, the less plausible a radiative greenhouse effect becomes.

As I said, better than 99% of the energy that moves through the troposphere is transported via conduction and convection...How does the greenhouse hypothesis address that observable, measurable fact?  All accounts of the greenhouse effect that I have read pretty much discount convection and conduction and proceed on the unrealistic fantasy that energy is radiated through the troposphere.  AI am asking questions...very elementary questions that must be answered regarding a hypothesis such as a radiative greenhouse effect and there are no answers...and more importantly, there is no observed, measured evidence to support it...if there is, by all means, lets see it.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 9, 2018)

Lol....I keep coming back to this thread but still no evidence.

Ghey

Yet another thread dominated intellectually by skeptics.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Of the claimed 400 wm^2 that is supposedly emitted from the whole surface of the earth, better than 99% is conducted, and convected through the troposphere to the upper atmosphere where it is radiated into space.



Google the phrase "is air a good conductor of heat" you will see that your statement is quite false. You still have to think about where does any of the 400 W/m² go. Surely not all of it can go to outer space.

.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Nov 9, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Of the claimed 400 wm^2 that is supposedly emitted from the whole surface of the earth, better than 99% is conducted, and convected through the troposphere to the upper atmosphere where it is radiated into space.
> ...


*Alarma, Larma Ding-Dong*

Unless there is a planet-wide polymer of "greenhouse" gases, all that extra heat will fly off into the Void.  So your blocking mechanism is so thin that it is porous.  Maybe you can ask President Trump to build a wall to keep your tin-soldier gases in, because that's the only way you dystopiaphiles will ever be able to screech, "See, I told you so!!!"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 9, 2018)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*all that extra heat will fly off into the Void.*

How quickly?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 9, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How quickly?



I know "funny" is not a rating to give to a simple question, but I think the answer will be verbose and funny.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Of the claimed 400 wm^2 that is supposedly emitted from the whole surface of the earth, better than 99% is conducted, and convected through the troposphere to the upper atmosphere where it is radiated into space.
> ...



First, when did I say that air is a "good" conductor?  Lucky for us that it isn't.  If it moved heat as quickly as radiation, we would be very cold indeed.  I said that conduction and convection dominate energy movement through the troposphere....yet another example of you either deliberately changing what I said in an attempt to have a point to rail against, or you just aren't bright enough to read what someone writes and grasp what they are saying. 

You seem to be missing a very fundamental point.  Unless the frequency of the emission is increasing, there is no warming....and again, if there were radiatively induced warming, there would be a tropospheric hot spot. 

So again...do you have a single piece of observed, measured data which challenges any of the three statements I made above.

And by the way, if greenhouse gasses, specifically those made by man were responsible for warming, don't you think their impact would have been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to those greenhouse gasses by now?  The whole thing is little more than smoke and mirrors...lots of double-talk, and appeals to complexity...no empirical data supporting the claims.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The story so far is that I said:
> ...



Of course you disagree....even though there was nothing to either agree with or disagree with there.

There was only a statement.  It was"  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.  There are two rational answers to that statement.  The first is, I agree, there is none.  The second is, to reply that there is, in fact such evidence and then to present it.   

Pointing out that we are just beginning to grasp how energy moves through the atmosphere, and suggesting that pointing that out somehow negates the statement above is an indication of a reading/comprehension disability, or a deep seeded dishonesty.

Did you have any such data?  Didn't think so.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> First, when did I say that air is a "good" conductor? Lucky for us that it isn't. If it moved heat as quickly as radiation, we would be very cold indeed. I said that conduction and convection dominate energy movement through the troposphere....yet another example of you either deliberately changing what I said in an attempt to have a point to rail against, or you just aren't bright enough to read what someone writes and grasp what they are saying.


Where do you think any of the 400 W/m² radiated from the earth goes? 



SSDD said:


> You seem to be missing a very fundamental point. Unless the frequency of the emission is increasing, there is no warming....and again, if there were radiatively induced warming, there would be a tropospheric hot spot.


That is either physical nonsense, or poorly explained. Don't attempt a butchered explanation again. Just me a reference to where you think increasing emission frequency has anything to do with warming.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> There was only a statement. It was" There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.


If there is no absorption by GHG's then where do you think the radiation goes. If there is absorption, that means energy is transfered to GHGs. What form does that random energy take if not heat? Do you propose any other possibilities of where the 400 W/m² goes?


----------



## whitehall (Nov 10, 2018)

Ski resorts opening on time or early this year. Temperatures about 15 below average in the Southeast this year in early November. The world seems to be balanced except in the minds of the crazy left.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 11, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Where do you think any of the 400 W/m² radiated from the earth goes?



The vast bulk is conducted through the troposphere to an altitude where the atmospheric pressure is less than 10KPa where it is then radiated out to space.  

The surface of the earth does not emit 400wm/2...Refer to trenberth's cartoon...he claims that the surface absorbs 161 and 78 is absorbed by the atmosphere...that is 239...he then states that the outgoing long wave is ~239...the surface emits the 161 trenberth claims and the atmosphere emits the 78 it absorbs...all that is absorbed is emitted.  Your 400wm2 is a fiction.....




Wuwei said:


> That is either physical nonsense, or poorly explained. Don't attempt a butchered explanation again. Just me a reference to where you think increasing emission frequency has anything to do with warming.



The sheer volume of information that you don't know...or simply have never devoted any thought to has ceased to amaze me.....you take what you are spoon fed by your priests and question not....like a good little acolyte.

The Molecular Collision Theory says that frequency is directly proportional to the average velocity of molecules...the Kinetic theory of gasses says that the average velocity of molecules is directly proportional to the square root of the temperature.  Therefore, frequency is directly proportional to the square root of temperature...You don't get an increase in temperature without an increase in frequency.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 11, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The Molecular Collision Theory says that frequency is directly proportional to the average velocity of molecules...the Kinetic theory of gasses says that the average velocity of molecules is directly proportional to the square root of the temperature. Therefore, frequency is directly proportional to the square root of temperature...You don't get an increase in temperature without an increase in frequency.


You have no idea how many Phd's I have had to teach this very basic concept to...  Once they understand it and that it is the Square and not a liner or LOG reaction they understand why there is no atmospheric hot spot. The result would be over all warming of all levels of the atmosphere not just the region where water vapor is present. And we see paradoxical warming and cooling at different levels today indicating they still have no idea how to model the atmosphere.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 11, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The vast bulk is conducted through the troposphere to an altitude where the atmospheric pressure is less than 10KPa where it is then radiated out to space.
> 
> The surface of the earth does not emit 400wm/2...Refer to trenberth's cartoon...he claims that the surface absorbs 161 and 78 is absorbed by the atmosphere...that is 239...he then states that the outgoing long wave is ~239...the surface emits the 161 trenberth claims and the atmosphere emits the 78 it absorbs...all that is absorbed is emitted. Your 400wm2 is a fiction.....



I'm referring to the earth surface. You referred to Trenberth's diagram. He shows roughly 400 W/m² radiating from the earth *surface*. Since the surface is roughly 300 K, the SB equation gives a radiation of roughly 400 W/m² too. Where do you think that radiation all goes? Study the diagram more carefully. If you don't agree with it why did you bring it up in the first place. 



SSDD said:


> The sheer volume of information that you don't know...or simply have never devoted any thought to has ceased to amaze me.....you take what you are spoon fed by your priests and question not....like a good little acolyte.


You go though that crap and then you change the discussion from *frequency of emission* to *frequency of molecular collisions*. That is totally dishonest and a strawman at it's worst.
In post 125 you said,
_Then there is the fact that when the energy that has been absorbed by a molecule of a so called greenhouse gas, it is *emitted at the same frequency* it was absorbed, or at a slightly lower frequency. If you want to warm, you must increase the *frequency of the energy being emitted*. _​
The phrases I bold faced show that you were explicitly talking about radiation. You are attempting to turn the word *emission *into *collision*. 



SSDD said:


> The Molecular Collision Theory says that frequency is directly proportional to the average velocity of molecules...the Kinetic theory of gasses says that the average velocity of molecules is directly proportional to the square root of the temperature. Therefore, frequency is directly proportional to the square root of temperature...You don't get an increase in temperature without an increase in frequency.



That is totally ignores the point. Of course more collisions happen at higher temperature. But we were talking about radiation!!! It is radiation emission impinging on molecules that gives higher average velocities that in turn increases the temperature. Therefore absorption of radiation warms the atmosphere. Talk about spoon feeding physics!


----------



## SSDD (Nov 11, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I'm referring to the earth surface. You referred to Trenberth's diagram. He shows roughly 400 W/m² radiating from the earth *surface*. Since the surface is roughly 300 K, the SB equation gives a radiation of roughly 400 W/m² too. Where do you think that radiation all goes? Study the diagram more carefully. If you don't agree with it why did you bring it up in the first place.



Describe the mechanism by which CO2 turns ~239 wm^2 into 400 wm^2.  The earth is not absorbing 400 from its primary energy source, so it can only emit what it absorbs.



SSDD said:


> You go though that crap and then you change the discussion from *frequency of emission* to *frequency of molecular collisions*. That is totally dishonest and a strawman at it's worst.
> In post 125 you said,
> _Then there is the fact that when the energy that has been absorbed by a molecule of a so called greenhouse gas, it is *emitted at the same frequency* it was absorbed, or at a slightly lower frequency. If you want to warm, you must increase the *frequency of the energy being emitted*. _​
> The phrases I bold faced show that you were explicitly talking about radiation. You are attempting to turn the word *emission *into *collision*.



Are you claiming that molecules in the atmosphere don't collide or that most of the energy transported through the troposphere is via conduction? 



SSDD said:


> That is totally ignores the point. Of course more collisions happen at higher temperature. But we were talking about radiation!!! It is radiation emission impinging on molecules that gives higher average velocities that in turn increases the temperature. Therefore absorption of radiation warms the atmosphere. Talk about spoon feeding physics!



So am I  which is why I said:  
The Molecular Collision Theory says that *frequency is directly proportional to the average velocity of molecules*...the Kinetic theory of gasses says that the average velocity of molecules is directly proportional to the square root of the temperature. Therefore,* frequency* is directly proportional to the square root of temperature...You don't get an increase in temperature without an increase in frequency.

Let me guess...you thought frequency refers to how often the molecules are bumping into each other...  Are you really??...never mind, you are...without a doubt.

The fact is that you can't have a temperature increase without a corresponding increase in frequency, nor can you increase the frequency without increasing the temperature, assuming that all other variables remain the same.

Spew all the witch doctor magic you like, but the facts are what they are and there is the fundamental reason you don't see a tropospheric hot spot...the frequency of the radiation CO2 is emitting is the same, or slightly lower than that of the radiation it absorbed...no increase in the frequency of the radiation...no increase in temperature.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 11, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> But we were talking about radiation!!! It is radiation emission impinging on molecules that gives higher average velocities that in turn increases the temperature. Therefore absorption of radiation warms the atmosphere. Talk about spoon feeding physics!


Only convection and conduction warms the atmosphere.  The atmosphere is transparent to LWIR and does not warm it.

You have no concept of LWIR and its FREQUENCY. You folks post up the bandpass graph and you fail to understand that 99.4% of energy emitted from the ground is emitted in a LWIR band above 10um. Only water will react to it in our atmosphere and then only long enough to cool due to the evaporation process rendering it impotent (which is why there is no tropospheric hot spot).

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can warm an Object that is 32 deg F?  Trenbreth's cartoon is a fantasy derived from failed QED modeling. Less energetic (lower frequency) energy causes cooling in more energetic (higher frequency) molecules.

This is why I sit back and watch you folks go round and round about energy transfer that not one of you can prove and empirical observations say is not happening. Whom to believe, Your UN-provalbe mathematical constructs which fail empirical test or observations which disprove your theroy/hypothesis.?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 11, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > But we were talking about radiation!!! It is radiation emission impinging on molecules that gives higher average velocities that in turn increases the temperature. Therefore absorption of radiation warms the atmosphere. Talk about spoon feeding physics!
> ...



*Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can warm an Object that is 32 deg F? *

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can cause an Object that is 32 deg F to cool more slowly than if the -80F object weren't there?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 11, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Describe the mechanism by which CO2 turns ~239 wm^2 into 400 wm^2. The earth is not absorbing 400 from its primary energy source, so it can only emit what it absorbs.


Go to an SB calculator site, plug in the average temperature of the earth, about 300 K. The answer is how much EM energy the earth is radiating. You will see that you don't understand it yet.



SSDD said:


> Are you claiming that molecules in the atmosphere don't collide or that most of the energy transported through the troposphere is via conduction?


No.



SSDD said:


> The Molecular Collision Theory says that *frequency is directly proportional to the average velocity of molecules*...the Kinetic theory of gasses says that the average velocity of molecules is directly proportional to the square root of the temperature. Therefore,*frequency* is directly proportional to the square root of temperature...You don't get an increase in temperature without an increase in frequency.
> 
> Let me guess...you thought frequency refers to how often the molecules are bumping into each other... Are you really??...never mind, you are...without a doubt.
> 
> The fact is that you can't have a temperature increase without a corresponding increase in frequency, nor can you increase the frequency without increasing the temperature, assuming that all other variables remain the same.


Frequency of what? Be explicit this time around.  You are always using colloquial definitions, so I have no idea how you think.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 12, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Go to an SB calculator site, plug in the average temperature of the earth, about 300 K. The answer is how much EM energy the earth is radiating. You will see that you don't understand it yet.



300K is 80.3 F...are you claiming that the average temperature of the earth is 80 degrees?

If you believe an average mean temperature of a body whose hot and cold extremes can be as much as 200F apart on any given day, the average mean on earth is about 60F or 15.5C or 288 K.

The radiating temperature of CO2 is 210K or about -80F.  Do you think any amount of radiation at 210K is ever going to increase the temperarue of earth to anything above 210K?  Such is the magic of the greenhouse hypothesis.

If you want to know how the earth gets to 288K, look to solar input and the ideal gas laws...you will find your answer there...not in a magical formula that only works here and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor.

As much as I enjoy slapping you around, I am going in for surgery to correct a ruptured bicep tendon today and am not sure how long it will be before I feel like sitting down at a computer for any period of time...so because I am not answering, don't go doing your happy dance thinking that your "brilliance"  (sarc!!) chased me away.  The doc says that i can expect to be down for about 3 weeks.


----------



## Billo_Really (Nov 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> *1.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
> 
> 2.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
> 
> ...


Arguing against global warming is as stupid as arguing gravity plays no role in plane crashes.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 12, 2018)

Billo_Really said:


> Arguing against global warming is as stupid as arguing gravity plays no role in plane crashes.



You don't even seem to grasp what the discussion is about...it isn't about warming, or cooling...it is about whether man is responsible.

And I can't help but notice that you didn't produce a single piece of data that challenges any of the statements I made in the OP.  Claiming that a thing is real, when you can't produce the first piece of evidence to support the claim is as stupid as arguing that gravity plays no role in plane crashes.  You can, after all, provide observed, measured evidence that gravity plays a role in plane crashes.  You can not provide observed, measured evidence that man is altering the global climate...Like I said in the OP..


----------



## Billo_Really (Nov 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You don't even seem to grasp what the discussion is about...it isn't about warming, or cooling...it is about whether man is responsible.
> 
> And I can't help but notice that you didn't produce a single piece of data that challenges any of the statements I made in the OP.  Claiming that a thing is real, when you can't produce the first piece of evidence to support the claim is as stupid as arguing that gravity plays no role in plane crashes.  You can, after all, provide observed, measured evidence that gravity plays a role in plane crashes.  You can not provide observed, measured evidence that man is altering the global climate...Like I said in the OP..


Embrace the horror, dude, this is not a debatable issue.

95% of the science community says its real and it is accelerating.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> 300K is 80.3 F...are you claiming that the average temperature of the earth is 80 degrees?
> 
> If you believe an average mean temperature of a body whose hot and cold extremes can be as much as 200F apart on any given day, the average mean on earth is about 60F or 15.5C or 288 K.


Right. However the cold polar regions and the hot equatorial regions are small. These areas were obviously taken into account in Trenberth's figure of 396 W/m^2 surface radiation.



SSDD said:


> If you want to know how the earth gets to 288K, look to solar input and the ideal gas laws...you will find your answer there...not in a magical formula that only works here and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor.



No matter what you think is causing the surface temperature, it still radiates 396 W/m^2. Where does that energy go? Not all to outer space.



SSDD said:


> I am going in for surgery to correct a ruptured bicep tendon today and am not sure how long it will be before I feel like sitting down at a computer for any period of time...so because I am not answering, don't go doing your happy dance thinking that your "brilliance" (sarc!!) chased me away. The doc says that i can expect to be down for about 3 weeks.


The people that understand physics here have been doing a happy dance for years around the silly pseudoscience. 

Good luck on your surgery. Tendons are difficult to mend.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 12, 2018)

Billo_Really said:


> Embrace the horror, dude, this is not a debatable issue.
> 
> 95% of the science community says its real and it is accelerating.


The evidence he is asking has been given many times, but he denies the physics involved. You are arguing with a guy who said basic physics is fairy dust.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 12, 2018)

Billo_Really said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You don't even seem to grasp what the discussion is about...it isn't about warming, or cooling...it is about whether man is responsible.
> ...



A moot point unless one is part of the club of scientists making these edicts. Outside the science, it's not mattering except on community message boards. Basically it's a hobby for folks who tend to the hysterical.....the policy makers aren't caring for dick about what the science community is saying.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Nov 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> *1.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
> 
> 2.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
> 
> ...



A wise man on here and quite the libertarian conservative once pointed me towards Venus to find my answer......where is that link...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 12, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


The decay rate of the warmer object is unchanged until it reaches the thermal equilibrium of the cooler mass.

You want to try again?


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 12, 2018)

Still no evidence from the alarmist clowns.

Ghey


----------



## Billo_Really (Nov 12, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> The evidence he is asking has been given many times, but he denies the physics involved. You are arguing with a guy who said basic physics is fairy dust.


I know.  Just another, in a long line of, fossil fuel bitches, doing what they're told like good little whores.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 12, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


What???


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 12, 2018)

Billo_Really said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The evidence he is asking has been given many times, but he denies the physics involved. You are arguing with a guy who said basic physics is fairy dust.
> ...


You don't have one single fucking repeatable experiment that shows a 120ppm increase in CO2 warming anything


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 12, 2018)

Billo_Really said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The evidence he is asking has been given many times, but he denies the physics involved. You are arguing with a guy who said basic physics is fairy dust.
> ...



That's correct s0n.....its all about the *WINNING!! *Being a climate crusader these days bLoWs!


----------



## Billo_Really (Nov 12, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> You don't have one single fucking repeatable experiment that shows a 120ppm increase in CO2 warming anything


You don't have one scientist that isn't on the take from the fossil fuel industry.


----------



## Billo_Really (Nov 12, 2018)

skookerasbil said:


> That's correct s0n.....its all about the *WINNING!! *Being a climate crusader these days bLoWs!


When you we're a kid, did you have to wear hockey equipment, but you weren't on a team?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 12, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*The decay rate of the warmer object is unchanged*

The warmer body loses heat at the same rate with a -80F object radiating toward it as it would if it were just radiating into the vacuum of space at -450F?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 12, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



It involves the Stefan-Boltzmann formula. 
Don't worry about it.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 12, 2018)

Billo_Really said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > That's correct s0n.....its all about the *WINNING!! *Being a climate crusader these days bLoWs!
> ...


Mr Limp Wrist is projecting it's own short comings again...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 12, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


AN equation you have no proof is correct by empirical evidence..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 12, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


HE CAN BE TAUGHT!   

Until equilibrium is reached the warm object will not slow its decay rate..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 12, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Try that again, in English.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 12, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



The warmer body, at 32F, loses heat at the same rate with a -80F object radiating toward it as it would if it were just radiating into the vacuum of space at -450F?

Try answering the question.


----------



## Billo_Really (Nov 13, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Mr Limp Wrist is projecting it's own short comings again...


I'm just calling your lame, fossil fuel rap for what it is.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 13, 2018)

600 pages of pwn.....

More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

4 billion links!


----------



## IanC (Nov 13, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Billy Bob is a dolt.

An object radiates away energy at the rate defined by the SB equation. At all times. According to its temperature and emissivity.

Only the rate of change for temperature of the object is affected  by the temperature of the environment. 

ie. A room temperature object rapidly cools in a freezer, less rapidly in a fridge, no change on the countertop, and warms in the oven. In all locations the object is radiating the same amount of energy, until the temperature changes.

How does the temperature change? If more energy is being received  from the environment than is being lost by radiation then heating takes place (oven). For the opposite, then cooling happens (fridge).

Bonus thought to ponder. What is the difference between an object and an environment? 

delta (object) >> delta (environment).


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 13, 2018)

IanC said:


> Billy Bob is a dolt.


He is way off base on 95% of what he posts. He replies are so full of petty insults that I think he is a troll.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 13, 2018)

Keep popping back in here to check.....but still no evidence.

Weak


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2018)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*An object radiates away energy at the rate defined by the SB equation. At all times. According to its temperature and emissivity.*

I believe the comment was whether there is evidence of that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 14, 2018)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



DERP!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


DE-DERP.  Still waiting on the evidence.  why hasn't any been provided yet?  You all keep spewing the SB equation, now post the experiment that shows it works as written.  still waiting.  sooo many threads in here.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 14, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You're waiting on evidence that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is correct?

DUDE!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


so friend, do you have an experiment for:

*Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can cause an Object that is 32 deg F to cool more slowly than if the -80F object weren't there?*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 14, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



No. Why, do I need one?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Why not? That’s supporting evidence. Isn’t that science?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 14, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I need to support a law that's been "on the books" for over 130 years? Why?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


science?  I mean, isn't science proving a theory?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 14, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



What theory do you feel I need to prove? Why?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can cause an Object that is 32 deg F to cool more slowly than if the -80F object weren't there?*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 14, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



That's not a theory, that's a question. Are you trying to help another poster with his answer?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I'm asking for the evidence that an object radiating at -80 deg F will slow down the cooling of an object at 32 deg F.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 14, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


so no actual experiment.  it's all you had to say.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 14, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



There have been tons of experiments to prove the accuracy of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
That's kind of how they do science.

That's why SSDD's idiocy is so humorous.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 14, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



He want's an experiment that radiation at -*80 *F causes a *32 *F object to cool more slowly, then maybe
next another experiment that radiation at -*81 *F causes a 32 F object to cool more slowly, 
and another experiment that radiation at -*82* F causes a 32 F object to cool more slowly, 
and another experiment that radiation at -*83 *F causes a 32 F object to cool more slowly, 
and another experiment that radiation at -*84 *F causes a 32 F object to cool more slowly, 
and another experiment that radiation at -*85 *F causes a 32 F object to cool more slowly, 
and another experiment that radiation at -*86 *F causes a 32 F object to cool more slowly, 
and another experiment that radiation at -*87* F causes a 32 F object to cool more slowly, 
and another experiment that radiation at -*88 *F causes a 32 F object to cool more slowly, 
etc.

In that way he won't need the Stefan-Boltzmann model at all. All he has to do is go look at a huge volume of books that have the experimental results for each radiating temperature and each receiving object temperature.
One might consider that idiotic, but at least it will shut some people up. 

.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 14, 2018)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


"*An object radiates away energy at the rate defined by the SB equation. At all times. According to its temperature and emissivity.*"


Your the dolt....

You even admit that the decay rate is unchanged by cooler objects around it...  Man are you guys dense..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 14, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



The rate of cooling is unchanged, whether you're radiating into the vacuum of space, or radiating into miles of atmosphere?

Are you sure?


----------



## IanC (Nov 15, 2018)

OOTE="Billy_Bob, post: 21198408, member: 50952"]





IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


"*An object radiates away energy at the rate defined by the SB equation. At all times. According to its temperature and emissivity.*"


Your the dolt....

You even admit that the decay rate is unchanged by cooler objects around it...  Man are you guys dense..[/QUOTE]

If two objects are at the same temperature, and have the same emissivity, then they radiate the same amount of energy per unit of surface (j). j times area equals (P)ower. Power times (s)econds equals the amount of total energy radiated away in a specific amount of time.

The objects will cool at different rates depending on the ratio of inner energy compared to outside radiating surface. ie. a small sphere cools more quickly than a large one. A brick more quickly than sphere. A piece of paper more quickly than a brick. etc. 

The other influence on cooling (or warming) rates, is the amount of radiation that is being received from the environment. Any energy added by absorption lowers the cooling rate by radiation. 

In my last comment I said an object will cool off most quickly in a freezer, then a fridge, no change at room temperature, and warming from an oven. That is because each of these environments adds a different amount of energy to the object.

One more thing to keep track of is change of temperature after every iteration of radiation input and output. Obviously an object radiates less as it cools, and vice versa.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> The objects will cool at different rates depending on the ratio of inner energy compared to outside radiating surface. ie. a small sphere cools more quickly than a large one. A brick more quickly than sphere. A piece of paper more quickly than a brick. etc.
> 
> The objects will cool at different rates depending on the ratio of inner energy compared to outside radiating surface. ie. a small sphere cools more quickly than a large one. A brick more quickly than sphere. A piece of paper more quickly than a brick. etc.
> 
> ...



Yes, and an also a sphere of aluminum cools more quickly than a sphere of lead of the same diameter. Experiments that keeps track of the cooling rate along with knowing the heat capacity and area of whatever is cooling is a pain in the butt. But that is exactly what Stefan had to go through in 1879 to formulate his law.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> The evidence he is asking has been given many times, but he denies the physics involved. You are arguing with a guy who said basic physics is fairy dust.



Sorry guy..not even close.  Review the 3 statements I made in the OP and then just tell me which post contains any actual evidence that challenges any of the statements in the OP.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 16, 2018)

Billo_Really said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The evidence he is asking has been given many times, but he denies the physics involved. You are arguing with a guy who said basic physics is fairy dust.
> ...


Actually, it hasn’t..but the fact that you think it has demonstrates how low your bar is with regard to enidence,

And do you think the issue is settled because X percent of the scientific community agrees.  Do you have any idea how often nearly the whole scientific community has been wrong in the past?

And since the three statements in the OP haven’t been challenged, what sort of evidence do you think that “consensus”is based on?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy..not even close. Review the 3 statements I made in the OP and then just tell me which post contains any actual evidence that challenges any of the statements in the OP.


You were given plenty of evidence on your second statement,


SSDD said:


> 2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.



Your "science" is about 150 years behind the times.
John Tyndall
_Tyndall's experiments [around 1859] showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation, and that even in small quantities, these gases absorb much more strongly than the atmosphere itself. _​
Your position 2 is patently false. Why do you disagree with Tyndall and all the scientists after him? Why do you think absorption of IR by GHG's does not warm the atmosphere when it was observed and measured abut  150 years ago. Where do you think the 400 W/m² radiated from the earth goes?

If there is absorption, that means energy is transfered to GHGs. What form does that random energy take if not heat?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Your "science" is about 150 years behind the times.



Actually, it is climate science that is way behind the times..as evidenced by the fact that you have to dig up quaint old 17th century science in a failed effort to show some actual evidence to support the hypothesis.  Tell me, are there any other branches of modern science where the effort to show some actual evidence requires history books going back to the 17th century?


John Tyndall
_Tyndall's experiments [around 1859] showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation, and that even in small quantities, these gases absorb much more strongly than the atmosphere itself._


Best is one of those relative terms.  John Tyndall's experiments tested Co2 at ~70,000ppm ...that is seventy thousand ppm and he wrote that “carbonic acid proved to be one of the most feeble absorbers.” His findings led him to assert that the Earth’s hypothetical “greenhouse effect” was exclusively due to water vapor and water vapor alone.  Is there anything you are able to be honest about?

isn't it ironic that you guys ironic push CO2 as the cause global warming and quote John Tyndall’s work in support of your thesis, when John Tyndall’s apparatus demonstrated carbon dioxide “to be one of the most feeble absorbers.”

*here...from the The Bakerian Lecture: On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction by John Tyndall.*

In the experiments of Dr. Frantz,  carbonic acid appears as a feebler absorber than oxygen.  According to my experiments, for small quantities the absorptive power of the former is about150 times that of the latter; and for atmospheric tensions, carbonic acid probably absorbs nearly 100 times as much as oxygen.

And that was only when he used a "carbonic oxide" flame...any thoughts on that?

And probably absorbs? That phrase fits perfectly in modern climate science, doesn't it?  Probably, might, could...etc.  And since O2 absorbs no IR, tell me, what is 100 tomes zero?..  And that was only when he used a "carbonic oxide" flame...any thoughts on that.

Then in the Quarterly Journal of Science volume 2, under the heading Physics and Sub heading Heat, regarding Tyndall and CO2, you will find where he wrote:  "With ordinary sources of heat, carbonic acid is probably the most feeble absorbent among the compound gasses."

His reference to "ordinary heat" is a reference to his use of a carbonic oxide flame and the high reading he got as a result.

And all of that is solely on absorption...and doesn't even begin to establish a relationship, coherent or any other kind between absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.  Again...your belief that it does shows how easily you are fooled.  You read looking for confirmation of your beliefs rather than to learn...it results in just this sort of error of assumption.

Then there are the literally millions of hours of research, development and observation of both residential and commercial application of residential infrared heating systems demonstrating conclusively that infrared does not and can not heat the air.

Flameless catalytic infrared system, infrared dryer, conveyor dryer, column dryer, convection dryer

" Far infrared does not heat the air, therefore energy is transferred very efficiently to the organic matter."

Infrared Heating Systems in Grand Rapids | Westshore Mechanical

"  infrared does not heat the air, but rather heats objects in the room, including personnel, whether they’re your families, employees, or clients"

http://irheatingstl.com

" Because far‐infrared does not heat the air, there are very significant energy savings over traditional systems."

And i could go on and on.  So no..no observed measured data has been provided that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.  Your references to the quaint 17th century science does show how easy it is yo fool you.



Wuwei said:


> Your position 2 is patently false. Why do you disagree with Tyndall and all the scientists after him? Why do you think absorption of IR by GHG's does not warm the atmosphere when it was observed and measured abut  150 years ago. Where do you think the 400 W/m² radiated from the earth goes?



I don't disagree with Tyndall..I agree that CO2 is a weak absorber of IR.. I never argued otherwise..And he says nothing about warming the atmosphere..he is just talking about absorption and doesn't speak to emission at all.  Your apparent belief that I did goes to your penchant for making up positions for your opponents and then arguing against your fantasies.

  The "assumption" that absorption and emission of IR results in warming is exactly that...an assumption with no observed measured evidence to support it.



Wuwei said:


> If there is absorption, that means energy is transfered to GHGs. What form does that random energy take if not heat?



Again...that is an assumption with no observed measured evidence to support it and literally mountains of observed measured evidence from the radiant heating industry to call it into question.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Tell me, are there any other branches of modern science where the effort to show some actual evidence requires history books going back to the 17th century?



I referenced Tyndall simply to show how far behind the times you are. So you went to Tyndalls original work of 1890 and extracted text out of context, and didn't even understand that!!!!

If you bothered to try to understand what he was doing, start at page 395.

Heat a Mode of Motion

Middle of page 395
With a single exception, Tyndall used incandescent platinum wire with current from batteries. Second paragraph page 400 refers to “red-hot platinum” !!

From page 414 you quote a paragraph cutting out a most important part of his experiments. When you quote, “carbonic acid proved to be one of the most feeble absorbers.” Tyndall was referring to red-hot platinum!! Not long wave room temperature radiation. The red-hot platinum overwhelms any LW radiation.

Your quote from page 414, left out a crucial part of the quote. The “*former researches*” were red-hot platinum!! (see page 395 to page 409) Yes scientist all agree that short wave (red-hot) visible light has a feeble absorption in air.

Long wave room temperature emissions do not. But from the bottom of page 310 on he is referring to research to hot CO2 which emits LW radiation. Here is the entire paragraph with my bold facing:

_For the rays emanating from the heated solids employed 
in our *former researches*, carbonic acid proved to be one
of the most feeble absorbers ; but here, when the waves
sent into it emanate from molecules of its own substance,
its *absorbent energy is enormous*. The thirtieth of an
atmosphere of the gas cuts off half the entire radiation ;
while at a pressure of 4 inches, 65 per cent, of the radia-
tion is intercepted._​
Then when he talks about “molecules of its own substance” he said he was talking about radiation from hot CO2 being absorbed by CO2. Of course hot CO2 emits lots of LW radiation bands and, as he says, the “*absorbent energy is enormous*”!!



SSDD said:


> Then in the Quarterly Journal of Science volume 2, under the heading Physics and Sub heading Heat, regarding Tyndall and CO2, you will find where he wrote: "With ordinary sources of heat, carbonic acid is probably the most feeble absorbent among the compound gasses."
> 
> His reference to "ordinary heat" is a reference to his use of a carbonic oxide flame and the high reading he got as a result.


That is absolutely false!!!. You are flinging BS. In his paper he refers to "ordinary sources of heat" as a red-hot incandescent source. There is nothing ordinary about a carbonic oxide flame.



SSDD said:


> Far infrared does not heat the air


As far as commercial IR heaters your comparison is a non-sequitur.

Commercial radiant heaters are a bit above room temperature and emit long wave IR, which has a very poor absorption in the air only in a smaller space such as bounded by a room because the distance for radiation to hit a wall is only about *3 meters* in an average room.

The mean free path of LW radiation in the CO2 absorption band is *33 meters*. That is *11 times longer*! Beer's law says the absorption in a room is over 2000 times smaller than it would be in an atmosphere 33 meters above the surface. But the atmosphere goes on for thousands of meters.

Unless those who deal with radiant heaters have instruments that are calibrated to 1 part in 2000 accuracy, of course they will say the absorption in air is zero. It is negligible over only 3 meters.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me, are there any other branches of modern science where the effort to show some actual evidence requires history books going back to the 17th century?
> ...


Did Tyndall ever record any reading on how hot CO2 got then? Let’s see those results


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 18, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Did Tyndall ever record any reading on how hot CO2 got then? *

Where? When?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 18, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Exactly


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 18, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Answer the damn  question...  Your avoiding it like the plague..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me, are there any other branches of modern science where the effort to show some actual evidence requires history books going back to the 17th century?
> ...


In all of Tyndall's experiments he found that CO2 never warmed as energy did not reside long enough to cause warming. He even wrote about that problem which debunks the GHG hypothesis... 

You folks are damn funny... The atmosphere is opaque to LWIR and only water vapor is capable of warming in it.. CO2's minute presence is incapable of warming water vapor in our atmosphere because convection and conduction over power its influence, as observed and recorded in Tyndall's work.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 18, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



What question?


----------



## Crick (Nov 19, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Going to sources like Tyndall is a clear indication of pseudo science.  And you have to tell us, if the atmosphere is opaque to LWIR, where does its energy go?


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 19, 2018)

Still no evidence.

Just science fakery babble.


----------



## Crick (Nov 19, 2018)

BillyBoy, if the atmosphere is opaque to LWIR, where does the LWIR's energy go to?  Kind of a basic question.  Got an answer?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> _For the rays emanating from the heated solids employed
> in our *former researches*, carbonic acid proved to be one
> of the most feeble absorbers ; but here, when the waves
> sent into it emanate from molecules of its own substance,
> ...


​
You moron...when he is talking about waves sent from molecules of its own substance, he is talking about using a carbonic oxide flame...hence the reference to molecules of its own substance.    With ordinary LW, it is a feeble absorber as evidenced by its very narrow absorption and emission spectrum.




Wuwei said:


> Commercial radiant heaters are a bit above room temperature and emit long wave IR, which has a very poor absorption in the air only in a smaller space such as bounded by a room because the distance for radiation to hit a wall is only about *3 meters* in an average room.



Guess you have never been in a warehouse or aircraft hanger that is heated with IR.  Once again, observation proves you wrong.

Aircraft hangar heaters



Wuwei said:


> Unless those who deal with radiant heaters have instruments that are calibrated to 1 part in 2000 accuracy, of course they will say the absorption in air is zero. It is negligible over only 3 meters.



Developmental engineers?  You don't think they are using the best instruments money can buy?  Ever hear an engineer talk about the instruments he uses?  They will go on for hours if you let them...ask me how I know...And unlike climate scientists, they know precisely what their instruments are measuring and how they achieve those measurements.  You think a company is going to invest millions into a system without complete performance specs?

So again...no actual observed, measured evidence to challenge the statements in the OP. ..and plenty of observed, measured, repeatable evidence to challenge your beliefs.  your models aren't observed, measured anything...they are hypotheses with no empirical evidence to back them up...but they are good enough to fool you.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 19, 2018)

Crick said:


> BillyBoy, if the atmosphere is opaque to LWIR, where does the LWIR's energy go to?  Kind of a basic question.  Got an answer?



Yes, to be more exact, the earth is radiating *396* W/m² from it's surface but only *239* W/m² makes it to outer space.
The difference is *157 *W/m² of radiation energy that has to go somewhere. Of course there are a lot of other energy flows going on in the atmosphere, but that 157 radiation still has to be accounted for.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 19, 2018)

Crick said:


> BillyBoy, if the atmosphere is opaque to LWIR, where does the LWIR's energy go to?  Kind of a basic question.  Got an answer?



And the answer is....we don't know...we know next to jack about how energy moves through the system...we do know that CO2 is to feeble an absorber and emitter to warm anything above -80 degrees F.  Think I am wrong...then lets see the observed, measured evidence...whats that skidmak?  don't have any?...just models?

say it for me skidmark...lets hear it...baaahhh.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > BillyBoy, if the atmosphere is opaque to LWIR, where does the LWIR's energy go to?  Kind of a basic question.  Got an answer?
> ...



That would be according to a model..  When will you grasp that models aren't real and averages on a global scale don't tell you anything...they only serve to fool you.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 19, 2018)

Computer models are ghey. Not evidence. Fakery. Not science.

Western governments laugh at what alarmists call evidence when it comes to energy policy. Doy. They throw a bone to the green meatballs at a press conference, go in a back room, fire up a stogie with a scotch and laugh their balls off.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You moron...when he is talking about waves sent from molecules of its own substance, he is talking about using a carbonic oxide flame...hence the reference to molecules of its own substance. With ordinary LW, it is a feeble absorber as evidenced by its very narrow absorption and emission spectrum.


Molecules of it's own substance means long-wave IR in the case of CO2.



SSDD said:


> Guess you have never been in a warehouse or aircraft hanger that is heated with IR. Once again, observation proves you wrong.
> Aircraft hangar heaters


Look further into your own reference at this link:
Types of Infrared Heaters
There are pictures of the heaters they are referring to. All of them are glowing red-hot. They are called infrared heaters because they are near-infrared. Tyndall already said red-hot sources are feeble absorbers.
The topic concerning earth atmospherics is about heat from *far-infrared*. LW IR, *not red-hot near-infrared*.



SSDD said:


> Developmental engineers? You don't think they are using the best instruments money can buy? Ever hear an engineer talk about the instruments he uses? They will go on for hours if you let them...ask me how I know...And unlike climate scientists, they know precisely what their instruments are measuring and how they achieve those measurements. You think a company is going to invest millions into a system without complete performance specs?


Believe me, your gut feeling about thermal engineering doesn't cut it.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Models? The radiation of IR to space was observed and measured by satellites countless times.

The radiation from the earth surface comes directly from the SB equation. You have mentioned that many times.


----------



## Crick (Nov 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> .we do know that CO2 is to feeble an absorber and emitter to warm anything above -80 degrees F.  Think I am wrong...then lets see the observed, measured evidence...whats that skidmak?  don't have any?...just models?



What's the temperature on the surface of Venus Shit for Brains?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Molecules of it's own substance means long-wave IR in the case of CO2.



You just get stupider and stupider...are you now claiming that Tyndall thought long wave IR is a molecule?  Really?



Wuwei said:


> They are called infrared heaters because they are near-infrared. Tyndall already said red-hot sources are feeble absorbers.



Sorry guy...wrong again..

The Hangar - Far Infraed Heating | Perfect Sense Energy

"  The Hangar is a climbing centre in Liverpool. The space was very difficult to heat due to the height and volume of the area and all heat sources previously tried were highly inefficient and energy intensive. Following a technical survey, it was recommended that Far Infrared Heating should be utilised to provide sufficient heat in an energy efficient way."

Cost Comparison - nexgen

Do some shopping...if you want to heat a hangar...an outdoor area, or a warehouse, far infrared is the way to go.




SSDD said:


> Believe me, your gut feeling about thermal engineering doesn't cut it.



neither does what you believe regarding energy transfer...still not a single piece of observed, measured data which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...like I said in the OP.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 19, 2018)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > .we do know that CO2 is to feeble an absorber and emitter to warm anything above -80 degrees F.  Think I am wrong...then lets see the observed, measured evidence...whats that skidmak?  don't have any?...just models?
> ...



What is the atmospheric pressure there skidmark?...What does the molar version of the ideal gas law predict the temperature will be there?  What does the greenhouse hypothesis predict the temperature will be?

stupid of you to start talking about other planets when you know that the greenhouse hypothesis only works here and then only if you apply an ad hoc fudge factor...

bleat some more for me skidmark....bleat...baaahhhh


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You just get stupider and stupider...are you now claiming that Tyndall thought long wave IR is a molecule? Really?


Nope. A troll strawman.



SSDD said:


> Sorry guy...wrong again..
> 
> The Hangar - Far Infraed Heating | Perfect Sense Energy
> 
> ...



You forgot what I already told you.
The mean free path of LW radiation in the CO2 absorption band is *33 meters*. I agree that CO2 absorption in air is small in a room or hanger because of the short distance. A very large percentage of IR energy from a heater will warm people. When you think of the IR absorption from the surface of the earth to the top of the troposphere, it is around *17,000* meters so absorption is no longer trivial. Your heating engineers are correct for practical engineering purposes in limited size rooms. That is by no means "proof" that the absorption of IR in air with GHGs is flat out zero. And by no means does that negate the fact that GHGs cause the air to warm.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 19, 2018)

Crick said:


> BillyBoy, if the atmosphere is opaque to LWIR, where does the LWIR's energy go to?  Kind of a basic question.  Got an answer?


Space you silly boy!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You just get stupider and stupider...are you now claiming that Tyndall thought long wave IR is a molecule? Really?
> ...


Here are the IPCC model outputs...
Figure 9.1 - AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change

Here is reality...








Source

If the atmosphere were warming in accordance with your hypothesis there must be a hot spot. There is not!  SO either the hypothesis is wrong or observations are wrong...  The observations have been confirmed so your hypothesis is in error..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 19, 2018)

Lets put an end to the AGW hot spot theroy.. And CAGW...

The answer is very simple..

According to the AGW Global Circulation Models LWIR is back feed into the atmosphere. Even the laws of energy conservation say that the energy must be passed or heat molecules where it resides.  The problem is, nothing in the atmosphere is warming by empirically observed evidence. This means the energy is being passed.

The absence of the tropospheric hot spot proves the energy is not residing in our atmosphere. It is therefore being passed to space.

So much for your Green House theroy... /dead


----------



## SSDD (Nov 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Nope. A troll strawman.



you said...and i quote:  "Molecules of it's own substance means long-wave IR in the case of CO2."

If that sentence is not saying that long wave IR is a molecule, then what does it say?




Wuwei said:


> The mean free path of LW radiation in the CO2 absorption band is *33 meters*. I agree that CO2 absorption in air is small in a room or hanger because of the short distance. A very large percentage of IR energy from a heater will warm people. When you think of the IR absorption from the surface of the earth to the top of the troposphere, it is around *17,000* meters so absorption is no longer trivial. Your heating engineers are correct for practical engineering purposes in limited size rooms. That is by no means "proof" that the absorption of IR in air with GHGs is flat out zero. And by no means does that negate the fact that GHGs cause the air to warm.



So we are back to unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models and my statements in the OP remain unchallenged.  if the physics you describe were correct then there would be a pronounced tropospheric hot spot...there isn't...predictive failure.  in real science what happens to a hypothesis that has even one predictive failure?  Answer the question.

observation does not jibe with your models....therefore, they are wrong.


----------



## sparky (Nov 20, 2018)




----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 20, 2018)

sparky said:


>



75/77...…..very convincing.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 20, 2018)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > .we do know that CO2 is to feeble an absorber and emitter to warm anything above -80 degrees F.  Think I am wrong...then lets see the observed, measured evidence...whats that skidmak?  don't have any?...just models?
> ...


What the atmospheric pressure on Venus?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 20, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


And that was after they threw away 11,944 papers to get to their beloved 77...


----------



## ConservativeAmerica (Nov 20, 2018)

Why do climate change alarmists have such a terrible track record of failed predictions?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 20, 2018)

ConservativeAmerica said:


> Why do climate change alarmists have such a terrible track record of failed predictions?


why?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> you said...and i quote: "Molecules of it's own substance means long-wave IR in the case of CO2."
> If that sentence is not saying that long wave IR is a molecule, then what does it say?



To understand what it says, all you would have had to do is look at Tyndall's context. That awkward quaint phrase by Tyndall refers to the fact that the hot CO2 was source of emitting radiation in that particular experiment. If you didn't understand that, you lost the entire point of his observations.



SSDD said:


> o we are back to unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models and my statements in the OP remain unchallenged. if the physics you describe were correct then there would be a pronounced tropospheric hot spot...there isn't...predictive failure. in real science what happens to a hypothesis that has even one predictive failure? Answer the question.
> 
> observation does not jibe with your models....therefore, they are wrong.



No, we are not back to unobservable models. We are back to your second statement of your OP and your lack of understanding of the law of conservation of energy.

The earth is radiating *396* W/m² from it's surface but only *239* W/m² makes it to outer space. The difference is *157 *W/m² of radiation energy that has to go somewhere. Of course there are a lot of other energy flows going on in the atmosphere, but that 157 radiation energy still has to be accounted for.

Your favorite planet Venus is at 735 K which means it is radiating *15,700* W/m², according to the SB law. Where do you think all that energy goes?

.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > you said...and i quote: "Molecules of it's own substance means long-wave IR in the case of CO2."
> ...



Hey Mr. Hot CO2.  What is the expected temperature increase, if any, when increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM in an Earth-like environment?

Please answer with a number between 0 and, well yeah, it's probably 0 and you won't respond


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > you said...and i quote: "Molecules of it's own substance means long-wave IR in the case of CO2."
> ...



Are you claiming that a 100% CO2 atmosphere at Earth's pressure will generate a surface temperature of 735K?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> To understand what it says, all you would have had to do is look at Tyndall's context. That awkward quaint phrase by Tyndall refers to the fact that the hot CO2 was source of emitting radiation in that particular experiment. If you didn't understand that, you lost the entire point of his observations.



you are famous for taking things out of context...i am looking at what you wrote...you said that long wave radiation was a molecule.




Wuwei said:


> No, we are not back to unobservable models. We are back to your second statement of your OP and your lack of understanding of the law of conservation of energy.



no observed measured evidence to challenge my statements in the OP.  Thats what i said.



Wuwei said:


> The earth is radiating *396* W/m² from it's surface but only *239* W/m² makes it to outer space. The difference is *157 *W/m² of radiation energy that has to go somewhere. Of course there are a lot of other energy flows going on in the atmosphere, but that 157 radiation energy still has to be accounted for.
> 
> Your favorite planet Venus is at 735 K which means it is radiating *15,700* W/m², according to the SB law. Where do you think all that energy goes?



As i have said before, you can't properly apply the SB law to an atmosphere...gasses are not black bodies.  The fact that the SB law gets venus wrong tells you that either r=the SB law is wrong, or that you can't apply it to atmospheres...my bet is that it isn't wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 20, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



sounds like that is exactly what he is saying...what a hoot huh?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 20, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hey Mr. Hot CO2. What is the expected temperature increase, if any, when increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM in an Earth-like environment?


I have no idea.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 20, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Are you claiming that a 100% CO2 atmosphere at Earth's pressure will generate a surface temperature of 735K?


Of course not.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Mr. Hot CO2. What is the expected temperature increase, if any, when increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM in an Earth-like environment?
> ...



Which goes to my statement #3..no published paper which measures and quantifies the hypothetical warming we are causing and then attributes it to so called greenhouse gasses.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Mr. Hot CO2. What is the expected temperature increase, if any, when increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM in an Earth-like environment?
> ...



Jesus, what are we spending billions of dollars "researching"?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Are you claiming that a 100% CO2 atmosphere at Earth's pressure will generate a surface temperature of 735K?
> ...





if you want to predict the temperature on venus, or any other planet with sufficient atmosphere, look to the molar version of the ideal gas law which applies to atmospheres...not the SB law, which doesn't.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 20, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Moving on to trillions and still not a single piece of observed measured evidence to challenge my 3 basic statements.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Which goes to my statement #3..no published paper which measures and quantifies the hypothetical warming we are causing and then attributes it to so called greenhouse gasses.


I'm addressing your statement #2. You still haven't answered.

The earth is radiating 396 W/m² from it's surface but only 239 W/m² makes it to outer space. What happens to the difference, 157 W/m², that has to go somewhere. 

The planet Venus is at 735 K which means it is radiating 15,700 W/m², according to the SB law. Where do you think all that energy goes?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> if you want to predict the temperature on venus, or any other planet with sufficient atmosphere, look to the molar version of the ideal gas law which applies to atmospheres...not the SB law, which doesn't.


You don't have to predict the surface temperature of Venus. It was observed and measured to be 735 K. That means it radiates 15,700 W/m² where does all that energy go?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Which goes to my statement #3..no published paper which measures and quantifies the hypothetical warming we are causing and then attributes it to so called greenhouse gasses.
> ...



Still no observed, measured evidence...if there were, you wouldn't need to ask...you could just post the observed, measured evidence....models that can't replicate reality are not evidence.  Why do you keep talking?  Are you just stupid?  Do you think no one is noticing that you aren't posting the evidence i asked for?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > if you want to predict the temperature on venus, or any other planet with sufficient atmosphere, look to the molar version of the ideal gas law which applies to atmospheres...not the SB law, which doesn't.
> ...




Questions are not observed measured evidence.  You will never get answers about planetary temperatures of any planet in the context of the greenhouse hypothesis because it is wrong.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Nov 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Which goes to my statement #3..no published paper which measures and quantifies the hypothetical warming we are causing and then attributes it to so called greenhouse gasses.
> ...



You are only talking about RADIATION, you have yet to show how it is converted to HEAT via the CO2 molecule. CO2 doesn't generate heat it only absorbs a small fraction of IR energy then radiates back out AS IR, never heat!


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Still no observed, measured evidence...if there were, you wouldn't need to ask...you could just post the observed, measured evidence....models that can't replicate reality are not evidence.


The surface temperature of Venus is observed evidence. Do you disbelieve the Stefan Boltzmann law? If not, you will have to explain where the 15,700 W/m² radiation goes. It is as simple as that.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 20, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> You are only talking about RADIATION, you have yet to show how it is converted to HEAT via the CO2 molecule. CO2 doesn't generate heat it only absorbs a small fraction of IR energy then radiates back out AS IR, never heat!


It is simple physics. Here it is step by step.

Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
That loss of EM energy to the atmosphere is random.
Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
The conservation of energy requires the above.
That simple physics shows a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Nov 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > You are only talking about RADIATION, you have yet to show how it is converted to HEAT via the CO2 molecule. CO2 doesn't generate heat it only absorbs a small fraction of IR energy then radiates back out AS IR, never heat!
> ...



Not once in your reply show that CO2 itself is generating heat, it only absorbs and releases IR and nothing more. THAT is what I am talking about.

You wrote this revealing line showing even YOU agree that CO2 doesn't generate heat, it only release ENERGY which came from the SUN!

"The planet Venus is at 735 K which means it is radiating 15,700 W/m², according to the SB law. Where do you think all that *energy* goes?"

_bolding mine_


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 20, 2018)

Filament Experiment Proves CO2 Causes Temperature to Fall, not Rise | PSI Intl

"New experiment demonstrates that adding CO2 to a filament does not cause the temperature of the filament to rise, but instead causes it to fall.

Empirical evidence demonstrates that the greenhouse gas theory – which claims carbon dioxide causes global warming and/or delays climate cooling – is false."

Wow, an experiment falsifies the AGW Hypothesis.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 20, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Filament Experiment Proves CO2 Causes Temperature to Fall, not Rise | PSI Intl
> 
> "New experiment demonstrates that adding CO2 to a filament does not cause the temperature of the filament to rise, but instead causes it to fall.
> 
> ...



*"New experiment demonstrates that adding CO2 to a filament does not cause the temperature of the filament to rise, but instead causes it to fall.*

The filament that was losing energy only through radiation is now also losing energy through conduction.
Why wouldn't it be cooler?

_Any decent analysis would need to take this effect into account. A better experiment would be to compare a pure nitrogen environment (transparent to the radiation) to one with CO2._

I have to agree. 

This guy's experiment kind of sucks.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 20, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Filament Experiment Proves CO2 Causes Temperature to Fall, not Rise | PSI Intl
> ...



So adding CO2 causes temperature to fall. Interesting


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 20, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Adding any gas causes it to cool, compared to a vacuum. Boring.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 20, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is causing Earth to cool?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 20, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Why would it?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 20, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> You are only talking about RADIATION, you have yet to show how it is converted to HEAT via the CO2 molecule. CO2 doesn't generate heat it only absorbs a small fraction of IR energy then radiates back out AS IR, never heat!



That is a good question that a lot of people have.

When a photon has the same energy as a resonance frequency of a GHG molecule it can absorb the photon and gain vibratory energy. That GHG molecule very seldom releases that energy by re-emitting a photon of the same frequency.

The reason is that molecules in a gas have average speeds of around 500 meters per second, and around 0.2 nanoSec between collisions. This is at room temperature and pressure. The average relaxation time that a CO2 molecule can hold the vibration state is much longer: 13 microsec. A random molecule is 26000 times more likely to hit the vibrating GHG molecule before it has a chance to emit a photon. That random molecule gains energy from the vibration and turns into heat.

The chaos of air is continually exciting vibration states of the GHGs. By the equipartion theory (experimentally verified) there is a large pool of CO2 in vibration states all the time whether or not there is any external input energy from the earth surface. Each molecule is ever changing energy modes randomly from kinetic energy to vibration to spin.

That is why and how an external source of IR can add to the swarm of already vibrating GHGs and warm the atmosphere.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 20, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *"New experiment demonstrates that adding CO2 to a filament does not cause the temperature of the filament to rise, but instead causes it to fall.*
> 
> The filament that was losing energy only through radiation is now also losing energy through conduction.
> Why wouldn't it be cooler?
> ...


Yes, it totally sucks. He kept defending his experiment in his blog comments even after he was totally beat down. That guy is a budding new SSDD.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > you said...and i quote: "Molecules of it's own substance means long-wave IR in the case of CO2."
> ...


the hot CO2?

how hot was it?  did he measure the temperature?  I'll answer since it was a rhetorical question.  nope!!!! so you have no idea that it was hot!! let me take a moment and


----------



## SSDD (Nov 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Still no observed, measured evidence...if there were, you wouldn't need to ask...you could just post the observed, measured evidence....models that can't replicate reality are not evidence.
> ...



The SB law doesn't work with gasses,


----------



## SSDD (Nov 20, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



There is no question that adding CO2 to the atmosphere raises the emissivity of the atmosphere...ask him what happens when you raise the emissivity of a thing...but only if you want to hear some real crazy..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 20, 2018)

ConservativeAmerica said:


> Why do climate change alarmists have such a terrible track record of failed predictions?


Because they trust broken toys...  All of their models fail, without exception, but they tout them as if they are empirical evidence even when they can not model reality and fail empirical review.

The short answer is... They lie because doing anything else would end their funding..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > You are only talking about RADIATION, you have yet to show how it is converted to HEAT via the CO2 molecule. CO2 doesn't generate heat it only absorbs a small fraction of IR energy then radiates back out AS IR, never heat!
> ...


And once again your citing modeling and not empirically observed evidence..  Tell us where your hot spot is, proving your computer modeled assumptions...  I'll wait..


----------



## polarbear (Nov 20, 2018)

It`s been said here that it`s simple physics:
It is simple physics. Here it is step by step.



Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.

That loss of EM energy to the atmosphere is random.

Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.

That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.

The conservation of energy requires the above.
As if it were as simple as that:
http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Carbon_dioxide_free_path_length.pdf
Abstract
Through the application of astrophysical formulas,the mean free path length of a Quantum/wave stream
leaving the surface of the Earth to the outer space before it has collided with a molecule of carbon dioxide
and its total emissivity are calculated. The output of this algorithm indicates a value of about 33 me
ters.Also calculated is the time taken by a Quantum/wave to exit the atmosphere after it has collided with
amolecule of carbon dioxide — which is 5 millisecond s (ms).
CONCLUSIONS:
The results obtained by experimentation coincide with the results obtained by applying astrophysics
formulas. Therefore, both methodologies are reliable to calculate the total emissivity/absorptivity of
any gas of any planetary atmosphere. At an average density, the atmospheric water vapor
allows quantum/waves to cross the troposphere to the tropopause in 0.004989 s, i.e.~5 milliseconds
. Through comparing the ability of water vapor to a void the quantum/waves to escape towards the outer space
with that of CO2 (0.004989 s), we can affirm that the role of CO2 on warming the atmosphere or the surface is impossible according to Physics Laws.
If we consider also that the carbon dioxide has by far a lower total absorptivity and total emissivity than water vapor, we fairly conclude that carbon dioxide is not a driver of climate changes or global warming on the planet Earth.
The low thermal diffusivity of carbon dioxide makes
of it to be an inefficient substance to adjust its temperature to that of its surroundings. Consequent
ly, the carbon dioxide can never reach the thermal equilibrium with respect to the remainder molecules
of the air. In consequence, carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *"New experiment demonstrates that adding CO2 to a filament does not cause the temperature of the filament to rise, but instead causes it to fall.*
> ...



So the experiment got the wrong readings because it didn't conform to the AGW Theory? Is that what you're saying?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 20, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You said adding gas cools, was that just for the first molecule added?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 20, 2018)

polarbear said:


> It`s been said here that it`s simple physics:
> It is simple physics. Here it is step by step.
> 
> 
> ...


*"Consequently, the carbon dioxide can never reach the thermal equilibrium with respect to the remainder molecules of the air. In consequence, carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas."
*
Residency time....  Why is it these people never think about the matter they are claiming is so powerful?


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Nov 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> *1.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
> 
> 2.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
> 
> ...


The other thing that make people look stupid.  We know that sand from the North Africa ends up in Fla, so does anything else over there.  Same for Calif, comes from China and Japan.  Climate is from everywhere.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


What are you thinking? Read what I said again. I refered to the *surface temperature of Venus*. And you say gases!! Yes, I understand the question does not work with your pseudoscience. Or maybe you are just trying to be a troll again. Either way you simply can't handle how the Stefan Boltzmann law leads to 15,700 W/m² radiation.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 20, 2018)

polarbear said:


> It`s been said here that it`s simple physics:
> It is simple physics. Here it is step by step.
> 
> 
> ...



The paper makes no sense physically. He has an equation of time for a quantum/wave to leave the Earth's atmosphere after colliding with molecules of CO2. What the author fails to realize is that after a quantum/wave (I suppose he means photon) hits a CO2 molecule, that photon *completely disappears*!! So it is impossible for it to leave the Earth.

Also he has an equation for the time to leave the earth.
 t = r^2 / (l*c)
r^2 is the height of the troposphere squared. The mean free path is l, and c is the speed of light. 

You will have to tell me where that equation comes from, and how a photon that disappeared can leave the earth. I'm not going to waste time looking it up.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 20, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So the experiment got the wrong readings because it didn't conform to the AGW Theory? Is that what you're saying?


no


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*ask him what happens when you raise the emissivity of a thing...*

Good emitters are good absorbers.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*So the experiment got the wrong readings because it didn't conform to the AGW Theory? *

The experiment got it wrong because the guy was an idiot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



*You said adding gas cools*

Yes. With gas cools faster than in a vacuum.
That's why the Earth during the day is cooler than the Moon during the day.

*was that just for the first molecule added?*

No.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



The molar version of the ideal gas law predicts the temperature of venus...neither the greenhouse gas hypothesis or the SB law is going to help you out...still no observed measured evidence to challenge mt statements....why do you keep talking?  Is it jus to prove that you can't challenge the OP?  Is it to show how many diversions from the OP you can think up?


----------



## Crick (Nov 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > BillyBoy, if the atmosphere is opaque to LWIR, where does the LWIR's energy go to?  Kind of a basic question.  Got an answer?
> ...




And how does LWIR, emitted from the surface and atmosphere of the Earth, get to space if the atmosphere is opaque to it?


----------



## Crick (Nov 21, 2018)

*Billy Boy*:  It could only be emitted by the very uppermost molecules of the atmosphere.  The time required to vertically traverse the atmosphere would be enormous.  The mean free path of an LWIR photon would be angstroms, not meters and their energy would be transmitted more by conduction than radiation.  That would put the temperature of the Earth into the thousands of degrees.  It is only the greenhouse components of the atmosphere that can be considered "opaque" to LWIR.  It passes quite nicely through nitrogen and oxygen.  You truly are an idiot.  Yet you claim to be an atmospheric physicist.  How does that work out?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 21, 2018)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


IF its Opaque to, it then there is nothing to stop it..  

Your having a real hard time with simple concepts..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*IF its Opaque to, it then there is nothing to stop it..*

Do you really not know the definition of opaque?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The molar version of the ideal gas law predicts the temperature of venus...neither the greenhouse gas hypothesis or the SB law is going to help you out...still no observed measured evidence to challenge mt statements....why do you keep talking? Is it jus to prove that you can't challenge the OP? Is it to show how many diversions from the OP you can think up?


Nope, you got it backwards. The observed, measured temperatures and pressures of Venus are confirmation of the gas law.

You know, it really seems that the question of what happens to the 15,700 W/m² energy radiating from the surface of Venus is a gottcha question for you. You imply it doesn't warm the atmosphere, but it was observed not to all radiate to space by a Russian experiment. Where does it go? Even when that simple well known physics is dumbed down you still can't handle it.

This discussion directly relates to your OP statement #2:

*2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.*

Maybe it hasn't been measured in the atmosphere. I have no idea. You have not actually said that the atmosphere cannot be warmed by radiation, you are just talking about evidence.

Suppose your point #2 is correct. So what? What does that prove? The major point that you are afraid to address is the actuality of a huge amount of radiation emanating from the surface of Venus that largely disappears before it reaches its upper atmosphere. You are afraid to even think about the conservation of energy being violated.

The atmosphere is warmed by back radiation. There is no other explanation that has been promoted. Try to prove me wrong.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The molar version of the ideal gas law predicts the temperature of venus...neither the greenhouse gas hypothesis or the SB law is going to help you out...still no observed measured evidence to challenge mt statements....why do you keep talking? Is it jus to prove that you can't challenge the OP? Is it to show how many diversions from the OP you can think up?
> ...


dude,  why not post how hot 270 PPM of CO2 is and then how hot is 400 PPM of it.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 21, 2018)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


The primary means of energy movement through the troposphere is conduction not radiation. Radiation is at best a bit player in transport of energy through the troposphere.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Their whole hypothesis is based on a complete misunderstanding of the basic concepts. Ergo, no observed measured evidence to support what they believe.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Nope, you got it backwards. The observed, measured temperatures and pressures of Venus are confirmation of the gas law.



The gas laws determine what the temperature of a planet with an atmosphere is going to be. The gas laws predicted the temperature of Venus long before we ever got there and they proved correct. And we attempted to predict the temperature with the greenhouse hypothesis, we wouldn't have even been close.



Wuwei said:


> Maybe it hasn't been measured in the atmosphere. I have no idea. You have not actually said that the atmosphere cannot be warmed by radiation, you are just talking about evidence.



No, I have said pretty explicitly that infrared radiation will not warm the air. 1 million hours of development, testing, and observation have demonstrated that. Do you want ever get measurements of infrared radiation warming the air.



Wuwei said:


> The atmosphere is warmed by back radiation. There is no other explanation that has been promoted. Try to prove me wrong.



The atmosphere is warmed by and gravity thermal effect.  Repeatable experimentation has demonstrated this.  Gareff has shown temperature gradient in columns of air. Where are there no such effect, there would be no temperature gradient to measure.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



*Their whole hypothesis is based on a complete misunderstanding of the basic concepts*

You are the expert on the complete misunderstanding of the basic concepts.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The gas laws determine what the temperature of a planet with an atmosphere is going to be. The gas laws predicted the temperature of Venus long before we ever got there and they proved correct. And we attempted to predict the temperature with the greenhouse hypothesis, we wouldn't have even been close.


Not even close. No physicist believes that.



SSDD said:


> No, I have said pretty explicitly that infrared radiation will not warm the air. 1 million hours of development, testing, and observation have demonstrated that. Do you want ever get measurements of infrared radiation warming the air.


Really? Please cite a reference for the one million hours of testing.



SSDD said:


> The atmosphere is warmed by and gravity thermal effect. Repeatable experimentation has demonstrated this. Gareff has shown temperature gradient in columns of air. Where are there no such effect, there would be no temperature gradient to measure.


Give me a reference to at least two experimenters that validate each others observations. Anything less than that is not a repeatable result. Where has Gareff published. Google does not find anything. It returned,
No results found for *+Gareff gradient*.
No results found for *+Gareff temperature*.

You still haven't answered the question, *what happens to the measured 15,700 W/m² energy radiating from the surface of Venus*.

If you can't answer that, your whole OP crumbles.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The gas laws determine what the temperature of a planet with an atmosphere is going to be. The gas laws predicted the temperature of Venus long before we ever got there and they proved correct. And we attempted to predict the temperature with the greenhouse hypothesis, we wouldn't have even been close.
> ...


Have you posted the temperature of CO2 at 270 and 400 ppm yet?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 21, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Have you posted the temperature of CO2 at 270 and 400 ppm yet?


I have no idea what they are.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Have you posted the temperature of CO2 at 270 and 400 ppm yet?
> ...


Then how could you post your last post?


----------



## westwall (Nov 21, 2018)

BlackFlag said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > *1.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
> ...







Feel free to post up an OBSERVED consequence of global warming that can be directly attributed to mans influence.  One caveat though, it can't be a computer model study.  It MUST be OBSERVED science.

Thanks.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Which level has more back-radiation?


----------



## polarbear (Nov 21, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Because he can`t, but there is no shortage of experiments to "educate" school kids about AGW if you use 40% CO2 instead of 0.04% in a bottle and let it cook in the sun.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 21, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Define back radiation


----------



## jc456 (Nov 21, 2018)

polarbear said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


It still can’t get hotter than it’s surrounding so even that experiment fails


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The radiation that gas in the atmosphere emits toward the Earth's surface.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2018)

jc456 said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*It still can’t get hotter than it’s surrounding so even that experiment fails*

The gas in the bottle can't get hotter than its surroundings?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 22, 2018)

polarbear said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



*Because he can`t, but there is no shortage of experiments to "educate" school kids about AGW if you use 40% CO2 instead of 0.04% in a bottle and let it cook in the sun.*

The question was _"Have you posted the temperature of CO2 at 270 and 400 ppm yet?"_

That is an ill formed question. You can't call out the "temperature" of trace molecules in air. That simply has no meaning unless you are referring to the entire sample of air (on earth?) at some time span over some area or volume. You now seem to interpret it as the temperature in a bottle. 

If it is supposed to be a gottcha question it doesn't have any meaning, and your comment to that question also has no meaning to me. 

The one thing you guys are missing is that I have never promoted AGW. Yes it was colder 100 years ago and it is warmer now, and yes there is more measured CO2 now than then, but I have absolutely no idea if there is an iron-clad cause and effect when it comes to the extreme complexity of the actual earth climate. I have not read any IPCC reports. I don't get involved in cherry-picking graphs, etc. 

I have no emotional connection to AGW, I really don't care what emotional connection you guys have either. But you guys disbelieve fundamental laws of physics to try to frantically disprove AGW. The Environmental forum to me is a game. I'm curious how some people think about the physics involved to justify their cause. Your hero SSDD has a totally botched understanding and makes up stuff and when he can't defend his "ideas" he deflects or resorts to emotional outbursts of insults. 

It is a game for me. That's all. When some of you guys are too ignorant to even know what you are typing, I will ignore those posts.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Have you posted the temperature of CO2 at 270 and 400 ppm yet?
> ...


Within the gas there is no temperature change. LWIR does not heat the atmospheric CO2.

As a physicist who specializes in the atmosphere, LWIR can not heat CO2.  The residency time being less than .03ns prevents it. Recent studies at the Boulder Colorado Atmospheric Research Lab looked at coulomb's of atmospheric mixture. Only those having water vapor above 46% warmed.  The rest failed to warm at all, even with 2500ppm of CO2, using narrow band LWIR 10um -18um @ 1200w/m^2.   This level of energy passing through should have raised the temperature in the columns rapidly if it were heating the mixture in the tubes, but it did not. LWIR is passed in earths atmosphere to space. I explained this experiment over a year ago here.

Trenbreth's cartoon of earths energy budget is wrong as he doubles the reflected/redirected energy in our atmosphere. We have shown, through empirical experiment, that this is wrong and his estimations are pure conjecture.  The 33 to 90w/m^2 that he believed was missing is not and can be shown to have been radiated to space. The potential effect of CO2 on earths atmosphere is not directly coupled with water vapor. 

Some of us are actually doing these experiments...


----------



## SSDD (Nov 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Not even close. No physicist believes that.



It isn't a matter of belief..NASA published the predictions based on the ideal gas laws long before the probes were ever sent.



Wuwei said:


> Really? Please cite a reference for the one million hours of testing.



Look it up yourself....6,000 hours here, 10,000 hours there spread across an entire industry over the course of 3/4 of a century or more.



Wuwei said:


> Give me a reference to at least two experimenters that validate each others observations. Anything less than that is not a repeatable result. Where has Gareff published. Google does not find anything. It returned,
> No results found for *+Gareff gradient*.
> No results found for *+Gareff temperature*.



Gravity induced atmospheric temperature gradient: New developments




Wuwei said:


> You still haven't answered the question, *what happens to the measured 15,700 W/m² energy radiating from the surface of Venus*.



no am i...diverting from the fact that you can't produce any observed, measured data to support your claims is over...Can you deliver or not?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 22, 2018)

polarbear said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...




of course that experiment only eduv=cates on the temperature of compression.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 22, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*As a physicist who specializes in the atmosphere, LWIR can not heat CO2.  *

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.

Still looking for your "cooler photons can cool warmer matter" link? LOL!


----------



## polarbear (Nov 22, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


I think what he meant was that it can`t get hotter than its surroundings unless it`s exposed to the sun. Might be interesting to see if it will get any warmer than its surroundings if you try it at night. If a bottle with 40% CO2 would get warmer than the air around it without any additional source then all of mankind has been stupid for not having used this magical heat source.
All of that is just another deflection from the inability ( actually its unwillingness)  to show a temperature measurement for 200 and 400 ppm CO2 when all other variables are constant.
It would be less effort to conduct such a measurement than writing piles of papers making claims all of which are totally ambiguous when it comes to deltaT  400vs200ppm but long on words using trends of statistics that can`t be trusted or >30 computer models that don`t agree with each other....and then as a last resort use the "melting polar ice"
It`s not being done because all those who know something about physics know full well that you won`t be able to show the difference between 200 and 400 ppm CO2 with a thermometer. If you could then we would not need expensive IR spectrophotometers to measure CO2 in air. All it would take is a bottle and a thermometer.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 22, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*I think what he meant was that it can`t get hotter than its surroundings unless it`s exposed to the sun. *

He's not very bright.
I wouldn't bet a lot on your assumption.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 22, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Ignorance of "frequency" and how its energy base numbers are derived is why I laugh at you... You have no concept of how energy is propagated.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 22, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*Ignorance of "frequency" and how its energy base numbers are derived is why I laugh at you.*

Your lips are flapping, but still no links......I wonder why?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 22, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Tell me Todd, How is wave length determined?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 22, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



* How is wave length determined?*

Wavelength of what? Where?


----------



## polarbear (Nov 22, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


My assumption was that this thread "No evidence" is about the lack of evidence that there is a measurable increase of temperature when CO2 is increased from 200 to 400ppm and not about evidence that people who claim there is without the evidence are more intelligent than the people who insist on the evidence.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 22, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



*and not about evidence that people who claim there is without the evidence are more intelligent than the people who insist on the evidence. *

I'm as big a skeptic about the plan to spend trillions to prevent the climate from ever changing as the next guy.
I manage to do that without spinning epicycles to deny back radiation, causality, Stefan-Boltzmann and much of the last 150 years of physics.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> It isn't a matter of belief..NASA published the predictions based on the ideal gas laws long before the probes were ever sent.


I think you are lying again unless you can prove it.



SSDD said:


> Look it up yourself....6,000 hours here, 10,000 hours there spread across an entire industry over the course of 3/4 of a century or more.


I think you are lying again unless you can prove it. All you cited before were sales pitches from heating companies. Not research.



SSDD said:


> Gravity induced atmospheric temperature gradient: New developments


The paper you quoted said (my bold face):
_In isolated systems - with no exchange of matter and energy across its borders - force fields like gravity can generate in macroscopic assemblies of molecules temperature, density, and concentration gradients. *The temperature differences may be used to generate work, resulting in a decrease of entropy.*_​
His perpetual motion experiment was never repeated and verified. And he proudly says that the second law of thermodynamics is violated. That is about as stupid as you can get. 



SSDD said:


> no am i...diverting from the fact that you can't produce any observed, measured data to support your claims is over...Can you deliver or not?



You have no idea *what happens to the measured 15,700 W/m² energy radiating from the surface of Venus*. Scientists do and have said it many times. 

You are the one who made outlandish claims outside of science, but you have no observed, measured data to support your claims


----------



## polarbear (Nov 22, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Okay then let me put it to you that by your standard anyone who mathematically discards a factor that is no longer significant in an equation that narrows the difference to 0.02% of the total is a science denier,....just like Newton and Leibnitz who did just that when they introduced their differential equations. 
Even though that temperature difference is so low that no-one in physics bothers to actually measure it we are supposed to religiously adhere to it because the StB equation is expressed as X-Y and not as a function of delta X/deltaY and yields a numerical value no matter how small the difference between X and Y is.
The only way to make it significant is by multiplying that number by what the earth surface measures  in square meters because it`s so insignificantly small for the range in question to get an accurate direct measurement.
None of the scientists behind the laws you keep quoting had an idea that some day some people would use them to totally blow out of proportion what the difference of a fraction of a watt per 1 m^2 is capable of.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 22, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



*Okay then let me put it to you that by your standard anyone who mathematically discards a factor that is no longer significant in an equation that narrows the difference to 0.02% of the total is a science denier*

I disagree. I'm talking more about people who deny back-radiation, believe emitters are omniscient and can violate causality. Nothing so tiny as your 0.02% figure.


----------



## polarbear (Nov 22, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


If you are arguing about something something other than the tiny change in radiative heat transfer the increase of another 0.02% CO2 might cause then you must be talking about some other planetary scale radiation source that I am not aware of but am somehow contributing to.
All you got is a fraction of a watt per m^2 that was absorbed and re-emitted by a tiny fraction of a gas residing in the 10 meter column of air, the path length it takes to  absorb what`s re- emitted ....and that is supposed to heat the ground which then further increases the temperature of that 10 meter air column.
And you can figure out by how much just by using the StB equation without even worrying about assigning a mass, a specific heat etc etc to the surface or the air and without using a computer model which does that for you. The truth is you won`t even be able to calculate how much of the radiation could possibly come back through the 10m path which absorbed it all. If you did then I would like to know how you got the molar absorptivity for CO2 at 15 μm, which is a whole other problem because it is sensitive to barometric pressure.
Ah, but none of that matters because you can cancel all of that out just by using the StB equation and nothing else.
How does that make you any different from the so called scientists that have no use for any of the science to solve these problems before you could possibly have a solution for temperature ? The kind of science you embrace demands that everything else other than the warmer`s beloved StB equation is blasphemy.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 22, 2018)

Polar, this fellow is a lot more persuasive than you, and has the bona fides that you do not.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 22, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Didn't you find out in a 200 physics class? Oh, I see, you never took any science classes at that level. After all, we are talking to Silly Billy.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 22, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


All this "science" still not one single repeatable Experiment showing how increasing CO2 from 280 to 400m raises temperature. Sounds like you're quoting a Cult


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 22, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



*The kind of science you embrace demands that everything else other than the warmer`s beloved StB equation is blasphemy. *

Who are you even talking to?
Just because I point out SSDD's complete and total misinterpretation of physics 
doesn't make me a warmer...….not even a little bit.


----------



## polarbear (Nov 22, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Polar, this fellow is a lot more persuasive than you, and has the bona fides that you do not.


Lah di dah. Either it`s another ice melt graph or its back to the bona fide 97% of whom none are able to produce any conclusive proof.
Every bona fide scientist knows that in physics and the related sciences you need to prove a thesis with more than just being persuasive. If this geologist is as good in physics as advertised   then he should have no trouble at all to conduct an experiment that can be reproduced at will, showing the exact temperature rise attributable to a rise of CO2 from 0.02% to 0.04%. But he does not. Instead like all the rest of them he thumps on his papers and makes videos which prove nothing that could substantiate a measurable correlation....which you need for anything else to be accepted in physics. It`s not as if it would take ~ 13 billion $ as it did to prove the existence of Higgs Bosons to do that. Too bad the rest of the real scientists were  "science deniers" and insisted on experimental proof using the CERN collider. They could have avoided all that by simply handing over that problem to the 97% bona fide climate "scientists" we should not dare question.
By now these bozos spent more money than it took to build CERN cruising on yachts to show us coral bleaching, counting sediment bugs and tree rings and holding meetings in lavish locations to publish nothing but an endless load of crap. A thermometer and a few liters of CO2 accurately metered into a suitable chamber with an IR transparent enclosure would be all it would take if they had a real case.
But they all know that a thermometer would register nothing as sensational as the bullshit they publish.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 23, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


Not without some other hotter Source. Tell you what, post an observed finding that got hotter without a hotter source. Still looking for that hot spot in the atmosphere. Planes wouldn’t need ice control for the wings if the troposphere was hot.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 23, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You never answered if 270 was hotter than 400 ppm. That answer must come first


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 23, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



_CO2 instead of 0.04% in a bottle and let it cook in the sun._

*Not without some other hotter Source.*

Well, the Sun is hotter, so we've got that going for us.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 23, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Which level has more back-radiation?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


In order to emit something hotter than what it absorbed, somewhere  the molecule must absorb that frequency IR. Period. And whether you have 270 ppm of it or 400 ppm of CO2, the emit is the same frequency of the absorbed. And having more of that frequency IR doesn’t get the CO2 any hotter. It’s why there’s absolutely zero experiments. We wouldn’t have tens of threads arguing it. 

If gas did just get hotter, we would have some invention using it. Thanks


----------



## jc456 (Nov 23, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Wouldn’t the surrounding be that same temperature then? Thanks to the sun?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 23, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Is 270 as hot as 400 ppm? Why didn’t you answer?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 23, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



*In order to emit something hotter than what it absorbed*

Huh? Can you try that again, in English?

*In order to emit something hotter than what it absorbed*

You got one right, are you feeling okay?

* And having more of that frequency IR doesn’t get the CO2 any hotter. *

Why do you feel that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 23, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Why would "the surrounding" be the same temperature as a bottle full of CO2?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 23, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


No one posted that observation and why we’ve been arguing the point. So is 400 ppm hotter than 270 if they absorbed the same frequency IR?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 23, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Is 270 as hot as 400 ppm? *

Do you feel it is?

*Why didn’t you answer?*

Why don't I answer a question that doesn't give complete information? 
Why do you feel that is possible?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 23, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*No one posted that observation*

No one posted which observation?

*So is 400 ppm hotter than 270 if they absorbed the same frequency IR?*

400 ppm, ceteris paribus.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 23, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Why not? Here’s where you can post the evidence that CO2 heats


----------



## SSDD (Nov 23, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



In part.  But mostly to frame a couple of straight forward, explicit, reasonable requests for the sort of evidence that any hypothesis regarding an observable, measurable entity like the atmosphere needs in order to be credible; and then see what passes for evidence in the minds of those who believed that they could answer my challenge.

We have seen several hundred responses, numerous claims that the data I asked for exists, and a few attempts to actually post data that would challenge the OP.  Obviously, no one came close to challenging the OP, but it is always interesting to see how low those who believe in AGW have set the bar for "evidence" sufficient to convince them.

The "evidence" is on par with that used to support religion.  It comes down to little if anything that could be called real evidence and a whole lot of assumption, and faith.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 23, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Why not? *

For the same reason your car isn't the same temperature as "the surrounding".


----------



## jc456 (Nov 23, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


It’s simple, Is 400 ppm warmer than 270 ppm


----------



## jc456 (Nov 23, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


So gas is like solid? Post the evidence


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 23, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Didn't take Latin, did you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 23, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The gas inside the bottle is like the gas inside your car.
Are you pretending to be dumb, to make SSDD feel better?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> His perpetual motion experiment was never repeated and verified. And he proudly says that the second law of thermodynamics is violated. That is about as stupid as you can get.



Here, do try to learn something...maybe if you do, you won't be such a putz...then again....

Lucy Skywalker: Graeff’s Second Law Seminar


----------



## jc456 (Nov 23, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Nope? Was i supposed to ?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 23, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


That gas is liquid. Are you saying CO2 is liquid?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 23, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Are you still drunk?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > His perpetual motion experiment was never repeated and verified. And he proudly says that the second law of thermodynamics is violated. That is about as stupid as you can get.
> ...


Sounds like Lucy Skywalker had a lot of fun on her trip. 

Here's the deal: Graeff did his experiment using water not air. If he used air, he would probably get the atmospheric lapse rate. My objection is his conclusion that he thinks he could create a sort of perpetual motion of the second kind. He even said his system could generate work and decrease entropy. (Ludicrous)

If his experiment was large enough to generate a large thermal gradient from top to bottom, I presume he would use thermocouples to create a voltage potential. If his thermocouple was an open circuit, that would measure voltage only (which said he did). Let's assume he successful and sees a voltage. However as soon as he closed the circuit to draw current, I think the thermocouple junctions temperatures would change and cancel the whole effect. 

Do you agree with him that his system can decrease entropy?
.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



if you think that, then either you didn't read, or have a reading comprehension problem...from the second paragraph..."I went to Germany to join his seminar, and to examine for myself his apparatus that appears to measure vertical heat gradients in columns of* air*, water, and other substances in steady, non-convecting equilibrium, and appears to show that in isolation, they are warmer at the bottom than at the top."



Wuwei said:


> If his experiment was large enough to generate a large thermal gradient from top to bottom, I presume he would use thermocouples to create a voltage potential. If his thermocouple was an open circuit, that would measure voltage only (which said he did). Let's assume he successful and sees a voltage. However as soon as he closed the circuit to draw current, I think the thermocouple junctions temperatures would change and cancel the whole effect.



Guess you missed, or ignored the part where ha had done the experiment more than 850 times as of 2012...no telling how many times by now checking the environment, vertical orientation, effects of size, effects of number of layers, the insulations, thermal equalizers, thermocouples, the instruments’ bias and sellotape fixings, the convectance impeders, substances actually tested, dataloggers, and software and anything else that might give a false positive for a temperature gradient.

And you deem to discount the lapse rate,,,if it is not a gravity/pressure induced temperature gradient, what is it?



Wuwei said:


> Do you agree with him that his system can decrease entropy?
> .



Where did he make that claim?  Read.  Maybe find an adult to help you comprehend what the words actually say rather than filtering them through your bias...you know..pretend to be an actual scientist rather than a practicing cult hack.


----------



## Crick (Nov 24, 2018)

Here's something you might be able to get your teeth into. Direct measurements of greenhouse radiation with all your bullshit objections taken for what they're worth.

*Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate  *(P1.7  Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari))
W.F.J. Evans*, Northwest Research Associates, Bellevue, WA / Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario and E. Puckrin, Defense R&D Canada-Valcartier, Val-Belair, Quebec

...
an ongoing program of measurements of the downward atmospheric infrared radiation, otherwise known as the greenhouse radiation of the atmosphere, was undertaken at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario (44o N, 78o W).

...

The measurements have been obtained using commercial Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometers. These measurements have been used to quantify the radiative flux associated with a number of greenhouse gases. It is this radiative flux that provides an additional source of warming for the planet’s surface, and ultimately is responsible for any change in climate. We have provided the first direct measurements of the greenhouse effect for a number of trace gases in the atmosphere. These gases include trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11), dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12), carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon monoxide (CO), nitric acid (HNO3), and tropospheric ozone (Evans and Puckrin, 1994-1997; Puckrin et al., 1996). Not only do these results prove that an increase in the greenhouse effect is real, and that trace gases in the atmosphere are adding a significant radiative burden to the energy budget of the atmosphere, but they also provide a means of validating the predictions that are made by global warming models (Ellingson et al., 1991). This last point is crucial since the temperature increases predicted by the various climate models can vary by several degrees; even a change of 0.7°C can have significant consequences on different parts of the globe. The cause of the large uncertainty in the models resides in the difficulty of accurately predicting the climate feedback mechanisms that are associated with the interaction of oceans, vegetation, and clouds and water vapour with the greenhouse effect.

...

*METHODOLOGY* The measurements of the downward atmospheric thermal emission were collected using a Magna 550 FTIR spectrometer or a high resolution Bomem DA8 system; the instruments were capable of resolutions of 0.25 cm-1 and 0.02 cm-1, respectively. Both instruments incorporated a liquid-nitrogencooled, narrow-band, MCT detector with a 1 mm2 element. The downward zenith sky radiation from the clear sky was collected by positioning a gold-coated mirror at the emission port along the optical axis of the instrument. A stored-phase correction was applied to the measured interferogram before conversion was made to the spectral domain in order to account for phase changes that were present at 750 and 2000 cm-1. The thermal emission background of the instrument was characterized by measuring a negligible source of thermal radiation which consisted of a blackened dewar containing liquid nitrogen. The background measurement was taken immediately prior to and after the measurement of the sky radiation to ensure that the spectrometer was thermally stabilized. The calibration of the atmospheric measurements was performed by placing an ambient blackbody source beneath the gold mirror, filling the field-of-view of the spectrometer. The temperature of the blackbody was monitored by a chromelalumel thermocouple. The atmospheric emission measurements required 15-30 minutes of observing time. This resulted in a typical root-mean-square noise value of about 5.0×10-9 W/(cm2 sr cm-1) in the midinfrared region. The greenhouse radiation from tropospheric ozone was measured by a technique in which the base of cold clouds was used as a target. The thermal emission from the warm atmosphere below the cloud was measured against the low background emission from the cold cloud base (Puckrin et al., 1996). The cloud also screened out the emission from the stratospheric ozone above it, effectively restricting the sampling area to the lower troposphere.

...






Figure 1. A spectrum of the greenhouse radiation at the surface measured for February, 1996, showing the contributions of several greenhouse gases


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> if you think that, then either you didn't read, or have a reading comprehension problem...from the second paragraph..."I went to Germany to join his seminar, and to examine for myself his apparatus that appears to measure vertical heat gradients in columns of* air*, water, and other substances in steady, non-convecting equilibrium, and appears to show that in isolation, they are warmer at the bottom than at the top."


I skimmed through her article which read like a wide eyed girl at a science fair. So yes I didn't read the part about air. I did read Graeff's original paper that had far more substance.



SSDD said:


> Guess you missed, or ignored the part where ha had done the experiment more than 850 times as of 2012...no telling how many times by now checking the environment, vertical orientation, effects of size, effects of number of layers, the insulations, thermal equalizers, thermocouples, the instruments’ bias and sellotape fixings, the convectance impeders, substances actually tested, dataloggers, and software and anything else that might give a false positive for a temperature gradient.
> 
> And you deem to discount the lapse rate,,,if it is not a gravity/pressure induced temperature gradient, what is it?


Why would I guess that? All I meant is what he said himself at the end of his article, that the experiment should be verified by others. 

Why do you think I would have discounted the lapse rate if he measured air? The gravity induced lapse rate was already measured long ago from surface to high in the atmosphere. His experiment would find the same lapse rate in a tube of air, even though the differential would be very small due to the relative shortness of the tube. 



SSDD said:


> Where did he make that claim? Read. Maybe find an adult to help you comprehend what the words actually say rather than filtering them through your bias...you know..pretend to be an actual scientist rather than a practicing cult hack.


The original paper by Graeff that you quoted said (my bold face):
_In isolated systems - with no exchange of matter and energy across its borders - force fields like gravity can generate in macroscopic assemblies of molecules temperature, density, and concentration gradients. *The temperature differences may be used to generate work, resulting in a decrease of entropy.*_​
Do you believe his statement about entropy being decreased?

.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2018)

Crick said:


> Here's something you might be able to get your teeth into. Direct measurements of greenhouse radiation with all your bullshit objections taken for what they're worth.
> 
> *Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate  *(P1.7  Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari))
> W.F.J. Evans*, Northwest Research Associates, Bellevue, WA / Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario and E. Puckrin, Defense R&D Canada-Valcartier, Val-Belair, Quebec
> ...




So you have a measurement of energy moving from warmer gasses to a cooler instrument...so what?  The second law of thermodynamics predicts that.That only proves that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > if you think that, then either you didn't read, or have a reading comprehension problem...from the second paragraph..."I went to Germany to join his seminar, and to examine for myself his apparatus that appears to measure vertical heat gradients in columns of* air*, water, and other substances in steady, non-convecting equilibrium, and appears to show that in isolation, they are warmer at the bottom than at the top."
> ...



Did i see that he said "may"..is that a declarative statement?  At present, he says his work simply challenges a particular interpretation of the second law...not the law itself.

Again...why can't you simply read what is written without having to reinterpret it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 24, 2018)

Crick said:


> Here's something you might be able to get your teeth into. Direct measurements of greenhouse radiation with all your bullshit objections taken for what they're worth.
> 
> *Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate  *(P1.7  Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari))
> W.F.J. Evans*, Northwest Research Associates, Bellevue, WA / Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario and E. Puckrin, Defense R&D Canada-Valcartier, Val-Belair, Quebec
> ...



*Both instruments incorporated a liquid-nitrogen cooled, narrow-band, MCT detector with a 1 mm2 element.*

Darn it. These measurements don't count.
You see, the molecules in the air can tell when the detector is cooled.
Until it's cooled, they strictly emit towards space.
It's almost like the molecules are intelligent.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You think gas in a car is exposed to the sun and you think I’m drunk! LOL


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 24, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yes, the air inside a car is exposed to sunlight.


----------



## Crick (Nov 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Here's something you might be able to get your teeth into. Direct measurements of greenhouse radiation with all your bullshit objections taken for what they're worth.
> ...



Your comment proves you didn't read the text, you're stupid and that you lie.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Did i see that he said "may"..is that a declarative statement? At present, he says his work simply challenges a particular interpretation of the second law...not the law itself.
> 
> Again...why can't you simply read what is written without having to reinterpret it?


I'm not going to quibble about parsing sentences. Let me word it this way: Do you believe Graeff can design a system that causes entropy to decrease?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Not the gas tank! And the material in the car absorbs, dashboard steering wheel seats convection. The car is an oven


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 25, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Excellent! Glad you could admit your error.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2018)

Crick said:


> Your comment proves you didn't read the text, you're stupid and that you lie.



You have been fooled by instrumentation...what else is new?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Did i see that he said "may"..is that a declarative statement? At present, he says his work simply challenges a particular interpretation of the second law...not the law itself.
> ...



Of course you won't since it is you who is altering what the man said.  You do it all the time.  You don't read to hear when is being said and maybe learn something....you read with pre determined intent..

Did he say that he did?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




you have to excuse him...he thinks IR can heat the air.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Error? How does this heat the gas in the tank?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 25, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



No one was talking about gasoline. That's your vodka again.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You started it with Introduction of a car dude! Don’t drink


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 25, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yes, I'm sorry that I used to car in the Sun to illustrate your idiocy.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Solid vs air? You think they are equal!  Now that’s hilarious!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 25, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



No, the air in your skull is not equal.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


When you got nothing!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 25, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You're proof of that.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 26, 2018)

Well since the bozos refuse to present any evidence since this thread started some weeks ago, thought I'd present some evidence from NASA....

NASA Sees Climate Cooling Trend Thanks to Low Sun Activity


----------



## jc456 (Nov 26, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I do have the ability to get nothing from you.  Must mean the facts are on my side.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 26, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You never said, are you pretending to be stupid to make SSDD feel better?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 26, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


well you are championing the stupid by using a car.  just saying, when you haven't defended what you post, it's really stupid.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 26, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You still claiming a bottle won't get warmer than its surroundings?
Because that was pretty stupid.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 26, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


yep.  show me a bottle that gets warmer.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 26, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


----------



## jc456 (Nov 26, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Why didn't we see the thermometers before he left?  there is no control there at all.  I would have pulled the thermometer out of the air bottle and replaced the one in the so called CO2 bottle and let us watch it climb. LOL.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 26, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



25C ambient temp......too complex?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 26, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


not at all, except that he didn't show it on either thermometer.  huh, go figure.  all those precise steps and fails to confirm to the camera the two readings.  and he touched them after he began the experiment.  He contaminated the experiment.  but you'd never understand that, you don't do experiments.  I do.  Actually the first step would have been to benchmark the two bottles with the thermometers first to show they would read the same before the experiment started.  You probably don't understand that step either.  too flippin funny.

BTW, I did so enjoy the comedy of filling the air bottle.  I bet he thinks air went in it.  What he should have done was to squeeze the bottle and let it fill.  If he didn't think air wasn't already in the bottle.  that is the practical way to do that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 26, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



* except that he didn't show it on either thermometer.*

So what? You think it was 44C in Spokane in July?

*Actually the first step would have been to benchmark the two bottles with the thermometers first to show they would read the same before the experiment started. *

The one with dry ice was probably colder. So what?

*but you'd never understand that, you don't do experiments.  I do. *

Excellent! You do any where the bottle in the Sun didn't get warmer than the surroundings?

* I did so enjoy the comedy of filling the air bottle. *

Yes, that was funny.

*I bet he thinks air went in it*

I bet he knew it was already filled with air.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 26, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


_Excellent! You do any where the bottle in the Sun didn't get warmer than the surroundings?_

dude,  the bottles were flat on the ground. so you don't think the heat from the soil would matter?  dude you are easily influenced.  I'm so so sorry
_
So what? You think it was 44C in Spokane in July?_

dude,  the bottles were on the ground.  dude you are easily influenced.  I'm so so sorry.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Do you believe Graeff can design a system that causes entropy to decrease?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 26, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yes, bottles on the ground got warmer than the surroundings.
You never said, are you pretending to be stupid to make SSDD feel better?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 26, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


the ground got warmer correct.  the thermometer read the heat from the ground.

It's still called control, he should have measured the temperature of the ground ahead of him placing the bottles on it.  you aren't very bright.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 26, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The grass was warmer than the air? By 19C-24C? LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 26, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



And if they both were warmed by the ground, why did the CO2 bottle warm more?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 26, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


the soil.  wow.so you don't think dirt gets warmer than the air?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 26, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


well duh, he didn't control his experiment so perhaps the.  thermometer, or perhaps he heated the one when he touched them.  again, you seem to miss the control experiment thingy.  you're funny.  he should have left the camera running focused on the readings the entire time.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 26, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Dirt?


Go to 2:01 LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 26, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yes, the heat he added by touching it must have been important after 30 minutes in the Sun. LOL!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 26, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


so now you think grass doesn't grow in dirt?  ever walk on a hot beach?  that's sand, similar type of thing.  just saying, you keep showing how little you know.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 26, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You never said, are you pretending to be stupid to make SSDD feel better?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 26, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I have no idea what he did in thirty minutes, but he touched the thermometers, how do I know he didn't heat them both with one more than the other.  hmmm it's why most people control their experiments.  amazing how little you know about experiments.  It does explain the nonsense that goes on in here with your posts, though.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 26, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


so you still have nothing.  experiment contaminated.  ask any scientist.  any.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 26, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



He touched the shit out of them!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 26, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You never said, are you pretending to be stupid to make SSDD feel better?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 26, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


No one knows what he did, but he admitted touching them after the camera was off. Contaminated the outcome!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 26, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You’re working hard at being stupid that is for sure!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 26, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Did you ever find that experiment where the bottle in the Sun did not heat up more than the surroundings?


----------



## polarbear (Nov 26, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


And yet another physics "expert" using CO2 in a plastic bottle to prove what?
The ambient temperature was 25C and had the same CO2 concentration as the "air" bottle....which got to 45C after baking for 30 minutes in the sun. The bottle where all the air had been replaced with CO2 got 5 degrees warmer. He wants to ignore the effect the bottle had in this experiment. So let`s do that and say that if we were pumping enough CO2 into the air as he had in the bottle 100/ .04 = 2500 times as much as we have now the air would be 5 degrees warmer than it was where he did that. Sounds reasonable.
If it is, then it makes no sense at all that you can get 2 degrees warmer just by adding another 200/10^6 parts of CO2 to 1 part of air.... Using this experiment and the same fake linear correlation this pseudo science supports  with their CO2 and Temperature over time graphs you would need 40 % CO2 in the air to account for the rise in temperature and not just 0.04%
As for you thinking that video proved your point, try again and see if that bottle would get any warmer if you don`t have the sun cooking it.I don`t care if the bottle contains 100% CO2 or just air as long as you do it at night.


----------



## Crick (Nov 26, 2018)

I love the way you hardcore denier science types constantly decide what's right and what is wrong by the way it "sounds".  Yah.  Dat be proof for sure dat be.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 26, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*And yet another physics "expert" using CO2 in a plastic bottle to prove what?*

_Description - Dry ice sublimates in transparent bottle.  This bottle and a bottle of air is placed in sunlight, and the temperature is measured 30 minutes later.  The bottle of carbon dioxide has a higher temperature.
_
*The ambient temperature was 25C and had the same CO2 concentration as the "air" bottle....which got to 45C after baking for 30 minutes in the sun. The bottle where all the air had been replaced with CO2 got 5 degrees warmer. He wants to ignore the effect the bottle had in this experiment.*

What "effect" did the bottle have?

*As for you thinking that video proved your point,*

My point? JC456 said, "show me a bottle that gets warmer"

No Evidence

The video showed two that got warmer.


----------



## polarbear (Nov 26, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You have to ask what effect the bottle had watching a video where only the bottled air got hotter?
Your point was that the bottle got warmer than it`s surroundings was supposed to be evidence that the bottle got heated by the surrounding air. If that were the case then it should also be able to get warmer than ambient without the sun.
After countless posts where you said a cold object can warm a warmer one you now say that the only thing you need  is to show a bottle that gets warmer (under the sun which is not colder by the bottle)  to prove your point. Your "explanations" are even more ridiculous than those of Bill Clinton`s relationship with "that women".


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 26, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



*You have to ask what effect the bottle had watching a video where only the bottled air got hotter?*

Well, the guy doing the experiment was trying to show, I guess, that the bottle with CO2 would get warmer than the bottle with air. In his case, the bottles "canceled each other out". Get it?

In JC456's case, he was pretending to be dumb, claiming a bottle would not get warmer than the surroundings if placed in the Sun. Get it?

*Your point was that the bottle got warmer than it`s surroundings was supposed to be evidence that the bottle got heated by the surrounding air.*

No. Wrong. Not even a little. 

*After countless posts where you said a cold object can warm a warmer one *

Link to a few where I said that. Or even one.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 27, 2018)

I just got around to looking at the video of the two bottles. It was very amusing. That simple experiment should really shut up those who think CO2 has no ability to affect radiation. Polarbear and JC are such sore losers, lashing out about touching the thermometer, or laying bottles on the ground, or thermometers being miscalibrated by 5 C or 9 F. If cheating was used in the experiment, you can guarantee that there will be a whole host of videos put out by the deniers.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 27, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I just got around to looking at the video of the two bottles. It was very amusing. That simple experiment should really shut up those who think CO2 has no ability to affect radiation. Polarbear and JC are such sore losers, lashing out about touching the thermometer, or laying bottles on the ground, or thermometers being miscalibrated by 5 C or 9 F. If cheating was used in the experiment, you can guarantee that there will be a whole host of videos put out by the deniers.


dude, I don't believe the experiment.  it is contaminated.  Do it again, following the steps I laid out and then show it to me again.  I'd add one additional step, lets see what the plastic of the bottle emits.  it emits in all direction correct?  So that would mean it would emit internally.  That experiment is so flawed scientists would laugh at it too.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 27, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


still waiting for a valid test to prove it does.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 28, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I just got around to looking at the video of the two bottles. It was very amusing. That simple experiment should really shut up those who think CO2 has no ability to affect radiation. Polarbear and JC are such sore losers, lashing out about touching the thermometer, or laying bottles on the ground, or thermometers being miscalibrated by 5 C or 9 F. If cheating was used in the experiment, you can guarantee that there will be a whole host of videos put out by the deniers.




Heat of compression.  Look it up....Again, you demonstrate how easily you are fooled.

Here is the text of an experiment that explains it.

Der CO2-Treibhauseffekt - Internet-Vademecum - A. Brandenberger


----------



## Crick (Nov 28, 2018)

What compression?  Both bottles were open to the atmosphere and then capped and lain out in the sun.  The pressure did go up inside them afterwards but it was as a result of them being radiantly heated.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 28, 2018)

Crick said:


> What compression?  Both bottles were open to the atmosphere and then capped and lain out in the sun.  The pressure did go up inside them afterwards but it was as a result of them being radiantly heated.



You really are an idiot aren't you.  The bottles were open right out up till the time that they weren't.  You set a caped bottle how in the sun what do you think happens to the air in the bottle?  Refer to heat of compression.  Learn why CO2 under compression would heat more than air under compression.  Here is a hint for you, it has nothing to do with C02 heating the atmosphere.

You guys are so easy to fool, it is no surprise that you have been duped.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 28, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Heat of compression. Look it up....Again, you demonstrate how easily you are fooled.
> 
> Here is the text of an experiment that explains it.
> 
> Der CO2-Treibhauseffekt - Internet-Vademecum - A. Brandenberger



The reference you cited said that the two bottles were sealed tight. The CO2 would expand more than the air and be under higher pressure because they were at constant volume. Thus, because of the gas law the CO2 would have an extra increase in temperature over the air bottle. Lets look at the math.

Coefficient of thermal expansion at constant volume
CO2 . . . 0.00372
AIR . . . 0.00366
Difference 0.00006

The final difference in temperature between the two bottles in the experiment you referred to is 6 C. The difference in the the coefficients of expansion at constant volume times the difference in temperature results in a pressure difference of:

.00006 x 6 C = 0.00012 = 0.012%

From the gas law that pressure difference would give a temperature adjustment of an extra 0.012% for CO2. That would not register even on a good thermometer.

So the author of the site you referenced simply were wrong and guessed, as you did, that the effect of sealed volumes would be even measurable.

.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Heat of compression. Look it up....Again, you demonstrate how easily you are fooled.
> ...



So again, you reject observed measured, repeatable evidence.  How predictable is that?


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2018)

So, again, you reject basic physics in order to support insane, idiotic contentions for which you cannot find a single person on this planet to back you up.  How predictable is that


----------



## polarbear (Nov 29, 2018)

There is no compression worth mentioning happening when a thermometer stuck in a hole which was poked into a bottle cap is the seal. What matters is that there was no way for the gas to vent and get replaced by ambient air. The global warming in a bottle scientists pile on SSDD because it`s all they got to deflect from the fact that you need 2500 times the present CO2 concentration before you can register the CO2 warming effect in a bottle (that got only 5 degrees warmer than the control.)
It could have been done in a plastic tent for all that matters, but that would take more CO2 and more time as well. 100% CO2 in a plastic bottle and still needing 1800 seconds to heat just 2 liters of it  is the equivalent of 0.0083 Joules per second is not the kind of evidence it takes to prove that 0.04% CO2 can heat the entire globe by a measurable number of degrees. You might as well start worrying how much of the global warming is caused by  TV infrared remote controls. Every graph this junk science publishes is deliberately scaled to assert a linear relationship between ppm CO2 and Temperature. So I am at liberty to state that this 100% CO2 bottle showed that the control, the 400 ppm got only   0.000 003 Joules/sec extra from the CO2 and the rest of it was due to moisture and what the plastic absorbed.


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2018)

In a matter of 30 minutes, the bottle exceeded the Earth's warming from the last 150 years three-fold.  Where did you get the idea that was insignificant?


----------



## polarbear (Nov 29, 2018)

Crick said:


> In a matter of 30 minutes, the bottle exceeded the Earth's warming from the last 150 years three-fold.  Where did you get the idea that was insignificant?


Hahaha so did the control (bottle). It warmed up by 20 degrees just by being in a bottle as opposed to the same air in the yard. This was a demonstration how much infrared the polyethylene terephtalate plastic can absorb rather than 400 ppm and 100% CO2.




Needing *2500 times as much CO2 than the control and 1/2 an hour just to get 5 degrees more *should give you an idea just how insignificant it is. Your claim is like saying a wimp that can`t split a single round of wood in less than 30 minutes and 2500 tries is a significant threat in a  lumberjack competition.


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2018)

Both bottles are evidence of the greenhouse theory.  The CO2 bottle is evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  Other than that, there is no viable explanation for the CO2 bottle having gotten warmer than the air bottle.

The thermometer was measuring air temperature, not plastic temperature. and would you like to put that spectrum up against one for, say, soil?


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2018)




----------



## polarbear (Nov 29, 2018)

_The thermometer was measuring air temperature, not plastic temperature_
Very very funny because it`s so stupid.
Why would I have to put it up against soil instead of CO2, water vapor or whatever else besides the PET plastic was in play? Typical ! Now it`s off to whatever you want to use to change the subject.
The air temperature during the entire time was 25 degrees. Your "plastic temperature" rabbit hole is no explanation why it only takes a plastic bottle and no additional CO2 to heat it from 25  to 45 degrees and a whopping 2500 fold increase of CO2 for another 5 degrees above that... and that too  happened in a plastic bottle. And as defender of  "science" it`s not your problem..as usual (!!!)  to prove that the bottle had no impact on the outcome. You really think that 97% of these so called scientists would agree with you on that ?
Next summer roll up the windows while you are parked and find out if the enclosure has no impact on the air that is going to cook you.


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2018)

I put up the soil and vegetation to show that the amount of warming the bottles themselves experienced was trivial.  And it was.  And besides, we have bottles on both sides of this experiment.  You are still blithely skipping over the crucial point because you wish us to do so as well: tell us why the CO2 bottle was warmer than the air bottle?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 29, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I just got around to looking at the video of the two bottles. It was very amusing. That simple experiment should really shut up those who think CO2 has no ability to affect radiation. Polarbear and JC are such sore losers, lashing out about touching the thermometer, or laying bottles on the ground, or thermometers being miscalibrated by 5 C or 9 F. If cheating was used in the experiment, you can guarantee that there will be a whole host of videos put out by the deniers.


LOL....  and you morons think 400ppm vs 1000000000ppm is comparable.  You guys really are ignorant of reality.


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2018)

Anything beyond 1,000,000 ppm is nonsense. 150 years is 2,620,000 times the 30 minutes those bottles got.  Then there is the mean path length: the full height of the atmosphere is over 750,000 times the diameter of a soda bottle.  I think we are in a completely compatible range scale.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



That comment has no relevance to my post that constant volume bottles holding the CO2 and Air does not influence that observed measured, repeatable experiment.


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2018)

SSDD, did you not catch Polar Bear's comment that the thermometer hole in the cap would have precluded any pressure build up in the bottles?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 29, 2018)

Crick said:


> I put up the soil and vegetation to show that the amount of warming the bottles themselves experienced was trivial. And it was. And besides, we have bottles on both sides of this experiment. You are still blithely skipping over the crucial point because you wish us to do so as well: tell us why the CO2 bottle was warmer than the air bottle?



Yes, the point of the bottle experiment is that it is a simple *counter-example*. They have been saying that CO2 has absolutely no ability to absorb heat. The bottle experiment shows they are wrong. Now they are arguing it had no exact relation to the earth atmosphere. Of course it didn't. They don't understand that* it disproves their major point* and was never meant to model the details of the actual kilometers of atmosphere.


----------



## Crick (Nov 30, 2018)

I think they understand it completely.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 30, 2018)

Crick said:


> I think they understand it completely.


I sometimes wonder just what they understand. If you are right, then they are veritable trolls.


----------



## polarbear (Nov 30, 2018)

Crick said:


> I put up the soil and vegetation to show that the amount of warming the bottles themselves experienced was trivial.  And it was.  And besides, we have bottles on both sides of this experiment.  You are still blithely skipping over the crucial point because you wish us to do so as well: tell us why the CO2 bottle was warmer than the air bottle?


How many more times do I have to tell you? It had *2500 times* the CO2 than the control which is the crucial point  you are blithely skipping over....*and all you got is a 5 degree increase over the control for 2 liters in 30 minutes....*and you call that a significant warming effect while the *control increased by 20 degrees* is supposedly trivial. If you want to make it appear otherwise by comparing that to a soil and vegetation warming effect  which had nothing at all to do with that silly experiment feel free to delude yourself and lets pretend that the air in the yard with the soil and grass got warmer than the control bottle.
In addition to that pretending that AGW skeptics deny that CO2 absorbs IR is just more of the same, deluding yourself by pretending I said something to that effect.




*
*


----------



## boedicca (Nov 30, 2018)

AGW is not science...it is a Faith Based Religion in which the Elite Witch Doctors threaten and terrify the peasants in order to extract tribute.


----------



## Crick (Nov 30, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I put up the soil and vegetation to show that the amount of warming the bottles themselves experienced was trivial.  And it was.  And besides, we have bottles on both sides of this experiment.  You are still blithely skipping over the crucial point because you wish us to do so as well: tell us why the CO2 bottle was warmer than the air bottle?
> ...



I repeat, I am not contending that the absorption spectra of soil and water are responsible for the warming in those bottles.

I am contending that the scaling factors involved (time, mean path) tell us that its results are meaningfully scaled to reality.  As Wuwei attempted to point out, the experiment was qualitative, not quantitative and all your objections are meaningless drivel simply meant to distract.  CO2 absorbs LWIR and warms the atmosphere.


----------



## polarbear (Nov 30, 2018)

Crick said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Blah blah blah CO2 absorbs IR...as if *that* meaningless drivel were news. You were clinging to that 5 degree global warming in a bottle full of CO2 as a quantitative, not just a qualitative proof of concept right up until now.
So when do you get around to tell us, using the absorption data by *how much * the extra 200 ppm CO2 will warm up the atmosphere.
That`s the trillion dollar question this pseudo science is not able to answer. You pretend to know but when pressed all that  grand standing using physics laws as stage props is suddenly abandoned in favor of comparing dishonest temperature record-stats and then plotting it against ppm CO2.
As if that method had anything to do with any of the physics laws governing absorption and thermodynamics.
Any idiot can do that because it does not involve any physics and requires only creative accounting.
That`s why these hoaxters need computer models that can supposedly predict by how much more it will warm up with a specific amount of CO2. It`s the icing needed to be able to sell a pile of statistical bullshit as a science. Every one of these fudge factored models failed yet 97% of these charlatans who pretend to be scientists approved them.
Some track record ! Any engineer with a similar one would have his certification revoked.
But in this business it`s the political propaganda institutions that "certify" it instead of an impartial examination process insisting on replicable proof and complete data disclosure.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 30, 2018)

Crick said:


> SSDD, did you not catch Polar Bear's comment that the thermometer hole in the cap would have precluded any pressure build up in the bottles?



It looked like a fair amount of resistance when he pushed the thermometer into the bottle cap...perhaps there wasn't as much pressure as if the vent had been open, but there was certainly more pressure than if there were an open vent.  Any pressure greater than 1 bar would have resulted in the CO2 bottle being some amount warmer than the air bottle.

Again, here is the text to a video that used to be on the internet...unsure where it went, but it performed the bottle experiment with closed caps and with the bottles being vented...when the bottles were sealed, the result was predictable...the CO2 bottle was warmer due to the heat of compression...when the bottles were vented, there was no difference in temperature between the two.

The experiment in this link was performed with much more control than the simple thermometer stuck in a bottle experiment that fooled you guys.

Der CO2-Treibhauseffekt - Internet-Vademecum - A. Brandenberger


----------



## polarbear (Nov 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD, did you not catch Polar Bear's comment that the thermometer hole in the cap would have precluded any pressure build up in the bottles?
> ...


Ah forget it they wanted to use that as a bait to deflect from the fact that you won`t need any CO2 at all to heat air in an enclosure which is not totally transparent in the IR spectrum.
They each made several thousand posts about the back radiation of energy that had been absorbed being an additional energy source and suddenly have it not exist if something other than CO2 ( like PET plastic) absorbed it.
The absence of any convection was another major factor more significant than all the CO2 involved with this silly experiment. The greenhouse effect goes poof as soon as you open the roof vents of a greenhouse.
Too bad this video that (Physics) Prof.Dr.Gerlich and Tscheuschner posted is in German because they and over 1000 other scientist with a PhD in Physics say exactly what I have been arguing here.
No quantitative determination has ever been made that shows by how much atmospheric air warms in relation to the incremental increase of CO2 we contributed. They also say that neither the computer models nor the so called global average temperature reports are based on any of the science needed to actually calculate the forecast numbers that get published. It is a complete  farce to present these estimations based on questionable statistical methods as if they had been scientifically determined. And as I said, + all the skeptics in this forum keep saying  ( and ~ 1000 physics  PhDs  also say) this much quoted consensus among "climatologists" is a tool that may be acceptable and useful in politics but has no place in Physics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 30, 2018)

polarbear said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



*The greenhouse effect goes poof as soon as you open the roof vents of a greenhouse.*

Where are the roof vents of our atmosphere?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Where is the roof?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 1, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> The bottle experiment shows they are wrong.


IF you measured the bottles skin temperature you will find that is what is warming the bottle by convecting/conducting to the gas inside..   You people need to rule out all possibilities before concluding what caused the warming...   You keep using a correlation without proof of causation as evidence...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You assume our atmosphere is a closed system?  

The earth is NOT a closed system and LWIR escapes very easily from it.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


What might the IQ be of somebody who argues that the atmosphere has a glass roof ?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 1, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I think they understand it completely.
> ...


Dude, does the plastic absorb and emit? Let’s start there


----------



## jc456 (Dec 1, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The bottle experiment shows they are wrong.
> ...


Billy, again, no control of the experiment! Many items missing, temperature of the ground, the plastic, compression hmmmm


----------



## polarbear (Dec 1, 2018)

Crick said:


> Anything beyond 1,000,000 ppm is nonsense. 150 years is 2,620,000 times the 30 minutes those bottles got.  Then there is the mean path length: the full height of the atmosphere is over 750,000 times the diameter of a soda bottle.  I think we are in a completely compatible range scale.


And here we got another genius who still argues that the coke bottle full of CO2 is a correctly scaled down experiment of the atmosphere. As if a pile of 25^10^22 plastic bottles full of air would behave the same as the same amount of air without all that plastic.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Anything beyond 1,000,000 ppm is nonsense. 150 years is 2,620,000 times the 30 minutes those bottles got.  Then there is the mean path length: the full height of the atmosphere is over 750,000 times the diameter of a soda bottle.  I think we are in a completely compatible range scale.
> ...



He also thinks that scuba tanks are analogous to the atmosphere.  If he thought it would support his argument, he would claim that a brick is analogous to the atmosphere.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 1, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



*You assume our atmosphere is a closed system?*

So there are no roof vents? DURR

*LWIR escapes very easily from it.*

How easily?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 1, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



You need a glass roof to block IR?


----------



## Crick (Dec 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



When are EITHER of you going to explain to us why the CO2 bottle was 5C warmer?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 1, 2018)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



Smart photons?


----------



## Crick (Dec 1, 2018)

It must have been the dumber of the smart photons.  They got lost.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2018)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



Already did....Heat of compression...again, here is the same experiment above done twice...the second time the bottles were vented to prevent the heat of compression from having an effect...note the two bottles are the same temperature when they are vented...it is an easy experiment...do it yourself...you will get the same results.



> *From the Script for the video*
> 
> "A popular science experiment that purports to prove that adding extra carbon dioxide to the air will cause an enhanced "greenhouse effect" goes something like this.
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2018)

Crick said:


> It must have been the dumber of the smart photons.  They got lost.



The sheer amount of mental masturbation you engage in is staggering skidmark...what a putz.


----------



## Crick (Dec 2, 2018)

Given two interpretations of SB that, for the most part, provide the same results, why do you choose the one that requires unexplainable phenomena?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2018)

Crick said:


> Given two interpretations of SB that, for the most part, provide the same results, why do you choose the one that requires unexplainable phenomena?



Because it is the actual physical law..and is supported by every observation and measurement ever made...we have never recorded "net" energy flow between objects...all measurements ever made show one way gross energy flow.  Why do you accept a formula other than the actual SB law...a formula in which Tc can be set to a higher temperature than T which violates a basic tenet of the SB law, and a formula which has no observed, measured evidence to back it up?  

We all know why you accept it skidmark...because you are a putz.


----------



## Crick (Dec 2, 2018)

Crick said:


> Given two interpretations of SB that, for the most part, provide the same results, why do you choose the one that requires unexplainable phenomena?





SSDD said:


> Because it is the actual physical law.



As has been demonstrated to us all by excerpts from multiple textbook explanation, it most certainly is not.



SSDD said:


> .and is supported by every observation and measurement ever made.



It most certainly has not.  The basic premise that all matter radiates per its temperature regardless of surroundings, however, has been demonstrated by thousands and thousands of experiments and instance of daily experience. 



SSDD said:


> we have never recorded "net" energy flow between objects...all measurements ever made show one way gross energy flow.



What has never, ever, ever been observed is the slightest change whatsoever in the thermal radiation of matter based on changes in its surrounding - your insane voodoo.

Here's an example of its absurdity.  Matter A is radiating IR.  A thousand years from now and a thousand light years from here, seven photons emitted by A will strike a hotter piece of matter that was ejected by a supernova that took place 999 years after they were emitted by A.  In Same Shit's world, Matter A had to have known that supernova would take, when it would take place to within trillionths of a second (adjusted for relativity and the spacetime vector created by a thousand light years of moving matter and energy between them) and out of all the matter in that former star, that that ONE piece of hot matter would end up in the path of those seven photons and thus, per his rules, block their emission.  When you ask Same Shit how any of that happens, he just gabbles about unknowns... says if you can't make gravity and quantum mechanics coexist you're not allowed to complain.



SSDD said:


> Why do you accept a formula other than the actual SB law...a formula in which Tc can be set to a higher temperature than T which violates a basic tenet of the SB law, and a formula which has no observed, measured evidence to back it up?



Because no such tenet exists.  Show us *ANY REFERENCE* that requires SB's temperature inequality go in a specific direction.  Any one at all.  You claim it is a tenet, surely some textbook, some physics website, some authority somewhere would have mentioned it.  Let's see it you annoying piece of shit.




SSDD said:


> We all know why you accept it skidmark...because you are a putz.



There are three possible characterizations for someone that insists on believing things that NO ONE ELSE believes: "Stupid", "Insane" or "Both".


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2018)

Crick said:


> As has been demonstrated to us all by excerpts from multiple textbook explanation, it most certainly is not.



Sorry skidmark

Here are a few text books that DO NOTt recognize the bastardized version of the SB law that wuwei has snookered you guys into believing.  Note:  These are all textbooks aimed at those pursuing a degree in the hard sciences, physics, chemistry, meteorology, etc.

Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis by Goody and Yung:
Radiative Heat Transfer by Modest
Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar:
Radiative Transfer in Cloudy Atmospheres by Marshak-Davis
An Introduction to Radiative Transferby Peraiah


Here are a few that DO recognize the bastardized version of the SB law.  Note...these are not aimed at those entering the hard sciences but instead are geared towards those who are pursuing a degree in the soft science of climatology.

An Introduction to Atmospheric Physic by Andrews
A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation by Petty
Assessing Climate Change by Rapp
UN Climate Change Science Compendium 2009
Advancing the Science of Climate Change 2010, NRC

You are laughable.


----------



## Crick (Dec 2, 2018)

I don't want a list of book titles and you know it.  I want a quotation stating that the inequality only works in ONE DIRECTION - the TENET of SB you claimed.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2018)

Crick said:


> I don't want a list of book titles and you know it.  I want a quotation stating that the inequality only works in ONE DIRECTION - the TENET of SB you claimed.



Of course you don't...you want to believe what you believe in spite of reality...  that is because you are stupid and because you are a dupe.


----------



## Crick (Dec 2, 2018)

I want what I asked you for, based on your statement implying its widespread existence.

We all know the answer.  Your claim is complete bullshit.  You can find no authority making any such claim because it just not fucking true.  You (and the rest of us) have already seen other authorities discussing the inequality going in both directions.  Your continued claim that it can only go in one is a fucking schizo-level of disconnect with reality.

Man the fuck up and stop lying.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Here are a few text books that DO NOTt recognize the bastardized version of the SB law that wuwei has snookered you guys into believing. Note: These are all textbooks aimed at those pursuing a degree in the hard sciences, physics, chemistry, meteorology, etc.
> ....
> Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar



I am familiar with some of the work of Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
He was highly respected in many fields. I very very seriously doubt that he could defy science and embarrass himself by believing "one way" radiation of objects. You will have to give a quote from the book. 

In light of that I think you are lying and you will have to give references to the other sources that you think defy science as you do.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2018)

You guys have any idea what that equation says yet?  There is little point in further discussion till such time as you have demonstrated that you can actually read such a simple equation.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You guys have any idea what that equation says yet? There is little point in further discussion till such time as you have demonstrated that you can actually read such a simple equation.


You can't give any scientific reference can you. No wonder you want to abort the discussion. Your'e all alone in an embarrassing situation of mocking all science.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2018)

that isn't what the equation says....try again.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> that isn't what the equation says....try again.


It certainly does. You are lying again.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2018)

Try again....till such time as you state, in plain english what this equation says, we have nothing else to talk about.







Power equals the emissivity of the object, times the S-B constant times the area of the object times......


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Try again....till such time as you state, in plain english what this equation says, we have nothing else to talk about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You keep trolling the same thing on a different thread. Here it is again.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2018)

An equation that allows you to set Tc to a higher temperature than T is invalid...try again.  I gave you the actual SB equation...read it


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> An equation that allows you to set Tc to a higher temperature than T is invalid...try again. I gave you the actual SB equation...read it


I gave you the actual derivation and explanation. If the equation goes negative it means it is absorbing more than it is radiating. That is what the text from Dartmouth University actually says in plain English. You should be able to figure that out. It's basic arithmetic after all.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2018)

You gave me bullshit about a false version of a physical law...so what?    Till such time as you state what the equation says, we have nothing else to talk about...except perhaps why you won't state what the equation says.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You gave me bullshit about a false version of a physical law...so what? Till such time as you state what the equation says, we have nothing else to talk about...except perhaps why you won't state what the equation says.


For God's sake. Can't you stop lying??? The Dartmouth text says exactly what the equation is. Why do you keep lying about that? Why do you keep playing the troll? You are calling that science a false version now. You have never ever given a reference to your made up version. You lose. Science wins. Sad.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 2, 2018)

Crick said:


> Given two interpretations of SB that, for the most part, provide the same results, why do you choose the one that requires unexplainable phenomena?



Because dimmer switches are needed to explain no back radiation.


----------



## Crick (Dec 2, 2018)

You go on a bit about smart photons.  Has SSDD ever said that his selective, throttled transmission are due to the behavior of the photons?  All this time I've been thinking he thought matter was doing it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 2, 2018)

Crick said:


> You go on a bit about smart photons.  Has SSDD ever said that his selective, throttled transmission are due to the behavior of the photons?  All this time I've been thinking he thought matter was doing it.



I think he originally said that photons simply aren't emitted toward hotter matter.
I took that to mean they peaked out and looked around before they decided on a path.
Smart photons, smart emitters, either one is proof he's an idiot.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I think he originally said that photons simply aren't emitted toward hotter matter.
> I took that to mean they peaked out and looked around before they decided on a path.
> Smart photons, smart emitters, either one is proof he's an idiot.


When I pinned him down on this he once said that scientists don't really know why. They don't know what quantum mechanics or gravity really is. Maybe someday they will know.  Etc. Yes, further proof his brain isn't functioning.


----------



## Crick (Dec 2, 2018)

I bet he loves being talked about 3rd person here.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 2, 2018)

Crick said:


> I bet he loves being talked about 3rd person here.


Third person is much better than talking to the ill-tempered troll in first person.


----------



## Crick (Dec 2, 2018)

; - )


----------



## SSDD (Dec 3, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You gave me bullshit about a false version of a physical law...so what? Till such time as you state what the equation says, we have nothing else to talk about...except perhaps why you won't state what the equation says.
> ...



Here, from a PhD who gets it and whose understanding of the topic goes way beyond yours



> The basic picture of climate alarmism with epsilon sigmaT4a = Downwelling Longwave Radiation DLR from the atmosphere to the Earth, according to a False Stefan-Boltzmann law.
> 
> In recent posts on Downwelling Longwave Radiation DLR I have compared two versions of Stefan-Boltzmann's radiation law, one named *False-SB:*
> 
> ...






> In recent posts I have exhibited a version of Stefan-Boltzmann's radiation law referred to as *False-SB* which is used by climate scientists to support CO2 alarm, and I have shown that False-SB is the result of an incorrect application of Planck's radiation law. Let me here again show the incorrect argument leading to *False-SB, *and the correct argument leading to
> *True-SB.*
> 
> 
> ...




What you don't seem to grasp is that when you say a thing mathematically, you need to be able to justify it...but then, there is a lot more basic stuff that you don't seem to be able to grasp....


----------



## Crick (Dec 3, 2018)

Your source (that you failed to identify) is a Swedish mathematician by the name of Claes Goran Johnson.  Johnson has never published any climate related work in a refereed journal, though he claims to have had one article published in a journal called "Relations".  Unfortunately, no such journal exists and Johnson's supposed links to it lead back to his own website.

Claes Goran Johnson

PS: to claim that the Distributive law: (  A(B+C)=AB+BC  ) does not apply in the physical universe is bullshit.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Here, from a PhD who gets it



Ah, I see where you are getting this crap: Claes Johnson. 
He defines the True-SB as you have said a number of times

Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: False-SB

… _the true Stefan-Boltzmann's Law (True-SB) concerns radiation from a blackbody of temperature T>0 into a background at 0K, …_

That equation would be
R = emissivity sigma T⁴

He further observes that T cannot be negative. *His observations are correct*.

We can also define a background that is radiating,
Rc = emissivity sigma Tc⁴

*That observation is also correct.*

At equilibrium the absorption of the object by the background at Tc is
R = absorptivity sigma T⁴

So the outgoing radiation minus incoming radiation is:

R - Rc = emissivity sigma T⁴ - absorptivity sigma Tc⁴

Those two cannot be factored. In 1859, Kirchhoff defined a law that states that emission and absorption in heated objects at equilibrium are equal because if they were not, then the conservation of energy would be violated. In other words emissivity = absorptivity. So now the temperatures can be factored out.

R - Rc = emissivity sigma (T⁴ - Tc⁴)
If Tc is larger than T, both temperatures are still positive, as Claes would insist. But the result of the subtraction is negative. That simply means the roles of absorption and emission are reversed. Positive temperatures are still preserved. That is why Claes freaked out when he saw a negative difference in the equation.

That is essentially what the Dartmouth text excerpt said. Claes should read the Dartmouth paper.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You go on a bit about smart photons.  Has SSDD ever said that his selective, throttled transmission are due to the behavior of the photons?  All this time I've been thinking he thought matter was doing it.
> ...



You have to explain how this cooler emitting to warmer works. When the cooler emits, doesn't its temperature drop?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 3, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



*You have to explain how this cooler emitting to warmer works.*

It's simple, all matter above 0K emits.
It doesn't put out feelers and decide, emit this way, not that way.

*When the cooler emits, doesn't its temperature drop?*

Of course. And when the warmer emits, its temperature drops more.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You go on a bit about smart photons.  Has SSDD ever said that his selective, throttled transmission are due to the behavior of the photons?  All this time I've been thinking he thought matter was doing it.
> ...



How come the bowling ball doesn't float off into space when its released down the lane? Does it peep around to see where gravity it stronger?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



2 things, are there any real world observations of cooler dropping temperatures in a warmer environment?

If the cooler did in fact drop temperature,  wouldn't it take infinite time for 2 objects to ever reach equilibrium


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 3, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Because gravity.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 3, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



*are there any real world observations of cooler dropping temperatures in a warmer environment?*

No, because it doesn't.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Keep talking..the more  wise cracks you make the more obvious it gets that comedians never did well at school.  You and the other "expert" spent the whole weekend grand standing here saying glass does not absorb any IR especially not this strange global glass roof that exists in your magic mushroom mind.
And your giggly echo chamber friends can`t wrap their equally little minds around the fact that  a plastic bottle with 100% CO2 *maxed out *at only 5 deg more than the control proves AGW is a hoax.
They figure 2500 times less CO2 will max out by as much if you give it several decades. But for that they need an "average" earth which has no nights or any cold seasons and is exposed to a steady solar irradiance...in other words a flat disk earth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 3, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



* You and the other "expert" spent the whole weekend grand standing here saying glass does not absorb any IR *

Link?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You mean the ball is just following the laws of the Universe?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 3, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



As far as I know.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 3, 2018)

Crick said:


> Your source (that you failed to identify) is a Swedish mathematician by the name of Claes Goran Johnson.  Johnson has never published any climate related work in a refereed journal, though he claims to have had one article published in a journal called "Relations".  Unfortunately, no such journal exists and Johnson's supposed links to it lead back to his own website.
> 
> Claes Goran Johnson
> 
> PS: to claim that the Distributive law: (  A(B+C)=AB+BC  ) does not apply in the physical universe is bullshit.



And yet, he grasps the topic far beyond your ability....if you can answer any of the problems he raises with the false SB law, feel free to answer them.  I can give you his email address...he has always been perfectly willing to discuss the topic...I am sure he would be happy to hand you your ass on the subject...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 3, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Here, from a PhD who gets it
> ...



Sorry guy...till such time as the second law of thermodynamics is changed and reflects two way energy flow, your false SB equations will always be contradicted by the second law..


----------



## SSDD (Dec 3, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Imagine that...objects obeying the laws of the universe without having to even think about it...who would have thought.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Amazing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Your source (that you failed to identify) is a Swedish mathematician by the name of Claes Goran Johnson.  Johnson has never published any climate related work in a refereed journal, though he claims to have had one article published in a journal called "Relations".  Unfortunately, no such journal exists and Johnson's supposed links to it lead back to his own website.
> ...



* I can give you his email address...he has always been perfectly willing to discuss the topic...*

Like Dr. Raeder?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *I can give you his email address...he has always been perfectly willing to discuss the topic...*
> 
> Like Dr. Raeder?


If you emailed Claes, he might say something like this:

_I am not saying that there is no "greenhouse effect" from clouds and water vapor and a little from CO2. What I do say is that "back radiation" from the atmosphere to the Earth surface of magnitude 300 W/m2 is fake non-physics and I understand that a pyrgeometer reporting this quantity does that with a fake invented scale which could be anything._​
Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: DLR

He says the GHE exists but not a big as some think. He is going against SSDD who doesn't think it exists at all. SSDD has a tendency to cite sources that disagree with him.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy...till such time as the second law of thermodynamics is changed and reflects two way energy flow, your false SB equations will always be contradicted by the second law..


Broken record speaks again. Yes, yes, we heard you many times say you don't  believe in the science.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 3, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy...till such time as the second law of thermodynamics is changed and reflects two way energy flow, your false SB equations will always be contradicted by the second law..
> ...


fake science, nope. still waiting on the observed experiments.  got any yet?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 3, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*still waiting on the observed experiments.  *

What kind?


----------



## polarbear (Dec 3, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Well I guess the best evidence is that when I get into my car its only -30 C cold instead of the -30.05 degrees it would have been were it not after yet another global warming year "heating up" the Manitoba winter-land scape.
They have a lot of "overwhelming evidence" like that. When it got almost that cold already in October it was "evidence of ever more frequent weather extremes" that the same people "predicted"* after* they happened. Now they claim they never  predicted earlier that snow and ice will soon seize to exist.
Meantime most of the popular snow-blower makes are already sold out at the local Canadian Tire store. They also have huge piles of bags full of of salt to melt the ice instead of bags full of sand for the preppers who believe in the "melting ice doomsday science".


----------



## jc456 (Dec 3, 2018)

polarbear said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Snowing here last Monday flurries now. Wet most of the week! Chicago area. 13 inches last Monday


----------



## jc456 (Dec 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


That cold objects get colder as they emit


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 3, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



All objects get colder when they emit.
Are you drunk?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


So a cold object gets warmer? That’s absorbing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 3, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*So a cold object gets warmer?*

When?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Well it either gets colder or warmer. Which is it when it emits?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 3, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



All objects get colder when they emit.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


It’s what I said, you sure your not drunk? Now that we have agreement there, you have evidence of ice on a counter in 70 degree surrounding getting colder?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 3, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*It’s what I said*

LOL!

* Now that we have agreement there, you have evidence of ice on a counter in 70 degree surrounding getting colder?*

No. Do you?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Nope you said it should while  it emits


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 3, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



In this wacky universe, many things happen simultaneously.
So, if the only thing in the system we're studying is ice, yes, ice emitting into the 
cold vacuum of space would cool.

In the system you mentioned, the ice at 0C (32F) or below is emitting, but it's also absorbing faster from the 21C (70F) counter and surroundings.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 4, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


what happens to photons it supposedly emits? does it heat the room?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 4, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



They traveled in all directions, without regard to the temperature of the target.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 4, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


and did what exactly?  did it warm anything? And again, I asked a few posts back, have any observed data that shows the ice cube radiated?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 4, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*and did what exactly?*

Was absorbed.

*did it warm anything?*

Depends.

*And again, I asked a few posts back, have any observed data that shows the ice cube radiated?*





Plug in the data for the particular cube if you're interested in finding how much power 
the ice cube radiates.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 4, 2018)

So we are at 502 posts and still not the first challenge to the OP...nor will there ever be.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So we are at 502 posts and still not the first challenge to the OP...nor will there ever be.


You were given the evidence. Your point #2 was invalidated. How many times do we have to  say that? That in turn invalidates your point #1.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So we are at 502 posts and still not the first challenge to the OP...nor will there ever be.
> ...



No...it wasn't...your greenhouse in a bottle experiment only showed how easily you are fooled...evidence that you are easily tricked does not even begin to challenge any of my points...greenhouse in a bottle...what a laugh...do the experiment yourself and follow the format from the script I provided...watch your "greenhouse" effect disappear when the bottles are vented...laughing right out loud in your face.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



What is wrong with you!! You get so ill-tempered when you forget we went through that once before. I  went through the fact in *Post #402* that a tightly sealed bottle only influences the temperature by  0.012%, and that's hardly measurable error on top of the fact that the CO2 bottle heats several degrees!!!.

When it comes to the atmosphere CO2 loses its energy gained by resonant absorption to the air. When a photon has the same energy as a resonance frequency of a GHG molecule it can absorb the photon and gain vibratory energy. That GHG molecule very *seldom *releases that energy by re-emitting a photon of the same frequency.

The reason is that molecules in a gas have average speeds of around 500 meters per second, and around *0.2 nSec* between collisions. This is at room temperature and pressure. The average relaxation time that a CO2 molecule can hold the vibration state is much longer: *13 microsec*. A random molecule is *26000 *times more likely to hit the vibrating GHG molecule before it has a chance to emit a photon. That random molecule gains energy from the vibration and turns into heat.

Besides that the evidence that the air heats up is given by these simple steps:

Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
That loss of EM energy to the GHGs is random.
Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
The conservation of energy requires the above.
That simple physics shows a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
*If you disagree, which step do you think is wrong?*

.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 5, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


So no observed evidence!


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 5, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Plug in the data for the particular cube if you're interested in finding how much power the ice cube radiates.



This is a help for our simple friends here who are science challenged. 
Stefan Boltzmann Law Calculator - Omni

He will see that ice emits about 300 W/m²


----------



## polarbear (Dec 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Its not as if the experiment could not be carried out without bottling up the CO2. It would stay in an open top aquarium. So it`s not as if  you need the bottle for experiments like that except for the fact that the outcome would be a nothing-burger if that parcel of air is not bottled up preventing convection.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 5, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Except for every experiment used to find the Stefan-Boltzmann.
And every one since that backed it up.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 5, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Then post one


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 5, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



http://physics.wooster.edu/JrIS/Files/Carter.pdf


----------



## SSDD (Dec 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> What is wrong with you!! You get so ill-tempered when you forget we went through that once before. I  went through the fact in *Post #402* that a tightly sealed bottle only influences the temperature by  0.012%, and that's hardly measurable error on top of the fact that the CO2 bottle heats several degrees!!!.
> 
> When it comes to the atmosphere CO2 loses its energy gained by resonant absorption to the air. When a photon has the same energy as a resonance frequency of a GHG molecule it can absorb the photon and gain vibratory energy. That GHG molecule very *seldom *releases that energy by re-emitting a photon of the same frequency.
> 
> ...



Your model is wrong...and I disagree because I did the experiment myself, 3 times and got the same results as the author...observable results trump your failed models every time.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 5, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



he doesn't dare do the experiment himself...the results would challenge his beliefs and we can't have that.


----------



## karpenter (Dec 5, 2018)

BlackFlag said:
			
		

> Somebody will have to come up with an idea or new technology to address the climate if it becomes necessary.


Nope
Not To Worry

We're Gonna Zap It With A New Magnetic Field
Create A New Atmosphere Just He Way We Like It
Just Like We're Going To Do On Mars

And We'll All Live Happily Ever After


----------



## jc456 (Dec 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


What’s funny is my coffee never gets hotter in the cup. I’ve put ice near the cup all kinds of furniture and the coffee always cools to room temperature.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Your model is wrong...and I disagree because I did the experiment myself, 3 times and got the same results as the author...observable results trump your failed models every time.


Air heats in an atmosphere with GHGs because of these simple steps:

Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
That loss of EM energy to the GHGs is random.
Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
The conservation of energy requires the above.
That simple physics shows a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
*If you disagree, which step do you think is wrong?*


----------



## jc456 (Dec 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Your model is wrong...and I disagree because I did the experiment myself, 3 times and got the same results as the author...observable results trump your failed models every time.
> ...


Which step says the air gets warm by IR? Cause that’s what you’re trying to say. We’re still waiting on that observation


----------



## SSDD (Dec 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Your model is wrong...and I disagree because I did the experiment myself, 3 times and got the same results as the author...observable results trump your failed models every time.
> ...



Yeah..I heard your model ad nauseam...the observable, measurable, repeatable evidence proves your understanding wrong.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Yeah..I heard your model ad nauseam...the observable, measurable, repeatable evidence proves your understanding wrong


Proves which step is wrong?


----------



## polarbear (Dec 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Plug in the data for the particular cube if you're interested in finding how much power the ice cube radiates.
> ...


Okay, so it emits 300 W/m^2  but why is it not possible to let it do that for 3600 seconds and use the ~ 25 800 calories that came from the ice to boil 25 liters of water ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 5, 2018)

jc456 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*What’s funny is my coffee never gets hotter in the cup.*

Stop putting your coffee in places where it radiates more power than it absorbs.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 5, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Okay, so it emits 300 W/m^2 but why is it not possible to let it do that for 3600 seconds and use the ~ 25 800 calories that came from the ice to boil 25 liters of water ?


If the nearby water is above 0 C it will be radiating more energy to the ice than it is absorbing from the ice.

Edit. Tod beat me to it.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, so it emits 300 W/m^2 but why is it not possible to let it do that for 3600 seconds and use the ~ 25 800 calories that came from the ice to boil 25 liters of water ?
> ...


Yeah I know that,  but why don`t they have that  problem  in a computer model ?
They don`t even have 300 W/m^2. With less than 1/100 th of that they can warm up an entire ocean.
Explain that.
As far as the water not getting any warmer only because it is radiating more energy than it gets from the ice being the problem,... that should not matter if  I  let you use as many  ice square meters as you want to make up for the number of watt seconds the warmer water can loose in 3600 seconds by radiative heat loss.
Use 4 times as many squaremeters of ice and you got 1200 watts. That more than makes up for the ~ 1100 W/m^2 the hotter water would loose in the same time.
Your problem is that you don`t know the difference between *usable energy* and just plain energy expressed in any of the SI units. And these idiotic computer models do the same thing pretending there is no difference..


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 5, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


I don't understand your first question. I presume you are referring to an atmospheric model. 

It is sunshine that heats the ocean. There is no other incoming source of energy to do that other than some underwater vents or proximity to the hot magma.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 5, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Plug in the data for the particular cube if you're interested in finding how much power 
the ice cube radiates*

one can't measure it?   Observe it?


----------



## polarbear (Dec 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Ooooh I see...the "extra heat" that has been hiding in the ocean came from the sun shine and its only the "extra heat" on dry land that came from the CO2....and why do you need the sun if you can steel heat  with CO2 from something colder  to warm something which is warmer  (as  the settled science says it can)
Aaah there is that pesky usable energy problem again, but no matter all it takes is the sun + maybe that 97% consensus of idiots  and that problem is "solved"....even though it now took something way hotter to get the usable energy required instead of the 300 W/m^2 unusable energy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 5, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



If you wanted to confirm the number you get from the formula.....feel free.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 5, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Yeah I know that, but why don`t they have that problem in a computer model ?
> They don`t even have 300 W/m^2. With less than 1/100 th of that they can warm up an entire ocean.
> Explain that.
> As far as the water not getting any warmer only because it is radiating more energy than it gets from the ice being the problem,... that should not matter if I let you use as many ice square meters as you want to make up for the number of watt seconds the warmer water can loose in 3600 seconds by radiative heat loss.
> ...



Suppose you completely surround a spherical coffee cup with ice in very close proximity, the coffee cup surface area is roughly the same size as the ice surface. The radiation densities are obvious from the BB law.

If you want to increase the surface area exposed by the ice, you have to make a much bigger ice sphere around the cup so the cup will be exposed to all that surface of ice. The ice surface area goes up by the radius squared, but the radiation energy from that ice drops by the inverse square law, so you are back to where you started from as far as total wattage of ice radiation hitting the cup.

In short, the more ice surface you try to use, the further away it has to be. There is a maximum to the flux density from radiation. This is one application of Liouville's theorem.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 5, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Ooooh I see...the "extra heat" that has been hiding in the ocean came from the sun shine and its only the "extra heat" on dry land that came from the CO2....and why do you need the sun if you can steel heat with CO2 from something colder to warm something which is warmer (as the settled science says it can)
> Aaah there is that pesky usable energy problem again, but no matter all it takes is the sun + maybe that 97% consensus of idiots and that problem is "solved"....even though it now took something way hotter to get the usable energy required instead of the 300 W/m^2 unusable energy.


I know you are trying to be sarcastic, but even then your rambling doesn't make sense. All straw-men you are jeering about do not apply to anything I believe.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah I know that, but why don`t they have that problem in a computer model ?
> ...


I am not so stingy as to limit you to the confines of a "spherical coffee cup" ice igloo inner surface.
You can use a 1 by 1 meter ice cube which has 6 sides and all the gold plated mirrors and optics it takes to make sure none of your 1800 watts worth of  ice cube photons go astray. I`ll even let you use charcoal water to absorb as much as possible. In addition to that you will only have to heat a little 2 cm diameter capsule of water with these photons. So don`t give me that crap "you have to make a much bigger ice sphere....but the radiation energy from that ice drops by the inverse square law so you are back to where you started from as far as total wattage of ice radiation hitting the cup." Next thing you tell me it`s not possible for any optics & reflectors to redirect the photons emitted by the 6 sides of that cube towards the location of  a much smaller absorber.....or anything else you can cling  to, other than  admitting that the photons you need to heat warm water are not a *usable energy* if they come from a cooler object.
That whole CO2 "settled science" crumbles without the sun as an energy source. Of course CO2 absorbs IR but it also does that to the same extent to incoming IR as it can to outgoing.
Which is the point when you are the deniers and insist that a colder object can heat a warmer one without any additional IR from somewhere else and claim the "how" is all laid out in the StB equation. If that were so then why was there a need for you to try & swindle your way out of that problem with your limited ingenuity to overcome the m^2 obstacle you invented for me.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 5, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I know I won't confirm the formula, because there won't be any reading on a test set.  Cause no one has shown that one can measure the output of an ice cube.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 5, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*I know I won't confirm the formula, because there won't be any reading on a test set.*

Radiation from an ice cube is somehow undetectable? Or is it non-existent?

*Cause no one has shown that one can measure the output of an ice cube.*

Link?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 5, 2018)

polarbear said:


> the photons you need to heat warm water are not a *usable energy* if they come from a cooler object.


Of course ice cube energy is not usable with only hot objects around. It violates the 2nd law. However it still radiates around 300 W/m². What is your point?


----------



## polarbear (Dec 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > the photons you need to heat warm water are not a *usable energy* if they come from a cooler object.
> ...


_*Of course ice cube energy is not usable with only hot objects around.*_
My point is that it has been used by you and your buddies over and over again to do just that.
Even when somebody points out that observatories find it necessary to cool their heat sensors in order to detect low wattage IR sources that radiate less than the detector would if it were not cooled to the point where the incoming IR is a usable energy.
That`s when some other idiots who have no clue start yapping about IR cameras at room temperature  *which need the usable energy from an electrical source* to sufficiently intensify the signal coming from lower temperature objects. Its the solid state version of a photo multiplier just not nearly as sensitive.
None of that technology would be necessary if the arguments made by the "science" that can conjure up usable energy from anything that is above zero Kelvin were true.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> *1.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
> 
> 2.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
> 
> ...



Should we believe a Republican or 97% of the scientists out there?

The 97% consensus on global warming


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 5, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


Absolutely never. You and your buddies misunderstood the physics. 

Hot coffee in a room at room temperature will cool. Hot coffee in the same room but with ice cubes close by will cool slower. Hot coffee surrounded by even more ice cubes will cool even slower. That is the effect of radiating ice cubes.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 5, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


well I have been in here for quite some time and no one has ever shown radiation off of an ice cube.  You all tried with a Popsicle once, but that was blown up.  So sure, post a link with someone measuring radiation off an ice cube.

Link?
you want me to post a link that doesn't exist?  hmmmm you post the one that does exist.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


no it won't, it will cool faster.  the ice cube will cause the heat from the coffee to emit more heat flows to cold. the colder the quicker it cools. you should read up.  Darwin's law or something.

 I will do the experiment tonight.  It is easy to confirm.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 5, 2018)

jc456 said:


> no it won't it will cool faster. the ice cube will cause the heat from the coffee to emit more heat flows to cold. the colder the quicker it cools. you should read up. Darwin's law or something.
> 
> I will do the experiment tonight. It is easy to confirm.


Right. No need to do an experiment. I misspoke. I meant to say the bold faced changes:

Hot coffee in a room at room temperature will cool. Hot coffee in the same room but with ice cubes close by will cool *faster*. Hot coffee surrounded by even more ice cubes will cool even *faster*. That is the effect of radiating ice cubes.​
The radiating ice cubes block the room temperature emissions at 400 W/m² and replace them with even lower emissions from the ice cubes at 300 W/m².


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 5, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Link?
you want me to post a link that doesn't exist?*

You don't have a link that says no one can measure radiation emitted by ice?
Then how did you come to that conclusion?


----------



## boedicca (Dec 5, 2018)

One of the more compelling pieces of evidence that AGW is a big scam...

Gore refused to take the Personal Energy Ethics Pledge in 2007:

_*As a believer:
·        that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival;
·        that home energy use is a key component of overall energy use;
·        that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and
·        that leaders on moral issues should lead by example;*_

_*I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008.”*_

<b>GORE REFUSES TO TAKE PERSONAL ENERGY ETHICS PLEDGE</b>


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 5, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


I would bet you’re right


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 5, 2018)

The ice cubes warm the coffee...this new learning amazes me!


----------



## polarbear (Dec 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Do you realize what you are saying here?...::
_*Hot coffee in a room at room temperature will cool. Hot coffee in the same room but with ice cubes close by will cool slower. Hot coffee surrounded by even more ice cubes will cool even slower. That is the effect of radiating ice cubes*_.
According to you the coffee sheds heat by radiation  faster if it has radiate into warm air and the more ice cubes are surrounding it the slower it cools.....and you say that is based on the Stefan Boltzmann equation!!! Imagine if I would say that how your buddies would dogpile me. I could really shred you to bits with that, but I won`t because unlike your buddies you have been relatively civil  and I let it pass as a momentary glitch. Maybe your TV volume was too high and Dom Lemon or Cuomo  were on while you were typing that.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 6, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Do you realize what you are saying here?...::
> _*Hot coffee in a room at room temperature will cool. Hot coffee in the same room but with ice cubes close by will cool slower. Hot coffee surrounded by even more ice cubes will cool even slower. That is the effect of radiating ice cubes*_.
> According to you the coffee sheds heat by radiation faster if it has radiate into warm air and the more ice cubes are surrounding it the slower it cools.....and you say that is based on the Stefan Boltzmann equation!!! Imagine if I would say that how your buddies would dogpile me. I could really shred you to bits with that, but I won`t because unlike your buddies you have been relatively civil and I let it pass as a momentary glitch. Maybe your TV volume was too high and Dom Lemon or Cuomo were on while you were typing that.


Read post #541 above. I needed a nap when I posted the misprint.  I had to look up Lemon and Cuomo. I never watch CNN - too much fluff.
But I hope you understand that nobody in their right mind would actually believe that radiation from a cold object would actually heat a warmer object. A lot of the less science inclined here could not digest the meaning of what was being said about two way radiation. 
.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


you have one?  If I can't find one, means there isn't one that I have found.  did you read what I wrote?  you want me to provide you with something that I don't think exists since I can't find any.  So please, walk up to the Bar and post that link that Ice will radiate at the hot cup of coffee and make it warmer.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 6, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The ice cubes warm the coffee...this new learning amazes me!


Frank, it's what they use to say that the cooler atmosphere slows down the escape rate of the warm radiation from the surface.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Do you realize what you are saying here?...::
> ...


well technically, you didn't really say that, you said it would slow down the escape rate of the heat from the coffee. BTW, I didn't get to the experiment last evening.  Will try tomorrow, I have plans tonight.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 6, 2018)

So the heat that radiates from the cooler ice cube to the warmer coffee must be smart heat and here's why. Say the ice is 32F and the coffee is 120F, say 1F travels from the ice to the coffee, wouldn't that cause the ice to drop to 31 and coffee to rise to 121? Surely, this must be "smart heat" that realizes its traveling from a cooler gradient and simply lacks the mojo to lower the temp of the and raise the coffee temperature. So that's why we never observe cooler lower and heat increasing


----------



## jc456 (Dec 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > no it won't it will cool faster. the ice cube will cause the heat from the coffee to emit more heat flows to cold. the colder the quicker it cools. you should read up. Darwin's law or something.
> ...


so, if you agree that cold ice will cause the hot coffee to cool faster, how can the atmosphere that is cooler than the surface warm the surface?  you have just agreed that the cooler will in fact cause warm to cool faster.  Right?  so where is the greenhouse roof in the atmosphere?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*you have one?  *

No, I don't have a link that backs up your erroneous claim.

*So please, walk up to the Bar and post that link that Ice will radiate at the hot cup of coffee and make it warmer.*

Did you not understand the formula? Ice will radiate at the hot cup, but the hot cup radiates more.
That means the ice warms and the cup cools. It's simple math. I understand why that confuses you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The ice cubes warm the coffee...this new learning amazes me!
> ...



Of course it does, that's why deserts get colder at night than other areas.
That's why the Moon gets colder at night than the Earth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



* how can the atmosphere that is cooler than the surface warm the surface? you have just agreed that the cooler will in fact cause warm to cool faster. Right?  *

Which is cooler, our atmosphere or the vacuum of space?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


so you have nothing that shows the ice emitting to the coffee?  just as I stated.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*so you have nothing that shows the ice emitting to the coffee?*


----------



## jc456 (Dec 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


which is cooler the atmosphere or the surface?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


that isn't observed.  so I'm waiting.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Usually the atmosphere is cooler.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Was the experiment I linked up thread too complex?


----------



## polarbear (Dec 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Do you realize what you are saying here?...::
> ...


Quite alright...don`t worry about it. You fell asleep at the wheel, I was pretty sure it was something like that. 
I`m not Crick or his sock puppet and use that to call you what they really are themselves.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


and that's where the heat goes, and yet, it's cold.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


had nothing to do with an ice cube warming coffee.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Cold compared to what?
Warm compared to what?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


cold atmosphere compared to the warm surface. warm on the surface compared to the cooler atmosphere.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



It had to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann formula.
Why does it work for the experiment and not for an ice cube?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The atmosphere is warmer than space.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I didn't know the ice cube to the coffee was in a vacuum?


Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


and?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*I didn't know the ice cube to the coffee was in a vacuum?*

The ice cube radiates toward the coffee and the coffee radiates toward the ice cube.
Still confused?

*and?*

That's why GHGs slow the cooling of the surface.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


not at all, but again, you have no evidence that the ice cube actually radiates toward the coffee, been waiting for that experiment.  still haven't seen it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



* you have no evidence that the ice cube actually radiates toward the coffee,*

Why does Stefan-Boltzmann work for the experiment but not the ice cube?

Spell it out...….


----------



## jc456 (Dec 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


it's not in a vacuum as I already stated.  still waiting on that observed ice flow to the coffee.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Matter only radiates in a vacuum? That's your play?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


cold to warm yep.  you can post observation I'm wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Can you expand your point?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


sure, show me an ice cube radiating toward hot coffee


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The formula is too complex?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


doesn't show that the ice cube will radiate toward hot coffee.  nope.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Does the ice cube radiate on its own?
If it does, why would it stop if hot coffee came close?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 7, 2018)

579 posts and the OP still hasn't been challenged.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> 579 posts and the OP still hasn't been challenged.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> 579 posts and the OP still hasn't been challenged.


You are lying again. We invalidated your second contention, and that invalidates your first contention in your OP. Here it is again. You have never answered this.

When it comes to the atmosphere CO2 loses its energy gained by resonant absorption to the air. When a photon has the same energy as a resonance frequency of a GHG molecule it can absorb the photon and gain vibratory energy. That GHG molecule very *seldom *releases that energy by re-emitting a photon of the same frequency.

The reason is that molecules in a gas have average speeds of around 500 meters per second, and around *0.2 nanoSec* between collisions. This is at room temperature and pressure. The average relaxation time that a CO2 molecule can hold the vibration state is much longer: *13 microsec*. A random molecule is *26000 *times more likely to hit the vibrating GHG molecule before it has a chance to emit a photon. That random molecule gains kinetic energy from the vibration and turns into heat.

That measured evidence shows that the air heats up as given by these simple steps:

Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the vibration modes of GHGs in the lower troposphere.
That absorbed EM energy by the GHGs is random.
The GHG vibration energy is almost all transfered to the air as kinetic energy through collisions. 
Gain of random kinetic energy in air is thermal energy.
That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss to the GHGs.
The conservation of energy requires the above.
That simple physics shows a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

*If you disagree, which step do you think is wrong?*

That is also related to the question that you didn't answer:
*What happens to the 15,700 W/m² EM radiation from Venus?*

Your OP has been challenged but you never countered the challenges

.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


cause it is absorbing the radiation from the coffee.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Of course it absorbs radiation from the coffee. 
If it's outside, it is also absorbing radiation from the atmosphere and from CMB and from anything in line of sight.
So why do you feel it stops radiating?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


it's melting.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Melting ice doesn't radiate? Link?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


it can't it's warming up from absorbing the heat and eventually ends up in a warm puddle that is emitting the same area temperature it is in now.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*it can't it's warming up from absorbing the heat *

Matter that's absorbing can't emit? Nice!

Link?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why does the ice melt and does its surface area change in transition?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Excellent questions, but first I'd love to see that link...…..


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


me too.  got one?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



No, I don't have a link that supports your erroneous claim.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


so you've never seen an ice cube melt before?  Dude, it will disappear.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


BTW, if, as you say, the ice is emitting, are you saying it is warming the coffee?  hmmmm


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Your erroneous claim was that warming ice doesn't emit, dude.

So no link to back you up?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*BTW, if, as you say, the ice is emitting, are you saying it is warming the coffee?  *

BTW, the hotter coffee emits more, so it cools and the ice warms.
Even as they both emit, both absorb.


----------



## IanC (Dec 7, 2018)

The ice cube is always emitting, in an amount proportional to its temperature, area and emissivity. As long as those three things remain the same then so will the amount of radiation. 

So far warming or cooling has not been mentioned . 

An ice cube in space would quickly deplete its internal energy by emitting smaller and smaller amounts of radiation as its temperature decreased until it reached the same 'temperature' as space.

An ice cube in a minus20 freezer would cool to minus20 and then continue to radiate the amount proportional  to minus20.

An ice cube in a 5C fridge would still radiate according to its temperature but it would now be absorbing more radiation from its surroundings than it was emitting. It is now warming rather than cooling.

An ice cube in a 25C environment warms even faster because there is now a large disparity between  incoming absorbed radiation and outgoing emitted radiation.

An object radiates in proportion to its temperature and emissivity.  An object warms or cools according to the net transfer of energy between the environment and object.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 7, 2018)

IanC said:


> The ice cube is always emitting, in an amount proportional to its temperature, area and emissivity. As long as those three things remain the same then so will the amount of radiation.
> 
> So far warming or cooling has not been mentioned .
> 
> ...



 Of course that is true, but JC has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that he is totally incapable of understanding it. He keeps asking the same questions over and over but never understands the answers. Probably a troll?

.


----------



## IanC (Dec 7, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The ice cube is always emitting, in an amount proportional to its temperature, area and emissivity. As long as those three things remain the same then so will the amount of radiation.
> ...



What level of IQ is considered mild retardation?  Poor jc is well over to the left of the curve.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


What’s the coffee absorbing? You said it doesn’t get warmer.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

IanC said:


> The ice cube is always emitting, in an amount proportional to its temperature, area and emissivity. As long as those three things remain the same then so will the amount of radiation.
> 
> So far warming or cooling has not been mentioned .
> 
> ...


so sure, let's go there, so will the ice warm the coffee?  Nope.

And yet you believe the colder atmosphere warms the hot surface.  Warms the surface to almost two times that of the sun's incoming radiation.  And you think I'm on the right side of the stupid IQ meter.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*What’s the coffee absorbing? *

Radiation that hits it.

*You said it doesn’t get warmer.*

Because it emits more at the ice than it absorbs from the ice.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The ice cube is always emitting, in an amount proportional to its temperature, area and emissivity. As long as those three things remain the same then so will the amount of radiation.
> ...



*so sure, let's go there, so will the ice warm the coffee? Nope.*

Of course not. Net power is from the coffee to the ice.

*And yet you believe the colder atmosphere warms the hot surface. *

No one believes that.

*And you think I'm on the right side of the stupid IQ meter.*

No one believes you're on the right side of the bell curve.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


So if it is absorbing the ice radiation, then it should slow it's rate of cooling, and it doesn't.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


*And yet you believe the colder atmosphere warms the hot surface. 

No one believes that.*

Sure you all do, you call it back radiation.  Something that you can't prove.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*So if it is absorbing the ice radiation, then it should slow it's rate of cooling*

The coffee cools more slowly exchanging radiation with the ice than it would exchanging radiation with the vacuum of space.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Sure you all do*

No one does.

* you call it back radiation*

The atmosphere radiates in all directions, even toward the warmer ground.

*Something that you can't prove.*

I can't prove the atmosphere radiates? LOL!


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


well than good thing I'm not in the vacuum of space, I'd never drink hot coffee.  good thing we have an atmosphere of water molecules to hold in the heat.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


to the surface?  nope.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Link?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


again, what I've been looking for from you all.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I told you, several times, I don't have a link that supports your erroneous claim.

Apparently neither do you.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


you can't prove back radiation.  that's my claim. and you admit you can't prove it.  great!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*you can't prove back radiation. that's my claim. *

All matter above 0K radiates in all directions.
You're claiming it only radiates toward space?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


can you prove it radiates to the surface?  you said you can't.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*can you prove it radiates to the surface? *

Yes.

*you said you can't.*

I said I couldn't prove your erroneous claims. Neither can you.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Prove it


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...







Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


dude,  that isn't proof of anything.  if it were, you could tell me what the increase in temperature was from 200 to 400 ppm of CO2.  you can't.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...








7.2 Atmospheric Radiation and Earth’s Climate | METEO 300: Fundamentals of Atmospheric Science

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


dude,  that isn't proof of anything.  if it were, you could tell me what the increase in temperature was from 200 to 400 ppm of CO2.  you can't


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...







CO2 and Global Warming

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


dude,  that isn't proof of anything.  if it were, you could tell me what the increase in temperature was from 200 to 400 ppm of CO2.  you can't

from the OP

*1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burins of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*dude, that isn't proof of anything.*

It's shows that matter above 0K radiates in all directions.

So, no links from you that show matter is somehow restricted from radiating in certain directions?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


how, it isn't observed.  none of what you have posted is.

Our atmosphere is much too complex for anyone to know what is happening.  That's why one can't produce an observed or measured back radiation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*how, it isn't observed*

It's observed all the time.

You know what isn't observed?
Links that agree with your erroneous claims.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


you have zip observed back radiation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...







The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


dude, that doesn't prove a fking thing.  again, the atmosphere is too complex for that to be explained as back radiation.  You have pressure and gravity and many other variables, that interfere with your ability to take that and say see!!!! LOL.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*dude, that doesn't prove a fking thing.*

Dude, you said it's never observed. 
Were you a liar or just stupid?

* the atmosphere is too complex for that to be explained as back radiation.*

What is downward LWIR if not "back radiation"?

*You have pressure and gravity and many other variables, *

LWIR is caused by gravity and pressure? Okay...…….durr.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Not observed sorry pal


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Doesn’t prove back radiating at all


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



If you prefer to use the term, "Downward Longwave Radiation", that's fine with me.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Nothing coming back, not been observed


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Nothing coming back, not been observed*






Observed right here. Is the graph too complicated for you?
Never used graphs before you dropped out of school?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


It’s fake


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Prove it.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


LOL you prove it’s observed name the device that read it


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Ping me if you ever find any backup for any of your erroneous claims.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Ping me when you can actually post observed back radiation


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


So you can’t give up that instrument eh? LOL


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

IanC I’m right here stupid fk. You just post that observation of back radiation, pup


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Baseline Surface Radiation Network: Contact persons

Let me know what they say.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Test set that measured that. You do like to repeat your stupid


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


About? If you can’t pull the information for me to review, ain’t worth my time!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



About whatever questions you have concerning their measurements of back radiation.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 8, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Yep, let’s hear how they read the lwir. Cold probe? LOL


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 8, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Technology, it's a thing now.

Still no backup for any of your erroneous claims?

Weird.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 8, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Still nothing observed per OP. You asking for links of something that doesn’t exist is funny!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 8, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Still nothing observed*






*You asking for links of something that doesn’t exist is funny!*

I agree, asking for links to back up your erroneous claims is funny.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 8, 2018)

Still no evidence.

Ghey


----------



## jc456 (Dec 9, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Still nothing observed


----------



## PredFan (Dec 9, 2018)

BlackFlag said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > BlackFlag said:
> ...



Willfully ignorant.


----------



## IanC (Dec 9, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




A few years ago I posted up a similar graph to Todd. It named the instrument used so I found the manual. It explained how the instrument worked, ie. no cooling. Then I found an industrial paper comparing and rating the various  instruments, which gave the precision and accuracy throughout the range of wavelengths being measured.

You ignored the evidence then and you are ignoring Todd's evidence now.

If you think it is fake then present some actual reasons, with data and discussion that supports your reasoning.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 9, 2018)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Your instrument was measuring temperature changes in an internal thermopile...it wasn't measuring back radiation....again...so easily fooled by instrumentation...not surprising you believe in a radiative greenhouse effect in a troposphere that is totally dominated by conduction and pressure.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 9, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



DERP!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Your instrument was measuring temperature changes in an internal thermopile...it wasn't measuring back radiation.*

Dimmer switch!!


----------



## IanC (Dec 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You keep talking about being fooled by instrumentation but you never get around to saying what the discrepancies are.

If the instruments are calibrated against a known source of radiation, what difference does it make whether it is a change in thermopile temperature or voltage potentials or anything else?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 9, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



The difference is, "back radiation" means he's a stupid liar.
A warm instrument radiating less to the cooler atmosphere because "dimmer switch!", means he's a lonely pioneer, correcting hundreds of years of physics errors. All alone.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 9, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You’re excused.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 9, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


He has, you don’t understand the answer!


----------



## SSDD (Dec 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I just told you....sorry that you are so thoroughly baffled by instruments that you can't work it out.  An instrument measuring internal temperature changes can not be said to be measuring anything other than those temperature changes...you have no idea what caused the changes and not the first bit of evidence that it was measuring anything coming from the atmosphere....if you want to measure backradiation,, and be sure that is what you are measuring, you need to be measuring discrete frequencies of radiation and you need to be doing it with an instrument at ambient temperature...not an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the source you are trying to measure.  Of course, you can't do that because energy doesn't move from cooler objects to warmer objects any more than rocks fall up when dropped.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



*Of course, you can't do that because energy doesn't move from cooler objects to warmer objects any more than rocks fall up when dropped. *


----------



## SSDD (Dec 10, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Got any observed measured evidence to the contrary?  Didn't think so.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Any real sources that agree with your one way claims?
Or are you all alone, still?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 11, 2018)

You never answered the question in this thread asked many times.
The evidence that the air heats up is given by these simple steps:

Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
That loss of EM energy to the GHGs is random vibrational energy.
The vibrating GHG will most likely hit a random air molecule.
Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
The conservation of energy requires the above.
That simple physics shows a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

*If you disagree, which step do you think is wrong?
Why are you afraid to answer this question?*


----------



## IanC (Dec 11, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So the heat that radiates from the cooler ice cube to the warmer coffee must be smart heat and here's why. Say the ice is 32F and the coffee is 120F, say 1F travels from the ice to the coffee, wouldn't that cause the ice to drop to 31 and coffee to rise to 121? Surely, this must be "smart heat" that realizes its traveling from a cooler gradient and simply lacks the mojo to lower the temp of the and raise the coffee temperature. So that's why we never observe cooler lower and heat increasing




Let's assign some easy numbers and assumptions to your example. At time equals zero the ice cube radiates 240w/s, the coffee cup 480w/s. The common face is 1/6th the area, so 40w/s is going from cool to warm; and 80 w/s from warm to cool.

During the first second the NET movement of energy between the two objects is 40 watts absorbed by the ice cube. Can we tell if either object warmed or cooled? No, not really because we don't have the necessary information on the environment that the other five faces are emitting to and absorbing from. 

If the environment was radiating 232w/s then the ice cube would be balanced (-8, -8, -8, -8, -8, +40) and the coffee cup would be cooling. If the environment was radiating 488w/s then the coffee cup would be balanced (-40, +8, +8, +8, +8, +8) and the ice cube would be warming.

If the environment is 489w or higher both objects are warming.
Between 487 and 233 the coffee is cooling and the ice is warming.
Below 231, both objects are cooling.

Next we go to the time interval of (n+1 to n+2). Depending on the environment we will have to adjust the temperature of the two objects for cooling or warming and then redo he calculations. Etc.

Of course we are ignoring the temperature gradients that are developing in the objects because of uneven radiation balance in the various directions but just how complex should we get?


Obviously it is foolish to consider the one way flow from one object to another as warming or cooling when even the net flow between then is insufficient to define that.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 12, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You never answered the question in this thread asked many times.
> The evidence that the air heats up is given by these simple steps:
> 
> Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
> ...



More models...no actual observed, measured evidence.  The request was for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...sorry..another swing...another miss...  

Ever figure out how to read an equation?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You never answered the question in this thread asked many times.
> ...



*If you disagree, which step do you think is wrong?
Why are you afraid to answer the question?*


----------



## jc456 (Dec 13, 2018)

FYI for everyone in here:

The Fraud of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Part 6: The Stupidity of Backradiation

"So in climate science, back-radiation from the atmosphere is said to provide twice the heating power of the Sun, even though the atmosphere is _colder_ than the surface of the Earth, and _even more colder_ than the input sunshine.  This sequence is described in Part 4 of this series, so please read that post again if you would like to refresh your memory.

Now let’s make one thing very clear here:  _the atmosphere has a temperature_.  Of course it has a temperature.  An ice-cube has a temperature.  _Everything_ has a temperature (except for outer-space itself).  But just because something has a temperature, does not mean that it is causing or providing heating power.  Heat, of course, only flows from hot to cold.  Anything with a temperature is holding internal heat energy, but that temperature does _not cause heating_ on any other object unless an object is colder.  _And a temperature never causes heating upon itself!_  A temperature can not increase its own temperature."


----------



## jc456 (Dec 13, 2018)

and I found this:

The 41% Fraud. Carbon Dioxide Propaganda Requires it.

"*The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant*

There is a constant for determining the amount of radiation given off by surfaces at any particular temperature. It's called the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. It is total fraud, as I show on the web page titled *The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant*.

It indicates that the amount of radiation given off by matter at the global average temperature of 15°C is 390 watts per square meter, which is 39% as much as the sun's energy at maximum. It isn't happening. A dark, cold basement is not giving off 39% as much energy as the maximum sunshine striking the earth's surface.

*Infrared Detectors*

Police sometimes use infrared cameras in helicopters at night to determine who is growing marijuana in their home. Growing indoors requires a large amount of light, which leaves a telltale signature of infrared energy being emitted by the structure.

If normal temperature matter were giving off 39% as much radiation as sunlight, it would swamp infrared cameras making them useless. For example, if you turn on a flashlight outdoors during the day, you can't tell whether it is on by looking at it, because surrounding sunlight totally overwhelms such a small amount of light.

The same thing would be true for all outdoor infrared detectors—they would be swamped by surrounding infrared radiation, it the surroundings were giving off such a massive amount of radiation as claimed."


----------



## jc456 (Dec 13, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Emission Prevents Trapping of Heat.

"When a molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs fingerprint radiation (the only thing in question) it increases in vibratory motion, which is heat. As it bumps into surrounding molecules (mostly nitrogen gas), it imparts some motion, which reduces its own motion, while increasing the motion of the other molecule.

The vibrating motion of molecules sends out waves of infrared radiation. As the molecular motion decreases, the intensity of the radiation and its frequency get lower.

The amount of such bumping and re-emitting that must occur to lose the energy gained by absorption depends upon how strong the radiation is that is absorbed, which is determined by the temperature of the emitting molecules. Emissions from the surface of the earth into the atmosphere would go from warmer to colder. For short distances in the atmosphere, *the emitting temperature would be about the same as the absorbing temperature*."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 13, 2018)

jc456 said:


> and I found this:
> 
> The 41% Fraud. Carbon Dioxide Propaganda Requires it.
> 
> ...



Where did you find that clown? He's funny.
Dumber than SSDD, but funny!


----------



## jc456 (Dec 14, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > and I found this:
> ...


 just post the observed measurements where he's wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Did you see, besides deciding that Stefan-Boltzmann is wrong, be also thinks E=MC^2 is wrong.

Hilarious!!!

How did you find him?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 14, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


you didn't read his piece then.  he never said the Stefan-Boltzmann is wrong, he said it was being used wrong based on the atmosphere make up.  Again, nothing that challenges what he actually said.  Go figure from you.

"Here's the problem with the Stefan-Boltzmann constant: Satellite measurements indicate that the sun's energy approaching the earth is 1366 watts per square meter. The amount reflected away is said to be 26%. The amount absorbed into the atmosphere is said to be 16%. (See *NASA chart*). That's 1366 minus 26% minus 16% = 792 W/m2. That's how much radiation would fall on a black asphalt surface at the equator at noon. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant indicates that in a dark basement, a concrete wall at 59°F (the global average temperature) would emit 390 W/m2. That's 49% as much radiation emitted from a dark, cold basement as falls on a black surface at the equator. It isn't happening."

explain how he's saying e=mc^2 is wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Look around on his site, he's just like SSDD.
He's right and all the rest of the world is wrong. Hilarious!!


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 14, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Look around on his site, he's just like SSDD.
> He's right and all the rest of the world is wrong. Hilarious!!



I saw his site. I decided I wanted to do something more interesting, but I couldn't leave. I was mesmerized by the surprisingly prolific Disney Land of idiocy. The author is the sage and mentor for SSDD and all his followers of science denial who enjoy basking in the glory of crap.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2018)

Look at you two daisies....stroking each other's little egos.  You sheep need that in copious quantity don't you?  You sound like little high school girls dissing the mean bitch when she is out of ear shot...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2018)

I think it's your turn to stroke wuwei toddster..  Isn't that the way it works with you guys...he strokes you a bit.. then you stroke him a bit and pretty soon, you both forget that you can't manage the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support what you believe...and in your own minds, you have put us bad old skeptics in our places.

So go ahead...give old wuwei a little stroke....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I think it's your turn to stroke wuwei toddster..  Isn't that the way it works with you guys...he strokes you a bit.. then you stroke him a bit and pretty soon, you both forget that you can't manage the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support what you believe...and in your own minds, you have put us bad old skeptics in our places.
> 
> So go ahead...give old wuwei a little stroke....



And here you are, all alone, you against all of science.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 15, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's your turn to stroke wuwei toddster..  Isn't that the way it works with you guys...he strokes you a bit.. then you stroke him a bit and pretty soon, you both forget that you can't manage the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support what you believe...and in your own minds, you have put us bad old skeptics in our places.
> ...


I just posted information from a physicist so you are again in error. by the way, all your deflections still no observed or measured evidence! As the physicist I posted stated


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 15, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's your turn to stroke wuwei toddster..  Isn't that the way it works with you guys...he strokes you a bit.. then you stroke him a bit and pretty soon, you both forget that you can't manage the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support what you believe...and in your own minds, you have put us bad old skeptics in our places.
> ...


Actually those with a clue refuse to debate people who have no concept retention capabilities.. The SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess) is common in AGW nutters. They refuse to acknowledge the observed natural laws and cling to their failed models...


----------



## jc456 (Dec 15, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Look around on his site, he's just like SSDD.
> ...


Funny, now name something he pointed out that you believe to be wrong. Why don’t you ever do that? Instead you post the very fraud he refers to and you never explain why one can’t actually measure or observe that fraud nonsense.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*I just posted information from a physicist *


_Because each CO2 molecule would have to be 2,500°C to heat the air 1°C—an impossibility._

_There cannot be greenhouse gases creating global warming due to the dilution factor. The so-called greenhouse gases are too dilute to heat the surrounding air.

Heating with Greenhouse Gases is Impossible._

This guy is your physicist? LOL!


----------



## IanC (Dec 15, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Look around on his site, he's just like SSDD.
> ...




I read two of the articles, fudge factor (that SSDD refers to but never explains) and heat trapping.

Both use the same types of fallacy to improperly generalize and simplify the situations being discussed. 

So they should properly be ridiculed, or at least be corrected by pointing out where they came off the rails.

But the problem is that climate science also appears to use many of the same fallacies. I don't trust either side to point out the weaknesses in their explanations,  or formalize their assumptions. 

I have learned a lot in the decade since climategate but mostly from my own research, or from lukewarmers like McIntyre Curry and Lewis.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 15, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Prove him wrong.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 15, 2018)

IanC said:


> I read two of the articles, fudge factor (that SSDD refers to but never explains) and heat trapping.
> 
> Both use the same types of fallacy to improperly generalize and simplify the situations being discussed.
> 
> ...



These are some excerpts from other articles.

_When a molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs radiation, it re-emits the radiation in [83] femto seconds.... _*It's actually a few microseconds.*_ 

Since each CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is surrounded by 2,500 air molecules, it would have to be 2,500°C to heat the surrounding molecules [by one degree]

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is too absurd to be used. 

[Physicists] say the same amount of radiation is being emitted as absorbed .... No way. If skin cells were giving off and absorbing 524 W/m² at 98°C, tissue damage would occur between absorption and emission.

Virtually everything in physics is in error ...._​
As far as fallacies, that is hard to beat.

When you say climate science also appears to use many of the same fallacies, do you have examples of those. I have not read much of climate science details. I stick to basic physics.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 15, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I read two of the articles, fudge factor (that SSDD refers to but never explains) and heat trapping.
> ...


Such as?


----------



## IanC (Dec 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I read two of the articles, fudge factor (that SSDD refers to but never explains) and heat trapping.
> ...



There are no short replies to that. And I couldn't be bothered to put down long explanations any more.

There are many instances of the claim that a CO2 reactive  photon is absorbed and sent back to the surface  half the time, insinuating  an infinite series of two up and one down.

Emissivity for solids and liquids can be approximated by a blackbody. Gases are made up of bands that are near blackbodies or near perfect transmittance.

500w of truncated solar is not 500w of nearby thermal emission, although they are often treated as interchangeable.

Is it possible to scale up simple science  principles that the layman is familiar with? Not really, a lot of the time. Most people kinda have a concept or equilibrium  but I have had major difficulty explaining to even smart people that there is energy stored or released  as an object or system moves to equilibrium.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I read two of the articles, fudge factor (that SSDD refers to but never explains) and heat trapping.
> ...



Do feel free to point out errors...and provide observed, measured evidence to support your claims.  What's that bucky?  No observed measured evidence?  Not surprised.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Several have evidence. I cited 5 idiotic excerpts from the site. If you need evidence that they are not idiotic, it really shows just who is idiotic.  
.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



The only thing you have cited is evidence of how easily you are fooled...not something most people would be proud of, but you wackos are an odd lot.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 16, 2018)

_


SSDD said:



			The only thing you have cited is evidence of how easily you are fooled...not something most people would be proud of, but you wackos are an odd lot.
		
Click to expand...

_
These are the quotes you are referring to which you think I'm being fooled:

_When a molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs radiation, it re-emits the radiation in [83] femto seconds.... _*It's actually a few microseconds.
*​How about a reference that says the relaxation time is in femto seconds

_Since each CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is surrounded by 2,500 air molecules, it would have to be 2,500°C to heat the surrounding molecules [by one degree]_​
Tell me how a single molecule can have a temperature.

_The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is too absurd to be used. _​
You cite the SB equation constantly. Now you think it's absurd!

_[Physicists] say the same amount of radiation is being emitted as absorbed .... No way. If skin cells were giving off and absorbing 524 W/m² at 98°C, tissue damage would occur between absorption and emission._​
Do you really think we suffer skin damage from our own body temperature!?

_Virtually everything in physics is in error ..._​
Of course you already literally said modern physics is fairy dust. Nothing new here.

And you say we wackos are an odd lot!

.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2018)

If you weren't a complete idiot, you would know that you can't apply the SB law to gasses...and you would know that:

*1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.
*
If there were, we would not be 697 posts into this thread and still waiting and you would not be trying to pick fly specks out of pepper in a failing effort to convince "someone" that such evidence exists.  Laughable...absolutely laughable...and the OP still stands unchallenged by anything more than your proclamation that you are easily fooled.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 17, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> _
> 
> 
> SSDD said:
> ...


*Do you really think we suffer skin damage from our own body temperature!?*

You don't even understand the statement the man made do you?  you should actually think about it.  Has nothing to do with temperature like you stated, it was about absorbed and emitted.  and again you deflect rather than actually address the statement. It's what you do.

BTW, it was excellent analogy to use.  and like clockwork over your head.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> If there were, we would not be 697 posts into this thread and still waiting


Your OP was knocked down several times. The only reason there are 697 posts is that you still keep trying to keep it alive like ground hog day.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 17, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If there were, we would not be 697 posts into this thread and still waiting
> ...


then why is it you can't direct us to the post with the observed data the OP was created for?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If there were, we would not be 697 posts into this thread and still waiting
> ...



Sorry guy...not even close...are you talking about your misunderstanding of resonant radio frequencies?  Even if you were correct, which you aren't, how would it challenge any of the 3 statements I made in the OP? 

The greenhouse in a bottle experiment?  Are you really that easily fooled?

What else has anyone posted by way of challenging the op?  Feel free to point out any post...I will be happy to explain to you why it has not challenged the OP.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



He just hopes that someone might believe him...he knows full well that no such evidence was posted...his game is to fool as many people as possible...figuring that no one will go back and actually look.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



All by yourself. Weird.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> All by yourself. Weird.



You keep saying that like you think it bothers me?  It doesn't.   I don't have any bbbaaaahhhhh in my system so I feel no need to be part of a herd.  I was pretty much all by myself when I told my doc that my ulcer 25 years ago wasn't due to stress...and 10 years ago when I told my doc that my cholesterol numbers had exactly jack to do with my heart health...and 5 years ago when I told him that salt wasn't going to give me high blood pressure....

Science has been wrong far more often than they have been right...in fact, if you choose the opposite side on practically any "consensus" topic, the odds are way in your favor that you are right and science will eventually prove it for you.

I feel sorry for people who are afraid to separate from the herd...bbbaaaahhhhh...sounds like a sucky way to live.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > All by yourself. Weird.
> ...



*You keep saying that like you think it bothers me?*

Why would it bother you?
You're right and Einstein, Bohr, Planck et al are wrong.
It's you against all of science.

Even though you have no evidence on your side that backs up your ridiculous, causality violating claims.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy...not even close...are you talking about your misunderstanding of resonant radio frequencies? Even if you were correct, which you aren't, how would it challenge any of the 3 statements I made in the OP?



Ah yes, you are still lying about resonant radio frequencies. We both know that the cosmic microwave background came from the depths of space at 2.7 degrees K and actually hit an antenna at much warmer 288 K. But you prefer to lie and replace that observed measured experiment with idiocy. I'm not trying to convince you of science since you think it is fairy dust. It is just amazing to see how low you demean yourself with your idiocy. 

Did you every figure out where all the *15,700 W/m² of LW radiation from the surface of Venus* goes? I didn't think so. I think your answer to that would be entertaining for everyone here.  

Don't forget this: The evidence that the air heats up is given by these simple steps:

Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
That loss of EM energy to the GHGs is random vibrational energy.
The vibrating GHG will most likely hit a random air molecule.
Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
The conservation of energy requires the above.
That simple physics shows a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

*If you disagree, which step do you think is wrong?
Why are you afraid to answer this question?*

Over 700 posts and you still are afraid to answer those questions. They prove your OP is fairy dust.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Dec 17, 2018)

Crick said:


> To whom should we look for a judgement on whether the results of the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies made of AGW "rise to the level" of empirical evidence?  High school dropout, physics delusionist SSDD or thousands and thousands of published, PhD climate scientists?
> 
> Gosh, that's a tough question...



Actually, it is pretty simple.

Given the amount of peer reviewed papers that have turned out to be total trash as of late (peer reviewed seems to be more and more a codeword for: collective corruption), hiding behind such a claim is only working against it.

Science’s Big Scandal: Fraudulent, Plagiarized, and Nonsense Papers Pass Peer Review


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Ah yes, you are still lying about resonant radio frequencies. We both know that the cosmic microwave background came from the depths of space at 2.7 degrees K and actually hit an antenna at much warmer 288 K. But you prefer to lie and replace that observed measured experiment with idiocy. I'm not trying to convince you of science since you think it is fairy dust. It is just amazing to see how low you demean yourself with your idiocy.



Again...even if you were right...which again, you are not...exactly how would that challenge any of the three statements I made in the OP?  Explain how that might favor the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...or establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming int he atmosphere, or be a published paper that empirically quantified the warming due to our activities and ascribed that warming to so called greenhouse gasses?



mamooth said:


> Did you every figure out where all the *15,700 W/m² of LW radiation from the surface of Venus* goes? I didn't think so. I think your answer to that would be entertaining for everyone here.



I told you, we can talk about that when you learn to read an equation...and again, that doesn't speak to any of the statements in my OP.  



mamooth said:


> Don't forget this: The evidence that the air heats up is given by these simple steps:
> 
> Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
> That loss of EM energy to the GHGs is random vibrational energy.
> ...




Got any observed, measured evidence to support that model?  Didn't think so.  I asked for observed measured evidence in the OP...you keep forgetting about the actual evidence part and present models as if they were real.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Ah yes, you are still lying about resonant radio frequencies. We both know that the cosmic microwave background came from the depths of space at 2.7 degrees K and actually hit an antenna at much warmer 288 K. But you prefer to lie and replace that observed measured experiment with idiocy. I'm not trying to convince you of science since you think it is fairy dust. It is just amazing to see how low you demean yourself with your idiocy.
> ...



*Got any observed, measured evidence to support that model?  *

Got any observed, measured evidence to support all black body radiation from the surface escaping, unimpeded, into space? DURR!


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


so your answer is 'no' to his question.  Got it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 18, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



My answer is, you're an idiot, all alone.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


and still no observed measured evidence.  ta da...... right on queue bubba.  BTW, I am proud of who I am, alone, I don't need partners.  Why do you feel the need to be a peer to someone?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Got any observed, measured evidence to support all black body radiation from the surface escaping, unimpeded, into space? DURR!




Let me guess...you think CO2 absorbs and holds energy?  Of course it does...once it reaches its equilibrium temperature of -80F...till it reaches that temperature, it simply radiates everything it absorbs...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2018)

jc456 said:


> [
> and still no observed measured evidence.  ta da...... right on queue bubba.  BTW, I am proud of who I am, alone, I don't need partners.  Why do you feel the need to be a peer to someone?



Must be frustrating to believe in something as fervently as they do and not have the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 18, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



No evidence. Except downward LWIR.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Got any observed, measured evidence to support all black body radiation from the surface escaping, unimpeded, into space? DURR!
> ...



*Let me guess...you think CO2 absorbs and holds energy?*

It absorbs energy? Neat.
It hands it off to other molecules? Neat.

*it simply radiates everything it absorbs.*

Of course it does, no dimmer switch needed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



It's not frustrating to believe in modern physics.
It's even nice to agree with Einstein, Bohr, Planck et al.

Not at all lonely like your solo crusade.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


in your dreams bubba.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


and still no observed measured evidence Mr. Ricochet

BTW, I ran an experiment with a cup of hot coffee and Ice.  I used tongs to hold Ice directly above the hot coffee.  And you know what, the coffee cooled at the same rate with or without the ice. Hmmmm how is that?

And, the ice melted. observed.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


BTW, why is it that if I put a hot cup of coffee in a freezer, it won't get warmer, instead gets colder faster?    My freezer has much more supposed IR than a cup of hot coffee.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 18, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 18, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



* And you know what, the coffee cooled at the same rate with or without the ice. *

Excellent! Post your data table with temperature readings (0.1 degree should work) every minute.

*Hmmmm how is that?*

Poorly designed experiment.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 18, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*BTW, why is it that if I put a hot cup of coffee in a freezer, it won't get warmer, instead gets colder faster? *





* My freezer has much more supposed IR than a cup of hot coffee.*

Why do you feel that?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


oh now you want data.  can't provide any on your cockamamie LWIR, but you want mine.  so typical.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


dude, I just gave you what will happen put a cup of coffee in a freezer, doesn't get warmer.  show me where it would.  Tell you what, you fill out your equation and show me.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Got any measurement of discrete wavelengths of downward LWIR made with an instrument at ambient temperature?  Didn't think so....yet another example of lack of observed, measured evidence.


----------



## IanC (Dec 18, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Put three identical cups of coffee in a freezer, fridge and counter top. Come back in five minutes. They will all have cooled. Especially the one in the freezer because it is getting the least amount of energy returned from its surroundings.

Could it be any simpler?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Again...even if you were right...which again, you are not...exactly how would that challenge any of the three statements I made in the OP?



Explain again!! You heard it from many people many times, and you want it explained again!! You just stated that you have a hard set bias against the science.



SSDD said:


> I told you, we can talk about that when you learn to read an equation...and again, that doesn't speak to any of the statements in my OP.



I already told you the what the equation reads. It's the same as the Dartmouth and hyperphysics text that you were given more than once.

Woweee! you sound like a sassy petulant child, "I'm not going to tell you until you say the magic word. nanner naner." You have been stalling for time for weeks to think up something stupid like resonance frequencies.

Did you every figure out where all the15,700 W/m² of LW radiation from the surface of Venus goes? I didn't think so. I think your answer to that would be entertaining for everyone here.



SSDD said:


> Got any observed, measured evidence to support that model? Didn't think so. I asked for observed measured evidence in the OP...you keep forgetting about the actual evidence part and present models as if they were real.



You are afraid to say which steps you think are wrong. And yes there is evidence.
You are an empty peevish troll. You loose.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Explain again!! You heard it from many people many times, and you want it explained again!! You just stated that you have a hard set bias against the science.



So you have no idea how that misunderstanding of yours, even if it were correct, challenges any of the statements in the OP.  Of course you don't, because it doesn't. 

If you were right, and you aren't, would that 3k energy hitting an antenna cause warming in the atmosphere?  Any evidence of that?  Of course not.  It certainly doesn't favor the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, and it isn't a paper in which the hypothetical warming is empirically quantified and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses.

I asked you to explain and you can't...nor have you..but if you think you have, by all means, in which post did you do it?  Again, I am confident that you won't name a post because once again...you are just talking out of your ass making claims that you can't support.  Same shit different day with you and all like you.



Wuwei said:


> I already told you the what the equation reads. It's the same as the Dartmouth and hyperphysics text that you were given more than once.



No you didn't.. you told me what you wish it read...you tacked on an unproven opinion to the equation which is not part of the equation...again, you will lie, or whatever else is necessary rather than simply face the truth of what that equation says.



Wuwei said:


> Did you every figure out where all the15,700 W/m² of LW radiation from the surface of Venus goes? I didn't think so. I think your answer to that would be entertaining for everyone here.



Dodging to venus as if that were going to challenge any of the statements I made in the OP...if the evidence exists, don't you think it would exist here? 

One note on venus....if you actually look at venus, you will see that 18 doublings of CO2 is required to get us to the same concentration of CO2 that venus has...The greenhouse equations state that each doubling of CO2 will result in an energy increase of 3.7 W/m2....  Presently at 15C we are talking about roughly 396 W/m2..venus, at 430C requires around 16,500W/m2.  How many doublings of CO2 at 3.7 watts per doubling are required to reach 16,500 W/m2?

Here is a clue...it is a hell of a lot more than 18...it is thousands...your greenhouse venus falsifies your greenhouse equations...but proves the ideal gas law.  Now back to topic.



SSDD said:


> You are afraid to say which steps you think are wrong. And yes there is evidence.
> You are an empty peevish troll. You loose.



So that's a no...you don't have any actual evidence...If the model were correct, don't you think there would be abundant observed, measured, physical evidence to support it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*oh now you want data.*

Well, if you're going to reject my data with something more than just your feelings then yes, I want data.

*can't provide any on your cockamamie LWIR*

Only if you ignore all the data and all the physical laws. Epicycles, eh?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*dude, I just gave you what will happen put a cup of coffee in a freezer, doesn't get warmer. *

Dude, please let me know who ever told you it would get warmer. Link?

*Tell you what, you fill out your equation and show me.*

The equation says it gets colder.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Got any measurement of discrete wavelengths of downward LWIR made with an instrument at ambient temperature? *

Ambient temp? Why?

*Didn't think so....yet another example of lack of observed, measured evidence.*

Did you ever post your observed, measured evidence proving one way only flow of energy?
Or are we still dealing with your feelings?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 19, 2018)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


LOL, you believe that cool warms warm objects and you write this bullshit?  Ian, you are a fool for believing that the atmosphere warms the surface by 2x the sun.  Amazing.  the atmosphere allows the heat to escape, but you are too entrapped in the pseudo science to acknowledge it.  shame.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 19, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...






you must be walking your shit back here eh?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 19, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


you and your peers in here.  you must be having a SR. moment.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 19, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Did you ever post your observed, measured evidence proving one way only flow of energy?*
it's Mr. Ricochet I see.  bing, bing, bing, toddsterrichochet.  never provides any information useful to the discussion.  dude, your a fking hoot,. 

where's your observed measured data?  still waiting.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 19, 2018)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


so which one warms the fastest in the first minute? or do they cool?  and which one cools the fastest in the first minute?  what about five minutes?  what about half an hour?  and, do they cool fastest in the first minute or the last minute?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So you have no idea how that misunderstanding of yours, even if it were correct, challenges any of the statements in the OP. Of course you don't, because it doesn't.
> 
> If you were right, and you aren't, would that 3k energy hitting an antenna cause warming in the atmosphere? Any evidence of that? Of course not. It certainly doesn't favor the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, and it isn't a paper in which the hypothetical warming is empirically quantified and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses.


You are acting as a dumb troll. You have been told that the cold 2.7 K cosmic EM radiation hits a much warmer antenna. That shows radiation energy from a cold source can hit a warmer object. That in turn shows back radiation happens. That invalidates your claim about CO2 not being a back-radiating GHG.



SSDD said:


> No you didn't.. you told me what you wish it read...you tacked on an unproven opinion to the equation which is not part of the equation...again, you will lie, or whatever else is necessary rather than simply face the truth of what that equation says.


Now you are lying through your teeth. I showed it was not my opinion since it was explicitly in the Dartmouth and Hyperphysics sites. Not only do you disbelieve basic science, but you are lying about what you think it is.



SSDD said:


> Dodging to venus as if that were going to challenge any of the statements I made in the OP...if the evidence exists, don't you think it would exist here?
> 
> One note on venus....if you actually look at venus, you will see that 18 doublings of CO2 is required to get us to the same concentration of CO2 that venus has...The greenhouse equations state that each doubling of CO2 will result in an energy increase of 3.7 W/m2.... Presently at 15C we are talking about roughly 396 W/m2..venus, at 430C requires around 16,500W/m2. How many doublings of CO2 at 3.7 watts per doubling are required to reach 16,500 W/m2?
> 
> Here is a clue...it is a hell of a lot more than 18...it is thousands...your greenhouse venus falsifies your greenhouse equations...but proves the ideal gas law. Now back to topic.


You don't understand the physics. Venus is illustrating an important aspect of radiation physics. If you don't understand the concentrated GHG on Venus, and where it's surface radiation goes, you can't possibly understand what is happening on earth. The premise of the OP is based on fallacy.



SSDD said:


> So that's a no...you don't have any actual evidence...If the model were correct, don't you think there would be abundant observed, measured, physical evidence to support it?



I see you are still afraid to state why you think irradiated CO2 can't warm the air. Each step is a fundamental law or aspect of basic physics which you despise.

The models of QM that you scorn very accurately describe behavior at atomic scales. You have never disproved the accuracy of those models. Never.

.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So you have no idea how that misunderstanding of yours, even if it were correct, challenges any of the statements in the OP. Of course you don't, because it doesn't.
> ...


*You are acting as a dumb troll. You have been told that the cold 2.7 K cosmic EM radiation hits a much warmer antenna.*

Post one measurement then!!!! come on stalin, let's see your observed measurement.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So you have no idea how that misunderstanding of yours, even if it were correct, challenges any of the statements in the OP. Of course you don't, because it doesn't.
> ...


*I see you are still afraid to state why you think irradiated CO2 can't warm the air.*

Well stalin, why don't you post a reading of CO2 warmed?  why won't you?  you have been avoiding this for the entire thread.  why?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 19, 2018)

jc456 said:


> *You are acting as a dumb troll. You have been told that the cold 2.7 K cosmic EM radiation hits a much warmer antenna.*
> 
> Post one measurement then!!!! come on stalin, let's see your observed measurement.


Google this: cmb penzias and wilson


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Pointing out your ignorance is just a typical moment.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You ignore the formula. 
And the measurement of downward LWIR, what more do you want me to post that you can also ignore?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 19, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


so again, nadda from you!  as expected.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 19, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I said, and I don't stutter here, post the numbers in the equation.  It's the one you own at the moment.  fill it out and let's see your answer.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > *You are acting as a dumb troll. You have been told that the cold 2.7 K cosmic EM radiation hits a much warmer antenna.*
> ...


so riddle me this batman, why then don't we hear the hum on every radio station?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Right. Except for all the evidence already posted.
Who told you coffee in a colder environment would warm again?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 19, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


still nothing eh?

Where's the figures for your equation btw?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You don't stutter, but you might as well.
Post your own numbers in the equation. 
Can't wait to see your results.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 19, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


please, post the figures you think ought to be there.  Please show how smart you are.  come on dude.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


----------



## jc456 (Dec 19, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


so no figures?  what's wrong?  cat got your fingers? I'm enjoying your silence in this matter btw!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



It's your experiment, knock yourself out.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You've ignored plenty already. Now you can ignore your own.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 19, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


it's your equation, let's see the numbers?  afraid of it eh?  LOL


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You don't know the numbers for your coffee and your freezer?
I'll be right over.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 19, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


still no figures eh?  LOL you have no idea what that equation says.  do you?  you are one of those who finds something and then thinks he's smart to ask someone else to populate the numbers, when he in fact has no idea the numbers.  so I'll wait on you to show us how the equation looks with numbers.  Go!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Dec 19, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I don't need numbers.  I put two cups of coffee next to one another, one with Ice over the cup and one with none.  Two thermometers that read each of the two cups the same 160 degrees warm, placed the ice over one and left the thermometers in the coffee.  they cooled at the same rate until room temperature at the same time.  hmmmmm dude, prove me wrong.

BTW, I bet the first minute in the freezer would cool at the same rate.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 19, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


sure I do.  I'm waiting on your calculation on what is the correct output of your equation.  aFraid of your own equation?  bak, bak, bak chicken little.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*I don't need numbers.*

Especially when they make you feel sad...….


----------



## jc456 (Dec 19, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


not sad at all.  I proved your IR is nothing.  the ice melted due to the heat, no IR made the coffee cool off any faster with the ice.  So your entire theory I proved was useless.  now, you can prove me wrong by posting an observed measured occurrence of LWIR causing the planet to hold heat.  still waiting.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You are acting as a dumb troll. You have been told that the cold 2.7 K cosmic EM radiation hits a much warmer antenna. That shows radiation energy from a cold source can hit a warmer object. That in turn shows back radiation happens. That invalidates your claim about CO2 not being a back-radiating GHG.



You have "told" me all sorts of things...very few of which you could provide any actual evidence to support. In the OP I said:

*1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.
*
So which one of those statements would your mistaken belief on CMB challenge?  I believe you are so stupid that you really don't even know what the conversation is about..



Wuwei said:


> Now you are lying through your teeth. I showed it was not my opinion since it was explicitly in the Dartmouth and Hyperphysics sites. Not only do you disbelieve basic science, but you are lying about what you think it is.



Sorry guy, but you are the liar here...but here, I will repost the equation again...do state precisely what it says in plain language...






Again...I will help you get started....Power equals the emissivity of the radiator, times the S-B constant, times the area of the object times.......You take it from there and do be prepared to point to the expression in the equation that says what you claim.



Wuwei said:


> You don't understand the physics. Venus is illustrating an important aspect of radiation physics. If you don't understand the concentrated GHG on Venus, and where it's surface radiation goes, you can't possibly understand what is happening on earth. The premise of the OP is based on fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Crick (Dec 19, 2018)

What a fucking idiot

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217751X92003082


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So which one of those statements would your mistaken belief on CMB challenge? I believe you are so stupid that you really don't even know what the conversation is about..


Asked and answered. Several times.



SSDD said:


> Sorry guy, but you are the liar here...but here, I will repost the equation again...do state precisely what it says in plain language...


A configuration of several objects in an environment can very complex to the extent that the equation isn't complete, for example if there are several objects, all at different temperatures. The configuration where that equation is unequivocal is when an object at one temperature is completely surrounded by an enclosure at another temperature.

I really don't know how you look at that equation so you will have to define what each variable, P, T, and Tc signify and what the physical configuration is. If you can't do that then there is no point in continuing.



> I have already said...and offered up a million hours of testing, development, observation, and measurement from the infrared heating industry....sorry you can't accept reality.
> 
> And you still don't have the first piece of evidence to support your beliefs, while I have a whole damned industry and tens of thousands of working systems in this country alone which support my position.


How about a fundamental physics source and not a bunch of heating company sales pitches, or heating engineers opinions.



> Unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models support your position...reality and every observation and measurement ever made supports mine...I will stick with reality rather than believe in magic.


Au contraire. The mathematics was developed by countless experimental measurements and completely describes behavior at the atomic level. You hide behind your insistence that every phenomenon be measured. It is a defense mechanism to protect you from facing the realities of physics that contradict your bias.

Science doesn't spurn models like you do because the atomic physics of gases quite adequately describes the kinematic and radiation behavior very successfully. You have shown time after time that you don't know how to interpret the laws and equations that scientists clearly define. That is why you can't say where Venus's 15,700 W/m² radiation goes. 

 .
.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2018)

Crick said:


> What a fucking idiot
> 
> https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217751X92003082



So what do you think of the color of the emperor's cape?  

You look at a title of a paper and assume that the answers to the meaning of life are there?  Laughable skid mark...absolutely laughable.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Asked and answered. Several times.



So that's a dodge because you have no answer.  If you did, you would happily rub it in my face...you choose not to say, because you know that it would be an embarrassing experience for you.





Wuwei said:


> A configuration of several objects in an environment can very complex to the extent that the equation isn't complete, for example if there are several objects, all at different temperatures.



Nope...that isn't what the equation says.  Care to try again?  Do you have any idea how stupid you look refusing to simply state what the equation representing a physical law says?






Again...I will help you get started....Power equals the emissivity of the radiator, times the S-B constant, times the area of the object times.......




Wuwei said:


> I really don't know how you look at that equation so you will have to define what each variable, P, T, and Tc signify and what the physical configuration is. If you can't do that then there is no point in continuing.



Then you really are stupid...I look at the equation for what it is...It is as plain, and elegant as is possible...I don't feel a need to interpret it, to alter it, to do anything at all other than accept what it says since it became a law by accurately predicting reality over and over and over and over...that is how things become physical law.

Here...let me help you out..

hypothesis - A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. It's a prediction of cause and effect.

theory - A theory 
summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it.

law - A scientific law generalizes a body of observations and no exceptions have been found to a law

The equation representing the law says Power equals the emissivity of the radiator, times the S-B constant, times the area of the radiator times......come on..you can do it.  It is the description of a physical law and NO EXCEPTIONS HAVE EVER BEEN FOUND TO QUESTION IT.




Wuwei said:


> How about a fundamental physics source and not a bunch of heating company sales pitches, or heating engineers opinions.



So you are attempting to hold up a model and attempt to dispute reality with it?  Your model says this and it must be true regardless of how many tests, observations, and measurements refute it?  Refer back to what made the dark ages dark...



Wuwei said:


> Au contraire. The mathematics was developed by countless experimental measurements and completely describes behavior at the atomic level.



Again...failure to differentiate between reality and fiction...since we have no way of looking into the sub atomic level and actually seeing what is happening there..much less getting to the nuts and bolts of the fundamental mechanisms at work, the model is nothing more than a compilation of our limited observations arranged so as to attempt to predict what little we have seen.  

Again, you don't seem to be able to understand the basic fact that observing behavior, doesn't give you any real insight into the fundamental nature of what is happening...Our knowledge is like watching one frame out of every 10,000 frames of a movie and then trying to describe what is going on....if you watch that frame out of 10,000 enough times, you will then be able to predict what is coming next, but in so far as what is actually happening, how it is happening, what is causing it to happen, etc, you still only have the story you made up in an attempt to fill in the other 9,999 frames that come before and after the one you saw.



Wuwei said:


> You hide behind your insistence that every phenomenon be measured. It is a defense mechanism to protect you from facing the realities of physics that contradict your bias.



I have no bias..yet another word you apparently don't know the meaning of.  As it applies here, bias is mental tendency or inclination.

I accept the physical laws as they are stated...I accept them as real with no need to add to them, subtract from them, or question them.  You, on the other hand, can't accept them as they are written, you find that you need to add to them, place caveats upon them, alter what they say in some fashion in an attempt to make them jibe with what you believe...you are the one who is biased...and you prove it every time you refuse to simply state, in plain english what that S-B equation actually says.  To do so, would run contrary to what you believe.


----------



## Crick (Dec 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > What a fucking idiot
> ...



That paper reviews numerous methods of experimental proof of QM.  Read it and weep fool.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 20, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*So your entire theory I proved was useless.*

My theory?
Stefan-Boltzmann is useless?
Alert the media!!!


----------



## jc456 (Dec 20, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


yep your theory!! afraid to own it now?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 20, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



No, I'm not afraid to "own" modern physics.

How does your dimmer switch theory work?
Any links?
Besides that comedian you posted?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 20, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


still don't have any observed measured data to support your goofy theory of back radiation.  none, zip, nadda.  I take observation over models or mathematics any day of the week.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 20, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*still don't have any observed measured data to support your goofy theory of back radiation.  *



 

What was this again?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 20, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


garbage?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Nope...that isn't what the equation says. Care to try again? Do you have any idea how stupid you look refusing to simply state what the equation representing a physical law says?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's obvious you never attended a physics class. You would know that writing down a general equation is useless unless you specify what the variables mean for a specific configuration. Each temperature refers to matter in some configuration. The hyperphysics site has the same notation you use and refers to T being the temperature of an object surrounded by a cooler background Tc. If that is what you mean let me know then we can continue. Otherwise you are the one who is stalling. 



SSDD said:


> So you are attempting to hold up a model and attempt to dispute reality with it? Your model says this and it must be true regardless of how many tests, observations, and measurements refute it? Refer back to what made the dark ages dark...
> 
> Again...failure to differentiate between reality and fiction...since we have no way of looking into the sub atomic level and actually seeing what is happening there..much less getting to the nuts and bolts of the fundamental mechanisms at work, the model is nothing more than a compilation of our limited observations arranged so as to attempt to predict what little we have seen.
> 
> Again, you don't seem to be able to understand the basic fact that observing behavior, doesn't give you any real insight into the fundamental nature of what is happening...Our knowledge is like watching one frame out of every 10,000 frames of a movie and then trying to describe what is going on....if you watch that frame out of 10,000 enough times, you will then be able to predict what is coming next, but in so far as what is actually happening, how it is happening, what is causing it to happen, etc, you still only have the story you made up in an attempt to fill in the other 9,999 frames that come before and after the one you saw.



Ah, metaphysics again.



SSDD said:


> I have no bias..yet another word you apparently don't know the meaning of. As it applies here, bias is mental tendency or inclination.
> 
> I accept the physical laws as they are stated...I accept them as real with no need to add to them, subtract from them, or question them. You, on the other hand, can't accept them as they are written, you find that you need to add to them, place caveats upon them, alter what they say in some fashion in an attempt to make them jibe with what you believe...you are the one who is biased...and you prove it every time you refuse to simply state, in plain english what that S-B equation actually says. To do so, would run contrary to what you believe.



Nonsense. Caveats must be placed on many laws such as the ideal gas law, Newton's laws of gravity, the laws of motion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 20, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Don't you worry, it's science.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 20, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


garbage science at that.  BTW,  in your science, does LWIR emit from the surface upward?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 20, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Of course, detecting radiation is garbage science. Of course.

*BTW,  in your science, does LWIR emit from the surface upward?*

In science,  all matter above 0K emits.
Up, down, sideways. It's a random thing.
Even ice cubes radiate.

But don't worry your pretty little head.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 20, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


surface radiates but one direction, up!!!

Any time you want to show ice radiating, post it up..


----------



## jc456 (Dec 20, 2018)

I'm not sure if this document has been posted in the forum before, but I'll add it here. Author: Ferenc Miskolczi

Development in Earth Science

"The Wien temperature of the all-sky emission spectrum is locked closely to the thermo-dynamic triple point of the water assuring the maximum radiation entropy. The stability and natural fluctuations of the global average surface temperature of the heterogeneous system are ultimately determined by the phase changes of water. Many authors have proposed a greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. The present analysis shows that such an effect is impossible."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 20, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*surface radiates but one direction, up!!!*

Surface can't radiate down, thru solid matter.

The atmosphere can radiate in any direction.

*Any time you want to show ice radiating, post it up..*






Careful......math AND science is involved. 





Emissivity Coefficients for some common Materials

Don't strain your little head.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 20, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


no problem, thing is, you can't post any observed measurements of your science.  It's what the entire OP is about.  Remains, through this post.  Unobserved, unmeasured.

Again, post up that measured IR from the ice cube.  still waiting.

Radiative cooling - Wikipedia
"*Radiative cooling* is the process by which a body loses heat by thermal radiation."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 20, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*no problem, thing is, you can't post any observed measurements of your science.  *

As long as you ignore all the posted observations.

*Again, post up that measured IR from the ice cube.*

You don't believe Stefan-Boltzmann? Isn't that precious!

Are you claiming ice can't radiate because it "feels cold"?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 20, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


none posted.  you post things someone told you was something it isn't.  Can't measure cold emitting.  otherwise you'd actually post something.  If the ground emits LWIR, measuring LWIR is from the surface and only the surface. especially since you are the one measuring is on the surface.  BTW,  you got a directional finder on your magic test instrument?  LOL.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 20, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*none posted.*

Here's a new one....





And another one.





* you post things someone told you was something it isn't. *

Well what is it then?

* Can't measure cold emitting.  *

Because it "feels cold"? 
Maybe you should define cold? 

* If the ground emits LWIR, measuring LWIR is from the surface and only the surface. *

The ground is the one and only thing that can emit LWIR?

*BTW,  you got a directional finder on your magic test instrument? *

An upward facing detector will only measure LWIR coming down from the sky.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 20, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Well what is it then?*

garbage science.  I already answered you.  there is nothing in those pictures that is atmospheric radiation.  none, zip, nadda.  You've been lied to.

*Maybe you should define cold?*
Maybe you just post the experiment that shows the ice radiating?  you can't, you know you can't.  more crapola.

*The ground is the one and only thing that can emit LWIR?*
Well our surface, whatever the compounds are, dirt, blacktop, cars, buildings, etc....it's received SWIR from the sun.  

*An upward facing detector will only measure LWIR coming down from the sky.*

wow.  now that's hilarious dude. what happens to the stuff going up, it disappears?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 20, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



* there is nothing in those pictures that is atmospheric radiation. none, zip, nadda.*

Why not?

*Maybe you just post the experiment that shows the ice radiating? *

You don't believe Stefan Boltzmann? Why not?

*Well our surface, whatever the compounds are, dirt, blacktop, cars, buildings, etc....it's received SWIR from the sun.  *

Shortwave IR? What's that?
Matter that receives LWIR, from the ground for instance, can't also emit LWIR? Why not?

*wow.  now that's hilarious dude.*

A lens opening facing up is hilarious? 

* what happens to the stuff going up, it disappears?*

Dude, radiation going up wouldn't hit a lens facing up, now would it?

I shouldn't make fun, it sounds like your brain injury is pretty serious.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 20, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Why not?*

Simple, it isn't there.

*You don't believe Stefan Boltzmann? Why not?*

it isn't radiating.  put your hand over ice and your hand will feel cold.  

*Shortwave IR? What's that?*

The sun

*Matter that receives LWIR, from the ground for instance, can't also emit LWIR? *

post the observation of it.

*A lens opening facing up is hilarious? *

no, that you think you can measure direction. LWIR is coming from the surface, you're measuring from the surface where it is being emitted.  hmmmmmm


*Dude, radiation going up wouldn't hit a lens facing up, now would it?*

Why not?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 20, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Simple, it isn't there.*

The sensor detected it.

*it isn't radiating.  put your hand over ice and your hand will feel cold.  *

Your science is based on feelings? Are you a warmer? 

*The sun*

You think we receive a lot of IR from the Sun?

*post the observation of it.*

Besides the 3 I already posted?

*no, that you think you can measure direction.*

Of course you can. If I point a camera towards the sky, it doesn't record objects on the ground.

* LWIR is coming from the surface*





This LWIR is coming from the sky.

Dude, radiation going up wouldn't hit a lens facing up, now would it?

*Why not?*

Because radiation travels in a straight line.


----------



## IanC (Dec 20, 2018)

There is no special temperature,  except for zero degrees Kelvin.

All others can be either warm or cold depending on their surroundings.

There is only a positive direction up from absolute zero. No 'negative' energy, no 'cooling' rays only warming ones. Of course you need to have more information to determine if an object will actually warm or cool. You have to know how much radiation is leaving and how much radiation is coming in. If the net amount is leaving then the object is cooling. It is warming if the net radiation is into the object.

BUT, for any one temperature and emissivity the object will always emit the same amount of radiation. The surroundings don't affect the radiation emitted, only the net gain or loss of energy .


----------



## jc456 (Dec 20, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*The sensor detected it.*

It did? how? why is it hotter than anything leaving the surface when the sky is cold?  ahhh the tricks they do play eh?

*Your science is based on feelings? Are you a warmer? *
my science is based on observation.  again, do I lose heat from hand, or does the ice heat my hand?  

*Besides the 3 I already posted?*

Garbage science, it's all you got.  I get it.  why can't you find an experiment showing how much radiation comes from ICE? you keep avoiding that.  you post some nonsense from a test instrument that you have no idea what it's reading.

*Because radiation travels in a straight line.*

I thought it got absorbed


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> It's obvious you never attended a physics class. You would know that writing down a general equation is useless unless you specify what the variables mean for a specific configuration. Each temperature refers to matter in some configuration. The hyperphysics site has the same notation you use and refers to T being the temperature of an object surrounded by a cooler background Tc. If that is what you mean let me know then we can continue. Otherwise you are the one who is stalling.



Still can't bring yourself to simply state what the equation says...  How pathetic is that?

The variables are all listed right there in the equation....the mathematical statement of a physical law...

And what I mean is state precisely what the equation says..either you can do it, or you can't.  Which is it?





Wuwei said:


> Ah, metaphysics again.



Nope...pure science...maybe the word science is yet another one that you don't know the definition of... here, let me help..... systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

You observe and learn...then you observe some more, and learn some more...then you devise experiments to test what you think you know...then you learn some more..and on it goes...models don't mean squat till such time as they replicate observable, measurable, testable reality...


​


Wuwei said:


> Nonsense. Caveats must be placed on many laws such as the ideal gas law, Newton's laws of gravity, the laws of motion.



And dodge..and dodge...and dodge...and drag your intellect through the sewer in an attempt to defend your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable beliefs.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



That equation describes a perfect black body sitting all alone in a perfectly empty vacuum...it doesn't describe the real world at all....


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2018)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



You have proven over and over that you can't comprehend anything you read...and even the simplest pseudoscience is sufficient to fool you as evidenced by the absolutely laughable pile of shit you presented as evidence of man made global warming...still laughing in your face skidmark...still laughing in your face.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 20, 2018)

what you're promoting is that GHGs make the atmosphere warm, and it's cold.  And LWIR is radiating upward toward space.  you think it magically comes back.  and can't post any observance of any such thing. additionally, all of the documents you have posted to date say that ghg's provide twice the radiation of the incoming sun light. wow.  from a cold atmosphere at that.  so the temperature of any emittance would be that temperature.  Ice  warming the surface.  too funny.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



That graph is not the result of measurements made with an instrument at ambient temperature...therefore it isn't a measurement of energy from a cooler atmosphere moving to a warmer object...it is a measurement of energy moving from a warmer atmosphere to a cooler object....precisely as the second law predicts.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 20, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*It did? how? *

It's science, don't worry about it.

*why is it hotter than anything leaving the surface when the sky is cold?*

What is hotter?

*my science is based on observation*

Your observation is based on the feeling of your hand.

*again, do I lose heat from hand, or does the ice heat my hand? *

If the ice is above 0K, they both radiate.

*Garbage science, it's all you got.*

Right, sensors are garbage.

*why can't you find an experiment showing how much radiation comes from ICE?*

Why can't you plug in the numbers? Math still make you sad?

*I thought it got absorbed*

If radiation from the ground gets absorbed, some will re-reradiate down and hit the sensor.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Really?
Imperfect black bodies radiating in atmosphere don't radiate?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 20, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*If the ice is above 0K, they both radiate.*

Then show it from a measurement.  why can't you? 

*Right, sensors are garbage.*

they are when they are cooled to read something that isn't there.
*
Why can't you plug in the numbers? Math still make you sad?*

science is also observation to prove an equation to show it is correct.  so show  the observed measured Ice emitting. hmmmm skating away brother.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Of course they do...but not according to that formula...they radiate according to this formula...not that you can read it....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 20, 2018)

jc456 said:


> what you're promoting is that GHGs make the atmosphere warm, and it's cold.  And LWIR is radiating upward toward space.  you think it magically comes back.  and can't post any observance of any such thing. additionally, all of the documents you have posted to date say that ghg's provide twice the radiation of the incoming sun light. wow.  from a cold atmosphere at that.  so the temperature of any emittance would be that temperature.  Ice  warming the surface.  too funny.



*And LWIR is radiating upward toward space. you think it magically comes back.*

Some of it comes back. Not magic.

*and can't post any observance of any such thing. *

How many more should I post?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 20, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > what you're promoting is that GHGs make the atmosphere warm, and it's cold.  And LWIR is radiating upward toward space.  you think it magically comes back.  and can't post any observance of any such thing. additionally, all of the documents you have posted to date say that ghg's provide twice the radiation of the incoming sun light. wow.  from a cold atmosphere at that.  so the temperature of any emittance would be that temperature.  Ice  warming the surface.  too funny.
> ...


*Some of it comes back. Not magic.*

only if it's colder on the surface.  wow.

*How many more should I post?*

One from an instrument that can read LWIR without being cooled.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 20, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Then show it from a measurement. why can't you? *

Use the formula. Why can't you?

*they are when they are cooled to read something that isn't there.*

How does an IR sensor, "read something that isn't there"?

*science is also observation to prove an equation to show it is correct.*

You think the Stefan Boltzmann equation is wrong? Based on what science?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*.they radiate according to this formula...not that you can read it....*

Post a real source that says they radiate less in warmer surroundings...…...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 20, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*only if it's colder on the surface. wow.*

Link?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 20, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Use the formula. Why can't you?*

nope, cause it won't tell me anything since it can't be observed.

I did state back a few days ago you could go ahead and post the calculation completed.   so far nothing.   

*How does an IR sensor, "read something that isn't there"?*

then point it to the sky ambient temperature and show me the reading.

*You think the Stefan Boltzmann equation is wrong? Based on what science*

I posted an article that it's is used wrong.  but you didn't read it probably right?  So since you think it is used correctly, show me observed measured data that it's right for your scenario.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 20, 2018)

http://www.ftexploring.com/energy/2nd_Law-b.html

"This is the first thing to understand about the 2nd Law. Energy always and inevitably flows from higher concentrations to lower concentrations."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 20, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*nope, cause it won't tell me anything since it can't be observed.*

The formula was derived from observations. That's why it is used today.

If you have proof that the formula doesn't work for ice, you'll be up for a Nobel Prize.
FYI, your feelings don't count as proof.

*I did state back a few days ago you could go ahead and post the calculation completed.*

I don't have any of the variables of your ice cube.

*then point it to the sky ambient temperature and show me the reading.*

IR doesn't hit the instrument unless it's cooled? Link?

*I posted an article that it's is used wrong.*

That moron was hilarious! You have a real source?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 20, 2018)

jc456 said:


> http://www.ftexploring.com/energy/2nd_Law-b.html
> 
> "This is the first thing to understand about the 2nd Law. Energy always and inevitably flows from higher concentrations to lower concentrations."



If you have one that says radiation only flows from warmer matter to cooler matter, post that.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 20, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*The formula was derived from observations. That's why it is used today.*

"The SB equation which deals with the radiation of an object in the presence of other matter describes equilibrium perfectly and in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics." Quote from SSDD"
*

from:  Black-body radiation - Wikipedia
*
"The thermal radiation spontaneously emitted by many ordinary objects can be approximated as black-body radiation. A perfectly insulated enclosure that is in thermal equilibrium internally contains black-body radiation and will emit it through a hole made in its wall, provided the hole is small enough to have negligible effect upon the equilibrium."

*That moron was hilarious! You have a real source?*

A sourced moron I guess. Since none of you can post anything, I'll take the moron's word.

*IR doesn't hit the instrument unless it's cooled? *Link?

Per the second law that's the only way to do it, yep!!!

Infrared thermography using cooled MWIR & LWIR cameras | Xenics - Infrared Solutions
"High speed midwave & longwave infrared (MWIR & LWIR) cooled cameras are used in various high speed thermography applications. "


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 20, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*The thermal radiation spontaneously emitted by many ordinary objects can be approximated as black-body radiation.*

Even ice.

*A sourced moron I guess.*

Yes, a moron who disagrees with every reputable source.
He even thinks E=MC^2 is wrong. Hilarious!!!

*Per the second law that's the only way to do it, yep!!!*

The second law says IR won't hit an ambient temperature instrument? You're lying.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Still can't bring yourself to simply state what the equation says... How pathetic is that?


You have to define the configuration troll.


SSDD said:


> Still can't bring yourself to simply state what the equation says... How pathetic is that?
> 
> The variables are all listed right there in the equation....the mathematical statement of a physical law...
> 
> And what I mean is state precisely what the equation says..either you can do it, or you can't. Which is it?


I described the configuration and asked if that was what you were referring to by the variables and you have not simply said yes or no. I'm not going to waste time discussing a formula applied to an unknown configuration. You fail physics 101.



SSDD said:


> Nope...pure science...maybe the word science is yet another one that you don't know the definition of... here, let me help..... systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
> 
> You observe and learn...then you observe some more, and learn some more...then you devise experiments to test what you think you know...then you learn some more..and on it goes...models don't mean squat till such time as they replicate observable, measurable, testable reality...


Now yer cookin. My metaphysics comment was because you were talking about a "fundamental nature of what is happening". Now you seemed to have switched to the subject of how observations result in mathematical models. Good for you. That's what atomic physics is all about.



SSDD said:


> And dodge..and dodge...and dodge...and drag your intellect through the sewer in an attempt to defend your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable beliefs.


Ah, your TROLL nature is back again.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You have to define the configuration troll.



Define the configuration?  Are you really that stupid?  It is simply the statement of the S-B law when the radiator is not in a vacuum and the temperature of its surroundings are greater than absolute zero.  



Wuwei said:


> I described the configuration and asked if that was what you were referring to by the variables and you have not simply said yes or no. I'm not going to waste time discussing a formula applied to an unknown configuration. You fail physics 101.



Thus far, you have done nothing but shuck and jive...and dodge and weave employing one weasel tactic after another to avoid simply stating what that equation says.  It is a simple mathematical statement that represents the S-B law...what's the matter bucky? 






Care to try again?  I am happy to help you get started...Power equals the emissivity of the radiator times the S-B constant times the area of the radiator times.....???  ...you can do it...

And speaking of that equation...note that in any version of the S-B law, the area of the radiator is a key component...area implies that there is a surface..  In case you weren't aware...and that is probable since you can't even state what the simple equation above says...area is the extent of a two-dimensional surface enclosed within a specified boundary or geometric figure..  Tell me...exactly where is the surface of a gas so that you may properly apply the S-B equation to the atmosphere?



Wuwei said:


> Now yer cookin. My metaphysics comment was because you were talking about a "fundamental nature of what is happening". Now you seemed to have switched to the subject of how observations result in mathematical models. Good for you. That's what atomic physics is all about.



Want to quibble over the use of words?  The science dictionary defines nature as:  The world and its naturally occurring phenomena, together with all of the physical laws that govern them.





Wuwei said:


> Ah, your TROLL nature is back again.



Typical liberal alarmist whiner...if I make my questions to pointed...and draw attention to the fact that you can't support your beliefs with any actual observed, measured evidence and are constantly attempting to weasel your way out of answering the simplest of questions because it will contradict your beliefs ...call me a troll....  

You have become an instrument of comedy...


----------



## Crick (Dec 29, 2018)

You ARE a troll


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2018)

Crick said:


> You ARE a troll



And you can't state in plain language what a simple algebraic expression says..pardon me if your opinion doesn't carry much weight.

Here we are 800+ posts into this thread and still not a single thing that challenges the OP...You are laughable skidmark...


----------



## Crick (Dec 29, 2018)

And you ARE a fucking troll


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2018)

Crick said:


> And you ARE a fucking troll



What's the matter skidmark...feeling frustrated because you couldn't even come close to challenging the OP?  

Impotent ad hom the best you could come up with?


----------



## Crick (Dec 29, 2018)

We have thousands of pages of evidence that you simply reject out of hand.  This thread does nothing but testify to your stupidity, your dishonesty and the deeply troll-like behavior ALL your posts display.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> And speaking of that equation...note that in any version of the S-B law, the area of the radiator is a key component...area implies that there is a surface.. In case you weren't aware...and that is probable since you can't even state what the simple equation above says...area is the extent of a two-dimensional surface enclosed within a specified boundary or geometric figure..



You finally stated the configuration for the equation. So, if T refers to the temperature of the object with area A, and Tc refers to the background temperature, then using this equation:




how would you write the equation if the object at temperature T is colder than the background at Tc?. I know how a physicist would write it, I'm curious how you would.

.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2018)

Crick said:


> We have thousands of pages of evidence that you simply reject out of hand.  This thread does nothing but testify to your stupidity, your dishonesty and the deeply troll-like behavior ALL your posts display.



And  yet, not a single thing with which to challenge the OP...sucks to be you.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And speaking of that equation...note that in any version of the S-B law, the area of the radiator is a key component...area implies that there is a surface.. In case you weren't aware...and that is probable since you can't even state what the simple equation above says...area is the extent of a two-dimensional surface enclosed within a specified boundary or geometric figure..
> ...



The S-B law assumes that the temperature of T is always greater than Tc, how do you suppose a physicist who knows this might write it?  Do you think a "real" physicist would violate the S-B law just to satisfy your nutty beliefs?  I note that you like to point to hyperphysics, but even they don't attempt to write the equation in such a manner that would allow you to have T at a lower temperature than Tc...they simply state their opinion regarding net flows at the end of the page rather than bastardize and invalidate the equation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*The S-B law assumes that the temperature of T is always greater than Tc, *

And T can be the object or the background.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The S-B law assumes that the temperature of T is always greater than Tc, how do you suppose a physicist who knows this might write it? Do you think a "real" physicist would violate the S-B law just to satisfy your nutty beliefs? I note that you like to point to hyperphysics, but even they don't attempt to write the equation in such a manner that would allow you to have T at a lower temperature than Tc...they simply state their opinion regarding net flows at the end of the page rather than bastardize and invalidate the equation



So you say, but suppose you are an engineer and you must solve a problem of energy flow of a cold sphere of surface area, A, in a large uniformly warmer background. What equation do you use?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The S-B law assumes that the temperature of T is always greater than Tc, how do you suppose a physicist who knows this might write it? Do you think a "real" physicist would violate the S-B law just to satisfy your nutty beliefs? I note that you like to point to hyperphysics, but even they don't attempt to write the equation in such a manner that would allow you to have T at a lower temperature than Tc...they simply state their opinion regarding net flows at the end of the page rather than bastardize and invalidate the equation
> ...



You really are a doofus aren't you? If the background is warmer, then T is the surface area of the walls in which the sphere is housed....if it is open space, then you are out of luck with the S-B law since you can't apply it to a gas since a gas has no surface area.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You really are a doofus aren't you? If the background is warmer, then T is the surface area of the walls in which the sphere is housed....if it is open space, then you are out of luck with the S-B law since you can't apply it to a gas since a gas has no surface area.


So you are saying the background is the sphere? And the object is the room? Then the area A must then be that of the room. Suppose the room has a very complex interior architecture, with furniture, spiral staircases, etc. Would you measure all of that to get the area, A, as an engineer? You easily know the surface area of the sphere. Are you saying the area of the sphere is immaterial?

Remember the area of the background is not in the SB equation.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You really are a doofus aren't you? If the background is warmer, then T is the surface area of the walls in which the sphere is housed....if it is open space, then you are out of luck with the S-B law since you can't apply it to a gas since a gas has no surface area.
> ...


. 

The complexity of the interior archeceture is irrelavent....if it has a surface, it has an area and you said the room was uniformly warm...that being the case it wouldn’t matter if the room were a plain box or the most complicated structure imaginable..uniformly warm is what it is..want to move the goalposts now?

Since energy only moves in one direction T, according to the S-B law will always be the radiator and Tc will always be cooler than the radiator...that is a basic assumption of the S-B law...and for the equation in question, Tc isn’t necessarily the background,  This equation places the radiator in the presence of other matter...Tc is the other matter as opposed to the empty vacuum assumed by the basic formula of the S-B law.  set up a situation that violates that basic assumption and you will need to use something other than the S-B law....say surrounding a cooler radiator with a void filled with warmer gas...no surface area for th radiator...

If you have a complex radiator where different parts of it are radiating at different temperatures, the process of determining precisely what was radiating where and how much energy was moving from each warmer surface to each cooler surface and how rapidly each cooler surface was warming in turn could become hopelessly complicated..

If, however, you know the area of the radiator, and the real time changes in the temperature difference between T and Tc, you will be able to calculate P, regardless of how complicated the surface of T is.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And speaking of that equation...note that in any version of the S-B law, the area of the radiator is a key component...area implies that there is a surface.. In case you weren't aware...and that is probable since you can't even state what the simple equation above says...area is the extent of a two-dimensional surface enclosed within a specified boundary or geometric figure..
> ...


And, still no answer to ssdd’s Question on the equation! Sad.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The complexity of a *background *all at the same temperature is irrelevant. However when you say that the SB equation is this,




the variable A refers to the object with the temperature T, not Tc. Since you now refer to the complex background as the predominant radiator at temperature T, you must supply the area of the background in order for the formula to have any value. 

You still haven't given a formula that an engineer can use to compute the energy flow for a cold sphere in a hot room. 
A scientist has a simple answer. You don't.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


You haven’t shown there’s the need for one. 2 nd law doesn’t mean anything to you!


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> The complexity of a *background *all at the same temperature is irrelevant. However when you say that the SB equation is this,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You really can't read an equation can you?  A refers to the area of the radiator...that being the object with the highest temperature..   Both T and Tc have temperatures...the important factor is how much of a difference there is between the two temperatures...



Wuwei said:


> Since you now refer to the complex background as the predominant radiator at temperature T, you must supply the area of the background in order for the formula to have any value.



Did I not say that if you know the area of the radiator (T) and the real time changes in the temperature difference between T and Tc, you will be able to calculate P, regardless of how complicated the surface of T is.



Wuwei said:


> You still haven't given a formula that an engineer can use to compute the energy flow for a cold sphere in a hot room.



Of course I have...this really is that far over your head...isn't it.  If you know the area of the walls and whatever other complications you care to put in the room, and you know the emissivity of the objects in the room, and you know, in real time, the changes in the temperature of the sphere, you can calculate P...all you are interested in is how much energy is moving from the warm object to the cooler object..  P= the amount of energy being transferred to the cold object..  The amount and rate of the change of the temperature differences between T and Tc will tell you precisely how much energy Tc is absorbing.



Wuwei said:


> A scientist has a simple answer. You don't.



I just gave you a simple answer..and it went right over your head...I have been yanking your chain for refusing to simply state what that equation says because I thought that you couldn't bring yourself to say anything that contradicts your belief in models...turns out that you really can't read that simple equation and know what it says.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You really can't read an equation can you? A refers to the area of the radiator...that being the object with the highest temperature.. Both T and Tc have temperatures...the important factor is how much of a difference there is between the two temperatures...


Yes and the highest temperature of a cold sphere in a hotter room would then be the room. But the area A, of the emitter (the room) is part of the formula. So in order to apply the formula you would have to know A.



SSDD said:


> Did I not say that if you know the area of the radiator (T) and the real time changes in the temperature difference between T and Tc, you will be able to calculate P, regardless of how complicated the surface of T is


But that would be hard to find. You can't have it both ways. The area A of the radiator must be in the equation, but it can't be brushed aside by saying it makes no difference. 





You are saying, 
T is the temperature of a complex room, 
Tc is the temperature of a sphere in the middle of the room,
P is the power
A is the area of the complex room.

According to you the formula changes if the room changes in size (A will change), but P should not change since the background is at uniform temperature.

The only conclusion is that you don't understand the formula. 
The Dartmouth and Hyperphysics sites have a simple answer. 



SSDD said:


> just gave you a simple answer


Your answer was not simple nor correct at all. Try again.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Yes and the highest temperature of a cold sphere in a hotter room would then be the room. But the area A, of the emitter (the room) is part of the formula. So in order to apply the formula you would have to know A.



You seem to be confused about what T and Tc are.  T and Tc are simply two objects of different temperatures...room is an irrelevant term....




Wuwei said:


> But that would be hard to find. You can't have it both ways. The area A of the radiator must be in the equation, but it can't be brushed aside by saying it makes no difference.



Of course it makes no difference....the only thing that matters is how much energy is being transferred to Tc...



Wuwei said:


> You are saying,
> T is the temperature of a complex room,
> Tc is the temperature of a sphere in the middle of the room,
> P is the power
> ...



So we have a room that changes in size now?  How much further out there do you want to get?  Since you have no math skills, I am not surprised that you would not be aware that if you change any of the parameters on one side of the equals sign, the figure on the other side of the equal sign will change also.  Are you really this poor at math?



Wuwei said:


> The only conclusion is that you don't understand the formula.



I am laughing in your stupid face.  You get so wrapped up in your interpretations that you are literally out of contact with reality.  And it is clear that none of this is simple for you...you don't even begin to grasp the topic.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Of course it makes no difference....the only thing that matters is how much energy is being transferred to Tc...


That is the crux of your problem. You say the area makes no difference in the room size. I agree with that because that is what anyone would see. But it sure makes a difference when you look at the formula. The area, A, is right there in the formula. The conclusion is that you have the wrong opinion of what the formula is.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> That is the crux of your problem. You say the area makes no difference in the room size. I agree with that because that is what anyone would see. But it sure makes a difference when you look at the formula. The area, A, is right there in the formula. The conclusion is that you have the wrong opinion of what the formula is.



Again...your interpretation...If you want to set up a crazy scenario where what was a uniformly warm room, now becomes a complicated room which changes size, you would have little option but to determine how much energy was being absorbed by TC in order to determine P.  If you know T, Tc, and P you can derive A.  If you know any 3 of the variables, you can derive the 4th.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> *1.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
> 
> 2.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > *1.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
> ...



Feel free to pull your head out of the sand and provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which challenges any of my 3 statements...  Keep your head in a hole like that and you will be a dupe for your entire life.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Again...your interpretation...If you want to set up a crazy scenario where what was a uniformly warm room, now becomes a complicated room which changes size, you would have little option but to determine how much energy was being absorbed by TC in order to determine P.


Exactly. That is why use of the room as the first term in the SB equation is really stupid. The equation should be valid for any configuration. You are making the whole computation extremely complex (and stupid) if you want to switch the roles of T and Tc.


SSDD said:


> If you know T, Tc, and P you can derive A. If you know any 3 of the variables, you can derive the 4th.


The whole point is that *you DON'T know P*. That is what you are trying to compute. You lost track of the whole point of the SB equation.

Your confusion with a simple problem of a sphere in a hotter room is because you eschew two way energy flow.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> [
> Exactly. That is why use of the room as the first term in the SB equation is really stupid. The equation should be valid for any configuration. You are making the whole computation extremely complex (and stupid) if you want to switch the roles of T and Tc.



You just never get any smarter....You keep forgetting that the basic premise of the S-B law is that the temperature of T is always greater than that of Tc.  You can't switch the roles of T and Tc because T is always warmer...Tc does not emit to T...EVER...energy moves in one direction...that is the problem with your bastardized version of the S-B law..it allows you to set Tc to a temperature higher than that of T.  It violates the basic premise of the S-B law.



SSDD said:


> The whole point is that *you DON'T know P*. That is what you are trying to compute. You lost track of the whole point of the SB equation.



You don't think you can determine how much energy the sphere is absorbing if you have real time information on the amount and rate of its change in temperature?  Really?  That's what you think?  And if you know how much it is absorbing, you think that then you don't know how much energy is being radiated to it?  



SSDD said:


> Your confusion with a simple problem of a sphere in a hotter room is because you eschew two way energy flow.



I have no confusion...I realize that the equation of the S-B law in question describes nothing more than a simple, one way energy exchange between an object of one temperature and an object of another temperature...you on the other hand, have interpreted it to mean something that is so far removed from what the equation actually says that it is little wonder that you have become hopelessly lost in your crazy model trying to envision some crazy scenario where the emitter becomes the absorber and the absorber becomes the emitter...sorry, not possible.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



* T is always warmer...Tc does not emit to T...EVER...energy moves in one direction..*

Says no one but you.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



And the second law of thermodynamics, and the S-B law, and every observation and measurement ever made...just those.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



All by yourself. Still.
Otherwise you could post hundreds of scientists saying precisely what you claim.
Instead, every time you post a real source to back up your claims, they end up refuting your claims.
Every.
Single.
Time.

You're like a meme for WRONG.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You just never get any smarter....You keep forgetting that the basic premise of the S-B law is that the temperature of T is always greater than that of Tc. You can't switch the roles of T and Tc because T is always warmer...Tc does not emit to T...EVER...energy moves in one direction...that is the problem with your bastardized version of the S-B law..it allows you to set Tc to a temperature higher than that of T. It violates the basic premise of the S-B law.


That is total crap, as usual. I have never read that T is *always *greater than Tc. Where have you read it. 



SSDD said:


> You don't think you can determine how much energy the sphere is absorbing if you have real time information on the amount and rate of its change in temperature? Really? That's what you think? And if you know how much it is absorbing, you think that then you don't know how much energy is being radiated to it?


How quaint. You don't trust the SB equation to give the right answer and you want to measure it instead. It has been done over a century ago. It's no wonder. You have shown not to understand it at all. 



SSDD said:


> I have no confusion...I realize that the equation of the S-B law in question describes nothing more than a simple, one way energy exchange between an object of one temperature and an object of another temperature...you on the other hand, have interpreted it to mean something that is so far removed from what the equation actually says that it is little wonder that you have become hopelessly lost in your crazy model trying to envision some crazy scenario where the emitter becomes the absorber and the absorber becomes the emitter...sorry, not possible.


You are the one interpreting. That should be clear. I have not interpreted it. I have read it as physics means it. See the Dartmouth and Hyperphysics sites. It's little wonder you have been hopelessly lost. And you double down and become a troll. Anything to save your face in your fake physics world.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> That is total crap, as usual. I have never read that T is *always *greater than Tc. Where have you read it.



There is apparently a great deal you have not read...you might try reading sometime for the explicit purpose of learning something rather than skimming for anything that you think might support your beliefs.



SSDD said:


> How quaint. You don't trust the SB equation to give the right answer and you want to measure it instead. It has been done over a century ago. It's no wonder. You have shown not to understand it at all.



You think a simple energy transfer equation is suitable for every possible scenario?  Now that is quaint.  That is the purpose of math...to solve for X when you know Y and Z, or solve for Z when you know X and Y, or solve for Y when you know X and Z...



SSDD said:


> You are the one interpreting. That should be clear. I have not interpreted it. I have read it as physics means it. See the Dartmouth and Hyperphysics sites. It's little wonder you have been hopelessly lost. And you double down and become a troll. Anything to save your face in your fake physics world.



Alas, it is you who is interpreting...I accept the equation as it is written.....you have interpreted it to the point that you must apply the S-B constant twice, you have interpreted it so that T represents both a hot radiator and cooler surroundings and Tc represents both cooler surroundings and a hot radiator....you have interpreted it to the point that you believe it can be applied to a gas with no area.  You have done nothing but interpret to the point that you can't even bring yourself to say in plain english what the equation states.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> There is apparently a great deal you have not read...you might try reading sometime for the explicit purpose of learning something rather than skimming for anything that you think might support your beliefs.


What does that have to do with the fact that nothing has been published supporting one way BB energy flow?



SSDD said:


> You think a simple energy transfer equation is suitable for every possible scenario? Now that is quaint. That is the purpose of math...to solve for X when you know Y and Z, or solve for Z when you know X and Y, or solve for Y when you know X and Z...


Yeah, yeah, so why did you bring up having to measure rather than calculate. Suddenly the SB equation is no longer your friend because you interpreted it wrong.



SSDD said:


> Alas, it is you who is interpreting...I accept the equation as it is written.....you have interpreted it to the point that you must apply the S-B constant twice, you have interpreted it so that T represents both a hot radiator and cooler surroundings and Tc represents both cooler surroundings and a hot radiator....you have interpreted it to the point that you believe it can be applied to a gas with no area. You have done nothing but interpret to the point that you can't even bring yourself to say in plain english what the equation states.



Silly, that is your interpretation. Not mine. I already told you what textbooks say in plain English. The SB equation  was written to mean that T is the temperature of an object surrounded by a background, all at Tc. That is the interpretation of this equation.





What is to prevent T of the object to be colder than Tc of the background in the simple scenario of a sphere in the center of a large complex room all at Tc. You don't know how to solve that do you. Any university textbook (which I showed you) has a simple answer, but you don't understand it, do you.

OK since you bring up a gas, suppose the sphere with temperature T is suspended in the air at temperature Tc at night. We both agree on what happens if the sphere is hotter than the air. It will radiate.

However, suppose the sphere is colder than the air, tell me what the several variables P, A, T, and Tc are in the above SB equation.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> What does that have to do with the fact that nothing has been published supporting one way BB energy flow?



Nothing but the very laws of physics.  




Wuwei said:


> Yeah, yeah, so why did you bring up having to measure rather than calculate. Suddenly the SB equation is no longer your friend because you interpreted it wrong.



Again...you are the one interpreting...It describes a simple one way gross energy movement between warm and cool….just like what happens in the real world...



Wuwei said:


> Silly, that is your interpretation. Not mine. I already told you what textbooks say in plain English. The SB equation  was written to mean that T is the temperature of an object surrounded by a background, all at Tc. That is the interpretation of this equation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Because, you idiot...energy only moves in one direction...it moves from warm to cool...whichever is cooler is going to be Tc...No object can be both T and Tc as you seem to believe.



Wuwei said:


> OK since you bring up a gas, suppose the sphere with temperature T is suspended in the air at temperature Tc at night. We both agree on what happens if the sphere is hotter than the air. It will radiate.



You can apply the S-B equation to the sphere because it has an area...you can not apply it to a gas which has no area....and models that apply the S-B equation to energy transfers in a gas are inherently flawed...as evidenced by the fact that they can't predict reality...



Wuwei said:


> However, suppose the sphere is colder than the air, tell me what the several variables P, A, T, and Tc are in the above SB equation.



You can not apply the S-B equation to a gas...Sorry you don't get that...a gas has no area...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > What does that have to do with the fact that nothing has been published supporting one way BB energy flow?
> ...



*Nothing but the very laws of physics.  *

You're lying. You have no reputable source that agrees with your one way claim.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Just the second law of thermodynamics which says that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm....and the S-B law which describes a one way gross movement of energy from warm to cool.  Just those things...and you know what?  They are plenty.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Just the second law of thermodynamics which says that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm..*

You're lying. It says no such thing. If it did you'd have countless sources you could post that said energy, and radiation, only flows one way.

You don't. Because you're wrong.

Now explain why energy can move from the Sun's surface to the Sun's corona.
From the Earth's surface to the Earth's thermosphere.
You won't, because you can't, because you lie.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're lying. It says no such thing. If it did you'd have countless sources you could post that said energy, and radiation, only flows one way.




Second Law of Thermodynamics

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. 


The Second Law of Thermodynamics | Boundless Physics
​
Many processes occur spontaneously in one direction only, and the second law of thermodynamics deals with the direction taken by spontaneous processes.
According to the second law of thermodynamics, it is impossible for any process to have heat transfer from a cooler to a hotter object as its sole result.
12.3 Second Law of Thermodynamics: Entropy | Texas Gateway

The second law of thermodynamics states that _the total entropy of a system either increases or remains constant in any spontaneous process; it never decreases._ An important implication of this law is that heat transfers energy spontaneously from higher- to lower-temperature objects, but never spontaneously in the reverse direction.

My note:  energy moving from cool to warm would be a decrease in entropy..not an increase 

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

*Heat will not flow spontaneously from a cold body to a hot body.* 

Second law of thermodynamics - Energy Education

"_*Heat will always flow spontaneously from hotter substances to colder ones*_".

I could go on, but have done so before and it didn't sink in then either.

​


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Now explain why energy can move from the Sun's surface to the Sun's corona.



I have done that over and over as well...the movement of energy from the surface of the sun to the corona is not spontaneous...you can move as much energy from cool to hot as you like, if you put work into doing it..if you put work into doing a thing..it is not spontaneous...all spontaneous processes are irreversible.

As to the earth's thermosphere...it is very sparsely populated by molecules...it isn't as if the thermosphere is a solid hot boundry.  If you were in the thermosphere unprotected, you would freeze solid.....radiation can easily pass through


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You're lying. It says no such thing. If it did you'd have countless sources you could post that said energy, and radiation, only flows one way.
> ...



* It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body *

We're not discussing heat. We're discussing energy, specifically radiation.

*I have done that over and over as well...the movement of energy from the surface of the sun to the corona is not spontaneous...*

Why not?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> We're not discussing heat. We're discussing energy, specifically radiation.



Is heat energy?  The answer is yes...it is also radiation...The distinction is made to help simple folks like yourself understand but apparently with you, they missed the mark.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why not?



The latest theory, as I have already told you is that Alfven waves are providing the work needed to move energy to and through the corona...no one other than you is suggesting that energy is spontaneously moving from the cooler surface to the corona.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Nothing but the very laws of physics.


Nope. No physicist agrees with you.


SSDD said:


> Again...you are the one interpreting...It describes a simple one way gross energy movement between warm and cool….just like what happens in the real world...


Nope. No physicist agrees with you.


SSDD said:


> Because, you idiot...energy only moves in one direction...it moves from warm to cool...whichever is cooler is going to be Tc...No object can be both T and Tc as you seem to believe.


Nope. No physicist agrees with you.


SSDD said:


> You can apply the S-B equation to the sphere because it has an area...you can not apply it to a gas which has no area....and models that apply the S-B equation to energy transfers in a gas are inherently flawed...as evidenced by the fact that they can't predict reality...
> 
> You can not apply the S-B equation to a gas...Sorry you don't get that...a gas has no area...


Are you saying there is no formula that tells you what happens to a cold sphere in a warm atmosphere? A physicist could do it but you seem to be baffled. If you know the formula just say it. If not, you get an F minus in thermodynamics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > We're not discussing heat. We're discussing energy, specifically radiation.
> ...



*Is heat energy?*

Heat is heat. 
You have no real sources that say radiation cannot travel from cool to hot.

You have no real sources that say radiation ceases at equilibrium.

You have no real sources that say radiating works like a dimmer switch.
​*The latest theory, as I have already told you is that Alfven waves are providing the work needed to move energy to and through the corona..*​
No.
Alfven Waves may explain why it is hot.
You won't (can't) explain why the surface is allowed to radiate toward the hotter matter.​


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Nope. No physicist agrees with you.



Doesn't matter...the statement of the physical law does.


SSDD said:


> Nope. No physicist agrees with you.



Doesn't matter...the statement of the physical law does.



SSDD said:


> Nope. No physicist agrees with you.



Doesn't matter..the physical laws do



Wuwei said:


> Are you saying there is no formula that tells you what happens to a cold sphere in a warm atmosphere? A physicist could do it but you seem to be baffled. If you know the formula just say it. If not, you get an F minus in thermodynamics.



Not at all...I am saying that you can't apply the S-B equation to a gas...if you put your cold sphere in a warm environment, and measure the change every minute,  its change in temperature each minute is proportional to the difference between the temperature of its environment and its own temperature at the beginning of the minute.  Refer to Newton's law of cooling.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Not at all...I am saying that you can't apply the S-B equation to a gas...if you put your cold sphere in a warm environment, and measure the change every minute, its change in temperature each minute is proportional to the difference between the temperature of its environment and its own temperature at the beginning of the minute. Refer to Newton's law of cooling.


Good God. You want to replace a simple physics computation by going outside with a cold sphere, a stop watch and a thermometer! You are going through ridiculous lengths because you refuse to believe physics theory.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Not at all...I am saying that you can't apply the S-B equation to a gas...if you put your cold sphere in a warm environment, and measure the change every minute, its change in temperature each minute is proportional to the difference between the temperature of its environment and its own temperature at the beginning of the minute. Refer to Newton's law of cooling.
> ...



No...I just want to get it right...if you try to apply the S-B equation to a gas, you will be wrong...

And who says that you have to go outside?  Ever hear of IR thermometers?...or if you are setting up your stupid experiment, you might install a thermometer on the sphere when you hang it up..


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



LOL you haven't the foggiest idea how to compute such a simple thing and you talk about going through all the trouble of repeating the experiments of Stefan instead. That is just too funny. 

With a cold sphere in a room or outside air, you fail. 
And you also fail with figuring out where the 12,500 W/m² from the surface of Venus goes. 
Have you thought about perhaps changing your fake ideas of thermodynamic? No, I didn't think so.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Sorry guy...The S-B law doesn't work on a gas...use it and you will be wrong...just like the climate models....but you guys are able to yank your own chains enough to convince yourselves that you are right....


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Here you moron...as if this would actually get through that thick and very stupid skull of yours...

_T(t) = Ts + (T0 - Ts ) e(-kt)_

_T(t)_ = temperature of an object at a certain time (Kelvin, K)

_t_ = time (_s_)

_Ts_ = temperature of the surroundings (Kelvin, K)

_T0_ = starting temperature of the object (Kelvin, K)

_k_ = a cooling constant, specific to the object (_1/s_)


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy...The S-B law doesn't work on a gas...use it and you will be wrong...just like the climate models....but you guys are able to yank your own chains enough to convince yourselves that you are right....


You are still funny. OK let's make this easier for you. What formula do you use for the radiation behavior of a cold sphere in a large complex room at a uniformly higher temperature. You still didn't get that right.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy...The S-B law doesn't work on a gas...use it and you will be wrong...just like the climate models....but you guys are able to yank your own chains enough to convince yourselves that you are right....
> ...




sorry guy..not obligated to do anything more than demonstrate that you can't provide the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support your claims....you might ask yourself how it is that I always know what you can provide and what you can't.


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2018)

The literature is filled with thousands of peer reviewed studies that provide empirical evidence that the world is getting warmer due to the increased greenhouse effect created by increased levels of anthropogenic CO2, and methane.  You know this to be a fact.  You, therefore, are a liar.  A stupid, lying troll.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 31, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


I say that. You can’t prove otherwise. Why?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 31, 2018)

Crick said:


> The literature is filled with thousands of peer reviewed studies that provide empirical evidence that the world is getting warmer due to the increased greenhouse effect created by increased levels of anthropogenic CO2, and methane.  You know this to be a fact.  You, therefore, are a liar.  A stupid, lying troll.


Peer reviewed, spit


----------



## jc456 (Dec 31, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


And yet, still no observed have you shown big guy! Why?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 31, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*I say that.*

You say energy only moves one way. And you can't post proof.
That's why we laugh at you.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 31, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Sure I can. 2nd law, Every experiment is one way. You can just post up that two way flow for us.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 31, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



So post your proof already.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 31, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I did, 2nd law. Prove cold moves to hot. Still waiting . Grasp is difficult for you eh?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 31, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The 2nd Law doesn't prove your claim.

Are you not posting your proof because you don't have any?
Because none exists?
Or because you're too stupid to find any?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2019)

Crick said:


> The literature is filled with thousands of peer reviewed studies that provide empirical evidence that the world is getting warmer due to the increased greenhouse effect created by increased levels of anthropogenic CO2, and methane.  You know this to be a fact.  You, therefore, are a liar.  A stupid, lying troll.



No...the literature is full of papers that have documented some warming and ascribed an opinion as to what caused it..but that is good enough to fool you...isn't it?

But I do invite you to produce just one...any single one in which the warming has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to our so called greenhouse gasses...any single one...I'll wait.


----------



## Crick (Jan 1, 2019)

There is no point in producing anything for you.  You will simply lie about it.  Evidence of all sort has already been displayed here by dozens and dozens of posters.  You know my standard recommendation.  Go there and if you actually have any interest in seeing it, find it for yourself.  If you think you can refute anything presented there, have at it.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


You aren't obligated to say what formula applies to a cold sphere radiating in a room? Ha. That sounds like you are resigning in failure to understand how to cope with the SB equation in a very real and simple situation. I accept your concession.

The evidence that two-way radiation can happen is in the entropy version of the second law.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2019)

Crick said:


> There is no point in producing anything for you.  You will simply lie about it.  Evidence of all sort has already been displayed here by dozens and dozens of posters.  You know my standard recommendation.  Go there and if you actually have any interest in seeing it, find it for yourself.  If you think you can refute anything presented there, have at it.



So that would be a no...you can not produce such a paper...not to worry...there are none.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> You aren't obligated to say what formula applies to a cold sphere radiating in a room?



If the room is colder than the sphere, then use the S-B equation...if the surrounding space is warmer than the sphere, refer to Newton's law of cooling.  Already gave you the answers...sorry you don't recognize them.  Of course, I gave them to you in the form of equations and you obviously can't read an equation.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 1, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Disprove the second law graspy not! Still waiting


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 1, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Why would I try to disprove the 2nd Law?

What works better for you, smart  photons, smart emitters or photon repelling "covailent" force fields?


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 1, 2019)

BlackFlag said:


> This OP demonstrates the willful ignorance that cannot possibly be overcome.



There, that didn't take long.  All but 5 minutes for the first Leftard to come up to the base with another ad hominem attack while offering NOTHING to actually support HIS position.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 1, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


The law that says hot emits towards cold. Only!! One way flow. Again, feel free to prove two way with observed empirical evidence! Otherwise, No evidence


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 1, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*The law that says hot emits towards cold. Only!! One way flow.*

You're lying.
It doesn't say photons can only go in one direction. 
Liar.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 1, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Sure it does, I’m still waiting for your evidence to the OP


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 1, 2019)

You guys who think you know thermodynamics,
Google this: second law of thermodynamics.
Then look at the first page or so that comes up.
You will see a particular word come up in the descriptions on the page.
Entropy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 1, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Liar, no source, no proof.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



He apparently thinks that photons are not energy....since the 2nd law states pretty clearly that energy won't flow spontaneously from cold to warm....he has a problem with the word spontaneous as well...guess he doesn't have access to dictionaries...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 2, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> You guys who think you know thermodynamics,
> Google this: second law of thermodynamics.
> Then look at the first page or so that comes up.
> You will see a particular word come up in the descriptions on the page.
> Entropy.



Yeah...entropy...the movement of energy from a more organized state (warm) to a less organized state(cool)...all natural processes are irreversible...meaning that once energy moves from a more ordered state (warm) to a less ordered state( cool) it doesn't go back to a more ordered state unless, of course,  you do some work to make it happen.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


he's one of those fks that will never answer and try and flip a scenario to his advantage, yet he fails in here.  My proof is the observed.  until he can post an observation, as you say, of the two way flow, he's just a loonie on a message board.  And he isn't as clever as he thinks.  happy new year BTW!!


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Yeah...entropy...the movement of energy from a more organized state (warm) to a less organized state(cool)...all natural processes are irreversible...meaning that once energy moves from a more ordered state (warm) to a less ordered state( cool) it doesn't go back to a more ordered state unless, of course, you do some work to make it happen.



Right. The concept of entropy was first introduced in 1850 by Clausius as a precise mathematical way of testing whether the second law of thermodynamics is violated by a particular process.
( Thermodynamics - Isothermal and adiabatic processes )

An object which is at a temperature different than the background has a specific entropy that can be calculated.

After the object comes to the same temperature as the background and equilibrium is reached, the entropy can again be calculated, and will be higher than before. 

The literature focuses on entropy as the definition of the second law. It says nothing about the means of coming to equilibrium and does not deny two-way radiation exchange between an object and background. So you have no choice but to accept radiation exchange as a viable hypothesis. The hypothesis of one-way radiation between objects violates several laws of physics.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah...entropy...the movement of energy from a more organized state (warm) to a less organized state(cool)...all natural processes are irreversible...meaning that once energy moves from a more ordered state (warm) to a less ordered state( cool) it doesn't go back to a more ordered state unless, of course, you do some work to make it happen.
> ...



But we all know that energy exchange is the means of coming to equilibrium...and some of us know that all natural processes are irreversible....natural processes like energy moving spontaneously from warm to cool....irreversible...do you know what that means?

And the fact of one way radiation between objects is precisely what the physical laws predict...there is no physical law that predicts two way energy flow...but do feel free to name them since you believe that it violates several....this should be good,..  As always, you provide at least a chuckle...and very often...a great big donkey laugh...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*But we all know that energy exchange is the means of coming to equilibrium...*

_1 *: *the act of giving or taking one thing in return for another_

Definition of EXCHANGE

DURR!


----------



## litman (Jan 3, 2019)

Since I don't know the background of the first poster on this may I ask what your qualifications are to go against the 97% of scientist that have sent their lives studying world weather.  Now I am not a scientist and can't definitely say one way or the other what the weather is doing.  So I do what any thinking person would do and that is listen to the scientist that do know.  What a concept.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2019)

litman said:


> Since I don't know the background of the first poster on this may I ask what your qualifications are to go against the 97% of scientist that have sent their lives studying world weather.  Now I am not a scientist and can't definitely say one way or the other what the weather is doing.  So I do what any thinking person would do and that is listen to the scientist that do know.  What a concept.



* what your qualifications are to go against the 97% of scientist that have sent their lives studying world weather.*

75/77 is a very impressive portion.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 3, 2019)

litman said:


> Since I don't know the background of the first poster on this may I ask what your qualifications are to go against the 97% of scientist that have sent their lives studying world weather.  Now I am not a scientist and can't definitely say one way or the other what the weather is doing.  So I do what any thinking person would do and that is listen to the scientist that do know.  What a concept.


lack of observation and measured evidence


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> But we all know that energy exchange is the means of coming to equilibrium...and some of us know that all natural processes are irreversible....natural processes like energy moving spontaneously from warm to cool....irreversible...do you know what that means?



Yes, I know what that means, but do you?  Your statement, "_But we all know that energy exchange is the means of coming to equilibrium." _indicates two way exchange of radiation. 



SSDD said:


> And the fact of one way radiation between objects is precisely what the physical laws predict...there is no physical law that predicts two way energy flow...but do feel free to name them since you believe that it violates several....this should be good,.. As always, you provide at least a chuckle.



No laws predict one-way energy flow. The law of Entropy does not forbid it during any process. 
Otherwise the BB radiation law would be violated The SB law would be violated. The fact that accelerating charges must radiate would be violated. You already know that and are just being a troll now.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Yes, I know what that means, but do you?  Your statement, "_But we all know that energy exchange is the means of coming to equilibrium." _indicates two way exchange of radiation.



No it doesn't...what the hell is wrong with you...Energy moving from warm to cool...till both are the same temperature is what that indicates...two way exchange of radiation doesn't suggest energy moving to the condition of the greatest entropy at all.  Two way exchange of radiation indicates energy moving from a less organized state to a more organized state in the case of energy moving from cool to warm...



Wuwei said:


> No laws predict one-way energy flow. The law of Entropy does not forbid it during any process. Otherwise the BB radiation law would be violated The SB law would be violated. The fact that accelerating charges must radiate would be violated. You already know that and are just being a troll now.




You claimed that one way energy flow violated "several" physical laws...which ones?  There is no black body radiation law...and there is no accelerating chages law...the second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...that is, by definition, one way energy movment…

So which physical laws does one way energy movement violate?  Or were you just making up crap in an attempt to make a point?


----------



## Crick (Jan 3, 2019)

Planck's Law.  Stefan Boltzmann Law.  Both tell us that all matter radiates proportionally to it temperature.  ALL MATTER RADIATES


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> Planck's Law.  Stefan Boltzmann Law.  Both tell us that all matter radiates proportionally to it temperature.  ALL MATTER RADIATES



Actually, it says that warmer objects in the presence of cooler objects radiate according to their area, their emissivity, and the difference between their own temperature and the difference in temperature between themselves and their cooler surroundings...

And can you show me a two way version of Planck's law?  That should be interesting to see....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Planck's Law.  Stefan Boltzmann Law.  Both tell us that all matter radiates proportionally to it temperature.  ALL MATTER RADIATES
> ...



* and the difference between their own temperature and the difference in temperature between themselves and their cooler surroundings...*

You have any backup for your dimmer switch theory?
Explicit backup, not your solo misinterpretation.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



I don't need any..you are the one who needs some actual evidence to support your belief in spontaneous two way energy movment…







Set the temperarature of T to 50 degrees and the temperarure of Tc to 40 degrees...what is P?

Set the temperarure of T to 50 degrees and the temperarure of Tc to 2 degrees...what is P?

Set the temperarure of T to 50 degrees and the temperature of Tc to 50 degrees...what is P?

The physical law itself supports my position and it is based on observation after observation after observation …..sorry you don't agree with physical laws...and worse, you let people convince you not to believe them without the first piece of evidence to suggest that they were wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*I don't need any..*

How convenient, because you can't find any.

*Set the temperarature of T to 50 degrees and the temperarure of Tc to 40 degrees...what is P?*

P = net radiated power.

*The physical law itself supports my position *

Which is why you have no explicit backup.
No one who ever said, matter radiates less in proximity to other matter.
Or fails to radiate at all, near matter of the same temperature.
Even when separated by billions of light years.

Come on, you must have some college professor you could ask.
Why would they lie to you about something so basic and obvious.

Go for it!!!!

Post their response in this thread.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Which expression in that equation do you derive net from?  Net has a specific meaning and requires mathematical expressions that it is derived from...which ones in that equation do you think you can derive net from?  Just saying it or wishing it doesn't make it real.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Which expression in that equation do you derive net from?*

The part where you subtract the power radiated by the cooler object from the power radiated by the warmer object.






It's between the open parenthesis and the close parenthesis.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

Difference:  the result of the subtraction of one number, quantity, etc, from another 

Net:  remaining after deductions, as for charges or expenses (opposed to gross)

Simple subtraction gives you a gross amount..net is an entirely different thing..It is easy to see how you guys have been so easily fooled...you don't know the first thing about anything.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Difference:  the result of the subtraction of one number, quantity, etc, from another
> 
> Net:  remaining after deductions, as for charges or expenses (opposed to gross)
> 
> Simple subtraction gives you a gross amount..net is an entirely different thing..It is easy to see how you guys have been so easily fooled...you don't know the first thing about anything.



*Net:  remaining after deductions, as for charges or expenses*

Power emitted minus power absorbed. Net power.

* (opposed to gross)*

Gross would be this number, 

, for each of the individual objects.

*Simple subtraction gives you a gross amount..net is an entirely different thing..*

When there are only two numbers involved, simple subtraction and net are entirely the same thing.

Don't forget to post the response when you get a college professor to agree with your confusion.
You wouldn't want everyone to realize you're alone in your unique misinterpretation.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Difference:  the result of the subtraction of one number, quantity, etc, from another
> ...



Sorry, but they aren't...when two numbers are involved..simple subtraction gives you the difference which is a different thing than net...if you subtract a bit from the original amount, then add a bit, then subtract a bit, and perhaps add a bit more, then you get a net value...The equation describes a gross one way energy transfer...

Try looking up a comparison between net and gross....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*The equation describes a gross one way energy transfer...*

And when you subtract the gross of one object from the gross of the other, you get net.

*when two numbers are involved..simple subtraction gives you the difference which is a different thing than net..*

When only two numbers are involved..simple subtraction gives you the difference which is the same as net.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Try looking up a comparison between net and gross...


Try looking up what thousands of scientists and textbooks say. They all say net. Nary a one says one way. Also net flow obeys the law of entropy.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Try looking up a comparison between net and gross...
> ...



So you are saying that thousands of scientists can't differentiate between difference and gross?  They are well known mathematical terms..and their definitions have not changed.  They still mean what they have always meant..and simple subtraction of two numbers gives you a gross change...not a net change.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So you are saying that thousands of scientists can't differentiate between difference and gross? They are well known mathematical terms..and their definitions have not changed. They still mean what they have always meant..and simple subtraction of two numbers gives you a gross change...not a net change


Nope I didn't say that. Try reading for comprehension. 
I will make it easier for you. The thousands of scientists know the SB equation refers to two way flow between object and background. The power output of the object is the net of the emission minus the absorption.


----------



## IanC (Jan 4, 2019)

I see SSDD is arguing the definition of words again.

Personally,  I would like to see the actual  definitions he is using for gross and net.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> [
> Nope I didn't say that. Try reading for comprehension.
> I will make it easier for you. The thousands of scientists know the SB equation refers to two way flow between object and background. The power output of the object is the net of the emission minus the absorption.



Really?  How do they "know" this...clearly there is no observed, measured evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow...Upon what actual empirical evidence do you base the claim that they "know"?

And again...simple subtraction of two terms gives you a gross change...not net...calling a gross change net does not make it net...it just demonstrates that you don't know what net is.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

IanC said:


> I see SSDD is arguing the definition of words again.
> 
> Personally,  I would like to see the actual  definitions he is using for gross and net.




Words have meanings...and using a word wrong in an attempt to prove a falsehood true warrants being called out.  Don't you agree.

Look up the definition of gross and net in any mathematics book...as with the statements of physical laws, unlike you guys, I don't make up my own...I use, and accept what is written...


----------



## jc456 (Jan 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > But we all know that energy exchange is the means of coming to equilibrium...and some of us know that all natural processes are irreversible....natural processes like energy moving spontaneously from warm to cool....irreversible...do you know what that means?
> ...


*indicates two way exchange of radiation. *

no it doesn't.  what the fk?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 4, 2019)

Crick said:


> Planck's Law.  Stefan Boltzmann Law.  Both tell us that all matter radiates proportionally to it temperature.  ALL MATTER RADIATES


too funny.  no one said that all matter doesn't radiate.  what we said was that the warmer object radiates to the cooler object.  If the cooler object is exposed to a cooler object, it will radiate at that time.  You all have lost your brains.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 4, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


are you claiming that as an object absorbs it is emitting at the same time? and that as an object is emitting it is absorbing?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



SSDD said "But we all know that energy exchange is the means of coming to equilibrium.."

Exchange means one-way?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 4, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


why wouldn't it?  If I hand you something, I have exchanged my something with you.  I gave you something that I now have less of.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Planck's Law.  Stefan Boltzmann Law.  Both tell us that all matter radiates proportionally to it temperature.  ALL MATTER RADIATES
> ...



* no one said that all matter doesn't radiate. what we said was that the warmer object radiates to the cooler object.*

You said, here, the cooler object can't radiate. Its matter is somehow stopped from radiating.
Why are you so confused?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 4, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


well let me clarify my statement then.  a cool object will radiate when near a cooler object. if a cool object is in the presence of a warmer object it will absorb the energy from that object and won't radiate until it is at equilibrium and around a cooler object.

BTW, I'm still waiting for the two way flow observation.  you know where an object is absorbing and emitting at the same time.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

I'll remind myself to say energy transfer or movement from now on....funny when you play word games rather than support your claims with actual evidence...always good for a chuckle...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*are you claiming that as an object absorbs it is emitting at the same time?*

Absolutely. Einstein agrees with me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



* If I hand you something, I have exchanged my something with you.*

Nope. Giving is not exchanging.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*if a cool object is in the presence of a warmer object it will absorb the energy from that object and won't radiate *

If you could only prove it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I'll remind myself to say energy transfer or movement from now on....funny when you play word games rather than support your claims with actual evidence...always good for a chuckle...



*funny when you play word games rather than support your claims with actual evidence*

But enough about you.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 4, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


So all you have to do is show an object emitting while it is absorbing! I’m happy with my understanding, you believe it does both, onus is on you


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



_All objects emit and absorb infrared radiation. The hotter an object is the more energy it radiates per second._

Infrared Radiation – electromagnetic waves, absorb, emit, infra red, PIR

Be sure to post your sources that say otherwise.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 4, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I never said I disagree with that! I said that obects radiate warm to cool. While the cool object absorbs, it is not emitting. And vice a versa the warm emitting object won’t absorb.  When the cool object stops absorbing, it can then emit as long as a cooler object is near. I never said the cool object won’t ever radiate!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*While the cool object absorbs, it is not emitting*

Yes, I remember your error.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Really? How do they "know" this...clearly there is no observed, measured evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow...Upon what actual empirical evidence do you base the claim that they "know"?


Do you not believe in entropy now? Two way flow is not only allowed by entropy, it is demanded by quantum mechanics - tested and verified many times.  .... Yes, I know. You think that's fairy dust. So you are left alone in the cold with your fake science.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So you are saying that thousands of scientists can't differentiate between difference and gross? They are well known mathematical terms..and their definitions have not changed. They still mean what they have always meant..and simple subtraction of two numbers gives you a gross change...not a net change


You got net and gross backwards. 

.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 4, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Which puts the onus on you to prove me wrong! I’ll wait


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*All objects emit and absorb infrared radiation.*

No mention of, "unless warmer matter is nearby".

*if a cool object is in the presence of a warmer object it will absorb the energy from that object and won't radiate *

Still no proof of your claim? I'll wait.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 4, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


still can't prove your two way hypothesis.  in SB, T is always greater than Tc.  you need more memory, cause you keep asking me to provide that same comment. 

BTW, if Tc is hotter than T, then the flow is still warm to cool. You get that right?

In turn, I will wait for you two way proof.  SB and 2nd law are all I need to make my point.  now show me which law is your evidence.  still waiting.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> *1.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
> 
> 2.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
> 
> ...


You must be an idiot
Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Do you not believe in entropy now? Two way flow is not only allowed by entropy, it is demanded by quantum mechanics - tested and verified many times.  .... Yes, I know. You think that's fairy dust. So you are left alone in the cold with your fake science.



Sorry guy...but as usual...your misinterpretation of whatever topic you are looking at has left you ass backwards...when you see the topic of entropy...regardless of whether it is energy flow, movement through time, biological processes, or economics...it always points out that the law of entropy demands a one way flow of whatever...from a more useful, to a less useful state...by definition, entropy is a one way street...as indicated below in the discussion of Clausius, who introduced the term entropy...

Cosmic Spirals

It was Clausius's depressive Second Law of Thermodynamics that caused an uproar. His First Law of Energy Conservation was an instant success and he was offered a professorship at the Ecole Polytechnicum in Zurich, Switzerland. Here, he began to formulate his Second Law of Entropy Nonconservation. *Entropy was a definition he invented for a larger more comprehensive natural phenomenon than energy, a one way flow or asymmetry of least resistance that directs the flow of energy.* Entropy encompassed the natural behavior of heat as it flows one-way from hot to cold (it takes addition energy to create a refrigerator which keeps temperatures inside cold while heating up the surrounding area) and the conversion of mechanical energy into heat through friction, such as putting on the brakes to slow a mechanism down and the brakes become hot.

Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

The balance equation of the second law, expressed as S > 0, says that in all natural processes the entropy of the world always increases, and thus whereas with the first law there is no time, and the past, present, and future are indistinguishable, *the second law, with its one-way flow, introduces the basis for telling the difference*.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> You must be an idiot
> [URL='https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/']Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet[/URL]




ge: Vital Signs of the Planet[/QUOTE]

By all means...please point out anything in that steaming pile that even comes close to challenging any of the statements I made....


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So you are saying that thousands of scientists can't differentiate between difference and gross? They are well known mathematical terms..and their definitions have not changed. They still mean what they have always meant..and simple subtraction of two numbers gives you a gross change...not a net change
> ...



Chalk up one more thing you got wrong...

Here....from the math dictionary...

difference - The result of subtracting one number from another. How much one number differs from another.

Net - What is left after all deductions have been made.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Do you not believe in entropy now? Two way flow is not only allowed by entropy, it is demanded by quantum mechanics - tested and verified many times.  .... Yes, I know. You think that's fairy dust. So you are left alone in the cold with your fake science.
> ...



My my, real confusion.
There is a difference between one way flow of entropy, (which is true)
and one way flow of radiation, (which is false.) 
How could you even think your post made any sense !

.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Chalk up one more thing you got wrong...
> 
> Here....from the math dictionary...
> 
> ...


Now you got *net* right. In the case of the SB law it is a difference of just two numbers.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



And your bullshit continues...
It was *Clausius's depressive Second Law of Thermodynamics that caused an uproar. *His First Law of Energy Conservation was an instant success and he was offered a professorship at the Ecole Polytechnicum in Zurich, Switzerland. Here, he began to formulate his Second Law of Entropy Nonconservation. *Entropy was a definition he invented for a larger more comprehensive natural phenomenon than energy, a one way flow or asymmetry of least resistance that directs the flow of energy.*


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> And your bullshit continues...
> It was *Clausius's depressive Second Law of Thermodynamics that caused an uproar. *His First Law of Energy Conservation was an instant success and he was offered a professorship at the Ecole Polytechnicum in Zurich, Switzerland. Here, he began to formulate his Second Law of Entropy Nonconservation. *Entropy was a definition he invented for a larger more comprehensive natural phenomenon than energy, a one way flow or asymmetry of least resistance that directs the flow of energy.*


Non sequitur. Read it again. The phrase one way refers to asymmetry of entropy. It does not refer to the energy involved in equilibrium radiation exchange.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


from the SB explanation,.... *The relevance that governs net radiation from hot bodies is known as Stefan-Boltzmann law.*
radiation from hot bodies.  doesn't say jack about cold bodies.  not a word. And net only means the amount of energy the hot body lost to the cold body and the received energy by the cold body.  It isn't that damn difficult.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*still can't prove your two way hypothesis. *

It's not my hypothesis. 
And it's clearly seen in SB and every observation ever.
Unlike your parroting of SSDD's lonely hypothesis.

*in SB, T is always greater than Tc. *

You're lying. Again.

*BTW, if Tc is hotter than T, then the flow is still warm to cool. *

You feeling okay? Of course the net flow is from warm to cool. 
Whether T is warmer or Tc is warmer.

*In turn, I will wait for you two way proof.  *

Even Einstein (and everyone else in physics) talked about two way flow at equilibrium. 
If you have a link showing all those claims were refuted, post it already.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



_from the SB explanation,.... *The relevance that governs net radiation from hot bodies is known as Stefan-Boltzmann law.*_

Excellent! You've finally admitted SSDD was wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


> from the SB explanation,.... *The relevance that governs net radiation from hot bodies is known as Stefan-Boltzmann law.*
> radiation from hot bodies.  doesn't say jack about cold bodies.  not a word. And net only means the amount of energy the hot body lost to the cold body and the received energy by the cold body.  It isn't that damn difficult.




They know it is gross energy movement...but just can't bring themselves to accept it because it is in conflict with their beliefs...No one could possibly be so stupid as to not know it...well...maybe toddler and the hairball...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > from the SB explanation,.... *The relevance that governs net radiation from hot bodies is known as Stefan-Boltzmann law.*
> ...




* They know it is gross energy movement..*

It means gross, that's why it says net.

DURR!

*but just can't bring themselves to accept it because it is in conflict with their beliefs...*

Speaking of beliefs, you still the only source for, "Objects at equilibrium cease all radiating"?

Weird.


----------



## Crick (Jan 5, 2019)

I have asked Same Shit for any empirical observations of ANY matter under ANY circumstances that has completely ceased thermal radiation.  Unsurprisingly, I've seen diddly come back.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> I have asked Same Shit for any empirical observations of ANY matter under ANY circumstances that has completely ceased thermal radiation.  Unsurprisingly, I've seen diddly come back.


How about this skidmark...





Your thermal "trap" does not exist...  What is stopping that LWIR in our atmosphere?  Can you show me evidence, ANY EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED EVIDENCE of your fantasy?

As for the rest of the believers of AGW and their failure of hypothesis about energy flow, can any of you show, by empirically observed evidence, proof of energy flow from the cooler atmosphere back to earth?  I am still waiting for any of you to show how energy, at a cooler emitted temperature (wavelength) is warming a warmer object without adding work and energy consumption to make it happen..


----------



## Crick (Jan 5, 2019)

You apparently do not understand the question I asked.  If you agree with Same Shit Different Day that matter will not radiate towards warmer matter 1) You are no graduate physics student 2) Show us an observation of that taking place: any matter under any circumstances ceasing to radiate IR.  Your graphs, obviously, show no such thing.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Post that Einstein data


----------



## jc456 (Jan 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> I have asked Same Shit for any empirical observations of ANY matter under ANY circumstances that has completely ceased thermal radiation.  Unsurprisingly, I've seen diddly come back.


Well if he says that, how would he be able to provide you evidence of something that isn’t happening? Why don’t you just show it does? You know empirically observed


----------



## IanC (Jan 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I've seen the Einstein quote at least two dozen times and I don't even read most of the threads.

Why would  reposting something that you have repeatedly ignored in the past be useful?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> I have asked Same Shit for any empirical observations of ANY matter under ANY circumstances that has completely ceased thermal radiation.  Unsurprisingly, I've seen diddly come back.



You aren't very quick are you?  You can't measure energy movement between two objects at the same temperature...you can measure energy movement between two objects at different temperaratures...the lack of measurement between objects of the same temperatures is an observation of no energy movement.


----------



## Crick (Jan 5, 2019)

I didn't say at the same temperature.  I said, repeatedly,  ANY matter under ANY circumstances.  What I'd really like to see is a measurement of some matter radiating that goes to zero when warmer matter is placed behind the sensor.  But I'm obviously willing to give you a lot of flexibility.  EMPIRICAL evidence of ANY matter under ANY circumstances not radiating per its temperature.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> I didn't say at the same temperature.  I said, repeatedly,  ANY matter under ANY circumstances.  What I'd really like to see is a measurement of some matter radiating that goes to zero when warmer matter is placed behind the sensor.  But I'm obviously willing to give you a lot of flexibility.  EMPIRICAL evidence of ANY matter under ANY circumstances not radiating per its temperature.



Wouldn't two objects of the same temperature constitute matter and a circumstance...

If you can't measure energy moving between objects of the same temperature but you can measure energy moving between objects of different temperatures...the measurement between the two objects of the same temperature is zero...

I don't need flexibility...every observation  of spontaneous energy movement ever made is of energy moving in one direction...warm to cool..


----------



## Crick (Jan 5, 2019)

Fine.  Show us empirical evidence of matter in the presence of other matter the same temperature NOT RADIATING.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 6, 2019)

Crick said:


> Fine.  Show us empirical evidence of matter in the presence of other matter the same temperature NOT RADIATING.



What do you want skidmark...a measurement of something that isn't happening?  How stupid are you?  The fact that you can measure energy moving between objects of different temperatures but can't measure energy moving between objects of different temperatures is your measurement...the measurement is zero...use your brain...stop being a dupe.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wouldn't two objects of the same temperature constitute matter and a circumstance...
> 
> If you can't measure energy moving between objects of the same temperature but you can measure energy moving between objects of different temperatures...the measurement between the two objects of the same temperature is zero...
> 
> I don't need flexibility...every observation of spontaneous energy movement ever made is of energy moving in one direction...warm to cool..


If a hollow sphere is uniformly red hot you would say there is no radiation in the inside at equilibrium because it's all the same temperature inside and out. The inside would be pitch black if there is no radiation.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> wishes
> If a hollow sphere is uniformly red hot you would say there is no radiation in the inside at equilibrium because it's all the same temperature inside and out. The inside would be pitch black if there is no radiation.



If wishes were horses...beggars would ride...go find some real evidence...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> If wishes were horses...beggars would ride...go find some real evidence...


You have no answer do you.

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > wishes
> ...



*go find some real evidence... *

Says the man with no backup for his many ridiculous claims.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


It's hard to know what he means. I'm simply pointing out contradictions to his fake science.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


And yet no observed measurement posted. Typical of your failure


----------



## jc456 (Jan 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Nope


----------



## SSDD (Jan 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I have asked Same Shit for any empirical observations of ANY matter under ANY circumstances that has completely ceased thermal radiation.  Unsurprisingly, I've seen diddly come back.
> ...



He isn't bright enough to grasp the fact that if it can't be measured, it is because it isn't happening....If he thinks about it, then he will be challenging his faith...and in that cult, no thinking is allowed...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If wishes were horses...beggars would ride...go find some real evidence...
> ...



My answer is that your thought experiments are bullshit...just more unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models....the atmosphere and energy movement through it is eminently observable, measurable, and testable....why must you resort to thought experiments when all of this is very easily observed...

Oh..that's right...observations don't jibe with your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Actually, you are only pointing out what a dupe you are...but do continue..it is infinitely entertaining...good for a chuckle every day..sometimes several chuckles and a big old donkey laugh...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> My answer is that your thought experiments are bullshit...just more unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models....the atmosphere and energy movement through it is eminently observable, measurable, and testable....why must you resort to thought experiments when all of this is very easily observed...



So are you saying you think the inside of the red hot sphere is black like your hypothesis would indicate. Which is it? red hot or black? 

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 7, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > My answer is that your thought experiments are bullshit...just more unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models....the atmosphere and energy movement through it is eminently observable, measurable, and testable....why must you resort to thought experiments when all of this is very easily observed...
> ...



Not playing mind experiments when the atmosphere and energy movement through it is observable...measurable, and testable.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Not playing mind experiments


You think the inside of a hollow red hot sphere is black but your mind doesn't want to go there. It's the same embarrassment as your inability to answer the question of where does the Venus radiation of 15,700 W/m² go.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 8, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Not playing mind experiments
> ...



Do the experiment...do keep in mind that if you use a camera lens, it must be as warm as the rest of the inside of the sphere otherwise you will obviously have energy moving from the warm sphere to the cooler camera...

It is always entertaining to see you guys switch to mental models when the whole earth is so observable, measurable, and testable...don't you find it odd that you can't point to anything natural which agrees with your belief so you must make up scenarios?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Do the experiment...do keep in mind that if you use a camera lens, it must be as warm as the rest of the inside of the sphere otherwise you will obviously have energy moving from the warm sphere to the cooler camera...



I have no need to do an experiment with such an obvious outcome that the inside of a red hot hollow sphere must be also red hot. You disagree with the entropy law and think the inside would be pitch black, so you do the experiment to prove you know something that science doesn't. 



SSDD said:


> It is always entertaining to see you guys switch to mental models when the whole earth is so observable, measurable, and testable...don't you find it odd that you can't point to anything natural which agrees with your belief so you must make up scenarios?


It's always entertaining to watch your song and dance when you can't support your fake science.


.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I have no need to do an experiment with such an obvious outcome that the inside of a red hot hollow sphere must be also red hot. You disagree with the entropy law and think the inside would be pitch black, so you do the experiment to prove you know something that science doesn't.



In your mind the outcome is obvious....clearly, reality and what goes on in your mind are quite disconnected.



Wuwei said:


> It's always entertaining to watch your song and dance when you can't support your fake science.



Reality supports me...it is you who must make up mind experiments in an effort to lend some sense of scientific reality to your beliefs.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I have no need to do an experiment with such an obvious outcome that the inside of a red hot hollow sphere must be also red hot. You disagree with the entropy law and think the inside would be pitch black, so you do the experiment to prove you know something that science doesn't.
> ...



*Reality supports me...*

Says the guy sitting alone in his beliefs.
It's been a while since you posted any backup for your claims.

Why is that? LOL!


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Unlike you, I am not operating on a set of beliefs...every observation and measurement ever made shows energy moving in one direction only...from warm to cool...I don't question that.  When the second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm, I accept it...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Unlike you, I am not operating on a set of beliefs..*

Baloney.

*every observation and measurement ever made shows energy moving in one direction only...from warm to cool..*

You're lying.

For example, after the Sun's corona, somehow, is heated to over one million degrees, we are still able to see the Sun's surface radiating into and through this much hotter material. From hot to much, much hotter.

According to your "one-way only" flow of energy, this should be impossible.
So explain how it happens, and an additional source, one that agrees with you, for once, would be nice.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> In your mind the outcome is obvious....clearly, reality and what goes on in your mind are quite disconnected.


Nope, every text book says you are wrong. 



SSDD said:


> Reality supports me...it is you who must make up mind experiments in an effort to lend some sense of scientific reality to your beliefs.


Nope. You have been dis-proven time and again. You believe in smart photons. That's not reality. 

.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> When the second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm, I accept it.


Nope, it doesn't say that about photons which can move freely anywhere in the atmosphere. The entropy law proves you wrong. 

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > When the second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm, I accept it.
> ...


Are photons energy?  Last I heard, photons are merely the smallest bit of energy possible in an EM field....and entropy proves me right...entropy would be reduced if energy moved spontaneously from a less organized state (cool) to a more organized state (warm).  The second law says that entropy is always increasing...not decreasing.

Moving up on 1000 posts and still, nothing even remotely challenging any of the 3 statements in the OP.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > In your mind the outcome is obvious....clearly, reality and what goes on in your mind are quite disconnected.
> ...



Never happened...but the way you interpret and torture information in your mind, I have no doubt that you believe you have disproven.....something.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> entropy would be reduced if energy moved spontaneously from a less organized state (cool) to a more organized state (warm)


Absolutely true, but we are talking about radiation not being constricted. Equilibrium radiation exchange does not change entropy.


----------



## miketx (Jan 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> *1.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
> 
> 2.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
> 
> ...


Lack of evidence does not mean it hasn't happened.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2019)

miketx said:


> Lack of evidence does not mean it hasn't happened.



Lack of evidence certainly doesn't mean that it has...Real science might have a concern regarding a lack of evidence...alarmism, on the other hand really doesn't care, so long as the message of alarm is spread...whether it is warranted or not.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Never happened...but the way you interpret and torture information in your mind, I have no doubt that you believe you have disproven.....something.


Nope you continue to torture  the laws of physics that are in every textbook.

.

.


----------



## miketx (Jan 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > Lack of evidence does not mean it hasn't happened.
> ...


In other words it's all talk and bullshit. Got it.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2019)

miketx said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...



Till such time as some actual observed, measured evidence can be offered up to substantiate the claims...yes..it is just talk and bullshit.  Can you find a single piece of observed, measured evidence to  challenge either the first or second statement?....or a single published, peer reviewed paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and blamed on our so called greenhouse gasses?  

If you can't...what else would it be other than talk and bullshit?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Never happened...but the way you interpret and torture information in your mind, I have no doubt that you believe you have disproven.....something.
> ...



So you are saying that you agree with this statement precisely as it is written?:  

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.


----------



## miketx (Jan 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


That's all it is, and it's actually a scam to bilk the taxpayers out of more.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2019)

miketx said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...



That's not what I think..but offering up a logical fallacy rather than a bit of evidence that challenges any of my 3 statements speaks volumes...  Does it not bother you that no such evidence exists?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > entropy would be reduced if energy moved spontaneously from a less organized state (cool) to a more organized state (warm)
> ...


 but, but, but..... too fking funny


----------



## jc456 (Jan 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Never happened...but the way you interpret and torture information in your mind, I have no doubt that you believe you have disproven.....something.
> ...


and still no observation of cold moving spontaneously to warm.  not one piece of evidence.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 11, 2019)

miketx said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...


Exactly mike.


----------



## Crick (Jan 11, 2019)

As you know perfectly well, there are thousands of published studies that support the IPCC conclusions.  THAT is where those conclusions came from.  The idea that all those scientists are willfully lying (to somehow get rich on research grants) or that they are all incompetent in some sort of complimentary way (ie, they all make the same mistakes) is simply preposterous.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 11, 2019)

Crick said:


> As you know perfectly well, there are thousands of published studies that support the IPCC conclusions.  THAT is where those conclusions came from.  The idea that all those scientists are willfully lying (to somehow get rich on research grants) or that they are all incompetent in some sort of complimentary way (ie, they all make the same mistakes) is simply preposterous.


so crick, not trying to be a complete prick, but can you explain how 'studies' is 'observed and measured'?


----------



## Crick (Jan 12, 2019)

Most of the studies contain empirical data.  That said, the rejection of all models (that don't support your conclusions) is unwarranted.  There is no other way to produce projections or forecasts of future behavior, calling them no better than guesses is factually incorrect and, to be honest, the empirical data don't support you either.  You and yours have chosen to hold a belief not supported by any of the evidence: empirical, experimental or modeled.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I agree with the original statement 

*Clausius Statement of the Second Law*
One of the earliest statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics was made by R. Clausius in 1850. He stated the following.

_*“It is impossible to construct a device which operates on a cycle and whose sole effect is the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body”.*_​_
Clausius Statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics
_
There are many statements of the second law that are exactly that. Nothing more. Nothing less. Do you believe those?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 12, 2019)

Crick said:


> Most of the studies contain empirical data.  That said, the rejection of all models (that don't support your conclusions) is unwarranted.  There is no other way to produce projections or forecasts of future behavior, calling them no better than guesses is factually incorrect and, to be honest, the empirical data don't support you either.  You and yours have chosen to hold a belief not supported by any of the evidence: empirical, experimental or modeled.


Science is about proving hypotheticals. That means obverved


----------



## Crick (Jan 13, 2019)

For the umpteenth time, it is not possible to prove anything in the natural sciences.  It will always be due to good physics, successful predictions and a preponderance of the evidence.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> As you know perfectly well, there are thousands of published studies that support the IPCC conclusions.  THAT is where those conclusions came from.  The idea that all those scientists are willfully lying (to somehow get rich on research grants) or that they are all incompetent in some sort of complimentary way (ie, they all make the same mistakes) is simply preposterous.



And yet you don't seem to be able to come up with a single published paper in which the hypothetical warming due to our  activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses...not a single one.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> Most of the studies contain empirical data.  That said, the rejection of all models (that don't support your conclusions) is unwarranted.  There is no other way to produce projections or forecasts of future behavior, calling them no better than guesses is factually incorrect and, to be honest, the empirical data don't support you either.  You and yours have chosen to hold a belief not supported by any of the evidence: empirical, experimental or modeled.




It might be helpful to develop a model which can mirror reality before you start making predictions and asking for trillions of dollars based on there predictions...


----------



## Crick (Jan 13, 2019)

Hmm... have you ever seen a diagram like this?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 13, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Shuck and jive....dodge and weave...duck and cover.....what's the matter?  Afraid to simply state that you are in disagreement with the second law of thermodynamics?

And you cherry picked your statement from a block of text...typical...How about we look at the whole statement...

_One of the earliest statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics was made by R. Clausius in 1850. He stated the following.

“It is impossible to construct a device which operates on a cycle and whose sole effect is the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body”.

*Heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold system to hot system without external work being performed on the system. *This is exactly what refrigerators and heat pumps accomplish. In a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when forced by an external work, refrigerators are driven by electric motors requiring work from their surroundings to operate.
_
So you agree with the Clausius statement...heat cannot spontaneously flow from a cold system to a hot system without external work being performed on the system?  You agree with that statement?  After all, you provided it.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> For the umpteenth time, it is not possible to prove anything in the natural sciences.  It will always be due to good physics, successful predictions and a preponderance of the evidence.



So you think that excuses you from providing evidence sufficient to support the hypothesis?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> Hmm... have you ever seen a diagram like this?




Yeah...I've seen it...nothing more than assumptions...Can you show me a published paper in which the hypothetical warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses?

The section at the bottom  "Total Anthropogenic RF relative to 1750  seems to be making that claim.....which paper did it come from?  Or is it just another instance of climate science making it up as they go?

Got any actual measurement to support the claimed forcing of any of the so called greenhouse gasses?  Of course you don't..it is all from models...all models all the time...no actual evidence to be seen.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> Most of the studies contain empirical data.  That said, the rejection of all models (that don't support your conclusions) is unwarranted.  There is no other way to produce projections or forecasts of future behavior, calling them no better than guesses is factually incorrect and, to be honest, the empirical data don't support you either.  You and yours have chosen to hold a belief not supported by any of the evidence: empirical, experimental or modeled.


empirical data feed into flawed computer models incapable of even one days predictions...   garbage in = garbage out..


----------



## Crick (Jan 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the studies contain empirical data.  That said, the rejection of all models (that don't support your conclusions) is unwarranted.  There is no other way to produce projections or forecasts of future behavior, calling them no better than guesses is factually incorrect and, to be honest, the empirical data don't support you either.  You and yours have chosen to hold a belief not supported by any of the evidence: empirical, experimental or modeled.
> ...



GCM models will never "mirror" reality.  They can and do give close approximations of critical parameters.  No models predict what you have claimed will happen.  Why is that Shit?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Would you fly a plane who's model predicted a crash every time.. Or would you just get on and "believe"?

And if the plane flew fine would you not inspect the model for its failures to find out why?


----------



## Crick (Jan 13, 2019)

I would not get on a plane that had not already flown extensively, passing all its FAA mandated tests.

Forecasting the behavior of the Earth's climate 82 years out is considerably more complex an issue than determining whether a given design with a given amount of thrust will fly.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



At present they don't even get close...So again...do you have any actual empirically measured, quantified data for those forcings?  I didn't think so.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> I would not get on a plane that had not already flown extensively, passing all its FAA mandated tests.
> 
> Forecasting the behavior of the Earth's climate 82 years out is considerably more complex an issue than determining whether a given design with a given amount of thrust will fly.



Forcastig the behavior of the earths climate 82 years out is nothing more than an uneducated wild assed guess...at present, models can't even hind cast 20 years back...the idea of forecasting with them is ludicrous.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So you agree with the Clausius statement...heat cannot spontaneously flow from a cold system to a hot system without external work being performed on the system? You agree with that statement? After all, you provided it.



Yep.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 13, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So you agree with the Clausius statement...heat cannot spontaneously flow from a cold system to a hot system without external work being performed on the system? You agree with that statement? After all, you provided it.
> ...




And heat is energy?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Yep. But photons aren't heat, so they can go anywhere as long as thermal energy caused by photon absorption doesn't violate Clausius's statement. He talks about heat flow, not photon flow.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> And heat is energy?


Do you believe the Kevin-Planck statement of the second law?

_It is impossible for any device that operates on a cycle to receive heat from a single reservoir and produce a net amount of work.

._​


----------



## SSDD (Jan 14, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Are photons energy?  Heat is just what we call photons as they move from place to place.

When the matter is heated does the photon absorbed by electrons of atoms or by atoms themself?
In heat transfer by radiation, photons do carry the energy.

https://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/p670/textbook/Chap_5.pdf
If the cans of OJ are touching in the insulated chest, they exchange heat primarily by conduction. If the cans are not touching, they exchange heat by radiation. When objects exchange heat via thermal radiation, they do so by an exchange of energy from radiated photons (electromagnetic radiation).

Here is an easy one...pretty pictures of ducks...

Physics for Kids: Photons and Light
Photons behave like particles in that they can interact with matter. In some cases the energy of the photon is absorbed by the matter. In this case the extra energy may be emitted as heat.

And on and on and on....it is well known that heat is the movement of energy from one place to another...when that energy is moving in the form of radiation...it is photons moving from a warm area to a cool area...heat, in the case of radiation..is photons. 

Strange that you would not know this...

So how about that..you agree that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm...glad we finally got that hammered out.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 14, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And heat is energy?
> ...



Sure...it is saying that energy moves only from warm to cool...not in the other direction.

It looks like this..
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Clausius simply finished his thought since there is no two suggestion of two way energy flow from Planck


----------



## Crick (Jan 14, 2019)

A heat engine without a cold reservoir will not work because the temperature differential is required to produce work.  Without the cold reservoir, you have no differential.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> One of the earliest statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics was made by R. Clausius in 1850. He stated the following.
> 
> *“It is impossible to construct a device which operates on a cycle and whose sole effect is the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body”*.





SSDD said:


> .


Neither the Clausius form nor the Kelvin-Planck form nor the entropy form of the second law forbid two way *energy *flow. You are the only one who thinks that. All those laws are concerned with the fact that *heat *can flow only one way without work being done. Do you think those three statements of the law are misleading?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 14, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > One of the earliest statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics was made by R. Clausius in 1850. He stated the following.
> ...



Both do...

So now you are contesting the second law of thermodynamics and the SB law...

As I showed you in post 1014...heat is nothing more than photons moving from one place to another...where radiation is concerned....it is all just photons moving from one place to another...you have no energy flow by radiation that is not photons....if you believe in photons that is.


----------



## Crick (Jan 14, 2019)

What do you believe happens to the photons that were being emitted when the target was cooler.  What mechanism stops them?  How do they KNOW the temperature of their target?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> If the cans are not touching, they exchange heat by radiation.


Shot yourself in the foot again. The text you cited says two objects *exchange heat by radiation*. Radiation exchange is what we have been telling you for a long time. Now you are quoting sources that don't agree with you. Go figure. You are sad case of contradiction.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> If the cans are not touching, they exchange heat by radiation.


Shot yourself in the foot again. The text you cited says two objects *exchange heat by radiation*. Radiation exchange is what we have been telling you for a long time. Now you are quoting sources that don't agree with you. Go figure. You are sad case of contradiction.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So now you are contesting the second law of thermodynamics and the SB law.


Nope. You are the one who doesn't understand  radiation exchange.



SSDD said:


> As I showed you in post 1014...heat is nothing more than photons moving from one place to another...where radiation is concerned....it is all just photons moving from one place to another...you have no energy flow by radiation that is not photons....if you believe in photons that is.



I said the three forms of the SLoT do not forbid 2-way radiation exchange. 

Nobody is disagreeing that radiation exchange is "all just photons moving from one place to another". That is what we have been telling you! Photons move everywhere. A photon can only stop or change direction when it hits matter. (In practical earthly cases.)

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 14, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If the cans are not touching, they exchange heat by radiation.
> ...



_The text you cited says two objects *exchange heat by radiation*. _

Come on, you know exchange means one-way flow in the SSDD dictionary.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 14, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Come on, you know exchange means one-way flow in the SSDD dictionary.


For some reason the server of this site posted my comment twice several minutes apart. The server must be trying to get through to SSDD, that he is full of self made contradictions.


----------



## IanC (Jan 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Hahahahaha. From SSDDs link-
"
explain how energy is transferred between objects by radiation. The
hotter an object is, the more energy it radiates. A cold object in the vicinity of a hot
object also will radiate. But the hot object will radiate more energy than the colder
object, with the net result that more energy is lost to the cold object by the hot object
than by the cold object to the hot object. The average energy of the molecules of the
cold object will increase, while the average energy of the molecules of the hot object will decrease.
"

Sounds exactly like what myself and others have been saying to SSDD for almost ten years.

And it directly  contradicts what SSDD has been claiming.

When will he learn?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 15, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If the cans are not touching, they exchange heat by radiation.
> ...



You think that changes the second law of thermodynamics...I used it merely to demonstrate to you that heat is energy is photons...The second law still says that energy will not flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object....you think the fact that they used the word exchanged alters the second law of thermodynamics....

never mind...in your mind, I am sure that is exactly what you think.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 15, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So now you are contesting the second law of thermodynamics and the SB law.
> ...



The second law of thermodynamics doesn't say anything about radiation exchange...it only says that energy moves spontaneously in one direction and that heat will not move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...

All 3 forms say the same thing...energy moves in one direction...

The fact that you claim there is exchange when the second law states pretty explicitly that there isn't is your problem, not mine...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 15, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Actually, I only used it to demonstrate to wuwei that heat is, in fact the movement of photons...

Let me guess...you think that the fact that they used the word exchange also alters the second law of thermodynamics...

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not *possible for heat o flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow*. *Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature obje*ct.

Do let me know when they rewrite the second law to reflect your beliefs....


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I used it merely to demonstrate to you that heat is energy is photons.


That sentence has two verbs. However a photon has energy. A hot object has thermal energy. But a photon is not thermal energy. 



SSDD said:


> The second law still says that energy will not flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object....you think the fact that they used the word exchanged alters the second law of thermodynamics....
> 
> never mind...in your mind, I am sure that is exactly what you think.



Everybody knows radiation exchange is just that - exchange. I quoted the Clausius and Kelvin-Planck statements of the second law. Neither of those says that energy flows one way. They do mention or imply one way flow of heat. Their laws involves heat.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The second law of thermodynamics doesn't say anything about radiation exchange...it only says that energy moves spontaneously in one direction and that heat will not move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...
> 
> All 3 forms say the same thing...energy moves in one direction.


Nope. Read it again. The laws never energy moves in one direction. You are confusing the words heat and energy. Heat = energy. Radiation = energy. Radiation ≠ heat.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> *Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature obje*ct.
> 
> Do let me know when they rewrite the second law to reflect your beliefs....


They rewrote the second law when they later defined entropy. That says nothing about spontaneous energy flow.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 15, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I used it merely to demonstrate to you that heat is energy is photons.
> ...



As the multiple sources I provided stated...heat is the movement of photons from one place to another...





Wuwei said:


> Everybody knows radiation exchange is just that - exchange. I quoted the Clausius and Kelvin-Planck statements of the second law. Neither of those says that energy flows one way. They do mention or imply one way flow of heat. Their laws involves heat.



Everybody should know that the second law states that energy only moves spontaneously in one direction...Both Clausius and Kelvin-Planck state that energy only moves in one direction...but do feel free to prove me wrong...lets see a two way Planck equation..


----------



## SSDD (Jan 15, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The second law of thermodynamics doesn't say anything about radiation exchange...it only says that energy moves spontaneously in one direction and that heat will not move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...
> ...



Ahhhhh..I get it..  You don't know what heat is..  I already provided the answer for you, but the answer puts you in opposition with your beliefs so therefore you can't accept it, no matter how many times it is provided for you...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 15, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > *Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature obje*ct.
> ...



Who is "they" and do provide a link to the paper describing the rewriting of the second law of thermodynamics...that would certainly be top shelf news in multiple scientific fields...

We both know no such paper will be forthcoming as you have been reduced to just making shit up in an attempt to defend your religious beliefs.


----------



## IanC (Jan 15, 2019)

"


The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time. ... Historically, the second law was an empirical finding that was accepted as an axiom of thermodynamic theory. Statistical mechanics, classical or quantum, explains the microscopic origin of the law.

"


----------



## Crick (Jan 15, 2019)

It might be my Hosts file, but I cannot get to your attached files.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> As the multiple sources I provided stated...heat is the movement of photons from one place to another.


Show me your multiple sources. 


SSDD said:


> Everybody should know that the second law states that energy only moves spontaneously in one direction...Both Clausius and Kelvin-Planck state that energy only moves in one direction...but do feel free to prove me wrong...lets see a two way Planck equation..


Nope. Everybody should not know what you think.  Clausius and Kelvin-Planck stated *heat *moves in one direction. "Energy" is much broader term than heat.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Ahhhhh..I get it.. You don't know what heat is.. I already provided the answer for you, but the answer puts you in opposition with your beliefs so therefore you can't accept it, no matter how many times it is provided for you...


You didn't provide any answers to anything. Your fizzics is not accepted by science.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Who is "they" and do provide a link to the paper describing the rewriting of the second law of thermodynamics...that would certainly be top shelf news in multiple scientific fields...
> 
> We both know no such paper will be forthcoming as you have been reduced to just making shit up in an attempt to defend your religious beliefs.



"They" are Clausius and later Boltzmann who rewrote the second law 150 years ago. Here is the history:

Carnot in 1824 (Engines)
Lord Kelvin 1851
Rudolf Clausius In 1856 (Refrigeration)
Clausius in 1865 defined entropy and concluded it tends to a maximum
1872 Boltzmann developed a proof of the entropy principle with the use of statistical mechanics and showed entropy is not a mere postulate like the earlier forms of the second law. 

Entropy subsumes all earlier definitions of the second law. That is the rewrite you must abide by. It does not mention one way photons. You have no basis. 




.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 15, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > As the multiple sources I provided stated...heat is the movement of photons from one place to another.
> ...



*Show me your multiple sources. *

You want him to provide more sources that refute his own claims?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Show me your multiple sources. *
> 
> You want him to provide more sources that refute his own claims?



Yep. I guess that is what he does.  It makes arguing with him simpler.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > As the multiple sources I provided stated...heat is the movement of photons from one place to another.
> ...



Refer to post 1014.  You know...it isn't any big secret..except perhaps to you and those like you, that radiated heat is, in fact, photons...if you believe in photons, what the hell else could it be?  You think there is something else going on when energy is radiated other than photons moving from one place to another?

[QUOTE="SSDD, post: 21608932, member: 40906"
Nope. Everybody should not know what you think.  Clausius and Kelvin-Planck stated *heat *moves in one direction. "Energy" is much broader term than heat.[/QUOTE]

Heat is energy...heat is the movement of photons from one place to another...it is very interesting that you don't know this..that you think energy, in the form of heat, moving from one place to another is something other than photons...Again...what might it be...how might energy move from place to place via radiation, if it isn't in the form of photons?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhhhh..I get it.. You don't know what heat is.. I already provided the answer for you, but the answer puts you in opposition with your beliefs so therefore you can't accept it, no matter how many times it is provided for you...
> ...



Of course I did...Did it part your hair as it zipped right over your head?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> "They" are Clausius and later Boltzmann who rewrote the second law 150 years ago. Here is the history:



I am laughing in your stupid face...is there nothing that you won't interpret in an effort to support your faith...



Wuwei said:


> Clausius in 1865 defined entropy and concluded it tends to a maximum
> 1872 Boltzmann developed a proof of the entropy principle with the use of statistical mechanics and showed entropy is not a mere postulate like the earlier forms of the second law.



Yeah...and by definition entropy means energy moving from a more organized state (warm) to a less organized state (cool) and all natural processes are irreversible...ergo, the clause that states that energy won't move from cool to warm without some work having been done to make it happen.

You are pathetic.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Show me your multiple sources. *
> ...



Some mutual chain yanking going on there in public?  Make you feel better?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Heat is energy...heat is the movement of photons from one place to another...it is very interesting that you don't know this..that you think energy, in the form of heat, moving from one place to another is something other than photons...Again...what might it be...how might energy move from place to place via radiation, if it isn't in the form of photons?[/QUOTE]

*.heat is the movement of photons from one place to another.*

You're lying.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So now you are contesting the second law of thermodynamics and the SB law.


Nope. You are the one who is contesting the laws. 


SSDD said:


> Heat is energy...heat is the movement of photons from one place to another...it is very interesting that you don't know this..that you think energy, in the form of heat, moving from one place to another is something other than photons...Again...what might it be...how might energy move from place to place via radiation, if it isn't in the form of photons?


You still don't understand modern physics. Sure heat can move from place to place via photons as long as the total energy is from warm to cold bodies. Photons are not constrained in movement. The fact is that the colder body heats up because of the less energetic flow of photons from the cold body to the warm body. That all comes out of the SB law. It's interesting you don't know this.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Nope. You are the one who is contesting the laws.



Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Which part of that statement do you think I am contesting?



SSDD said:


> You still don't understand modern physics.



What you call "modern" physics is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...



Wuwei said:


> Sure heat can move from place to place via photons as long as the total energy is from warm to cold bodies.



So you say...and yet, the physical laws themselves don't say so..Let me know when they are changed.



Wuwei said:


> Photons are not constrained in movement.



So you say...and yet, you can't measure a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cool body to a warm body unless you cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the cool body....and then you are only measuring it moving to the cooled instrument...not to the warmer object.


----------



## Crick (Jan 16, 2019)

Photons are, themselves, not heat.  Heat is the motion of molecules.  Photons certainly flow from one piece of matter to another, but there is no heat outside of matter.

YOU have the extraordinary claim.  YOU have the responsibility to provide us extraordinary evidence.  Show us photons being constrained.  Give us a mechanism for accomplishing such a thing.  And explain how it does not violate relativity.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
> 
> Which part of that statement do you think I am contesting?


That wording is fine if the word Energy is understood to be net energy as every physicist knows. 



SSDD said:


> What you call "modern" physics is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...


Yes, we know you don't believe in modern physics. But that is no argument that carries any weight here.



SSDD said:


> So you say...and yet, you can't measure a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cool body to a warm body unless you cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the cool body....and then you are only measuring it moving to the cooled instrument...not to the warmer object.


Au contraire, discrete wavelengths of energy have been measured moving from a cool body to a warm body without a cooled instrument. Remember you even said yourself that the 2.7⁰K CMB is black body radiation and discrete resonant frequencies were measured after hitting the warm antenna and focused a 4⁰K resonant detector. Don't you remember?

Everyone knows photons in an earthly environment can only be impeded by hitting matter. The temperature of the matter doesn't matter. This was already shown by many different examples.

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. You are the one who is contesting the laws.
> ...



*Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow.*

So when we see a photon moving from cold to warm, that means work was done. Ok.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 16, 2019)

Crick said:


> Photons are, themselves, not heat.  Heat is the motion of molecules.  Photons certainly flow from one piece of matter to another, but there is no heat outside of matter.
> 
> YOU have the extraordinary claim.  YOU have the responsibility to provide us extraordinary evidence.  Show us photons being constrained.  Give us a mechanism for accomplishing such a thing.  And explain how it does not violate relativity.



Not to mention violating causality.


----------



## IanC (Jan 16, 2019)

A rock will only spontaneously fall _down_ a hill. But something put the rock on top of the hill. At some point there was always energy used to create the conditions for a spontaneous event.


----------



## Crick (Jan 16, 2019)

The entire universe got started at the top of a very big hill.


----------



## IanC (Jan 17, 2019)

Sunshine pushes the rock uphill only to have it start rolling down during the night.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2019)

Crick said:


> Photons are, themselves, not heat.  Heat is the motion of molecules.  Photons certainly flow from one piece of matter to another, but there is no heat outside of matter.



Photons are the smallest bit of energy possible in an EM field which can still be called part of the EM field...Heat is the motion of molecules in solids and liquids...but energy in the form of radiation, is not due to the motion of molecules beyond its point of origin. 



Crick said:


> YOU have the extraordinary claim.  YOU have the responsibility to provide us extraordinary evidence.  Show us photons being constrained.  Give us a mechanism for accomplishing such a thing.  And explain how it does not violate relativity.



Actually...it is you who has made the extraordinary claim and therefore must provide extraordinary evidence....

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not *possible for heat o flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow*. *Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature obje*ct.

You are the one claiming that this statement is untrue.  You are the one claiming that energy can move spontaneously, without any work having been done from a cool object to a warm object....You are the one claiming that heat can flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object.

I am in perfect agreement with the statement of the second law of thermodynamics...what is extraordinary about that?  You on the other hand are claiming that something else is happening....something not stated in the second law...the burden of extraordinary evidence lies squarely on your shoulders and has since I first arrived at this board....to date, you haven't even come close to providing any such evidence...you merely mewl about consensus...and how many people also have not provided any extraordinary evidence in support of their beliefs.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> That wording is fine if the word Energy is understood to be net energy as every physicist knows.



So the wording is fine so long as it doesn't have to mean what it says?  Got it..   Let me know when they change the words to mean what you and "every other physicist" wish it said.



SSDD said:


> Yes, we know you don't believe in modern physics. But that is no argument that carries any weight here.



Belief in a model is fine so long as its predictions have been observed and tested against reality...alas, yours have not.



SSDD said:


> Au contraire, discrete wavelengths of energy have been measured moving from a cool body to a warm body without a cooled instrument. Remember you even said yourself that the 2.7⁰K CMB is black body radiation and discrete resonant frequencies were measured after hitting the warm antenna and focused a 4⁰K resonant detector. Don't you remember?



A resonant radio frequency is never going to be CMB...it is tragic that your whole premise lies upon such a misunderstanding....Why do you believe that is the only instance of energy movement from cool to warm that you can find? Why are there not measurements of discrete wavelengths of energy moving from cool to warm in practically every instance of energy supposedly moving from cool to warm?  If, in fact energy moved freely from cool to warm, you could provide any number of observations rather than one tragic misunderstanding on your part.



SSDD said:


> Everyone knows photons in an earthly environment can only be impeded by hitting matter. The temperature of the matter doesn't matter. This was already shown by many different examples.



And "everyone" knows that the Emperor's new clothes are absolutely stunning...let me know when you can show me some samples of the fabric.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2019)

IanC said:


> A rock will only spontaneously fall _down_ a hill. But something put the rock on top of the hill. At some point there was always energy used to create the conditions for a spontaneous event.



And don't forget that all natural processes are irreversible...once a warm object has lost energy...it doesn't get it back....none of it.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 17, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So the wording is fine so long as it doesn't have to mean what it says? Got it.. Let me know when they change the words to mean what you and "every other physicist" wish it said.


From the hyperphysics site.
_It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object._​ 


SSDD said:


> Belief in a model is fine so long as its predictions have been observed and tested against reality...alas, yours have not.


Liar. All predictions of QM have been observed. But you still think it's fairy dust. 



SSDD said:


> A resonant radio frequency is never going to be CMB...it is tragic that your whole premise lies upon such a misunderstanding....Why do you believe that is the only instance of energy movement from cool to warm that you can find? Why are there not measurements of discrete wavelengths of energy moving from cool to warm in practically every instance of energy supposedly moving from cool to warm? If, in fact energy moved freely from cool to warm, you could provide any number of observations rather than one tragic misunderstanding on your part.


You are lying again. These examples of observations or measurements of photons from a cold source hitting a warmer object have been given to you many times. 
Chemical light stick.
Slow decay phosphorescence
Gamma decay of technetium, et al.
Luminescence from plants and animals
Cosmic microwave background
Sunlight passing through hotter corona.​.


SSDD said:


> And "everyone" knows that the Emperor's new clothes are absolutely stunning...let me know when you can show me some samples of the fabric.


Your idiocy is absolutely stunning. Not only are your beliefs idiotic, but you stoop to the stupidest rational to support your idiocy. You are not fooling anyone.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 17, 2019)

Crick said:


> Photons are, themselves, not heat.  Heat is the motion of molecules.  Photons certainly flow from one piece of matter to another, but there is no heat outside of matter.
> 
> YOU have the extraordinary claim.  YOU have the responsibility to provide us extraordinary evidence.  Show us photons being constrained.  Give us a mechanism for accomplishing such a thing.  And explain how it does not violate relativity.


you claimed that the atmosphere warmed, why can't you prove that?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 17, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
> ...


well actually the argument is that you haven't, nor anyone in here provided an observable, measurable,testable mathematical model...why?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 17, 2019)

IanC said:


> A rock will only spontaneously fall _down_ a hill. But something put the rock on top of the hill. At some point there was always energy used to create the conditions for a spontaneous event.


wow.  the stupid in this statement is grand indeed. 

Yo Frank, the only way a rock is on a  hill is if someone put the rock on the hill.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 17, 2019)

Crick said:


> The entire universe got started at the top of a very big hill.


god?  dude, that doesn't make a lick of sense.  but thanks for again demonstrating your stupid.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 17, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So the wording is fine so long as it doesn't have to mean what it says? Got it.. Let me know when they change the words to mean what you and "every other physicist" wish it said.
> ...


from your own quoted material..

"_but the nettransfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object._"

this is stating that cold does not flow to hot. that the only spontaneous process is hot to cold.   sorry, your own quote backs SSDD and myself.  funny.


----------



## Crick (Jan 17, 2019)

What do you think the term "net transfer" means?

Webster: (Entry 3 of 5) 1 : free from all charges or deductions: such as. a : remaining after the deduction of all charges, outlay, or loss *net* earnings *net* worth — compare gross. b : excluding all tare *net* weight.

Dictionary.com:  remaining after deductions, as for charges or expenses (opposed to gross):  (of weight) after deduction of tare, tret, or both.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> From the hyperphysics site.
> _It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object._​


_
_
Opinion...not based on anything stated in the physical laws...not based on the equations associated with the physical laws...not based on any observed, measured experiment...entirely an artifact of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.​


Wuwei said:


> Liar. All predictions of QM have been observed. But you still think it's fairy dust.



Really?  Got any actual observation, or measurement of spontaneous two way energy movement between objects of different temperatures?



Wuwei said:


> You are lying again. These examples of observations or measurements of photons from a cold source hitting a warmer object have been given to you many times.
> Chemical light stick.
> Slow decay phosphorescence
> Gamma decay of technetium, et al.
> ...



And none of those are spontaneous...no matter how much you wish they were.  Already been through all of them...and none of them represent spontaneous energy movement from cool to warm...if they did, then the second law of thermodynamics would have been changed,​.


Wuwei said:


> Your idiocy is absolutely stunning. Not only are your beliefs idiotic, but you stoop to the stupidest rational to support your idiocy. You are not fooling anyone.



No samples of the fabric huh...not surprising.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 17, 2019)

Crick said:


> What do you think the term "net transfer" means?
> 
> Webster: (Entry 3 of 5) 1 : free from all charges or deductions: such as. a : remaining after the deduction of all charges, outlay, or loss *net* earnings *net* worth — compare gross. b : excluding all tare *net* weight.
> 
> Dictionary.com:  remaining after deductions, as for charges or expenses (opposed to gross):  (of weight) after deduction of tare, tret, or both.


what are the big words in the statement? I'll highlight them.  I give two shits net transfer comment, the important words are in bold..

"_but the nettransfer *will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process.* *Work is required* to transfer net energy to the hot object._"

Nowhere does it say spontaneous cold to hot.  nowhere. 

Wow.


----------



## IanC (Jan 17, 2019)

Crick said:


> What do you think the term "net transfer" means?
> 
> Webster: (Entry 3 of 5) 1 : free from all charges or deductions: such as. a : remaining after the deduction of all charges, outlay, or loss *net* earnings *net* worth — compare gross. b : excluding all tare *net* weight.
> 
> Dictionary.com:  remaining after deductions, as for charges or expenses (opposed to gross):  (of weight) after deduction of tare, tret, or both.



Thanks, I haven't learn a new word in a while.

TRET- an allowance of extra weight made to purchasers of certain goods to compensate for waste during transportation


----------



## Crick (Jan 17, 2019)

You're welcome, but the definitions were for JC.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*this is stating that cold does not flow to hot*

Net.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 17, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


spontaneous


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Because there is no restriction.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 17, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



_Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object._"

Patty cake, patty cake, pat,pat,pat patty cake, patty cake!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Exactly!

Why did it take you so long to get a clue?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 17, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


too fking funny.  this discussion has been all about spontaneous.  sorry. no one, not even myself said otherwise.  so you're a bit lost there bubba. patty cake


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



_Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object._"

Without work, net transfer is to the cool object.

Welcome to the party, pal.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 17, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You.....still not admitting your error. LOL!


----------



## jc456 (Jan 17, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


never made an error.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 17, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Opinion...not based on anything stated in the physical laws...not based on the equations associated with the physical laws...not based on any observed, measured experiment...entirely an artifact of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.


So now physics is opinion. What an idiot.



SSDD said:


> Really? Got any actual observation, or measurement of spontaneous two way energy movement between objects of different temperatures?


I gave you them. Read about it. 



SSDD said:


> And none of those are spontaneous...no matter how much you wish they were. Already been through all of them...and none of them represent spontaneous energy movement from cool to warm...if they did, then the second law of thermodynamics would have been changed,



More crap from you. They all are spontaneous events. Read about it. It's physics. The second law does not need changing. It allows spontaneous non incandescent EM flow to warmer objects. It has been observed and measured. Your smart photons disobey several observed and measured laws of physics. But of course you don't believe physics.




.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Doesn't realize what he just admitted.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Realizes what he admitted, won't admit it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Can't admit he realizes what he admitted, because he still doesn't realize it.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 17, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Doesn't realize what he just admitted.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Realizes what he admitted, won't admit it.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Can't admit he realizes what he admitted, because he still doesn't realize it.


LOL. I think you have all the bases covered.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 20, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> So now physics is opinion. What an idiot.



If it isn't observed, and measured, but still claimed...it is opinion. 



SSDD said:


> R
> I gave you them. Read about it.



No..you only gave me examples that were good enough to fool you...none were spontaneous energy movement...clearly nothing will convince you...even the fact that the second law still says that energy will not move spontaneously from cool to warm...only idiots believe they have found exceptions.  Ask the US patent office about energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > So now physics is opinion. What an idiot.
> ...



*If it isn't observed, and measured, but still claimed...it is opinion. *

But enough about your "objects at equilibrium don't radiate" opinion.

*even the fact that the second law still says that energy will not move spontaneously from cool to warm.*

I can get energy to move from cool to warm, with a bit of work.....can you?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Of course...but then, it isn't spontaneous energy movement..is it.  You don't seem to grasp how important the word spontaneous is when discussing the second law...you can move all the energy from cool to warm you want so long as you are willing to work to make it happen...but not a single photon can move from cool to warm spontaneously.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Of course...but then, it isn't spontaneous energy movement..is it. *

Of course not. So how does the photon know if is was created spontaneously or as a result of work?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Is work spontaneous? Dude, you do have a screw loose


----------



## jc456 (Jan 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Funny thing those laws.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Photons don't "know" jack...they simply obey the laws of physics...and the second law of thermodynamics says that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...

So you think that rocks know that some work was done to make them go up in the face of gravity?  Or are they maybe just obeying the laws of physics?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Fails to grasp how important that word is...always has....probably always will.   Doubt that he even knows what the word means in spite of the numerous times I have provide him with a definition.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


*Photons don't "know" jack...they simply obey the laws of physics.*

Exactly. 
So how does a photon know whether it was created due to work, and is allowed to hit warmer matter, or whether it was created spontaneously and is not allowed to hit warmer matter?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I repeat....do you think rocks that are tossed up "know" that work has been done so that they may go upward in defiance of the laws of physics?....or are they maybe just obeying the laws because they really have no "choice"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



So.....no answer to the photon question? LOL!


----------



## SSDD (Jan 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The answer is that they obey the laws of physics...

I am laughing at your hypocrisy...you are the king of answering a question with a question rather than simply providing an answer...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*The answer is that they obey the laws of physics...*

According to your laws of physics, a CO2 molecule at -20C isn't allowed to emit toward the ground at 15C, is that correct?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. *Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
*
Which part of the statement in bold do you not understand?  And it isn't according to me...it's according to the second law of f'ing thermodynamics...the statement says what it says...I am not arguing with it...Why are you?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Well he did. Why do you act ignorant so often?

After he answered, he asked you if a rock knows if it’s thrown? You avoided answering! Seems you have the problem


----------



## jc456 (Jan 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


More nonsense


----------



## SSDD (Jan 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



He is the king of asking another question rather than answering the one he was asked.....the hypocrisy literally drips...doesn't it?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Well he did. Why do you act ignorant so often?



I don't think it is an act....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



So that's a yes, a CO2 molecule at -20C isn't allowed to emit toward the ground at 15C.

You can say it...….


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Well he did. *

His photon "answer" had the word rock, not the word photon. Weird.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


What is the physical law? Are rocks allowed to go up?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


No, his answer had physical law. Just because you didn’t like his answer doesn’t mean he didn’t answer.  But it’s you, figures


----------



## SSDD (Jan 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



What does the second law of thermodynamics say about energy moving from low temperatures to high temperatures?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Only because you think photons must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Something about work. You can say it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Nah, dumb photons squirt around in random directions.
You have them measuring temperatures billions of light years away.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Naw rocks are smarter


----------



## jc456 (Jan 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Spontaneous is the word, the word is spontaneous. Ignorant is your word


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> If it isn't observed, and measured, but still claimed...it is opinion.


It's been observed countless times.



SSDD said:


> No..you only gave me examples that were good enough to fool you...none were spontaneous energy movement...clearly nothing will convince you...even the fact that the second law still says that energy will not move spontaneously from cool to warm...only idiots believe they have found exceptions. Ask the US patent office about energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm.


Nope. Look up the physics definition of spontaneous emission. Look up luminescence. You will find many examples of photons moving anywhere.

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 20, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> It's been observed countless times.



You are an absolute idiot if you believe that...let me guess..you do.



SSDD said:


> Nope. Look up the physics definition of spontaneous emission. Look up luminescence. You will find many examples of photons moving anywhere.



Already did...which is why I can say with perfect confidence that none of your nut job examples was spontaneous...

Do let me know when they change the 2nd law of thermodynamics to reflect what you believe...f'ing idiot...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > It's been observed countless times.
> ...


You are getting ill-tempered again. Nope, you didn't look up the definition of luminescence. Here it is.
Luminescence | physics
Luminescence, emission of light by certain materials when they are relatively cool. It is in contrast to light emitted from incandescent bodies, such as burning wood or coal, molten iron, and wire heated by an electric current.

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



I know what luminescence is....Tell me...do you think the IR emitted by your body is spontaneous?  Or perhaps, do you think work has to be done in order for your body to emit said IR?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Tell me...do you think the IR emitted by your body is spontaneous? Or perhaps, do you think work has to be done in order for your body to emit said IR? *

Or the IR emitted by the walls of my house? 
That must be why the walls are "allowed" to emit toward my warmer body.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I know what luminescence is....Tell me...do you think the IR emitted by your body is spontaneous? Or perhaps, do you think work has to be done in order for your body to emit said IR?



My body emits spontaneous black body radiation all the time... summer or winter. That is not luminance.

However chemical work is continually being done in my body. But I really think there is a lack of it being done in your brain. 

.


----------



## IanC (Jan 21, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Naw rocks are smarter



Rocks are smarter and more teachable than you.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I know what luminescence is....Tell me...do you think the IR emitted by your body is spontaneous? Or perhaps, do you think work has to be done in order for your body to emit said IR?
> ...



Since you are such a dodge....I guess I have to put a fine point on my question...and then you will still dodge if you feel like the answer is in conflict with your beliefs.

"does the IR your body emits that is due to a temperature above the ambient temperature happen spontaneously, meaning..will it continue after you die, or does the warmth you emit result from work being done?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 21, 2019)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Naw rocks are smarter
> ...


Well they do follow physical laws, unlike you!


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Me dodge? Your questions use physics terminology in bizarre ways and it's hard to tell what you think. 

The heart, lungs, etc are always doing work while you are alive. So yes, the warmth your body emits results from the work in the sense that the warmth is a byproduct of the inefficiency of that work, ie, your metabolism. The radiation of that heat happens spontaneously.  The moment you die, your heat still dissipates spontaneously and you loose thermal energy until you reach equilibrium. 

You ask an EITHER/OR question, but both either and or are true. 

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> The heart, lungs, etc are always doing work while you are alive. So yes, the warmth your body emits results from the work in the sense that the warmth is a byproduct of the inefficiency of that work, ie, your metabolism.



So you misspoke when you said that the radiation you emit is spontaneous..it is due to work having been done, therefore not spontaneous....ditto for radiation being emitted by any other living creature...whether it be IR or light.

You simply don't understand what the term means and therefore, the truth is beyond your comprehension....and since the truth would challenge your beliefs, you aren't likely to even try to understand where you went off the tracks.


----------



## Crick (Jan 22, 2019)

The work your body performs is not CREATED by heat.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The heart, lungs, etc are always doing work while you are alive. So yes, the warmth your body emits results from the work in the sense that the warmth is a byproduct of the inefficiency of that work, ie, your metabolism.
> ...



*You simply don't understand what the term means and therefore, the truth is beyond your comprehension....and since the truth would challenge your beliefs, you aren't likely to even try to understand where you went off the tracks.* 

Irony is ironic.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So you misspoke when you said that the radiation you emit is spontaneous..it is due to work having been done, therefore not spontaneous....ditto for radiation being emitted by any other living creature...whether it be IR or light.
> 
> You simply don't understand what the term means and therefore, the truth is beyond your comprehension....and since the truth would challenge your beliefs, you aren't likely to even try to understand where you went off the tracks.


How do you define work? Physics defines it as a force moving through a distance. Your heart and lungs are doing that, but your skin is not doing work while it radiates. It is simply eliminating excess heat. 


.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 22, 2019)

Still no evidence....just a bunch of babble.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2019)

Crick said:


> The work your body performs is not CREATED by heat.




But the heat your body emits is produced by work you blithering idiot..


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So you misspoke when you said that the radiation you emit is spontaneous..it is due to work having been done, therefore not spontaneous....ditto for radiation being emitted by any other living creature...whether it be IR or light.
> ...




Do you believe your skin would have heat to radiate if there were not work going on in you body?  And physics also defines chemical work that has little to do with physical movement...You would be room temperature and only emitting energy if your surroundings were cooler than yourself if there were not work going on to produce that energy.....therefore any energy your body emits that is at a frequency above the ambient of your surroundings is the result of work being done...and therefore it is not spontaneous.

Try using your brain for just a minute and ask if your skin is producing the energy it is radiating?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The work your body performs is not CREATED by heat.
> ...



*But the heat your body emits is produced by work you blithering idiot.*


_Science 24 May 1963: 
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877 
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870 _

_ In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts. _

So is the heat emitted by the walls, ceiling and other surroundings in this 1963 article.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Try using your brain for just a minute and ask if your skin is producing the energy it is radiating? *

Try using your brain for just a minute and ask if the Sun's surface is producing the energy it is radiating?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Do you believe your skin would have heat to radiate if there were not work going on in you body? And physics also defines chemical work that has little to do with physical movement...You would be room temperature and only emitting energy if your surroundings were cooler than yourself if there were not work going on to produce that energy.....therefore any energy your body emits that is at a frequency above the ambient of your surroundings is the result of work being done...and therefore it is not spontaneous.



This is the form of the second law you always quote:
It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.​
Since you say any radiation your skin emits is a result of work being done, then the human body can always radiate to a colder surround because of the work. 

It would seem in your weird physics if a rock was warmed in a camp fire on a bitter cold day, the rock would radiate because chemical work is being done. As soon as the rock is removed from the fire it would stop radiating to the colder air because no work is being done on it.

How can a warm rock distinguish between being warmed and not being warmed? Your physics is pretty bizarre.  


.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Do you believe your skin would have heat to radiate if there were not work going on in you body? And physics also defines chemical work that has little to do with physical movement...You would be room temperature and only emitting energy if your surroundings were cooler than yourself if there were not work going on to produce that energy.....therefore any energy your body emits that is at a frequency above the ambient of your surroundings is the result of work being done...and therefore it is not spontaneous.
> ...



I repeat...what is the frequency of energy radiating from a radioactive rock compared to the frequency of any energy in the IR band?  Generally we are talking about IR...but if you think you can get around the second law by bringing in radioactive material, then we aren't talking about IR any more are we?  There is no getting around the second law...ever in any fashion....try as you might, you can't do it...

This is a fine example of your tedium....


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I repeat...what is the frequency of energy radiating from a radioactive rock compared to the frequency of any energy in the IR band? Generally we are talking about IR...but if you think you can get around the second law by bringing in radioactive material, then we aren't talking about IR any more are we? There is no getting around the second law...ever in any fashion....try as you might, you can't do it...
> 
> This is a fine example of your tedium....



I think you are bored because you don't understand it. It doesn't matter whether it''s gamma emission, alpha emission, neutrinos or neutrons etc. Radioactivity from cold ore is an example of energy moving from a cold object to a warmer surround.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 23, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I repeat...what is the frequency of energy radiating from a radioactive rock compared to the frequency of any energy in the IR band? Generally we are talking about IR...but if you think you can get around the second law by bringing in radioactive material, then we aren't talking about IR any more are we? There is no getting around the second law...ever in any fashion....try as you might, you can't do it...
> ...



No..I am bored because we already went over this...again and again...you lost the point, moved on to some other topic which we also had been over and over, which you lost and moved on and this is just yet another repeat...  Entropy..energy always moves from a more organized state to a less organized state...is the radiation your rock emitting more or less organized than it was while still contained within the rock...

Refer to the second law of thermodynamics and radioactive decay...tedious in the extreme.

Let me know when you have something new....otherwise, I am going to just refer you to the previous incarnations of this same old discussion.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 23, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Refer to the second law of thermodynamics and radioactive decay...tedious in the extreme.



Radioactive decay spontaneously releases organized energy into less organized energy. Therefore even if it comes from cold ore to a warmer substance radioactivity follows the entropy definition of the SLoT.

It is tedious for you because your brain is strained trying to understand why radiation is energy from cold to warm, yet also follows the SLoT. Physics is not boring unless you are snowed by it.

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Refer to the second law of thermodynamics and radioactive decay...tedious in the extreme.
> ...


Refer to the first 3 times you lost this point...I will no longer support you in your juvenile belief that if you keep recycling the same old lost points, that somehow the outcome of recycling them again will be different.

I will note how tragic it is for one to be so stupid that he thinks he can discuss radioactivity in the same terms as infrared.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Radioactive emission has nothing to do with IR. How can you be so stupid? The point is that it is a counterexample to your contention that no energy can move spontaneously from a cold object to a warmer surround. 

However radioactive decay doesn't violate the 2nd law as defined by entropy because the internal state of the rock is less ordered after the emission. Don't you still believe in entropy?



.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2019)

Oh...the tedium...refer to any of the previous times you recycled the failed point.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Oh...the tedium...refer to any of the previous times you recycled the failed point.


Ha. Another non-answer. Just a lie. You always failed to answer. Now you are pretending tedium. That's one way of running and hiding from principles of physics.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2019)

Refer to any of the previous times your point failed...they are scattered across the forum like trash at a liberal rally...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Refer to any of the previous times your point failed...they are scattered across the forum like trash at a liberal rally...


You once said that radio activity is not spontaneous because work goes into refining the ore.  That was a fun read. So I assume that is still your answer.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2019)

Feel free to refer to any of the numerous times your point has failed...feel free to make up all the lies you care to make regarding what I have said...the dozens of times I had to correct your interpretation of what was said lie scattered across the board as well...do let me know when you get some actual evidence to support your beliefs, or they change the physical laws...that would be something new...wouldn't it?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Feel free to refer to any of the numerous times your point has failed...feel free to make up all the lies you care to make regarding what I have said...the dozens of times I had to correct your interpretation of what was said lie scattered across the board as well...do let me know when you get some actual evidence to support your beliefs, or they change the physical laws...that would be something new...wouldn't it?



Not a lie. This is you disdainfully rejecting the physics of spontaneous decay. 


SSDD said:


> Radium is manufactured commercially by the electrolysis of their molten salts...what exactly do you think is spontaneous about that?



I had a big laugh and you ran away and apparently forgot that you made that stupid remark. However you don't seem to believe any process is spontaneous because they all started with exterior work. 
_It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. _​
So the conclusion of you fizziks is that since work is done in any process on earth, energy is free to flow anywhere as long as entropy increases. Shot yourself in the foot again. Eh?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2019)

Laughable...how much mental masturbation does it require to work yourself up to the point where you can actually believe that I would ever need to run and hide from the likes of you?  Does it take a long time or are you quick on the trigger and get there in a flash?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2019)

Here is something new for you.  Is heat a substance?


----------



## Crick (Jan 25, 2019)

Something new?  Why don't you sort out the several failures you've already racked up?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Laughable...how much mental masturbation does it require to work yourself up to the point where you can actually believe that I would ever need to run and hide from the likes of you? Does it take a long time or are you quick on the trigger and get there in a flash?


The post was about spontaneous processes in physics, and the fact that you don't believe in spontaneity if any prior work was done. So that makes almost nothing spontaneous. Of course spontaneity in physics is nothing of that sort. However I apologize for bringing up the topic since it makes you think dirty.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Here is something new for you. Is heat a substance?


Not new for me. Heat is not a substance in physics. It is an extrinsic property of matter. If you found a blog that says otherwise, let me know. However in days of yore heat was thought to be phlogesten.  (sp?)


----------



## SSDD (Jan 26, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Here is something new for you. Is heat a substance?
> ...




Right...heat is not a substance...heat is defined as a transfer of kinetic energy between two systems.  Guess what?  So called greenhouse gasses cannot possible trap a transfer of kinetic energy in the Lower Atmosphere.  Can't happen....doesn't happen...never will happen.


----------



## Crick (Jan 26, 2019)

What did this?

This was radiated by the atmosphere towards the surface at night.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 26, 2019)

Crick said:


> What did this?
> 
> This was radiated by the atmosphere towards the surface at night.



As has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions, that was made with an instrument cooled to a bit below -80 degrees...All it shows is radiation moving from a warmer atmosphere to a cooler instrument....set an identical instrument right next to it that isn't cooled and you don't get those discrete frequencies...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 26, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > What did this?
> ...



*All it shows is radiation moving from a warmer atmosphere to a cooler instrument....*

Downward LWIR is the re emission of energy previously absorbed...that's why it's allowed to emit toward the warmer surface.


----------



## Crick (Jan 26, 2019)

You just said "So called greenhouse gasses cannot possible trap a transfer of kinetic energy in the Lower Atmosphere. Can't happen....doesn't happen...never will happen." Whether that radiation was headed for the surface or a cooled instrument, it was radiation from an atmosphere energized with kinetic energy.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> You just said "So called greenhouse gasses cannot possible trap a transfer of kinetic energy in the Lower Atmosphere. Can't happen....doesn't happen...never will happen." Whether that radiation was headed for the surface or a cooled instrument, it was radiation from an atmosphere energized with kinetic energy.



That spectrum came from directly in front of the cooled instrument's receptor...let me guess...you think that maybe the spectrum represents "back radiation" that travelled downwards from 10,000 feet?  Really?

It is good enough to fool you...right?

And no...the atmosphere does not "trap" anything...and radiation is barely a bit player in the movement of energy from the surface to the top of the troposphere.


----------



## Crick (Jan 27, 2019)

I think most of it came from gases within 100 meters of the instrument.  That you think that is a problem simply reflects your abysmal grasp.  It is radiation from the atmosphere headed back towards the surface.  You reject it because of your idiotic smart photon fantasy.  We - all of us and all scientists everywhere - reject THAT nonsense.  So, in the real world you have not a leg to stand upon.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> I think most of it came from gases within 100 meters of the instrument.  That you think that is a problem simply reflects your abysmal grasp.  It is radiation from the atmosphere headed back towards the surface.  You reject it because of your idiotic smart photon fantasy.  We - all of us and all scientists everywhere - reject THAT nonsense.  So, in the real world you have not a leg to stand upon.



All of it came from within millimeters of the instrument, and it is energy that simply moved from right in front of the receptor to the cooler receptor...nothing more.  But good enough to fool you.


----------



## Crick (Jan 27, 2019)

As has been posted here on multiple occasions, the mean path of a photon is measured in the tens of meters.  You need to stop lying if you plan on getting anywhere with this discussion.

If it was millimeters, your prior argument that collisions take place thousands of time more often than radiative transfer would fall apart.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 27, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Can happen. Does happen. Always will. 

IR from earth absorbed by CO2 within a few meters. CO2 does not re-radiate that energy. Nowhere for the energy to go but to heat the atmosphere. Do you have any other ideas where the energy goes?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


And yet after years of posting, you have zero evidence. None nadda. Cooled instrumentation. Laughable


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 27, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


But its able to heat the ocean down 700m deep, right?


----------



## Crick (Jan 27, 2019)

Frank, the waters of the ocean are stirred by a number of forces: wind & waves, tides, thermal convection, density currents, coriolis forces, etc.  The idea that many of you have put out that energy absorbed shallowly into the ocean surface cannot be drawn down by mixing but must be lost by evaporation is simply incorrect.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> Frank, the waters of the ocean are stirred by a number of forces: wind & waves, tides, thermal convection, density currents, coriolis forces, etc.  The idea that many of you have put out that energy absorbed shallowly into the ocean surface cannot be drawn down by mixing but must be lost by evaporation is simply incorrect.


So basically, you have no idea, nor anyone, where the warm comes from. Right?


----------



## Crick (Jan 27, 2019)

So, basically, I know why I first put you on ignore.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 27, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*And yet after years of posting, you have zero evidence.*

I need evidence to agree with SSDD's claim?
That's funny, since you never had any.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Hmmm, I was thinking back radiation evidence. I get it though, when folks like you have zip, you deflect. But no worries, I knew before you posted you had shit


----------



## jc456 (Jan 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> So, basically, I know why I first put you on ignore.


If you’re answering me, it means you can’t debate


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 27, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



SSDD said, "*the re emission of energy previously absorbed...not spontaneous..*"

That's what he said allows cooler matter to emit toward a warmer target.

* But no worries, I knew before you posted you had shit*

It's not nice to say that about your old buddy, SSDD.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Good thing I didn’t then. Any day any day.


----------



## Crick (Jan 27, 2019)

I'd like to know if SSDD is now claiming that the mean path length of a photon through our atmosphere is measured in fractions of a millimeter.  If so, I'd like to hear on what he bases that conclusion.

Then we can talk about how that affects the transmission of thermal energy through the atmosphere.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> I'd like to know if SSDD is now claiming that the mean path length of a photon through our atmosphere is measured in fractions of a millimeter.  If so, I'd like to hear on what he bases that conclusion.
> 
> Then we can talk about how that affects the transmission of thermal energy through the atmosphere.


It seems to me he was questioning the existence of photons.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> As has been posted here on multiple occasions, the mean path of a photon is measured in the tens of meters.  You need to stop lying if you plan on getting anywhere with this discussion.
> 
> If it was millimeters, your prior argument that collisions take place thousands of time more often than radiative transfer would fall apart.



That would be IF the energy doesn't get absorbed via collision...which happens to all but one in a billion so called greenhouse gas molecules.

And you are getting close...radiative transfer is barely a bit player in the movement of energy through the troposphere...there is no radiative greenhouse effect...and as a result, no AGW.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 28, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Off the deep end are we?  That has to be the stupidest thing you have ever said.  Care to take it back, or should I move that quote to my sig?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> Frank, the waters of the ocean are stirred by a number of forces: wind & waves, tides, thermal convection, density currents, coriolis forces, etc.  The idea that many of you have put out that energy absorbed shallowly into the ocean surface cannot be drawn down by mixing but must be lost by evaporation is simply incorrect.



Tell me skid mark...are you with wuwei when he claims that IR from earth absorbed by CO2 within a few meters. CO2 does not re-radiate that energy?  Are you also laboring under the belief that CO2 does not re radiate the energy it absorbs...that is, if it holds on to it long enough to actually emit a photon?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 28, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Maybe my comment was not clear to you. Your phrase, "trap a transfer of kinetic energy" is not clear. In an open system gas energy is free to move and cannot be literally "trapped".  Let me rephrase my comment for you in more detail. 

15 micron IR from earth is absorbed by CO2 within a few meters, and transfers that energy to excited CO2 molecular vibration states. There is a low probability that CO2 molecules will re-radiate vibration energy as 15 micron photons. The vibration energy is transfered directly as kinetic energy to air molecules. Otherwise there is nowhere else for the energy to go but to heat the atmosphere. Do you have any other ideas where the energy goes?

If you disagree with the above, which step do you disagree. 

You can think in terms of heat as a transfer of kinetic energy between two systems. Kinetic energy is the energy of mass in motion. 

Think of the kinetic energy of the vibrating molecules of earth radiating 15 micron photon energy to the vibration mode of CO2 molecules, which then transfers its vibrating energy to linear kinetic energy of air. Thereby the air heats. 

I would be honored if you put this clarification in your sig in its full context.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 29, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



A CO2 molecule in the atmosphere can not hold on to absorbed energy...and there is always somewhere else for it to go..it is a huge space...an ideal place for IR to go..it is called space...


----------



## Crick (Jan 29, 2019)

So now you've flipped?  CO2 loses its energy by radiation?  

Did you think no one would notice the change?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 29, 2019)

SSDD said:


> A CO2 molecule in the atmosphere can not hold on to absorbed energy...and there is always somewhere else for it to go..it is a huge space...an ideal place for IR to go..it is called space...



You are an epitome of self-contradictions. You showed this email dialog from Prof. Happer more than once


SSDD said:


> IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) *TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON*, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY.



So how can IR go to space if it is immediately absorbed?

You just said that space is an "ideal place for IR to go". But the fact is that Happer (and you) also said absorbed IR heats the atmosphere.

Troll

.


----------



## Crick (Jan 29, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Frank, the waters of the ocean are stirred by a number of forces: wind & waves, tides, thermal convection, density currents, coriolis forces, etc.  The idea that many of you have put out that energy absorbed shallowly into the ocean surface cannot be drawn down by mixing but must be lost by evaporation is simply incorrect.
> ...



Obviously, CO2 absorbs energy from IR photons and from collisions.  It loses energy to IR photons and to collisions.You contended that collisions take place more often than emission.  Those collisions would pass thermal energy primarily to nitrogen, oxygen and other CO2 molecules.  N2 and O2 are neither GHGs and do not radiate in the IR  

So, those portions of the thermal energy radiated by the warmed surface within GHG absorption bands will not escape directly to space.  They will take some combination of emission/absorption, conduction and convection to finally escape, via radiation, to space.  GHGs slow the release of IR and thus increase the equilibrium temperature of the planet.  Your claims re compression heating are complete and utter nonsense.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 29, 2019)

SSDD said:


> A CO2 molecule in the atmosphere can not hold on to absorbed energy...and there is always somewhere else for it to go..it is a huge space...an ideal place for IR to go..it is called space...





Crick said:


> They will take some combination of emission/absorption, conduction and convection to finally escape, via radiation, to space.



Expanding on what Crick said, very few of the deniers here understand that according to the Equipartition Principle, there is a huge quantity of CO2 molecules in a vibratory state simply induced by collision with air molecules, and not by IR absorption. In fact, according to that principle (well observed and demonstrated) 2/7 = 29% of all energy held by CO2 is vibratory in the 15 micron band.

Near the surface the equipartition is upset by the IR coming from the earth, where the balance is toward a higher portion of vibratory energy, but that balance is restored at higher altitudes where the energy becomes more uniformly mixed and partitioned.

The atmosphere is swarming with 15 micron radiation, not coming directly from absorption of earth IR. It is that collision-induced CO2 energy in the colder altitudes that is radiated to space.

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 29, 2019)

Crick said:


> So now you've flipped?  CO2 loses its energy by radiation?
> 
> Did you think no one would notice the change?



Can you point to any where that I have said that CO2 never radiates energy it absorbs?  Anywhere at all?  Keep up skid mark...is imagining what I have said really the best you can do?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 29, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > A CO2 molecule in the atmosphere can not hold on to absorbed energy...and there is always somewhere else for it to go..it is a huge space...an ideal place for IR to go..it is called space...
> ...



And do you read that to mean that no CO2 ever radiates anything?  Is that what you get out of that?  Once again...interpreting rather than actually reading what it says.  My bet is that there are more than a billion CO2 molecules...so one in a billion gets to actually radiate a photon...does that say to you that no CO2 molecule ever radiates a photon?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 29, 2019)

Crick said:


> [
> 
> Obviously, CO2 absorbs energy from IR photons and from collisions.  It loses energy to IR photons and to collisions.You contended that collisions take place more often than emission.  Those collisions would pass thermal energy primarily to nitrogen, oxygen and other CO2 molecules.  N2 and O2 are neither GHGs and do not radiate in the IR



Do you think it matters whether they radiate in the IR or not?  If they radiate the energy they have absorbed, then they are shedding the energy that they absorbed...it doesn't matter whether it is shed as IR, or some other frequency...The question is whether climate science has been observing the frequencies O2 and N2 radiate in and including that in the radiation at the TOA or whether they have only been looking at IR in narrow frequencies.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 29, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



*The question is whether climate science has been observing the frequencies O2 and N2 radiate in and including that in the radiation at the TOA *

Why don't you post the frequencies O2 and N2 radiate at? Idiot.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 30, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Feel free....idiot.  I am not the one who claims in one sentence that everything radiates and then in the next, that the only way to radiate energy out into space is via so called greenhouse gasses.  N2 and O2 radiate...and it doesn't matter whether they radiate in the IR bands or not...the fact that the energy is escaping the atmosphere is all that matters...

Or do you want to claim that O2 and N2 don't radiate as well?

Never mind...I doubt that you could find it on your own...here are the emission spectra for O2 and N2...


----------



## Crick (Jan 30, 2019)

I think you will have a difficult time transferring energy from CO2 to N2 or O2 via radiation.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 30, 2019)

Crick said:


> I think you will have a difficult time transferring energy from CO2 to N2 or O2 via radiation.



No one claimed that radiation was needed did they?  CO2 transfers energy to N2 and O2 via collision...then the energy is conducted and convected to the upper troposphere where radiation is the only means of moving energy on into space...O2 and N2 radiate energy..and it doesn't matter whether the energy is moved out in the form of IR or not..so long as it is moving into space...and common sense should tell you that more energy is moved out via radiation from O2 and N2 than from a trace gas in the atmosphere.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 30, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*claims in one sentence that everything radiates and then in the next, that the only way to radiate energy out into space is via so called greenhouse gasses.*

Are you kidding? The surface radiates out into space but the path is blocked at certain frequencies. 
Strangely, those frequencies are those absorbed by GHGs.
Claiming those GHGs increase the departure of IR from the surface is like claiming the Hoover Dam increases the velocity of water in the Colorado River.

* N2 and O2 radiate...and it doesn't matter whether they radiate in the IR bands or not...*

That is awesome! What bands do they radiate in?


----------



## Crick (Jan 30, 2019)

60 GHz produces a wavelength of 5 microns.  That is microwave.






Nitrogen, at the upper edge (re frequency) of IR


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 30, 2019)

Crick said:


> 60 GHz produces a wavelength of 5 microns.  That is microwave.



I wonder if dippy thinks the Earth is radiating much energy thru microwaves?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 30, 2019)

SSDD said:


> And do you read that to mean that no CO2 ever radiates anything? Is that what you get out of that? Once again...interpreting rather than actually reading what it says. My bet is that there are more than a billion CO2 molecules...so one in a billion gets to actually radiate a photon...does that say to you that no CO2 molecule ever radiates a photon?



Wow do you have a short memory. And as usual creating a strawman and being a troll. I always said there is a small probability that CO2 radiates immediately what it just absorbed. I have said that 2/7 of CO2 is in a vibration excited state. In your usual self contradiction you said IR ideally goes to space. You also quote Hopper who says IR heats the atmosphere. You and your pal Billy said IR does not heat the atmosphere.

You are confused big time. Check the boxes you believe are true:
☐ Much 15 micron near earth IR goes to space.
☐ Near earth 15 micron IR heats the atmosphere
☐ Near earth 15 micron IR does not heat the atmosphere
☐ Science doesn't know where earth surface 15 micron IR goes
☐ Let's digress and wonder why rocks don't fall up.
☐ All the above.

So far you have seemed to believe all of the above.

Which is it? Or which are they? Can you ever make up your mind? Can you ever stop your self-contradiction? Can you ever stop evading questions? Do you enjoy being a troll? So many questions!

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 31, 2019)

Crick said:


> 60 GHz produces a wavelength of 5 microns.  That is microwave.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nitrogen emission spectrum.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 31, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Wow do you have a short memory. And as usual creating a strawman and being a troll. I always said there is a small probability that CO2 radiates immediately what it just absorbed.



Always?  Really.  Maybe you should look back and do a recheck on your position...You were under the impression that radiation was the main means of energy transport through the troposphere till quite recently...only after several posts showing how often CO2 molecules actually radiate a photon did you come to accept it and even then you immediately began trying to explain that as a necessity of a radiative greenhouse effect...you are absolutely hilarious..


----------



## Crick (Jan 31, 2019)

Crick said:


> 60 GHz produces a wavelength of 5 microns.  That is microwave.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





SSDD said:


> Nitrogen emission spectrum.



Mine has the advantage of actual numbers identifying the frequencies involved.  I used to love telling my physics professor that the answer to a test question was a warmish shade of cerulean blue but she did not grade me well for the practice.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 31, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > 60 GHz produces a wavelength of 5 microns.  That is microwave.
> ...








How hot does the nitrogen have to be to emit your spectrum?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 31, 2019)

Should have figured that you couldn't figure it out without the numbers...some engineer...what a laugh.  Do you still have training wheels on your bike?  Kiddie rails and bumpers on your bed?  You get around in a wheeled walker to keep from falling down and bumping your head?


----------



## Crick (Jan 31, 2019)

So we will still be left attempting to use colors to estimate the wavelength of a specific line of emission.  And I am waiting with bated breath your answer to Todd's question: how hot does N2 have to be radiate the spectrum you've provided.  Why don't you give us a link to the source of that spectrum graphic.  That would probably tell us.  But I'm willing to guess you'll refuse because it will be a temperature that exists nowhere in the Earth's atmosphere.  Prove me wrong.


----------



## IanC (Jan 31, 2019)

Of the three main CO2 wavelengths, only the 15 micron one has any significant function in atmospheric physics. Even though the other two are much 'colder' than the coldest O2 or N2 wavelengths.


----------



## Crick (Feb 1, 2019)

So, it seems we have determined (about a century after the fact) that neither nitrogen or oxygen are greenhouse gases, neither are involved, under atmospheric conditions, in the emission of energy to space.  Without GHGs in our atmosphere, it would be completely transparent to radiated IR which would shoot directly to space leaving the Earth's surface 33C cooler than it is.  That -50F Arctic air mass that just passed through would have been about -110F.  Instead, within a few meters of the Earth's surface, the GHGs present (CO2, CH4, NO2, H2O) absorb a significant portion of the infrared that the surface radiates.  Slowing the release of that infrared raises the equilibrium temperature of the surface, the oceans and the atmosphere.  They call that the greenhouse effect.


----------



## IanC (Feb 1, 2019)

Crick said:


> So, it seems we have determined (about a century after the fact) that neither nitrogen or oxygen are greenhouse gases, neither are involved, under atmospheric conditions, in the emission of energy to space.  Without GHGs in our atmosphere, it would be completely transparent to radiated IR which would shoot directly to space leaving the Earth's surface 33C cooler than it is.  That -50F Arctic air mass that just passed through would have been about -110F.  Instead, within a few meters of the Earth's surface, the GHGs present (CO2, CH4, NO2, H2O) absorb a significant portion of the infrared that the surface radiates.  Slowing the release of that infrared raises the equilibrium temperature of the surface, the oceans and the atmosphere.  They call that the greenhouse effect.



Yup, that pretty well covers it.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> .  Without GHGs in our atmosphere, it would be completely transparent to radiated IR which would shoot directly to space leaving the Earth's surface 33C cooler than it is. .



Tell that to the several planets in the solar system which have essentially no greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres and yet, have temperatures warmer than here on earth even though they receive much less solar input than we get...guess they didn't get the memo from climate pseudoscience.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > .  Without GHGs in our atmosphere, it would be completely transparent to radiated IR which would shoot directly to space leaving the Earth's surface 33C cooler than it is. .
> ...



*Tell that to the several planets in the solar system which have essentially no greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres *

Which ones have "essentially no greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres"?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


You really don't know?  Visit NASA's planetary profile page...try learning something...I have a gig tonight and don't have time to provide the data for you...besides, it might do you some good to actually try learning something...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> I'd like to know if SSDD is now claiming that the mean path length of a photon through our atmosphere is measured in fractions of a millimeter.  If so, I'd like to hear on what he bases that conclusion.
> 
> Then we can talk about how that affects the transmission of thermal energy through the atmosphere.


You assume a photon is energy..  It is not. It is a particle within a wave and therefore has mass.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


I have always wondered how a gas, that can not interact with LWIR, can stop anything.  If the gas is incapable of interacting and is transparent to it, then it passes unabated... CO2 is incapable of stopping 99.6% of LWIR in our atmosphere as it is transparent to it. So how do they reconcile this loss? Trenbreth made this calculation mistake as well..


----------



## jc456 (Feb 2, 2019)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > So, it seems we have determined (about a century after the fact) that neither nitrogen or oxygen are greenhouse gases, neither are involved, under atmospheric conditions, in the emission of energy to space.  Without GHGs in our atmosphere, it would be completely transparent to radiated IR which would shoot directly to space leaving the Earth's surface 33C cooler than it is.  That -50F Arctic air mass that just passed through would have been about -110F.  Instead, within a few meters of the Earth's surface, the GHGs present (CO2, CH4, NO2, H2O) absorb a significant portion of the infrared that the surface radiates.  Slowing the release of that infrared raises the equilibrium temperature of the surface, the oceans and the atmosphere.  They call that the greenhouse effect.
> ...


And, Still no evidence of back radiation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*You really don't know?*

You made the claim, you can't back it up? Really?

Here are your choices, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and let's include Pluto.
Which ones have essentially no greenhouse gasses and are warmer than Earth?

*I have a gig tonight and don't have time to provide the data for you..*

I agree, you made a stupid claim and now you'll run away.
Pull something out of your ass and post it tomorrow.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 2, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to know if SSDD is now claiming that the mean path length of a photon through our atmosphere is measured in fractions of a millimeter.  If so, I'd like to hear on what he bases that conclusion.
> ...



*It is a particle within a wave and therefore has mass. *

Are you a moron, or just pretending to be a moron?


----------



## Crick (Feb 3, 2019)

Same Shit Different Day (SSDD) said:
			
		

> Tell that to the several planets in the solar system which have essentially no greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres and yet, have temperatures warmer than here on earth even though they receive much less solar input than we get...guess they didn't get the memo from climate pseudoscience.



Which would those be Shit?

_Excerpted from Planet Profiles_
*Mercury: Planet Profile*
Average distance from Sun 0.387 AU (57,909,175 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) *452*
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.12
Atmospheric components trace amounts of hydrogen and helium

*Venus: Planet Profile*
Average distance from Sun 0.723 AU (108,208,930 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) *726*
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.59
Atmospheric components 96% carbon dioxide,
3% nitrogen,
0.1% water vapor

*Earth: Planet Profile*
Average distance from Sun 1 AU (149,597,890 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) *281 <------------------*
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.39
Atmospheric components 78% nitrogen,
21% oxygen,
1% argon

*Mars: Planet Profile*
Average distance from Sun 1.524 AU (227,936,640 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) *230*
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.15
Atmospheric components 95% carbon dioxide,
3% nitrogen,
1.6% argon

*Jupiter: Planet Profile*
Average distance from Sun 5.203 AU (778,412,020 km)
Mean surface temperature (K) *120* (cloud tops)
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.44
Atmospheric components 90% hydrogen,
10% helium,
.07% methane

*Saturn: Planet Profile*
Average distance from Sun 9.537 AU (1,426,725,400 km)
Mean temperature (K) *88* (1 bar level)
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.46
Atmospheric components 97% hydrogen,
3% helium,
.05% methane

*Uranus: Planet Profile*
Average distance from Sun 19.19 AU (2,870,972,200 km)
Mean temperature (K) *59*
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.56
Atmospheric components 83% hydrogen,
15% helium,
2% methane (at depth)

*Neptune: Planet Profile*
Average distance from Sun 30.07 AU (4,498,252,900 km)
Mean temperature (K) *48*
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) 0.51
Atmospheric components 74% hydrogen,
25% helium,
1% methane (at depth)

*Pluto: Planet Profile*
Average distance from Sun 39.48 AU (5,906,376,200 km)
Mean temperature (K) *37*
Visual geometric albedo (reflectivity) about 0.5
Atmospheric components perhaps methane and nitrogen


----------



## IanC (Feb 3, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> I have always wondered how a gas, that can not interact with LWIR, can stop anything. If the gas is incapable of interacting and is transparent to it, then it passes unabated... CO2 is incapable of stopping 99.6% of LWIR in our atmosphere as it is transparent to it. So how do they reconcile this loss? Trenbreth made this calculation mistake as well



What a friggin' moron. Wrong, plus he always exaggerates the precision.

Anyone who has seen a Planck curve for average surface temp, or the average surface temp plus or minus 50C, knows that the 15 micron (and wings) band that CO2 absorbs or right in the heart of the power output. I have heard it estimated at 8% of the total and that looks about right.

Where BillyBoob got his 0.4% number is a mystery. Judging from past performance he won't be explaining himself either.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 4, 2019)

Crick said:


> Same Shit Different Day (SSDD) said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Try applying your greenhouse hypothesis to Saturn, Jupiter, and Uranus...they have very high temperatures in their depths...but a greenhouse effect as described by climate science is not possible on them.


----------



## Crick (Feb 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Same Shit Different Day (SSDD) said:
> ...



In their depths?!?!?  What a fucking weasel.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Same Shit Different Day (SSDD) said:
> ...



* have temperatures warmer than here on earth even though they receive much less solar input than we get..*

They receive that solar input "in their depths"?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 6, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



You just keep on not knowing...don't you?

Deep inside the clouds of jupiter, the temperatures reach upwards of 40,000F...rationalize that with your greenhouse hypothesis...it is due to pressure which you claim can't produce heat even though the ideal gas LAW says that it can...

On Saturn, 600 miles below the surface of the clouds, the temperature is about 1300F..go on down and temperatures go on past 10,000F less than half way to the planet's center....pressure

Near its core, neptune reaches temperatures of about 7000F...pressure doing what you claim it can not do

And even Uranus...arguably the coldest place in the solar system has temperatures warmer than earth at the bottom of its troposphere...pressure again, doing what you claim can not happen.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Deep inside the clouds of jupiter, the temperatures reach upwards of 40,000F*

You're such a dolt. The temperature deep within the planet (clouds? durr) has nothing to do with solar input.


----------



## IanC (Feb 7, 2019)

There is a tremendous amount of energy stored in an atmosphere. 

On Earth, a significant amount of daytime energy is transferred to the atmosphere. Which is then returned at night.

GHGs enhance the amount of energy transferred to the atmosphere but also allow a portion of that to escape directly without having to return to the surface.

Simply imagine what would happen to the Earth if the Sun was no longer there. The surface would cool dramatically. The atmosphere would shrink as it gave up its energy to the surface.


----------



## Crick (Feb 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Deep inside the clouds of jupiter, the temperatures reach upwards of 40,000F...rationalize that with your greenhouse hypothesis...it is due to pressure which you claim can't produce heat even though the ideal gas LAW says that it can...



What the gas law tells us is that if you compress gas, it becomes hotter than when it started.  It does NOT say that being in a compressed state, or being in ANY state, will cause the gase to somehow maintain that temperature.  The compression provides the energy that heats the gas.  Once the pressure change is complete, no new energy is added to the system.  If the gas were perfectly insulated, it could remain hot for some time.  If it was not - as in an atmosphere for instance - the heat of compression will radiate/convect/conduct away and will become irrelevant to its temperature in the future.  If we wanted to believe you, we would have to wonder why all our scuba tanks or acetylene tanks or nitrogren tanks weren't all roasting away.  You are creating energy just as in other places you believe you can destroy energy.  You cannot.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 7, 2019)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > I have always wondered how a gas, that can not interact with LWIR, can stop anything. If the gas is incapable of interacting and is transparent to it, then it passes unabated... CO2 is incapable of stopping 99.6% of LWIR in our atmosphere as it is transparent to it. So how do they reconcile this loss? Trenbreth made this calculation mistake as well
> ...


Maybe from somebody who actually measured it like this one:
The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact
"_The *radiative forcing for doubling* can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 *[14]* over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements *(Hanel et al., 1971)* and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2._
*This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing."*
To which I may add that as far as spectroscopy, remote sensing and various other detection systems is concerned, this is how I made a living in the employ of Bristol aerospace and similar companies and the US + Canadian Government . I can assure you that all of them would have designed a sensor that does not have to use cumbersome spectroscopy to determine ppm CO2 if temperature were driven by CO2 to the degree the so called "settled science" claims it does.
Instead there would be a simple sensor that would use a Wheatstone bridge thermocouple reference calibrated in ppm over a zero CO2 reference. But there is not ! Why not ? Because it can not detect the difference in temperature rise per 100 ppm or even 500 ppm as opposed to an irradiated cuvette with zero ppm CO2. You have to be in the >  10 % not the ppm range before a Wheatstone bridge thermistor could detect anything...just like in these idiotic bottle full of CO2 in the sun experiments can not if you had one with 200 and another with 400 ppm CO2. It`s nothing more than a silly a stunt to fool the naive public how CO2 heats the planet using several % and often 100% CO2 in a closed bottle baking in the sun as "scientific proof" and dress it up as back-radiation in terms of the StB equation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 7, 2019)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*This is roughly 80 times less*

Does this bother anyone else, or is it just me?

If you  start with 800, for instance, 50% less is 400, 99% less is 8. 100% less is 0. 

What's 8000% less, (-63,200)?

Can't people just say 1/80th?


----------



## Crick (Feb 7, 2019)

Those two demonstrations made no attempt whatsoever at quantitative measurements.  This is a strawman argument.  And no one to my knowledge is using a sensor to directly measure heating from CO2.  It is simply calculated from spectral measurements.


----------



## IanC (Feb 7, 2019)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Just to clear up confusion...

You are agreeing that CO2 absorbs surface produced radiation in the 15 micron band and wings. And that this energy warms the near surface atmosphere.

You are only arguing the size of the effect, and how it should be calculated. You are in total disagreement with SSDDs bizarre version of atmospheric physics.


----------



## Crick (Feb 7, 2019)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




You know, the experimental apparatus used by Dr Hug in your linked article sounds very similar to the experimental apparatus that Billy_Bob claimed to have set up and run.

Then, there are the review comments to Dr Hug's paper:



Subject: RE: *Spectroscopic sensation* 
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 10:46:55 -0500 
From: "*Spencer, Roy*" <Roy.Spencer@msfc.nasa.gov> 
To: Hartwig.Volz@rwedea.de, "'091335371-0001@t-online.de'" <091335371-0001@t-online.de> 
CC: (large mailing list)

Peter: 
Thanks for making available the interesting paper by Hug. I certainly applaud any critical examination of even our most strongly held scientific beliefs. *However, in this case, I think the conclusions of this paper can not be supported.* Here is why:

It appears Hug bases his conclusions on the opacity of the whole atmospheric column in one of the CO2 absorption bands (around 15 microns). What he has neglected is the VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION of the change in radiative processes due to a doubling of CO2. For instance, the strong upper stratospheric cooling (peaking near 2 mb) in response to increasing CO2 would, by itself, require warming at some lower level in order to maintain radiative balance, even if the entire atmospheric column is essentially opaque. This upper level cooling (observationally documented by Kokin & Lysenko, 1994, J. Atmos. Terrest. Phys., pp. 1035-1040) and lower level warming is a common feature of all greenhouse atmospheres that are subjected to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. The equilibrium temperature change at any specific level (including the surface) can NOT be determined by intuition. It requires time-dependent radiative transfer calculations throughout the entire atmospheric profile. This has been performed by many people (including ourselves).

Of course, the nature of the vertical distribution of temperature change also depends upon feedbacks, which are ignored in this whole discussion. I believe that feedbacks still remain the area of largest uncertainty about how the tropospheric temperature profile will change in response to CO2 increases.

-Roy

*Roy W. Spencer *
Senior Scientist for Climate Studies 
NASA/MSFC/GHCC 
977 Explorer Boulevard 
Huntsville, Alabama 35806 
Fax: (205)922-5788 
Voice: (205)922-5960
***********************************************************


Subject:  AW: *Spectroscopic sensation *
Date:      Tue, 11 Aug 1998 1413 +0200 
From:     "*Volz, Dr. Hartwig*" <GPRHV@rwedea.de> 
To:          "'John Daly'" <daly@vision.net.au>, 091335371@t-online.de 
CC:        (large list)

Dear John,

please find attached my discussion of the Hug draft paper.   For your information I attach excerpts of a letter which I wrote in a context similar to Hug’s publication in November 1997.

* Greenhouse physics based on absorption considerations alone are meaningless and the corresponding conclusions are wrong.*  Funny enough, I learned only a few weeks after having written this letter of the corresponding contribution of Braterman (citation [7] in the Hug draft paper), who invented the same “perpetuum mobile” as described below and who uses the same physical arguments as in my letter, 
though in different wording. Having had some correspondence regarding this subject already in the past, I am not overly optimistic that a “normal” natural scientist will ever understand greenhouse physics without 
studying energy transfer by radiation. Nonetheless, this contribution is another attempt to put some 
contrarians on a higher level of understanding on the learning curve.

* As Braterman writes: “However one may view the debate over global warming, .... (my addition: Hug’s) 
argument is not a useful contribution to that debate.”  The radiative and anthropogenic forcing calculations in the IPCC reports have been verified by me and are basically correct. There do exist quite some good 
physical arguments against established IPCC climatic science, but these arguments are more sophisticated than those put forward by Hug.*

Quote 
It seems to me that my understanding of greenhouse physics is completely different from yours. I would like to remind you of the well-known method to measure the temperature of flames. A zirconium dioxide lamp (black body radiator) is placed behind a flame and the black body radiance is measured by a spectrometer through the flame. If the temperature of flame is lower than the lamp's, you will see absorption lines in the black body spectrum. If the flame is hotter, you will see peaks on the black body spectrum at the same wave number positions; if the temperature of lamp and flame equal each other, you will see the ideal black body spectrum.

A similar experiment: in the spectrum of the sun you see Fraunhofer lines (absorption lines). During an 
eclipse you see emission lines in the chromosphere at the very same wave numbers of the Fraunhofer lines. In both experiments thermodynamics and quantum mechanics are closely interconnected. If you replace the hot lamp by the black radiator earth and the excited states in the flame by the vibration/rotation of gases in the atmosphere, you are in the correct greenhouse physics.

A summary of the correct physics is given in this figure:






 [graphics unavailable]

For example, if you climb into a balloon and measure from an altitude of 100 m to ground, the measured 
spectrum would be case 3, not something similar to case 1. I know from experience that this is hard to digest for many scientists. Nonetheless, from a thermodynamic and quantum mechanics point of view it is trivial.  With low energy sources (like earth) you are not allowed to consider absorption without taking emission into account. Greenhouse physics cannot be understood by absorption alone, but by both, absorption and emission of the gaseous phase, which both are mathematically described by radiative transfer equations. In the above spectra in all cases the transferred energy is the integral of the shaded areas. Please note that in case 3 no energy is transferred at all. *A statement like“everything that can be absorbed, will be absorbed within a few hundred meters above ground” is bluntly wrong in greenhouse physics. *Naturally in spectroscopy, with high energy sources, this is different. That’s why spectroscopic results have to be transferred with caution into greenhouse physics considerations.

I attach spectrums of the original publication of Hanel et al. (Journal of Geophysical Research, 77, 1972, p. 2629/41) that are very close to case 3 (Greenland) and to case 2 (Antarctica; in fig. 12d the air in the sinking whirl is warmer than the ground) as well as to case 1 (North Africa).






I would like to close this letter with my invention of a "perpetuum mobile" (thermodynamic paradoxon). In an evacuated black room hangs a hollow ball, with walls transmissable to infrared radiation and filled with CO2.  If something similar to my case 1 happened (absorption without emission and/or complete absorption within a few meters of the gaseous phase), the gaseous phase would warm by the radiation of the outer black wall and you could, for example, create electricity with a Peltier element between (cooler) outer black wall and (warmer) inner gas phase. Unfortunately, if case 3 was correct, you couldn't. 
Unquote

Best regards

*H. Volz*

Dr. Hartwig Volz  -  Labor Wietze  -  RWE-DEA AG  -  Industriestr. 2  - 
D-29323 Wietze 
Tel: ++49 5146 89230  Fax: ++49 5146 89275  e-mail: 
Hartwig.Volz@rwedea.de
******************************************************************************

Subject: Re: *Spectroscopic sensation* 
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 1139 CST6CDT 
From: "*PAUL BRATERMAN*" <psb@unt.edu> 
Organization: UNT College of Arts and Sciences 
To: 091335371@t-online.de, Paul S Braterman <psb@unt.edu>, 091335371-0001@t-online.de (P. Dietze) 
CC: _(large CC list)_

* Barrett's paper cited here with approval is erroneous, ignores an important term, and thus violates the second law of thermodynamics, as I have shown (Spectrochim Acta, '97).

The present contribution (unless and until it is accepted by a reputable journal, it should not be referred to as a "paper") appears to commit similar errors, and to ignore, or claim with no evidence to supersede, the voluminous experimental studies on the spectrum of carbon dioxide.*

Are we being faced with yet another media pseudo-event?

*Paul S. Braterman*, 
Regents Professor of Chemistry, 
Department of Chemistry, 
Masters Hall (Avenue C and Sycamore), 
University of North Texas, 
Denton, TX 76203

psb@unt.edu Tel: 940-565-2357, fax 940-565-4824
*****************************************************************************


From: schom@zephyr.gsfc.nasa.gov (*Mark Schoeberl*) 
Re: *Spectroscopic sensation*

Having looked at the paper and the responses, including the response by Dr. Hug,* I think that there are good reasons to dismiss this paper as incorrect and poor science.* Pushing a paper like this onto the open web for debate among non-technical experts before a thorough peer review smacks of political motivation and moves us away from seeking the truth - which should be the goal of scientific study and debate. The argument (by Hug) that the peer review system would not give this paper a fair shake is specious. The peer review system is essentially honest and has worked well over the last 150 years. Those that criticize the peer review system are usually those whose "scientific" findings cannot be supported or justified (e.g. creationists). The practice of web publishing (and including statements like "sensational") prior to review reduces the credibility of this research. I am sorry you have done this.

- *Mark Schoeberl*
*****************************************************************************

Subject: WG: *Hug paper; Hug and Dietze comment *
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:52:09 +0200 
From: "*Volz, Dr. Hartwig*" <GPRHV@rwedea.de> 
To: "'daly@vision.net.au'" <daly@vision.net.au>

Comments to Mr. Dietze,

having read the final version of the Hug paper as well as some comments, it seems appropriate to me to discuss some elements of radiative transfer and radiative forcing in the context of the statements and opinions put forward by you both. It is my conviction that greenhouse physics and radiative forcing cannot be understood without some basic knowledge in energy transfer by radiation.

[Edited for length]

Concluding remarks - Having read for years some literature about the greenhouse effect, with laymen as well as scientists as target group, it seems justified for me to state that frequently one reads quite some scientific oddities in this context.* There are additional errors in Dr. Hug's paper, reflecting some of these oddities. The objective of this communication was to concentrate on the prime misconception in the context of radiative forcing. I do not intend to discuss peripheral subjects raised in your contribution now or later. Feeling as contrarian by preference, none-the-less I feel as scientist in the first place. I do like good science, I dislike poor science, whatever the result may be.*

Sincerely

*Hartwig Volz*

Dr. Hartwig Volz - Labor Wietze - RWE-DEA AG - 
Industriestr. 2 - D-29323 Wietze 
Tel: ++49 5146 89230 
Fax: ++49 5146 89275 
e-mail: Hartwig.Volz@rwedea.de


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 7, 2019)

Crick said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


You simply cant handle the facts..  CO2 is incapable of doing anything in our atmosphere.. We simply refined the experiment to rule out atmospheric influences.  There are many sources for our experiment and its precise reasoning...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 7, 2019)

polarbear said:


> "_The *radiative forcing for doubling* can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 *[14]* over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements *(Hanel et al., 1971)* and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2. _*This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing."*



Its amazing where the facts, which totally destroy the IPCC and the AGW meme are.  Dr Hug is one of many sources we used.   Thank you for posting his work. I didn't realize this was still in the published domain but I have now archived its location.


----------



## IanC (Feb 7, 2019)

From Hug-

"
* Introduction*

Originally the CO2 greenhouse effect obviously was considered from the 'normal' infrared (IR) absorption *[1]*. Supposed with today's concentration it would exist a decadic extinction of _E_ = 4 which means the transmission _T_ = I/Io = 10_-E_ has been reduced to 0.0001 (in the vicinity of the maximum peak of 15 µm). Every scientisct who is familiar with basic IR spectroscopy from analytic chemistry would agree that there is a *noticeable*temperature increase for a CO2 doubling. But indeed today's transmission is less by several magnitudes. According to Jack Barrett *[2]* the possible maximum greenhouse effect occurs within a 100 m layer near ground.
"


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 7, 2019)

IanC said:


> According to Jack Barrett *[2]* the possible maximum greenhouse effect occurs within a 100 m layer near ground.


This is where water vapor is the major player and Conduction and Convection have the major roll. When you consider that CO2 looses its energy at a 300,000,000/1 ratio due to kinetic transfer, LWIR has very little to do with it, absent water vapor to collide with and warm, as cooling increases with increased levels of CO2.  The exact opposite of the AGW hypothesis.

Dr Hug also explained why a spectral shift, of just 1um in the UV/IR bands, can have dire consequences. Dr Hug's work also discredits the IPCC"s expectation of a Tropospheric Hot spot happening at 30,000-60,000 feet when its primary effect is at ground level.


----------



## IanC (Feb 7, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Dr Hug also explained why a spectral shift, of just 1um in the UV/IR bands, can have dire consequences.



Please post this verbatim.


----------



## IanC (Feb 7, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> This is where water vapor is the major player and Conduction and Convection have the major roll. When you consider that CO2 looses its energy at a 300,000,000/1 ratio due to kinetic transfer, LWIR has very little to do with it, absent water vapor to collide with and warm, as cooling increases with increased levels of CO2. The exact opposite of the AGW hypothesis.



CO2 absorbs ALL surface 15 micron radiation  within the first few metres. It then mixes that energy with the rest of the atmospheric molecules by molecular collision. It warms the lower atmosphere.  

CO2 also absorbs kinetic energy high up in the atmosphere and converts it into escaping 15 micron radiation. 

The surface is warmer and therefore produces more 15 micron radiation than the cold atmosphere where 15 micron radiation finally escapes.

There is a positive influx of energy via 15 micron radiation.  

I don't mind talking about H2O in its various phases if you want. But let's resolve CO2 first.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 7, 2019)

Crick said:


> Those two demonstrations made no attempt whatsoever at quantitative measurements.  This is a strawman argument.  And no one to my knowledge is using a sensor to directly measure heating from CO2.  It is simply calculated from spectral measurements.


It is simply calculated from spectral measurements? Really ?
Okay then show these measurements ! If they exist it should be simple to produce a graph 0 to 1000 ppm CO2 on the x-axis and the temperature on the Y axis for a constant path length for a Nitrogen/Oxygen mixture.
But there are no such graphs, only tons of this shit where the X-axis is the time in years and the temperature is a so called global average that no one can verify reliably and is expanded on the Y axis to make a fraction of a degree look like the thermometer went tilt/condition red-alert at 400 ppm, duck and cover because the thing will blow up and the mercury will shoot out the top at a few more ppm CO2. The wording they use for miniscule T-anomalies are just like that: "ALARMING -UNPRECEDENTET..." etc. Some "science" it is totally ridiculous !!!
Its easy to get the relative humidity with a wet and dry bulb thermometer and it should be just as easy to get the number of ppm CO2 with a zero reference and ambient air by irradiating both samples. Today we have extremely low drift differential amplifiers and dc power sources + equally sensitive thermistors that could be used instead of the preferred method "calculating" the temperature for x-ppm CO2. It is preferred because there are six ways to sunday to cheat with a "global average temperature" and conceal the cheat.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 7, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


It`s perfectly okay for Dr.Heinz Hug to say 80 times less in German and he never claimed to have a PhD in English. I am certain you would have no idea how to say 1/80th in German. Nobody in Germany would say "ein actzigstel" they would all opt for 80 times less. Strange what you base credibility on, as if it should matter how good or bad Hug`s English teacher was but I am sure his English is way better than your German. While you are at it go find some more faux pas other Germans like Einstein made when writing something in English and ridicule it. It might make you look uber smart (in your opinion)


----------



## polarbear (Feb 7, 2019)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Confirmed. But I am not on the up and up with SSDD`s version and have no desire to argue with some of what I did read concerning it. Why would I ? None of this IPCC crap is science. It`s a propaganda war and we can not afford to quarrel among ourselves while the AGW frauds in this forum watch with glee and focus in driving a wedge into a simple crack or mistake he may or may not have made. Have you not noticed that they have nothing else to brag about? Meanwhile they make some of the most ridiculous statements, far more than "intelligent photons". Especially so this "Wuwei" who comes up with negative numbers for energy that can not be computed....or does endless cut&paste quotes of stuff he has no real understanding of but grandstands with it to no end. He reminds me of that Aussie cartoonist fraudser who won all the arguments against a physicist he impersonated.


----------



## Crick (Feb 7, 2019)

That you can't handle a negative response tells me you never set foot in school after the 8th grade.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 7, 2019)

polarbear said:


> "Wuwei" who comes up with negative numbers for energy that can not be computed.



It's not my equation. It is in physics text books that derive the net power. You never answered this post. It already addressed your current question.



Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Because your nut job equation makes it possible for you to need the 4th power of a negative number..
> ...



Given the power emitted from an object you can take the fourth root of this equation to get emission temperature
P = *e* sigma A T⁴

Why would you ever think the fourth root of the power in this equation has any meaning? It simply doesn't. 
Pnet = *e* sigma A(T⁴ - Tc⁴)
If you think it has meaning tell me what it is.

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 7, 2019)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



*Strange what you base credibility on*

I'm not basing anyone's credibility on it.
It's fucking annoying. Whether English is your first language or not.
No, I don't know how to say 1/80th in German. 
He doesn't know how to say it in English. 
I guess we're even.


----------



## Crick (Feb 8, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You know, the experimental apparatus used by Dr Hug in your linked article sounds very similar to the experimental apparatus that Billy_Bob claimed to have set up and run.
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 8, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Deep inside the clouds of jupiter, the temperatures reach upwards of 40,000F...rationalize that with your greenhouse hypothesis...it is due to pressure which you claim can't produce heat even though the ideal gas LAW says that it can...
> ...



Because in your scuba tanks, the gas is static...no movement...in an atmosphere, that is not so...the gas heats due to compression then the warm air moves upwards and is replaced with depending cold air..which is compressed and moves upward...interesting that you believe that a scuba tank is analogous to the atmosphere...first the atmosphere is like a greenhouse...now it is like a scuba tank...good enough to fool you...right?

The fact is that on those planets, there is no greenhouse effect and yet, the temperatures are higher than here...and like it or not...the temperatures are due to pressure...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 8, 2019)

Crick said:


> Those two demonstrations made no attempt whatsoever at quantitative measurements.  This is a strawman argument.  And no one to my knowledge is using a sensor to directly measure heating from CO2.  It is simply calculated from spectral measurements.



Translation...these two don't believe our failed models...gaia will destroy them for their disrespect...


----------



## Crick (Feb 8, 2019)

You certainly worry about movement in the glass tubes used in demonstrations we've all watched lately.  And I assure you the air in my scuba tank moves.  All of it undergoes Brownian motion appropriate to its absolute temperature and the tank is often subject to uneven heating, from sun shining on parts, from immersion in cold water, exposure to hot decks and engine wells.  Your contention is nonsense.

Gas does heat when it is compressed.  But guess what happens when it is decompressed you fucking idiot?

You have claimed that the Earth's atmosphere has been heated by compression since it formed ~4 billion years ago.  My scuba tank and a thousand other common observations clearly show your contention to be absolute nonsense.  You are either a complete idiot or a dedicated troll. There are no other options.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 8, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > "Wuwei" who comes up with negative numbers for energy that can not be computed.
> ...



The SB equations say nothing about Pnet....that is a fabrication based on your nutty version of the equation where the cooler background becomes the radiator.....


----------



## SSDD (Feb 8, 2019)

Crick said:


> You certainly worry about movement in the glass tubes used in demonstrations we've all watched lately.  And I assure the air in my scuba tank moves.  All of it undergoes Brownian motion appropriate to its absolute temperature and the tank is often subject to uneven heating, from sun shining on parts, from immersion in cold water, exposure to hot decks and engine wells.  Your contention is nonsense.
> 
> Gas does heat when it is compressed.  But guess what happens when it is decompressed you fucking idiot?
> 
> You have claimed that the Earth's atmosphere has been heated by compression since it formed ~4 billion years ago.  My scuba tank and a thousand other common observations clearly show your contention to be absolute nonsense.  You are either a complete idiot or a dedicated troll. There are no other options.



So you do think that that brownian motion in a gas bottle is analagous to the chaotic movement of air in the atmosphere? The two are the same to you?  Really?  The more you talk, the reasons you are a dupe become more clear.


----------



## Crick (Feb 8, 2019)

Crick said:


> You certainly worry about movement in the glass tubes used in demonstrations we've all watched lately.  And I assure the air in my scuba tank moves.  All of it undergoes Brownian motion appropriate to its absolute temperature and* the tank is often subject to uneven heating, from sun shining on parts, from immersion in cold water, exposure to hot decks and engine wells*.  Your contention is nonsense.
> 
> Gas does heat when it is compressed.  *But guess what happens when it is decompressed* you fucking idiot?
> 
> You have claimed that the Earth's atmosphere has been heated by compression since it formed ~4 billion years ago.  My scuba tank and *a thousand other common observations clearly show your contention to be absolute nonsense*.  You are either a complete idiot or a dedicated troll. There are no other options.





SSDD said:


> So you do think that that brownian motion in a gas bottle is analagous to the chaotic movement of air in the atmosphere? The two are the same to you?  Really?  The more you talk, the reasons you are a dupe become more clear.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*the gas heats due to compression then the warm air moves upwards and is replaced with depending cold air..which is compressed and moves upward...*

All heating and no cooling?
Perpetual motion!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*The fact is that on those planets, there is no greenhouse effect and yet, the temperatures are higher than here.*

Not at the surface, dolt.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The SB equations say nothing about Pnet....that is a fabrication based on your nutty version of the equation where the cooler background becomes the radiator.....


It's not my version. Textbooks use that equation to express net power flow. 
You and polarbear do not interpret the text book version correctly. 

Do you agree with polarbear that there is a reason to take the fourth root of the equation
 Pnet = *e* sigma A(T⁴ - Tc⁴) ?


----------



## polarbear (Feb 8, 2019)

Crick said:


> That you can't handle a negative response tells me you never set foot in school after the 8th grade.


What a retarded dope you are. Why don`t you show me how you "handle " getting the 4th root of a negative number!


----------



## Crick (Feb 8, 2019)

Why would you want to do that?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 8, 2019)

polarbear said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > That you can't handle a negative response tells me you never set foot in school after the 8th grade.
> ...


If you ever went through a class in calculus you would know that the 4th root would be i times the 4th root of the absolute value of N.
But that evades the question, why would you ever want to take the 4th root of Pnet = *e* sigma A(T⁴ - Tc⁴) ?


----------



## polarbear (Feb 8, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > "Wuwei" who comes up with negative numbers for energy that can not be computed.
> ...


Now the little worm wiggles and has it T^4 - Tcolder^4 instead of the other way around which avoids the negative Pnet. Why the 4th root of the power? If you can`t get it then there is no way to ever get the temperature or temperature difference.....and no there are no TEXTBOOKS with your screwy version of the StB equation, only internet web sites authored by AGW activists have it so. Even if you don`t want to resolve for T there is no such thing as a  negative power. Dopeheads like you say there is and call it absorption while any sane person would not even need to reverse the position of the 2 temperatures to specify the amount of power that is absorbed, since it is always the colder body that absorbs the energy, getting warmed from the hotter one.
There is no such system where a hotter body gets *warmed by a colder one*. At any time the temperature of the hotter one will *decrease *the only thing that changes is the* time it takes to do so.
As if that would mean that the colder body does not emit photons which is the hyperbola you freaks resort to in order to validate your giggle smoke inspired "physics".*
But that`s typical for all you libtards. You morph a statement into something else that has not been stated and insist it has been said.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 8, 2019)

polarbear said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



_There is no such system where a hotter body gets *warmed by a colder one*._

Who ever said that there was? Link?

_As if that would mean that the colder body does not emit photons which is the hyperbola you freaks resort to_

That's the claim of SSDD. Because he's an idiot and has to claim that to show that the atmosphere can't send
LWIR back toward the surface. Ask him, he'll say the Second Law and Stefan-Boltzmann show that photons only go from hotter matter to cooler matter.


----------



## IanC (Feb 8, 2019)

Polar bear is the king of straw man argument. 

Todd just called his bluff and now PB will just retreat back to the frozen North until the next time he wants to insult someone.


----------



## IanC (Feb 8, 2019)

Does the SB equation cover the surface/atmosphere  problem? Not Really, for several reasons.

But if it did then it would have to be capable for giving an answer for three scenarios. When the surface is warmer than, the same temperature as, or cooler than the atmosphere .

How should we rearrange the formula when the surface is cooler? What about the transition point when both are the same temperature?  Does all radiation cease to occur like SSDD claims? Hahahahaha.


----------



## IanC (Feb 8, 2019)

The concept of intrinsic and extrinsic properties is difficult to explain but extremely important to avoid logical incongruity like we have with the SB equation for two objects.

There is no such thing as negative energy but there is such a thing as negative net energy when you have defined the direction and origin you are interested in.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 8, 2019)

IanC said:


> Polar bear is the king of straw man argument.
> 
> Todd just called his bluff and now PB will just retreat back to the frozen North until the next time he wants to insult someone.


Hahaha now it is a "straw man argument" because it became too obvious that it`s a matter of a reduced cooling rate rather than back radiation from gas in the air "heating"  the ground below....which you just said yesterday. Something like at night heat radiates down to warm the ground, but I am in no mood to waste my time looking for it. You know full well what you said and how you and everyone else that chimes in here jumped on the "Yes Virgina a cold object can make a warmer one even warmer"....the very foundation of man made global warming "physics".
Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still «  Roy Spencer, PhD
*Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 8, 2019)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Polar bear is the king of straw man argument.
> ...



*" because it became too obvious that it`s a matter of a reduced cooling rate rather than back radiation from gas in the air "heating" the ground below.*

Reduced cooling rate because of SSDD's dimmer switch theory of emissions or because the atmosphere
radiates toward the surface?


----------



## polarbear (Feb 8, 2019)

Ps I am not "retreating from Todd who called my bluff". What bluff? In contrast to the rest of you I have better things to do than responding to a troll like Todd all day long every day. I just bought a lathe and a milling machine to amuse myself instead of responding to an idiot like that whenever he demands "Link" etc. Is he too stupid to look it up himself or what?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 8, 2019)

polarbear said:


> Ps I am not "retreating from Todd who called my bluff". What bluff? In contrast to the rest of you I have better things to do than responding to a troll like Todd all day long every day. I just bought a lathe and a milling machine to amuse myself instead of responding to an idiot like that whenever he demands "Link" etc. Is he too stupid to look it up himself or what?



Yes, I'm too stupid to find your claimed post where someone here said that.
Why would I look for something you manufactured?


----------



## polarbear (Feb 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Ps I am not "retreating from Todd who called my bluff". What bluff? In contrast to the rest of you I have better things to do than responding to a troll like Todd all day long every day. I just bought a lathe and a milling machine to amuse myself instead of responding to an idiot like that whenever he demands "Link" etc. Is he too stupid to look it up himself or what?
> ...


Ah here he goes again, the dimwit who invented the dimmer switch as the only explanation. And I just gave you the mother of all links for the "colder body warming the hotter one". I guess you spend all your time here mouthing off because you got slapped around a lot in the real world mouthing off the way you do. But hey I don`t care how and with what you waste your time or get your jollies. I got mine just now with good news from the hospital where my grand daughter just gave birth....which of course means to libtards like you that  "I have to retreat from you because you called my bluff"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 8, 2019)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



*Ah here he goes again, the dimwit who invented the dimmer switch as the only explanation.*

You're right, SSDD is a dimwit.

*which of course means to libtards like you*

Sorry Charlie, arch-conservative here.


----------



## IanC (Feb 8, 2019)

polarbear said:


> But that`s typical for all you libtards. You morph a statement into something else that has not been stated and insist it has been said.



I have argued with you before and you refuse to address my words directly. You always reinterpret them into something else and then attack your version.

When there is an input of energy then the ability to shed energy will affect the equilibrium temperature.  (Whether that temperature is actually achieved or not). Reducing the ability of the surface to expel IR directly to space will increase the equilibrium temperature that the surface is headed for when the Sun shines. Got that?

At night there is no energy input. Now everything cools. The surface is solid or liquid and is close to a blackbody so it loses energy by radiation quickly. The atmosphere is a gas and only has some GHG bands to produce radiation so it is not even close to being a blackbody. The atmosphere cools slowly.

At some point during the night the surface becomes cooler than the atmosphere because the surface cools quicker by radiation, which is the only way to cool the system. Conduction and convection only move energy around within the system. 

Once the surface is cooler than the atmosphere then the net energy transfer by conduction and radiation goes in the direction of back to the surface. This energy reduces the rate of surface cooling. Is it correct to say that it 'warms' the surface? I dunno. Language is often imprecise.

Does CO2 cause acidification of the oceans? No. They are no where near acid. CO2 is causing some neutralization. Is the distinction necessary? I don't know.


----------



## IanC (Feb 8, 2019)

polarbear said:


> I just bought a lathe and a milling machine to amuse myself instead of responding to an idiot like that whenever he demands "Link" etc. Is he too stupid to look it up himself or what?



What an asshole you are. You accuse Todd of making a statement, when he disavows it and asks for proof that he said it, you just run away.

Just like you have run away from my direct questions, dozens of times.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 8, 2019)

polarbear said:


> Now the little worm wiggles and has it T^4 - Tcolder^4 instead of the other way around which avoids the negative Pnet. Why the 4th root of the power? If you can`t get it then there is no way to ever get the temperature or temperature difference.....and no there are no TEXTBOOKS with your screwy version of the StB equation, only internet web sites authored by AGW activists have it so. Even if you don`t want to resolve for T there is no such thing as a negative power. Dopeheads like you say there is and call it absorption while any sane person would not even need to reverse the position of the 2 temperatures to specify the amount of power that is absorbed, since it is always the colder body that absorbs the energy, getting warmed from the hotter one.
> There is no such system where a hotter body gets *warmed by a colder one*. At any time the temperature of the hotter one will *decrease *the only thing that changes is the* time it takes to do so.
> As if that would mean that the colder body does not emit photons which is the hyperbola you freaks resort to in order to validate your giggle smoke inspired "physics".*
> But that`s typical for all you libtards. You morph a statement into something else that has not been stated and insist it has been said.



Wow, you are always so ill tempered. You and SSDD truly don't understand the SB law. When you are challenged you both go into caustic invectives to do what? Prove your point? You curse everybody as though they invented the SB law. Why don't you shout symbolic curses at Stefan and Boltzmann. It will make you feel better and you can then chill out.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 8, 2019)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > I just bought a lathe and a milling machine to amuse myself instead of responding to an idiot like that whenever he demands "Link" etc. Is he too stupid to look it up himself or what?
> ...


A hit-and-run troll.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 19, 2019)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > This is where water vapor is the major player and Conduction and Convection have the major roll. When you consider that CO2 looses its energy at a 300,000,000/1 ratio due to kinetic transfer, LWIR has very little to do with it, absent water vapor to collide with and warm, as cooling increases with increased levels of CO2. The exact opposite of the AGW hypothesis.
> ...


explain how the surface gets warmer?


----------



## IanC (Feb 19, 2019)

jc456 said:


> explain how the surface gets warmer?



Why would explaining it one more time make any difference?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 19, 2019)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > explain how the surface gets warmer?
> ...


too funny, you think the atmosphere makes the surface warmer.  Then can't explain how it does that.  Gotcha!!


----------



## IanC (Feb 19, 2019)

jc456 said:


> too funny, you think the atmosphere makes the surface warmer. Then can't explain how it does that. Gotcha!!



The Sun makes the surface warmer. The atmosphere affects the rate of surface energy loss.

In the past I have gone over this in excruciating detail. You couldn't understand then, I am extremely doubtful that another attempt today would make any difference .


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 19, 2019)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > too funny, you think the atmosphere makes the surface warmer. Then can't explain how it does that. Gotcha!!
> ...



He thinks ice makes his coffee warmer......


----------



## Crick (Feb 19, 2019)

Surely PolarBear does not buy into SSDD's nonsense that the Earth is heated by the compression of its atmosphere.  Then what does he believe keeps us above the blackbody temp?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 19, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


That’s your claim! Ice did nothing but melt  in my experiment coffee cooled to room temperature as expected. Still waiting on your experiment that makes it warmer. When you posting that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 19, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



*That’s your claim!*

You're lying. I never said ice would make your coffee warmer.
That's Billy-level stupid.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2019)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > too funny, you think the atmosphere makes the surface warmer. Then can't explain how it does that. Gotcha!!
> ...



So where is the tropospheric hot spot that would be the inevitable result of increased CO2 causing slower cooling?


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2019)

In the troposphere above the tropics, right where it's supposed to be.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


neither did I.  so unclear why you said I did.  I guess you lied.  You're right you claim the atmosphere makes the surface warmer.  analogy is similar.  But you keep making shit up, you look so distinguished doing so.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> In the troposphere above the tropics, right where it's supposed to be.


can't make this shit up.


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2019)

JC, do you believe there is no heat transfer from the atmosphere to the surface?  I know you buy SSDD's smart photons insanity, but why could air not conduct energy to the surface with which it is in contact?  When you turn the heater on in your car or in your house, how is it that your skin becomes warmed?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> JC, do you believe there is no heat transfer from the atmosphere to the surface?  I know you buy SSDD's smart photons insanity, but why could air not conduct energy to the surface with which it is in contact?  When you turn the heater on in your car or in your house, how is it that your skin becomes warmed?


Crick,  I believe I have been clear on that.  I do not believe there is a greenhouse effect because no one has proven it exists.  What do you supposed my answer is with that statement?  again,   you publish where CO2 is hot.  still waiting. fk six years now. CrusaderFrank I know you've been asking, any feedback you've received?  nope!!!


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2019)

Does a heater blowing hot air on your skin warm your skin?  Yes or no.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> Does a heater blowing hot air on your skin warm your skin?  Yes or no.


Yep, the electricity makes it warmer.  don't know your point, there isn't a heater in the atmosphere blowing heat. feel free to post.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*neither did I. *

Then why did you try to prove it did? Are you daft?

*You're right you claim the atmosphere makes the surface warmer.*

How the hell would it do that?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Then why did you try to prove it did? Are you daft?*

To prove that ice doesn't have magic as simulation to the atmosphere that you all keep insisting heats up the surface.  I'm still waiting on your evidence of surface warming due to greenhouse gases.  any day right? The only daft is you all with that nonsense.

*How the hell would it do that?*

It won't,  been telling you all that for six years now.  are you saying now the atmospheric greenhouse doesn't exist?  hmmmmm

maybe you can post those silly cartoons on the greenhouse gases doubling the surface energy again. hahahaahahahha

Or cold warming a warm object.  still like that one.

I get it, you're embarrassed.


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2019)

By being hotter than the surface.  It's not as if that never happens.

Of course your problem talking with JC is that he has chosen to go with SSDD's nonsense but without SSDD's awareness (such as it is) the idea of the atmosphere slowing the radiant heat loss of the surface by sending a portion of it back at the surface is just a bit too complicated for him to grasp.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> By being hotter than the surface.  It's not as if that never happens.
> 
> Of course your problem talking with JC is that he has chosen to go with SSDD's nonsense but without SSDD's awareness (such as it is) the idea of the atmosphere slowing the radiant heat loss of the surface by sending a portion of it back at the surface is just a bit too complicated for him to grasp.


I don't go with anyone.  I stand alone.  

BTW,  got any observation of that last sentence?  any fking day.


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2019)

It's spelled "f - u - c - k".  Any fucking day.  And, any fucking day what?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> It's spelled "f - u - c - k".  Any fucking day.  And, any fucking day what?


you'll post the requested info from the site you post in here most frequently.  when will that fking happen?


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2019)

I'll post it the day I become convinced that you and Shit and PBear and the rest of the denier clowns would actually read it, understand it and be willing to accept it.


----------



## IanC (Feb 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Does a heater blowing hot air on your skin warm your skin?  Yes or no.
> ...



Forced air heaters work by moving air across hot surfaces so that energy is moved from one location to another.

Bonus points for you if you recognised the similarity to the process of convection.

The Sun is the power source. 



Next step....do the surface and atmosphere cool at the same rate at night, when there is no external power source?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*To prove that ice doesn't have magic as simulation to the atmosphere that you all keep insisting heats up the surface.*

You wanted to use one thing I never said to disprove another thing I never said? That's weird.

*I'm still waiting on your evidence of surface warming due to greenhouse gases.*

You still don't understand that an atmosphere with GHGs slows the escape of IR into space?

*are you saying now the atmospheric greenhouse doesn't exist? *

Of course it exists. That's why we're not as cold as the dark side of the moon after the Sun sets.

*I get it, you're embarrassed.*

Billy's, SSDD's and your confusion really doesn't embarrass me.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*GHGs slows the escape of IR into space?*

hahahahahahaahaha.  prove it

*Of course it exists. That's why we're not as cold as the dark side of the moon after the Sun sets.*

no, no it doesn't and something you can't prove.  convection and conduction and pressure with the help of a little gravity influence.  IR nope.  sorry, and you've never been able to prove magic IR from the atmosphere. NEVER  hmmmmmm

BTW, how much oxygen on the moon?  Nitrogen?  Pressure?  Gravity?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*GHGs slows the escape of IR into space?

hahahahahahaahaha. prove it*

You don't understand absorption/emission spectra? 
I'm not surprised.

*no, no it doesn't and something you can't prove. *

You need proof that the Earth's surface temperature after sunset is higher than the Moon's surface temperature after sunset?

*BTW, how much oxygen on the moon?  Nitrogen?*

None. No GHGs either.


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2019)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...




You just claimed that the warmer object dims itself in response to the temperature of its target.  Explain.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*You need proof that the Earth's surface temperature after sunset is higher than the Moon's surface temperature after sunset?*

Nope, I just need proof that it is due to CO2.  to which you haven't proven.  See the pressure systems in our world influence our temps.  Convection, conduction, jet streams, many ways.  Even at night!!!


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2019)

You believe the Earth's atmosphere is kept 33C warmer than it ought to be by pressure?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> You believe the Earth's atmosphere is kept 33C warmer than it ought to be by pressure?


it contributes you bet.  just like convection, conduction and the jet stream.  you know the globe gets sun all day right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Nope, I just need proof that it is due to CO2. *

Who said it was due to CO2? Where? Link?

Why do you think the Earth doesn't cool down as fast as the Moon after the Sun sets?


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> You believe the Earth's atmosphere is kept 33C warmer than it ought to be by pressure?



QUOTE=jc456
it contributes you bet.
/quote

By this statement do you mean that pressure and other processes keep the Earth 33C warmer than it ought to be?

QUOTE=jc456
  just like convection, conduction and the jet stream.
/quote

This statement makes no sense.  Convection is a heat transfer process that takes place where fluid flow is initiated by a temperature-induced density differential.  In cases where an external source drives the flow, it is known as "forced convection".  Conduction is the transfer of heat within a material.  The jet stream is a current of air driven by the temperature differential between two air masses.  None of these is a source of energy.  None of them warm or cool the Earth.  All thermal energy lost or gained by the Earth moves via radiation to and from space.

QUOTE=jc456
  you know the globe gets sun all day right?
/QUOTE

Yes, I did know that.  The sun's input is taken into account in the calculation that shows the Earth to be 33C warmer than it ought to be ignoring the greenhouse effect.

So, back to pressure.  If I take some air and compress it, it warms up.  If I take some air and decompress it, it gets colder.  You've noted that air moves around, left, right, up and down.  When it moves down, it gets compressed and warms.  When it moves up, it gets decompressed and cools.  All the air on the planet is stuck here.  It doesn't leave and no new air is coming in from space.  So, while the air is all moving around hither, thither and yon, at the end of the day - every day - the total mass of the air is in the same place: wrapped around the planet, half of it squished down into the first 5,000 meters or so and the rest trailing away, thinner and thinner up 300-500 kilometers.  As much air moved up as moved down.  If not, the pressure here at the surface would get higher and higher or lower and lower.  But it doesn't.  The idea that pressure is responsible for global warming is one most sixth graders would know to reject.  I strongly suggest you do the same.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


sure conduction and convection.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You believe the Earth's atmosphere is kept 33C warmer than it ought to be by pressure?
> ...


global warming I don't believe in.  the globe is warmed by the sun and that heat is moved around the planet due to jet streams, conduction and convection,  It's how one day it is minus 28 and the next it is 40 degrees.  has nothing to do with anything related to greenhouse gases.  And because we have moisture in our atmosphere the clouds that form create a blanket and hold the heat in, especially at night.  like an oven, not a greenhouse.

Oh and for the record we have wind due to the sun ,

Ask a science teacher: What creates the wind?

"Generally, we can say that the cause of the wind is the uneven heating of the Earth’s surface by the Sun. The Earth’s surface is made of different land and water areas, and these varying surfaces absorb and reflect the Sun’s rays unevenly. Warm air rising yields a lower pressure on the Earth, because the air is not pressing down on the Earth’s surface, while descending cooler air produces a higher pressure.

But there are many other factors affecting wind direction. For example, the Earth is spinning, so air in the Northern Hemisphere is deflected to the right by what is known as the Coriolis force. This causes the air, or wind, to flow clockwise around a high-pressure system and counter-clockwise around a low-pressure system.

The closer these low- and high-pressure systems are together, the stronger the “pressure gradient,” and the stronger the winds. Vegetation also plays a role in how much sunlight is reflected or absorbed by the surface of the Earth. Furthermore, snow cover reflects a large amount of radiation back into space. As the air cools, it sinks and causes a pressure increase."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Conduction and convection keep the Earth warmer than the Moon after sun set? 
Can you elaborate on your theory?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



*And because we have moisture in our atmosphere the clouds that form create a blanket and hold the heat in*

Hold it in how?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


well sure, we have pressure systems which take the heat and move it around through the use of wind, I just posted that.  clouds contribute as well.  Because we have an atmosphere, we are nothing like the moon other than the sun hits our surface.  because we spin differently than the moon is another factor, that's gravity.  to compare us to the moon is stupid.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


slows the release of heat off the surface.


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2019)

How do clouds slow the release of heat off the surface?  I agree with you that they do.  I am just wondering if you understand how they accomplish that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*slows the release of heat off the surface.*

Slows the release? Does the surface know the cloud is there, somehow, and throttles back its release of heat?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Why would it? That’s stupid


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



It was your stupid claim.
Feel free to dig yourself out of the hole.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


My claim? Nope. Never said the surface did anything. You wrote it . You remain confused


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*My claim? Nope. Never said the surface did anything. *

You said, "the clouds that form create a blanket and hold the heat in....slows the release of heat off the surface"

I'll understand if you're afraid to explain how the clouds change the action of the surface.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Why do you think the Earth doesn't cool down as fast as the Moon after the Sun sets?

*sure conduction and convection.*

You think conduction and convection slow down the cooling of the Earth's surface?

Are you drunk again?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Good job


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


The earth has an atmosphere and has conduction and .pressure systems


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2019)

Sorry JC, but you don't seem to know what any of those terms mean.

It's not that complicated.

Heat is transferred 3 ways: radiation, conduction and convection.

Radiation is via the emissions and absorption of photons

Conduction is via direct physical contact - an atom vibrating with thermal energy causes a neighboring atom to vibrate and it causes its neighbor to vibrate

Convection is really another form of conduction but involving moving fluids.  The primary change is that the flow constantly brings fresh fluid to the contact area which enhances the flow of energy by maintaining the temperature differential.

So, the sun shines on the Earth all day.  Most of its energy is in the visible band and almost every bit of it gets through to the surface which absorbs a good part of it.  That makes the surface get warmer.

Everything radiates, per its temperature.  So, the surface radiates infrared photons up towards space.  If the atmosphere were as transparent to infrared as it is to visible light, that energy would shoot off into the cold vacuum of space at the speed of light - as it happens on the moon.  But it's not.  Several gases, primarily water vapor and CO2 are opaque to significant portions of the infrared band and absorb radiaton in those bands within a few meters.  That increases the temperature of those greenhouse gas molecules and they do one of two things: they radiate their extra heat away as infrared photons or they lose it in collisions with their neighbors.  Odds are that their neighbors are nitrogen, oxygen or carbon dioxide.  The N2 and O2  will be unable to give that energy back because their peak frequencies are much higher and thus require far more power to radiate.  They will hang on to it till they lose it through collision. When those gases collide with CO2 or water vapor (or methane or any other GHG) those receiving molecules will then be able (though still unlikely) to radiate that energy.

So, the result of all that is that the atmosphere near the surface is warmed by the infrared radiation the surface is giving off.  And through radiaton and conduction, slightly less than half of that energy comes back to the surface.  It's as if I am trying to drain one pot into another, but someone has put a wee bilge pump in there that is putting some of it back. It slows down the net rate at which I am transferring water.

Eventually, the thermal energy in the atmosphere will find its way to the upper atmosphere, the stratosphere.  There, gas molecules are much further apart and collisions far less likely.  There is also almost no water vapor present.  So, energy held within CO2 can radiate out to space.  Energy held in N2 and O2 molecules is a bit stuck till it is lost to CO2 in a collision and radiates out from there.  And, of course, some of that radiation and collision transfer will end up sending energy back down towards the surface.  So, once a quantum of energy radiated from the surface gets absorbed by a GHG molecule, its route to space is going to take quite a few steps.  Those steps happen very quickly by human standards, but compared to a direct shot up at the speed of light, it is a snail's pace.

The sum result of all that can be seen if we compare the dark sides of the Earth and the Moon, as Todd has been trying to get you to do.  Let's look at the volume from the surface to 100 miles on each body.  On the moon, at any instant in time, what energy is present there?  The photons radiated from the surface are shooting upward headed for space.  And that's it.  On the Earth, at that same instant in time, what energy is present.  We still have quite a few photons rocketing upward as on the moon - those photons that have frequencies that will not be absorbed by any of the greenhouse gases.  The rest of the surface emissions are trapped in the atmosphere, conducting and convecting and radiating in pretty much all directions and not escaping till they happen to get to the uppermost stratosphere AND get into a molecule capable of radiating them to space.  That adds up to a lot more energy in the Earth's atmosphere than in a similarly-sized volume of the Moon's vacuum.  That added energy expresses itself as a higher temperature.  Increased greenhouse gases lead to global warming.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2019)

You were doing so good right up till you got to the word everything...sorry, but every thing doesn't radiate according to its temperature....perfect black bodies in perfect vacuums radiate according to their temperature...everything else radiates according to its emissivity, its area, and the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings....the equation is quite simple and easy to read and understand if you have even junior high level math skills.






Then there is the fact that IR can not warm the air...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yes, but enough about the ways the Earth's surface cools down faster.

Back to your "explanation" of how it cools down more slowly...……..


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You were doing so good right up till you got to the word everything...sorry, but every thing doesn't radiate according to its temperature....perfect black bodies in perfect vacuums radiate according to their temperature...everything else radiates according to its emissivity, its area, and the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings....the equation is quite simple and easy to read and understand if you have even junior high level math skills.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*2.4 Thermal Radiation*
_All_ macroscopic objects—fires, ice cubes, people, stars—emit radiation at all times. They radiate because the microscopic charged particles in them are in constant random motion, and whenever charges change their state of motion, electromagnetic radiation is emitted. The *temperature* of an object is a direct measure of the amount of microscopic motion within it (see _More Precisely 2-1_). The hotter the object, the higher its temperature, the faster its constituent particles move and the more energy they radiate.

Chapter 2, Section 4


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2019)

Thanks for proving my point....nothing in that says that objects in the presence of other objects radiate according to their temperature...nor will you find any real science that says that objects other than perfect black bodies in perfect vacuum radiate according to their temperature...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You were doing so good right up till you got to the word everything...sorry, but every thing doesn't radiate according to its temperature....perfect black bodies in perfect vacuums radiate according to their temperature...everything else radiates according to its emissivity, its area, and the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings....the equation is quite simple and easy to read and understand if you have even junior high level math skills.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*perfect black bodies in perfect vacuums radiate according to their temperature...everything else radiates according to its emissivity, its area, and the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings.*

Wrong!

Everything emits according to their temperature, emissivity, and area.
No dialing down of emissions allowed. No magic transmission of info without emission of radiation.


*Then there is the fact that IR can not warm the air... *

LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Thanks!

I am good at pointing out your idiocy.


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Thanks for proving my point....nothing in that says that objects in the presence of other objects radiate according to their temperature...nor will you find any real science that says that objects other than perfect black bodies in perfect vacuum radiate according to their temperature...



It says you're a fooking idiot.  It says all matter radiates all the time.  It says nothing that would allow for your smart photon insanity.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You were doing so good right up till you got to the word everything...sorry, but every thing doesn't radiate according to its temperature....perfect black bodies in perfect vacuums radiate according to their temperature...everything else radiates according to its emissivity, its area, and the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings....the equation is quite simple and easy to read and understand if you have even junior high level math skills.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you still trolling that crap!!?? We went through that time and again and you ended up in a idiotic self contradiction. Yes the equation is easy to read if you have a junior high level of math skills. Since the equation represents emission minus absorption, the conclusion is that you don't have a junior high level of math skills.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


K


----------



## SSDD (Feb 21, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for proving my point....nothing in that says that objects in the presence of other objects radiate according to their temperature...nor will you find any real science that says that objects other than perfect black bodies in perfect vacuum radiate according to their temperature...
> ...



Are you really unable to differentiate between the meaning of a statement saying that all objects radiate and a statement that all objects radiate according to their temperarue?  Let me guess...you aren't...it is that sort of failure to think that is the reason you are a top shelf dupe...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You were doing so good right up till you got to the word everything...sorry, but every thing doesn't radiate according to its temperature....perfect black bodies in perfect vacuums radiate according to their temperature...everything else radiates according to its emissivity, its area, and the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings....the equation is quite simple and easy to read and understand if you have even junior high level math skills.
> ...



Actually we ended up with you admitting finally that the equation says exactly what I had been saying all along...typical that you would forget, or interpret your admission to mean something else...


----------



## Crick (Feb 21, 2019)

Why don't you find the post where he did that Shit.  Because, I don't think a single person here believes you.

Speaking of evidence: From Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[1] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[2] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[3]




*Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming.*

In his latest paper, Powell reported that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[4]

References

 Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". _Slate_. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
*^* Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". _Slate_. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
*^* Powell, James Lawrence (1 October 2015). "Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True". _Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society_. *35* (5–6): 121–124. doi:10.1177/0270467616634958. ISSN 0270-4676.
*^* Powell, James Lawrence (2017-05-24). "The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters". _Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society_. *36* (3): 157–163. doi:10.1177/0270467617707079.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2019)

Crick said:


> Why don't you find the post where he did that Shit.  Because, I don't think a single person here believes you.
> 
> Speaking of evidence: From Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia
> 
> ...


well I do.  so again you are wrong.  standing on a box banging your chest look at me.  fk you troll.  instigator plus.  peer reviewed is bullshit.  the equation is one way.  heat flowing to cold.  period.  you have no case.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 21, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you find the post where he did that Shit.  Because, I don't think a single person here believes you.
> ...



* the equation is one way. *

That would violate causality.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


how?


----------



## Crick (Feb 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Are you really unable to differentiate between a statement that all matter radiates and a contention that matter only radiate towards cooler matter?  Of course you know the difference.  You do not post this shit because its what you believe.  You post it to entertain yourself with our reactions.  You are a TROLL, plain and simple.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


radiates according to it's temperature.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 21, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



It would require a radiator to know the temperature of a target before the information exists.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why would it need to do that?  It would radiate based on its own temperature.  why do you think it would do otherwise?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 21, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*why would it need to do that?*

Two identical objects, 1 light year apart.
One is 400K, the other 300K.

SSDD says the cooler object simply won't radiate toward the warmer object.
Do you agree with his claim?

*It would radiate based on its own temperature.*

Sounds like you understand 2 way flow of radiation.
Don't tell SSDD.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Do you agree with his claim?*

Sure.  No one has proven it can.  It will radiate according to its temperature.  

*Sounds like you understand 2 way flow of radiation.*

Again, the flow is determined by an object's own temperature and any objects near it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 21, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



* It will radiate according to its temperature.  *

I agree. The 300K object radiates, according to its temperature, in all directions with no restriction.
So does the 400 K object.

*Again, the flow is determined by an object's own temperature and any objects near it.*

The 300K object does not reduce the radiation emitted by the 400K object.

The 400K object does not stop radiation from being emitted by the 300K object.​


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*The 400K object does not stop radiation from being emitted by the 300K object.*

Prove it.  I can prove a warm object will not get any warmer when a cooler object is near it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 21, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The 400K object does not stop radiation from being emitted by the 300K object.

*Prove it.*

I heard it here.

_radiates according to it's temperature. _

No Evidence

*I can prove a warm object will not get any warmer when a cooler object is near it.*

Why would you need to prove that?
Do you know anyone who disagrees?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why do you say it doesn't stop it?
 you making shit up again?  you are the master of shit.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Actually we ended up with you admitting finally that the equation says exactly what I had been saying all along...typical that you would forget, or interpret your admission to mean something else...



This is what I said, and you know it. I showed you the physics derivation over a dozen times. Read the last paragraph ten times until you get it. The SB law describes 2-way radiation exchange.

Troll


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 21, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*why do you say it doesn't stop it?*

How would it?

And why would I disagree with, "radiates according to it's temperature"?

And causality.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why would it need to?  is it smart?

The one thing I am quite confidant of, is that you will never prove that a warm object will get warmer from a colder object. 

And that the surface is warmed by the sun and only the sun.  there is no such thing as more heat  at the surface.  Greenhouse affect is a leftists masturbation.

I feel we've beaten that horse enough.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 21, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*why would it need to?*

What?

* is it smart?*

Matter does not need to be smart to radiate according to its temperature.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


then you agree, the sun is the only surface warmer?  no such thing as the atmosphere warming the surface.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 21, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I agree, the atmosphere slows the loss of heat to space.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


how?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 21, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You don't understand absorption/emission spectra?
Weird.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


well sure.  I understand that CO2 absorbs and collides more frequently by quite a lot than re-emit.  So, I'm still wondering how you think it slows it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 21, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



* I understand that CO2 absorbs...…I'm still wondering how you think it slows it.*

LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 21, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



*And because we have moisture in our atmosphere the clouds that form create a blanket and hold the heat in*

How?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


asked and answered.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 21, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



GHGs are cool!


----------



## Wry Catcher (Feb 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> *1.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
> 
> 2.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
> 
> ...



Do you believe coal and oil are not pollutants?

Do you believe wind and solar power are fantasies?

Do you know R & D and trades employ large numbers in the  green and renewable energy fields?

Does it occur to you that competition in the field of energy benefits consumers and our environment?

In our garage we have a Chevy Bolt, on our roof we have solar panels.  We also have a Toy. RAV 4 Hybrid.  In the past year (2018) we've not paid one cent for electricity, and the Bolt has never been and will never visit a gas station.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 21, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > *1.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
> ...


All *Opinion* by you and not based on facts...

Fact: Oil is naturally occurring..

Fact: Coal is naturally occurring.

Fantasy is Solar/Wind power because it is unreliable and requires massive battery banks,  which create more poisons and pollution than their use removes.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


it is the battery.


----------



## Crick (Feb 21, 2019)

First, that they occur naturally does not prevent them from being pollutants if moved from their initial location in the ground to our land, our oceans or our atmosphere.  No one is contending that coal or oil are, themselves, pollutants.  Their combustion products in our atmosphere, however, faithfully fit the bill.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2019)

1353 posts in and still not the first thing to challenge any of the 3 statements made in the OP.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Feb 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> *1.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
> 
> 2.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2019)

Killer Kows from Kornfield Kansas


----------



## Crick (Feb 25, 2019)

James Powell, MIT professor of geochemistry, former president of three different colleges and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium has conducted three different reviews of the scientific literature with regard to their support or rejection of anthropogenic global warming.

The first study found* 99.828%* of 13,950 papers did not reject AGW.
 The second found *99.956%* of 9,136 authors did not reject AGW
The third found *99.979%* of 69,406 authors did not reject AGW
Powell found the combined consensus of all papers studied was *99.94%
*
If anyone here thinks there is an argument to be made that 54,195 published scientific articles whose conclusions support the validity of AGW, contained no evidence with which to do so, they are lying to themselves (and us) in monumental proportions.  Consensus, as Powell concludes, "nears universality".
**********************************************************************************************************************************************************
James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[1] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[2] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[3]
In his latest paper, Powell reported that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[4]
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia
*****************************************************************************************
*James Lawrence Powell* (born July 17, 1936 in Berea, Kentucky) is a geologist, author, former college president and museum director. He chaired the geology department at Oberlin College later serving as its provost and president. Powell also served as president of Franklin & Marshall College as well as Reed College. Following his positions in higher education, Powell presided over the Franklin Institute and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles.

Powell served 12 years on the National Science Board and is currently the executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium.

His book, _Night Comes to the Cretaceous_, explores the scientific debate regarding dinosaur extinction. In _Four Revolutions in the Earth Sciences_, Powell addresses dinosaur extinction in addition to three other scientific debates: deep time, continental drift and global warming.

Powell has posited that the scientific consensus on global warming nears universality and he actively counters climate change denialism in his research and other publications.
*Education*
Powell earned a BA degree in 1958 from Berea College, a private liberal arts college located in Powell's home town of Berea, Kentucky. Powell then received a PhD in Geochemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1962.[5]
James L. Powell - Wikipedia
References

Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". _Slate_. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
*^* Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". _Slate_. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
*^* Powell, James Lawrence (1 October 2015). "Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True". _Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society_. *35* (5–6): 121–124. doi:10.1177/0270467616634958. ISSN 0270-4676.
*^* Powell, James Lawrence (2017-05-24). "The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters". _Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society_. *36* (3): 157–163. doi:10.1177/0270467617707079.
Nemeh, Katherine (2014). _American Men & Women of Science: A Biographical Directory of Today's Leaders in Physical, Biological and Related Sciences_ (32nd ed., vol. 5 ed.). Gale Virtual Reference Library. p. 1498. Retrieved 1 February 2019.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 25, 2019)

All that and not a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....  

54,195 published papers and not a single one in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses....what a colossal, expensive, pointless waste of time climate science has been...


----------



## airplanemechanic (Feb 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> All that and not a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....
> 
> 54,195 published papers and not a single one in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses....what a colossal, expensive, pointless waste of time climate science has been...



That's the problem I have. All these "scientists" say the Earth is warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. They can't explain 4.4 billion years of climate change before man ever stepped foot on this planet. If AGW is only responsible for the last 50 years, what's responsible for the previous 4.4 billion that is NO LONGER a factor in our climate today? What changed, scientifically, that the Earth warming is now solely because of man and not what caused it to warm and cool for the past 4 BILLION years? 50 million years ago was the thermal max this planet ever experienced. That was 49.99 MILLION years before man. So what caused it then that absolutely CANNOT be the cause today?

They have no explanation for this:


----------



## SSDD (Feb 25, 2019)

airplanemechanic said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > All that and not a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....
> ...



Or maybe they are claiming that man made global warming looks just like natural variability...that makes as much sense as anything else they say.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


for me, it is as simple as that no one can say what the temperature is supposed to be.  Where's the script that says, that at 400 ppm of CO2 temperatures should be x, y, z or here is observed readings of pressure that create severe storms and it takes x, y, z of CO2 to cause one % pressure increase.  Where are the actual scientists?  We do know that once the arctic was ice free before man.  We know Greenland was green. 

Personally, besides the four seasons seasonal changes, I don't see any evidence of climate change since I've been alive.  Arctic still has Ice as does the antarctic.  The Amazon is still hot.  Africa still has deserts.  so I challenged individuals a few years back to show where climate has changed.  Still today, zip, zero.

Death valley is still death valley.

No greenhouse gases sending IR back to the surface.  Still unobserved.

4 degrees today in chicago.  In late february.  Average is 36.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Feb 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > airplanemechanic said:
> ...



You just don't get it. AGW is causing the polar vortex to plummet south causing record cold temps. 

This explanation can help AGW worshippers explain away record cold.  I mean hell, if its hot its AGW if its cold its AGW. It's a win win!!


----------



## Crick (Feb 25, 2019)

There is no need to "explain away" anything as it is, in fact, the cause of the polar vortex shifting south.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 25, 2019)

Crick said:


> There is no need to "explain away" anything as it is, in fact, the cause of the polar vortex shifting south.


nothing to do with CO2.  just like warming has nothing to do with CO2, it's called climate.


----------



## Crick (Feb 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> All that and not a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....
> 
> 54,195 published papers and not a single one in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses....what a colossal, expensive, pointless waste of time climate science has been...




God are you a stupid TROLL

How many folks here believe that over 54,000 published climate science studies contain no observations?  No measurements?  No evidence?  Does anyone here actually think SSDD has a BASIS for the statement he just made?  Has he reviewed all those papers?  Has reviewed even one percent of them?  So where does he get this stuff?

He makes it up because SSDD is a* fucking TROLL*


----------



## jc456 (Feb 25, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > All that and not a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....
> ...


well fk toto, one would think out of a fking 54,000 published studies, you could post one that proves your point.  the mere fact that you don't proves you the loser. not one observed measured study.  not a fking one.  if there was, it would have been posted by now.  I'm confident of that.


----------



## Crick (Feb 26, 2019)

If anyone around here is a sock puppet and their master, it is you and SSDD.  I'm just not certain which of you brainiacs is actually in charge.

Tens of thousands of scientific studies on our climate published over the last two decades contains mountains of evidence that the planet is warming and that the primary cause is human GHG emissions.  The claims of the OP of this thread are absolutely nonsensical lies.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 26, 2019)

Crick said:


> If anyone around here is a sock puppet and their master, it is you and SSDD.  I'm just not certain which of you brainiacs is actually in charge.
> 
> Tens of thousands of scientific studies on our climate published over the last two decades contains mountains of evidence that the planet is warming and that the primary cause is human GHG emissions.  The claims of the OP of this thread are absolutely nonsensical lies.


nope!


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2019)

Crick said:


> There is no need to "explain away" anything as it is, in fact, the cause of the polar vortex shifting south.




Sorry skid mark...but it is not a fact...the truth is that the hypothesis doesn't have much support and even NOAA et al say that there is no real correlation between arctic ice melt and fluctuations in the polar vortex...just more bullshit pseudoscience which is good enough to fool you...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > All that and not a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....
> ...



Typical lies....do you ever tell the truth about anything?  When did I ever say that there were no observations in those papers?  Answer...never...I said that there were no observed, measured data which support the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...

Feel free to prove me wrong skidmark...bring forward an observed, measured piece of data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...just one..


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2019)

Crick said:


> If anyone around here is a sock puppet and their master, it is you and SSDD.  I'm just not certain which of you brainiacs is actually in charge.
> 
> Tens of thousands of scientific studies on our climate published over the last two decades contains mountains of evidence that the planet is warming and that the primary cause is human GHG emissions.  The claims of the OP of this thread are absolutely nonsensical lies.



Sorry skidmark but that just isn't so...the only "evidence" you can produce which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability is the output of failed climate models...no observed measured data at all supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..


----------



## Crick (Feb 26, 2019)

You've disappointed your sock puppet by not recognizing his undying loyalty.  He even buys your smart photons.

As to evidence, your claim would be roll-on-the-floor laughable if it weren't so fucking *TROLLISH*


----------



## jc456 (Feb 26, 2019)

Crick said:


> You've disappointed your sock puppet by not recognizing his undying loyalty.  He even buys your smart photons.
> 
> As to evidence, your claim would be roll-on-the-floor laughable if it weren't so fucking *TROLLISH*


no quote, no point.


----------



## Crick (Feb 26, 2019)

Dear JC, please go away and find some children somewhere to play with.  You've got a sandbox and swingset out back don't you/.  I bet they're fun.  Right now, the grown ups want to have grown up conversations.

www.ipcc.ch
The Physical Science Basis


----------



## jc456 (Feb 26, 2019)

Crick said:


> Dear JC, please go away and find some children somewhere to play with.  You've got a sandbox and swingset out back don't you/.  I bet they're fun.  Right now, the grown ups want to have grown up conversations.
> 
> www.ipcc.ch
> The Physical Science Basis


http://www.ipcc what?  still nothing pulled that shows man does anything.  no observable measured evidence of AGW and not natural variability.  AT ALL!  so feel free toto to post that material little asswipe!!!  BTW, the teeter totter is now available, the kids went in.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 26, 2019)

Crick said:


> If anyone around here is a sock puppet and their master, it is you and SSDD.  I'm just not certain which of you brainiacs is actually in charge.
> 
> Tens of thousands of scientific studies on our climate published over the last two decades contains mountains of evidence that the planet is warming and that the primary cause is human GHG emissions.  The claims of the OP of this thread are absolutely nonsensical lies.


well find us one and post it up that shows AGW over natural variability.  go ahead, we're waiting.


----------



## Crick (Feb 26, 2019)

Evidence in great handfuls may be found in the scientific literature.  The data, evidence and conclusions of that literature are neatly assessed by the IPCC in "The Physical Science Basis" which may be found at www.ipcc.ch.  If you have any difficulty locating it or making your way through the document, do not hesitate to ask.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> You've disappointed your sock puppet by not recognizing his undying loyalty.  He even buys your smart photons.
> 
> As to evidence, your claim would be roll-on-the-floor laughable if it weren't so fucking *TROLLISH*



Poor skidmark....still stinging?  Can't get your panties unwadded?....to bad for you....personally, I am laughing out loud at your stupidity on parade.....need i remind you about all that evidence you don't seem to be able to produce?

And I couldn't help but notice that the senior mod on this board noted your trollish behavior....I never had anyone but a butt whipped sour grapes doofus call me a troll and you have a senior mod pointing out that you are a troll...interesting..very interesting indeed...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> Evidence in great handfuls may be found in the scientific literature.  The data, evidence and conclusions of that literature are neatly assessed by the IPCC in "The Physical Science Basis" which may be found at www.ipcc.ch.  If you have any difficulty locating it or making your way through the document, do not hesitate to ask.



So you keep saying...but you can't bring a single piece of it here...not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...you are lying when you say it exists and we all know that you are lying...we all know that you would like nothing more than to slap me down with some such evidence...we also know that you can't..you are reduced to mewling and pewling and making claims that we all know you can't back up.....

And I have been asking for decades...none of the other liars like you were able to bring any actual observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over narwal variability either...the claim that you could help if I asked, is just one more lie in a very long and miserable string of lies that you tell here...day after day after day...


----------



## jc456 (Feb 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> Evidence in great handfuls may be found in the scientific literature.  The data, evidence and conclusions of that literature are neatly assessed by the IPCC in "The Physical Science Basis" which may be found at www.ipcc.ch.  If you have any difficulty locating it or making your way through the document, do not hesitate to ask.


yeah,  forward to us the part that backs your claim.  I didn't see it there.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 27, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Evidence in great handfuls may be found in the scientific literature.  The data, evidence and conclusions of that literature are neatly assessed by the IPCC in "The Physical Science Basis" which may be found at www.ipcc.ch.  If you have any difficulty locating it or making your way through the document, do not hesitate to ask.
> ...


yep  I did a search in the link he gave looking for AGW versus Natural variability and got nothing.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> Evidence in great handfuls may be found in the scientific literature.  The data, evidence and conclusions of that literature are neatly assessed by the IPCC in "The Physical Science Basis" which may be found at www.ipcc.ch.  If you have any difficulty locating it or making your way through the document, do not hesitate to ask.


*from your link!!!!*
*"Search Results*
*no results matching your search agw vs natural variability"*


*oops*


----------



## Crick (Feb 27, 2019)

God JC, are you *stupid*.

"The Physical Science Basis"


----------



## SSDD (Feb 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> God JC, are you *stupid*.
> 
> "The Physical Science Basis"



I am afraid that you are the stupid one skidmark...telling such a bald faced lie that is so easily detected....you think everyone who has ever seen you not deliver a single piece of observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability doesn't know that you are lying when you say it is there?  

You think that everyone who sees you stalking me around calling names in big bold red all caps doesn't know that there is nothing you would rather do than shove that single piece of data I have been asking for in my face to put me in my place?

You think the whole board isn't becoming aware of what a loser you are?


----------



## Crick (Feb 28, 2019)

Do you actually think anyone believes your "no evidence" mantra?  The claim is idiotic.  And it is pure TROLL


----------



## SSDD (Feb 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> Do you actually think anyone believes your "no evidence" mantra?  The claim is idiotic.  And it is pure TROLL




1385 posts now and still not the first piece of actual observed, measured evidence to challenge any of the claims in the OP...let me reiterate...

*1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses in a single published paper.*

Nearly 1400 posts and still nothing that even remotely challenges any of those 3 statements...what else are "thinking" people supposed to believe?  If there were any such evidence, then surely it would have been posted up...it hasn't because it doesn't....

Now do I think the lack of actual observed measured evidence will convince people who are as stupid as you?  People who operate from a position of faith?  People who are drooling zealots who simply parrot what the people who gave you your opinion tell you to say?  Of course not...you lack the brains necessary to see that an abject lack of evidence is a serious thing...

This thread was posted for thinking people who see the truth...not brain dead bots like yourself...


----------



## Crick (Feb 28, 2019)

Same Shit numbers his lies so we can keep track of them.  How nice of him.

TROLL


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 28, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Do you actually think anyone believes your "no evidence" mantra?  The claim is idiotic.  And it is pure TROLL
> ...




*2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.*

DERP!


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 28, 2019)

How can you possibly think anyone would give any merit to what you think when you do not believe science. Sad.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> Same Shit numbers his lies so we can keep track of them.  How nice of him.
> 
> TROLL


Poor little skidmark...no evidence to support your claims...nothing but mewling name calling for the person who has driven you to this low state...nothing but hatred for the one who never fails to call bullshit knowing full well that you are not going to have any actual evidence whatsoever to support your claims...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 28, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> How can you possibly think anyone would give any merit to what you think when you do not believe science. Sad.



The fact that you wackos haven't managed to even remotely challenge a single one of them with anything like observed, measured evidence...or a published paper lends me all the credibility I need...  

Who do you think actually takes your mewling and pewling seriously?  You can either provide observed, measured evidence to challenge 1 or 2 or you can provide a paper which challenges #3...or you can not....and we all know by now that you can not...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 28, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > How can you possibly think anyone would give any merit to what you think when you do not believe science. Sad.
> ...



You have any published papers that say, explicitly, "one-way only flow of photons"?

Why not?

Weird.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 28, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You can either provide observed, measured evidence to challenge 1 or 2 or you can provide a paper which challenges #3...or you can not....and we all know by now that you can not...



You forgot Emily Foote's experiment
The American Journal o f Science and Arts Vol XXII Nov 1856, Pgs 382 - 383
The American Journal of Science and Arts

Also you never gave a scientific definition of natural variability. Just the usual insults.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 1, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You can either provide observed, measured evidence to challenge 1 or 2 or you can provide a paper which challenges #3...or you can not....and we all know by now that you can not...
> ...



Evidence that water vapor can be warmed?  You think that is evidence that air...gasses can be warmed?  And I think it is a hoot that you wack jobs have to go back to quaint experiments done with poor instrumentation, and understanding of the movement of energy done in the 1800's and earlier in an attempt to find something...anything that you believe you can use to fool someone....anyone....


----------



## jc456 (Mar 1, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Then post it. The fact you didn’t gives credence to his statement! Now that’s Derp


----------



## jc456 (Mar 1, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> How can you possibly think anyone would give any merit to what you think when you do not believe science. Sad.


We all know no one will answer, there’s no evidence. 1400 posts proves the thread


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 1, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You need me to post his previous comments that CO2 absorbs IR and transfers energy to
other gasses via collision? 

Why?

Have you forgotten?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 1, 2019)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > too funny, you think the atmosphere makes the surface warmer. Then can't explain how it does that. Gotcha!!
> ...


No, you posted cartoons showing radiation warming the surface  from the atmosphere not the sun. You don’t remember funny


----------



## SSDD (Mar 1, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



energy transfer via collision is called conduction....not radiation..there is no radiative greenhouse effect because not enough radiation moves through the troposphere to cause any observable effect...then there is the fact that IR can not warm the air...


----------



## jc456 (Mar 1, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Nothing warming by IR. It was your line IR warms the atmosphere not conduction. Sounds like you don’t believe that any longer.  It seems you can follow the dot.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


What he is saying now is that the absorbed IR in CO2 that’s handed off via collisions means IR warms the atmosphere.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*energy transfer via collision is called conduction....not radiation..*

Yup. And energy transfer via IR is radiation....not conduction.

*there is no radiative greenhouse effect*

Is IR absorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere?
Or does IR move directly, instantly, from the surface into outer space?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 1, 2019)

airplanemechanic said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > *1.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
> ...



The crap coming from leftist drones like AOC is more dangerous...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 1, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Nothing warming by IR.*

Is it absorbed or not?

*It was your line IR warms the atmosphere not conduction.*

GHGs warmed by IR. Other gasses warmed by conduction.

*Sounds like you don’t believe that any longer. *

Why would I stop believing physics?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 1, 2019)

jc456 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



What do you think the absorbed IR means to the atmosphere?
If more IR is absorbed does that make the atmosphere warmer, cooler, or the same?
Whether it takes 1 step, 2 steps, 3 steps.....37 steps?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 1, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Evidence in great handfuls may be found in the scientific literature.  The data, evidence and conclusions of that literature are neatly assessed by the IPCC in "The Physical Science Basis" which may be found at www.ipcc.ch.  If you have any difficulty locating it or making your way through the document, do not hesitate to ask.
> ...


That is a standard Crick bull shit tactic..  post a link and claim it proves your point. And when pressed to show the precise text and data proving their point they run back to the original link and scream its there..

This proves two things.  1. They have no clue what the link says and, 2. They have no evidence to back up their assertions.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 1, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



AOC is a complete and total moron.

Has she ever claimed photons are magnetic or have mass?
Or is that too stupid even for her?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 1, 2019)

jc456 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



That sir is due to the fact they never assessed Natural Variation. They just proclaimed it to be man caused..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 1, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > airplanemechanic said:
> ...


LOL

Give it up Todd..    I refuse to discuss relativistic physics with you as you can not even grasp basic concepts.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 1, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Who the fuck asked you to discuss anything?

Just admit you don't have a source, because none exists, for your moronic claims.
Then I can stop mocking your moronic claims.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Evidence that water vapor can be warmed? You think that is evidence that air...gasses can be warmed? And I think it is a hoot that you wack jobs have to go back to quaint experiments done with poor instrumentation, and understanding of the movement of energy done in the 1800's and earlier in an attempt to find something...anything that you believe you can use to fool someone....anyone....


It was a simple experiment that you should have been able to understand, but you obviously didn't understand the paper. Very recent more exacting experiments were done on atmospheric CO2, but you were confused and didn't believe science so you rejected them.


----------



## Crick (Mar 2, 2019)

I have a big surprise for you Shit.  Water vapor is a gas.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 2, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Evidence that water vapor can be warmed? You think that is evidence that air...gasses can be warmed? And I think it is a hoot that you wack jobs have to go back to quaint experiments done with poor instrumentation, and understanding of the movement of energy done in the 1800's and earlier in an attempt to find something...anything that you believe you can use to fool someone....anyone....
> ...



It was simple all right...and didn't begin to prove that IR can warm the air...absolutely laughable that the only actual attempts at science regarding climate come from the 19th century and further back....good enough to fool you though...right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*It was simple all right...and didn't begin to prove that IR can warm the air..*

You still basing the idiotic claim, IR can't warm air, on industrial IR heaters? LOL!


----------



## SSDD (Mar 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> I have a big surprise for you Shit.  Water vapor is a gas.



How unsurprising is it that you don't know the difference between a vapor and a gas....never mind the fact that it is called water vapor rather than water gas...  you never fail to keep lowering that bar.....do you?  Here .....let me help you out...

A gas can not be liquified by pressure alone...a vapor on the other hand can be liquified by pressure alone...gas is a state of matter...vapor is not a state of matter, it is a state of equilibrium between two states of matter...vapor particles may be viewed under a microscope and usually have a definite shape...try viewing gas under a microscope...

engineer my ass....laughing at you skidmark...always laughing at you.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > airplanemechanic said:
> ...


No, she thinks 3 billion tax savings from a company she pushed to go away, before settling in, now has 3 billion dollars to spend. That’s how fkn stupid she is


----------



## jc456 (Mar 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I believe you asked. Right? Or are you back pedaling?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



No, I asked him for backup.
Trying to discuss science with him, or you, is pointless.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> It was simple all right...and didn't begin to prove that IR can warm the air...absolutely laughable that the only actual attempts at science regarding climate come from the 19th century and further back....good enough to fool you though...right?



You don't believe physics of the 20th century and beyond. I tried something more ancient and simpler, but guess you still don't understand the experiment.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


It would be the same temperature as the surface. There’s no warmer . I told you before, you believe IR warms the surface it does not.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Yeah, you did. Climate vs science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*It would be the same temperature as the surface.*

The atmosphere would warm up to the same temperature as the surface. Excellent!

* I told you before, you believe IR warms the surface it does not.*

IR warms whatever matter absorbs it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Maybe you can help him out?

You have a source that shows photons are magnetic? That they have mass?
Don't hurt yourself looking...…….


----------



## SSDD (Mar 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I understand the experiment fine and told you precisely how to invalidate the results...a vent hole in the lid of the jar will result in the temperature of the two jars tracking the same temperature regardless of how much CO2 you put in it


----------



## IanC (Mar 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> How unsurprising is it that you don't know the difference between a vapor and a gas....never mind the fact that it is called water vapor rather than water gas... you never fail to keep lowering that bar.....do you? Here .....let me help you out...
> 
> A gas can not be liquified by pressure alone...a vapor on the other hand can be liquified by pressure alone...gas is a state of matter...vapor is not a state of matter, it is a state of equilibrium between two states of matter...vapor particles may be viewed under a microscope and usually have a definite shape...try viewing gas under a microscope



What a wonderful post!!!!!

A whole new area to consider. The transition between the solid liquid and gas phases of water in the atmosphere. 

What is the minimum sized clump of H2O molecules that can be declared liquid or solid? How is the latent heat released? What is the emissivity of the three phases? What is the emissivity of the transition state, the lumpy vapour?

I have discussed a lot of this in the past but there is a lot of meat left on the bones. I think you guys should delve into this topic more thoroughly.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 3, 2019)

H2O is the only true greenhouse gas as it is the only one capable of actually holding energy...  If you have ever flown in a small plane with the window open near clouds on a bright day, the temperature difference is stark and undeniable...it is like passing by a dryer vent....


----------



## Crick (Mar 3, 2019)

You couldn't sell your physics at a nursery school.


Crick said:


> I have a big surprise for you Shit.  Water vapor is a gas.





SSDD said:


> How unsurprising is it that you don't know the difference between a vapor and a gas....never mind the fact that it is called water vapor rather than water gas...  you never fail to keep lowering that bar.....do you?  Here .....let me help you out...
> 
> A gas can not be liquified by pressure alone...a vapor on the other hand can be liquified by pressure alone...gas is a state of matter...vapor is not a state of matter, it is a state of equilibrium between two states of matter...vapor particles may be viewed under a microscope and usually have a definite shape...try viewing gas under a microscope...
> 
> engineer my ass....laughing at you skidmark...always laughing at you.



*Water vapor*, *water vapour* or *aqueous vapor* is the *gaseous phase of water*. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor can be produced from the evaporation or boiling of liquid water or from the sublimation of ice. Unlike other forms of water, water vapor is invisible.[4] Under typical atmospheric conditions, water vapor is continuously generated by evaporation and removed by condensation. It is less dense than air and triggers convection currents that can lead to clouds.

Being a component of Earth's hydrosphere and hydrologic cycle, it is particularly abundant in Earth's atmosphere where it is also a potent greenhouse gas along with other gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. Use of water vapor, as steam, has been important to humans for cooking and as a major component in energy production and transport systems since the industrial revolution.

Water vapor is a relatively common atmospheric constituent, present even in the solar atmosphere as well as every planet in the Solar System and many astronomical objects including natural satellites, comets and even large asteroids. Likewise the detection of extrasolar water vapor would indicate a similar distribution in other planetary systems. Water vapor is significant in that it can be indirect evidence supporting the presence of extraterrestrial liquid water in the case of some planetary mass objects.
Water vapor - Wikipedia
*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
You are a pathetic fucking idiot. Water vapor is a gas.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Yep through conduction and convection and not IR.

Naw, gas does not absorb heat


----------



## Crick (Mar 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> H2O is the only true greenhouse gas as it is the only one capable of actually holding energy...  If you have ever flown in a small plane with the window open near clouds on a bright day, the temperature difference is stark and undeniable...it is like passing by a dryer vent....



So if I sort the gases in the atmosphere, the water vapor will be at ambient temperature, but the nitrogen, oxygen, CO2 and all the rest will be at absolute zero?  Care to explain?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> *Water vapor*, *water vapour* or *aqueous vapor* is the *gaseous phase of water*. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor can be produced from the evaporation or boiling of liquid water or from the sublimation of ice. Unlike other forms of water, water vapor is invisible.[4] Under typical atmospheric conditions, water vapor is continuously generated by evaporation and removed by condensation. It is less dense than air and triggers convection currents that can lead to clouds.



You just never get any smarter do you?  It says right there that it is the "gaseous phase" of water...it is a state of water...water is not a gas...gaseous is defined as having the characteristics of a gas, but not necessarily being a gas...

Why don't you actually try reading for comprehension once in a while...you might not get your ass handed to you so often..



Crick said:


> You are a pathetic fucking idiot. Water vapor is a gas.



Alas skidmark....you are the pathetic idiot...your own source said that water vapor is the gaseous state of water...it is not a gas, it has some of the characteristics of a gas and that is all....sorry...you lose again.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > H2O is the only true greenhouse gas as it is the only one capable of actually holding energy...  If you have ever flown in a small plane with the window open near clouds on a bright day, the temperature difference is stark and undeniable...it is like passing by a dryer vent....
> ...



Agree against your own straw men...I don't really feel like correcting everything you attribute to me this evening...do feel free to provide a quote from me saying any such thing...failing that, you might apologize for making up statements from me to argue against...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Yep through conduction and convection and not IR.*

That's the latest epicycle?
IR heats the atmosphere through conduction and convection?

*Naw, gas does not absorb heat*

IR bounces off the gas?
Do the "covailent [sic] bonds" repel the IR?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*That's the latest epicycle?
IR heats the atmosphere through conduction and convection?*
That’s your statement!
*IR bounces off the gas?
Do the "covailent [sic] bonds" repel the IR?
*
Never said that did I? You love make believe.


----------



## Crick (Mar 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> *Water vapor*, *water vapour* or *aqueous vapor* is the *gaseous phase of water*. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor can be produced from the evaporation or boiling of liquid water or from the sublimation of ice. Unlike other forms of water, water vapor is invisible.[4] Under typical atmospheric conditions, water vapor is continuously generated by evaporation and removed by condensation. It is less dense than air and triggers convection currents that can lead to clouds.





SSDD said:


> You just never get any smarter do you?  It says right there that it is the "gaseous phase" of water...it is a state of water...water is not a gas...gaseous is defined as having the characteristics of a gas, but not necessarily being a gas...
> 
> Why don't you actually try reading for comprehension once in a while...you might not get your ass handed to you so often..





Crick said:


> You are a pathetic fucking idiot. Water vapor is a gas.





SSDD said:


> Alas skidmark....you are the pathetic idiot...your own source said that water vapor is the gaseous state of water...it is not a gas, it has some of the characteristics of a gas and that is all....sorry...you lose again.



Having embarrassingly fucked up it's time for your usual song and dance.  Deny, deny, deny.  Claiming that water vapor isn't gas (and making up another phase of matter to do so) is right up there with Billy Bob's magnetic photons.  But, you're the one with omniscient matter.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

"What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive"





Chemistry

*YOU FUCKING STUPID TROLL*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



That's the latest epicycle?
IR heats the atmosphere through conduction and convection?

* That’s your statement!
*
Do GHGs absorb IR emitted by the surface of the Earth?
Do those GHGs then transfer some of that energy to other molecules in the atmosphere via conduction?

*Never said that did I?*

No. That nugget of idiocy belongs to Billy.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Do those GHGs then transfer some of that energy to other molecules in the atmosphere via conduction?*

Most all CO2 collide with O and N molecules. No IR. 

How warm do you believe those molecules get?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


How does that make the surface warmer? Still waiting!

IR does not warm what absorbs it, you could post that evidence!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Most all CO2 collide with O and N molecules. No IR.*

Some IR hits CO2 and is absorbed, right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*How does that make the surface warmer?*

IR that is absorbed by the surface, warms the surface.

*IR does not warm what absorbs it*

Why not? 

Does it cool matter that absorbs it?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Is it IR after it is?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


That IR is from the sun, derp 

Prove it does!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Once IR is absorbed, the IR is gone. 
Because it was absorbed. Right?


----------



## IanC (Mar 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *How does that make the surface warmer?*
> 
> IR that is absorbed by the surface, warms the surface.



That answer is imprecise. IR absorbed by the surface adds to the total energy of the surface. Warming only happens if more energy is going in than coming out.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Most of the solar energy that hits the surface is much more energetic, much shorter wavelength than IR.

Now, you need proof that energy that is absorbed by matter....heats that matter?
Or you just need that proof for IR?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 3, 2019)

IanC said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *How does that make the surface warmer?*
> ...



*That answer is imprecise.*

Precision is wasted on him.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I understand the experiment fine and told you precisely how to invalidate the results...a vent hole in the lid of the jar will result in the temperature of the two jars tracking the same temperature regardless of how much CO2 you put in it


That is stupid. Put in a vent hole and you invalidate the experiment. The densities of the gases in the two jars change as the contents leak out. You are comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 4, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


yep and only about 1% of CO2 emits it.  so IR is gone.  Again, I'm happy to entertain the first piece of observed material that shows CO2 warming.  just one.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 4, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


IR in CO2.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 4, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


facts are wasted on you.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 4, 2019)

IanC said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *How does that make the surface warmer?*
> ...


there you go again stating that CO2 adds warming to the surface.  Naw, it doesn't.  The sun is the only heater,


----------



## jc456 (Mar 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I understand the experiment fine and told you precisely how to invalidate the results...a vent hole in the lid of the jar will result in the temperature of the two jars tracking the same temperature regardless of how much CO2 you put in it
> ...


holy fk!!


----------



## IanC (Mar 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I've had dogs smarter than you.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 4, 2019)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


I bet your dogs know that LWIR doesn't make the planet warmer. And you do, so, I'm thinking the dogs are smarter than you.  just saying.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 4, 2019)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > *Water vapor*, *water vapour* or *aqueous vapor* is the *gaseous phase of water*. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor can be produced from the evaporation or boiling of liquid water or from the sublimation of ice. Unlike other forms of water, water vapor is invisible.[4] Under typical atmospheric conditions, water vapor is continuously generated by evaporation and removed by condensation. It is less dense than air and triggers convection currents that can lead to clouds.
> ...


the water vapor was creating snowflakes on my windshield this morning.  Full blue sky and it was snowing.  Water vapor crystallizing from the cold.  When does CO2 or any gas in the atmosphere go solid? water vapor is not a gas.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 4, 2019)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > *Water vapor*, *water vapour* or *aqueous vapor* is the *gaseous phase of water*. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor can be produced from the evaporation or boiling of liquid water or from the sublimation of ice. Unlike other forms of water, water vapor is invisible.[4] Under typical atmospheric conditions, water vapor is continuously generated by evaporation and removed by condensation. It is less dense than air and triggers convection currents that can lead to clouds.
> ...



You are a constant reminder that you just can't fix stupid.....even when you are given clues, you don't get it...

In the simplest possible terms, there are 2 primary differences between vapor and a gas...A vapor has undergone a phase change...a gas has not...Once again, gas is a state of matter...vapor is not...the fact that you don't know that is both sad, and hilarious...

There is a pressure vs temperature curve for the phase transition of a liquid to vapor.   Vapor is in equilibrium with the liquid phase underneath it...the same pressure and temperature...the saturation pressure depends on temperature and that dependence is non linear and therefore not consistent with the gas laws....Vapor is not a gas..

Here the engineering tool box...

Water - Saturation Pressure

Engineering and Mining Journal  Volume 87, pp 467
Engineering and Mining Journal

"Water vapor is not a gas"


Chapter V – Air, Waternuclear  Energy, ELECTRICITY

"It is present everywhere, on our planet, in more or less important quantities, especially in the form of vapor in the « solid » matter and in the air. Water vapor is not a gas, but a burst of liquid water into fine droplets, which can not be transformed into gas without dissociating their components."

Sorry skid mark....water vapor at less than 100C is not a gas....


----------



## Pilot1 (Mar 4, 2019)

No runs, no hits, nobody left on base.  Trump wins again .


----------



## SSDD (Mar 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I understand the experiment fine and told you precisely how to invalidate the results...a vent hole in the lid of the jar will result in the temperature of the two jars tracking the same temperature regardless of how much CO2 you put in it
> ...



Doofus...CO2 is heavier than air and is not going to leak out of the top...if you are concerned....put a CO2 detector in the CO2 bottle...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*yep and only about 1% of CO2 emits it. so IR is gone.*

Yep. It did its job and warmed the atmosphere. Because it was absorbed and didn't instantly escape into space.

* I'm happy to entertain the first piece of observed material that shows CO2 warming.*

You just admitted it absorbed energy. You need proof that matter is warmed by absorbing energy?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Says the SSDD sycophant. LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



*In the simplest possible terms, there are 2 primary differences between vapor and a gas...A vapor has undergone a phase change...a gas has not...*

When liquid N2 evaporates, has it undergone a phase change? LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Doofus...CO2 is heavier than air and is not going to leak out of the top..*

CO2 is going to pool at the bottom? No mixing? LOL! Doofus indeed.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 4, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


again, waiting on that CO2 heats evidence.  anytime pal, anytime.  clock's been ticking for some years and you've failed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*again, waiting on that CO2 heats evidence.  *

Exactly.

You want evidence that absorbing energy heats matter.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 4, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


especially CO2.  thanks for asking.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yes, you want evidence that when CO2 absorbs energy, it warms. Exactly.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 4, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Exactly,  post that baby up pal.  shit I thought you'd never provide it.  great show me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Exactly.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 4, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


finally folks, toddsters going to post the evidence that CO2 gets warm when it absorbs.  When will that be Toddsterpatriot ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*toddsters going to post the evidence that CO2 gets warm when it absorbs.*

Does CO2 absorb energy without warming?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 4, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I told you it absorbs at the temperature of its surrounding.  I never varied from that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*I told you it absorbs at the temperature of its surrounding.*

CO2 in the air, absorbing IR from the ground "absorbs at the temperature of its surrounding"?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 4, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


exactly.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Can you restate your claim in a way that makes sense?


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You really don't know what the "n" stands for in the ideal gas law. It is an expression of the amount of gas in a volume (in molar units). With a hole in a container gas will escape and there is less gas in each container depending on the temperature. Ie, the density drops. Do I have to explain everything to you? Different amounts of gas escapes for different temperatures of the two cylinders. Apples and oranges.

Foote's experiments are much more controlled and show higher temperature in the GHG cylinders. *There is no heat of compression*; just more pressure due to the IGL!


----------



## SSDD (Mar 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



If you fill your jar with CO2....even after it has been under your lights, or the sun for a couple of hours, the CO2 concentration is still going to be much higher than in the jar of common air...you really are a doofus...

And of course there is heat of compression...do the experiment....what's the matter..afraid of proving yourself wrong?


----------



## Crick (Mar 4, 2019)

Experiments demonstrating the absorption of IR by carbon dioxide

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties


----------



## Crick (Mar 4, 2019)

Water at any of the pressure and temperature conditions included in the yellow section of this graph, is a gas.  There are only three phases of state here: solid, liquid and gas.  A mist of water is liquid water.  It is visible, as in a cloud or the visible mist above a boiling pot in your kitchen.  Gaseous water is invisible.  When your barometer tells you that the relative humidity is 70%, it is telling you there is gaseous water in the air around you but you cannot see it.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> If you fill your jar with CO2....even after it has been under your lights, or the sun for a couple of hours, the CO2 concentration is still going to be much higher than in the jar of common air...you really are a doofus...
> 
> And of course there is heat of compression...do the experiment....what's the matter..afraid of proving yourself wrong?



Foote's experiment is the way to go. It preserves constant volume and molar mass. You still don't understand the difference between increased pressure due to heat and increased pressure due to mechanically reducing the volume with a piston. That is really sad, you know.

You can't understand where the 16,000 W/m² Venus surface radiation goes. You only attempt to answer why the surface is hot, but don't know what happens to that radiation. That's sad too. 

.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> Water at any of the pressure and temperature conditions included in the yellow section of this graph, is a gas.  There are only three phases of state here: solid, liquid and gas.  A mist of water is liquid water.  It is visible, as in a cloud or the visible mist above a boiling pot in your kitchen.  Gaseous water is invisible.  When your barometer tells you that the relative humidity is 70%, it is telling you there is gaseous water in the air around you but you cannot see it.



Vapor is visible.....you need a microscope to see it, but it is visible, and in the case of water, the "particles" have definite shapes...Vapor is not a gas, regardless of what you claim...  Vapor is simply not consistent with the gas laws...then there is the undeniable fact that gas is a state of matter while vapor is not...


Crick said:


> Water at any of the pressure and temperature conditions included in the yellow section of this graph, is a gas.  There are only three phases of state here: solid, liquid and gas.  A mist of water is liquid water.  It is visible, as in a cloud or the visible mist above a boiling pot in your kitchen.  Gaseous water is invisible.  When your barometer tells you that the relative humidity is 70%, it is telling you there is gaseous water in the air around you but you cannot see it.



Vapor is visible.....you need a microscope to see it, but it is visible, and in the case of water, the "particles" have definite shapes...Vapor is not a gas, regardless of what you claim...  Vapor is simply not consistent with the gas laws...then there is the undeniable fact that gas is a state of matter while vapor is not...  But hey...believe whatever you want...it is how you get through life, isn't it...you alter, modify, and deliberately change anything that doesn't agree with your belief in order to maintain said belief...it is also why you are so easily fooled...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 5, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If you fill your jar with CO2....even after it has been under your lights, or the sun for a couple of hours, the CO2 concentration is still going to be much higher than in the jar of common air...you really are a doofus...
> ...



Vent the containers and you have no more warming in the CO2 jar than you have in the common air jar...heat of compression...

Being easily fooled is why you are a dupe...or are you a dupe because you are easily fooled?


----------



## Crick (Mar 5, 2019)

Wuwei, I'm certain he understands it just fine.  He chooses to maintain this bullshit line just to wind people up.  That's what a *TROLL* does.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Vent the containers and you have no more warming in the CO2 jar than you have in the common air jar...heat of compression...
> 
> Being easily fooled is why you are a dupe...or are you a dupe because you are easily fooled?



You still don't get the difference between pressure caused by compression and pressure caused by a temperature increase. 

Heat of compression involves an outside mechanical force that reduces the volume of the gas. In an adiabatic process that will increase the temperature along with the pressure.

In short, you are confusing heat due to compression with pressure due to heat. 

Putting a vent in the cylinders compromises the experiment by letting unknown amounts of gases and energy to escape, creating lower densities within. 

In Foote's experiment continuous radiation from an outside source increased the temperature of the CO2 cylinder more than the air cylinder. Of course the pressure increases. But it is not heat of compression. You have not invalidated Foote's experiment. You are simply confused.  

.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2019)

Vent the top of the jar and the temperature increase in both jars will be the same regardless of the CO2 concentration.  Sealed jars are only demonstrating the heat of compression....


----------



## Crick (Mar 6, 2019)

A GHG/non-GHG warming experiment with non-airtight containers.  the GHG side is warmer.

PS: you've seen this before.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Vent the top of the jar and the temperature increase in both jars will be the same regardless of the CO2 concentration.  Sealed jars are only demonstrating the heat of compression....


Here is an experiment with vented bottles. It proves you wrong.


.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 6, 2019)

Crick said:


> Experiments demonstrating the absorption of IR by carbon dioxide
> 
> Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties


dude, I'm not opening your link.  you either forward the info you feel backs your claim or let your post die.  I'm not opening that fking link without the forward.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Water at any of the pressure and temperature conditions included in the yellow section of this graph, is a gas.  There are only three phases of state here: solid, liquid and gas.  A mist of water is liquid water.  It is visible, as in a cloud or the visible mist above a boiling pot in your kitchen.  Gaseous water is invisible.  When your barometer tells you that the relative humidity is 70%, it is telling you there is gaseous water in the air around you but you cannot see it.
> ...


water vapor freezes.  Why doesn't the CO2 in the air?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


----------



## Crick (Mar 6, 2019)

Why hasn't Same Shit come back to gloat?

; - )


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2019)

Crick said:


> Experiments demonstrating the absorption of IR by carbon dioxide
> 
> Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties



Who ever said that CO2 doesn't absorb IR?  Of course it absorbs then it promptly emits the IR or loses the energy via collision...IR does not warm the air...no matter how much CO2 is in it. 


Crick said:


> A GHG/non-GHG warming experiment with non-airtight containers.  the GHG side is warmer.
> 
> PS: you've seen this before.



Laughing at you..


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Vent the top of the jar and the temperature increase in both jars will be the same regardless of the CO2 concentration.  Sealed jars are only demonstrating the heat of compression....
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Experiments demonstrating the absorption of IR by carbon dioxide
> ...



*Who ever said that CO2 doesn't absorb IR? Of course it absorbs then it promptly emits the IR or loses the energy via collision.*

And when non-GHGs gain that energy via collision, do they warm?


----------



## MAGAman (Mar 6, 2019)

MMGW and Russian Collusion.

Democrats are at least consistent.


----------



## Crick (Mar 6, 2019)

Making Middle Grades Work?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Vent the top of the jar and the temperature increase in both jars will be the same regardless of the CO2 concentration.  Sealed jars are only demonstrating the heat of compression....
> ...



When I said that you were easily fooled, I thought that perhaps you might do a bit of investigating...I guess I thought wrong.  

Tell me, is your wish to be correct so strong that it makes you blind to the obvious errors, or are you so scientifically illiterate, that you really have no idea what the glaring flaws are in that experiment?  Do you just know the pseudoscience that climate science spews and are completely ignorant of all other aspects of the sciences?  Like your gross misunderstanding of spontaneous and non spontaneous processes?

The experiment does not prove I am wrong..the experiment only proves how easily you are fooled...CO2 is an odorless, colorless, invisible gas.  When you drop a piece of dry ice in water, do you have any idea what that fog is?  Here is a hint, it isn't CO2....That fog you see is water vapor...so you fill a bottler with water vapor and CO2...point heat lamps at it while there is still a puddle of water in the bottom of the bottle and do you have any idea what you get?  Water vapor and lots of it...the bottle was super saturated with humidity...it wasn't CO2 that was warming...it was water vapor. 

Send your you tube buddies an email and congratulate them for proving that a bottle full of water vapor warms up more and faster than dryer air...

You are easily fooled...I believe it is because you simply don't have a clue...which is probably why you are so f'ing tedious....you don't understand what people are saying to you so you interpret into something that is nothing like what they said because that is how little you actually understand.....


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2019)

Crick said:


> A GHG/non-GHG warming experiment with non-airtight containers.  the GHG side is warmer.
> 
> PS: you've seen this before.



That experiment has been debunked so may times that if it were anyone else, I would be very surprised that they even wanted someone else to see it...much less offer it up as evidence of a greenhouse effect...

But you providing it skidmark...doesn't surprise me at all...you are that stupid and that easily fooled...I never stop laughing at you....engineer my ass...


----------



## Crick (Mar 7, 2019)

You all claimed that the CO2 side was not a recreation of the current atmosphere but one consisting of pure CO2.  The experiment in which you claimed compression was the cause of the excess warming WAS pure CO2 yet you claimed that if the containers had been vented there would be NO warming.  These containers are vented and there is still excess warming in the CO2 container.


----------



## Crick (Mar 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The fog created by dry ice is water vapor that was already in the air forced to condense by extremely cold CO2 vapor sublimating from the dry ice.  Dropping something extremely cold (-78.5C. -109.8F) into water is certainly not going to cause extra evaporation to take place and the sublimation of the dry ice is not violent enough to create a mist mechanically.  When the mist cleared, there was no condensation on the container.  As is apparently ALWAYS the case, your interpretation of events is completely incorrect.

Dry ice is often used to make fog for special effects and information about the effect is widely available.

Of course, you won't care about the facts because not only was this a case of perfect PWNAGE, you're a 

*TROLL*


----------



## jc456 (Mar 7, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


so do you supposed you get compression?  

*DRY ICE EXPERIMENTS*

https://web.stanford.edu/~wanjen/49ers/Dry%20Ice%20Experiments.doc

*"Magic Balloon*

RIDDLE: What gets smaller, but gets a thousand times bigger?

 Fill a large balloon with some pieces of dry ice using a funnel. (Remember to wear gloves). You can even add some warm water to the balloon. Tie off the balloon and you will see the balloon look as if it is blowing itself up. If you put enough dry ice in the balloon, the balloon will pop. This is supposed to happen, BUT DO BE CAREFUL. Stand far away from the balloon when it is about to pop.

 WHAT IS HAPPENING: When regular ice melts, it goes from being a solid to a liquid and drips all over. In thes experiment, dry ice doesn't really melt, but it does get smaller. The Carbon Dioxide undergoes what is known as a phase change. The dry ice goes from a solid state, straight to a gaseous state, (which is" "


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Do the experiment yourself....
> 
> And isn't it interesting that you can't find any actual scientists doing experiments demonstrating the warming power of CO2...always you tube experiments...want to know why?  If an actual scientist tried that sort of crap...other scientists would be coming out of the wood work calling him on his bullshit...you are easily fooled...no doubt about it.



All a scientist has to do is measure the absorption spectrum of CO2 in an experiment. There are plenty of papers accurately measuring that. That tells quantitatively how much energy is absorbed by the CO2 and thus the affect on temperature. (It's science that you don't believe.)  It is difficult and unnecessary to do it any other way. 

Science fair experiments with two bottles give qualitative results and are easy for kids to do.  

.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> .... Snip obnoxious ranting....CO2 is an odorless, colorless, invisible gas. When you drop a piece of dry ice in water, do you have any idea what that fog is? Here is a hint, it isn't CO2....That fog you see is water vapor...so you fill a bottler with water vapor and CO2...point heat lamps at it while there is still a puddle of water in the bottom of the bottle and do you have any idea what you get? Water vapor and lots of it...the bottle was super saturated with humidity...it wasn't CO2 that was warming...it was water vapor.



Of course the fog is water vapor. They started recording temperatures after the vapor dissipated. 
Both bottles had water at the bottom. 
Both bottles were heated the same way. 
The experiment lasted 32 minutes. 
There was plenty of time for the vapor content in both bottles to come to equilibrium. 
Look at the video at 4:32. The system was at equilibrium for a full 15 minutes. 

The points you are raising are not valid. 

.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2019)

Crick said:


> You all claimed that the CO2 side was not a recreation of the current atmosphere but one consisting of pure CO2.  The experiment in which you claimed compression was the cause of the excess warming WAS pure CO2 yet you claimed that if the containers had been vented there would be NO warming.  These containers are vented and there is still excess warming in the CO2 container.



All the bogus greenhouse experiments don't depend on the heat of compression...the ones in bottles generally do, but as wuwei's showed, you can raise the humidity so high that all you are doing is demonstrating that moist air warms more than drier air...the mythbusters experiment relies on multiple errors in order to show warming..and has been debunked so many times that it is an embarrassment to most...but since you are so easily fooled, I guess you still believe it shows what it claims to show..


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2019)

Crick said:


> The fog created by dry ice is water vapor that was already in the air forced to condense by extremely cold CO2 vapor sublimating from the dry ice.  Dropping something extremely cold (-78.5C. -109.8F) into water is certainly not going to cause extra evaporation to take place and the sublimation of the dry ice is not violent enough to create a mist mechanically.  When the mist cleared, there was no condensation on the container.  As is apparently ALWAYS the case, your interpretation of events is completely incorrect.



Watch a slow motion video of dry ice in water...the fog is in the bubbles rising from the surface of the ice....the water vapor is already in the bubbles before they reach the surface....at about 14 seconds, the view switches to the side of the glass...the humidity is already in the bubbles...again...you are very easily fooled..


engineer my ass


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Do the experiment yourself....
> ...



Absorption and emission do not equal warming...IR does not warm the air...the experiments are clearly good enough to fool you...and your skidmark buddy...


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Absorption and emission do not equal warming...IR does not warm the air...the experiments are clearly good enough to fool you...and your skidmark buddy...



You yourself said that CO2 does not immediately emit the energy it absorbs. Re-emission of radiation just absorbed is very improbable. You said it when you quoted Happer's paper. Science agrees with that. Are you now saying you were fooled back then? Now you are changing your mind. You are sure dancing around the subject.


----------



## Crick (Mar 7, 2019)

The most basic question, which you have yet to answer, is where does the energy go?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Absorption and emission do not equal warming...IR does not warm the air...the experiments are clearly good enough to fool you...and your skidmark buddy...
> ...



Absorption and emission do not warm the air...the air is warmed via conduction....that being the case, a radiative greenhouse effect is not possible...

Again..the tedium is tremendous...You have distorted my words just like this at least 5 times before and I have had to correct you at least 5 times before...review this exact argument over and over to see where it all fell apart for you..


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2019)

Crick said:


> The most basic question, which you have yet to answer, is where does the energy go?



Out to space...where do you think it goes?


----------



## Crick (Mar 7, 2019)

Do you believe that all the IR emitted by the Earth's surface goes directly to space?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Crick said:


> Do you believe that all the IR emitted by the Earth's surface goes directly to space?




No...as I said, almost all the IR emitted by earth's surface is quickly lost by radiative gasses via collision and is then conducted to the top of the troposphere...thus eliminating the possibility of a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2019)

You seemed to have missed a step.  It is first absorbed by "radiative gases" (ie GHGs, primarily CO2 and water vapor).  It is then transferred by conduction and radiation to the rest of the atmosphere.  I am glad to see you accepting this mechanism.  But it leaves two questions regarding your other contentions:

1) What prevents that thermal energy from traveling, via conduction or radiation, back to the Earth's surface?
2) How does the atmosphere absorb that energy without, as you claim, getting warmer?


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Absorption and emission do not warm the air...the air is warmed via conduction....that being the case, a radiative greenhouse effect is not possible...
> 
> Again..the tedium is tremendous...You have distorted my words just like this at least 5 times before and I have had to correct you at least 5 times before...review this exact argument over and over to see where it all fell apart for you..



You still aren't clear. When you say "absorption and emission do not warm the air" do you mean absorption of LW IR and immediate re-emission at the same wavelength? 
Or do you mean absorption of LW IR and kinetic transfer to via collision with another molecule?

We wouldn't have to go over this 5 times if you would just settle down and precisely explain the entire process you are trying to get across. That would settle potential problems. As it is you seem to be thinking of a process that violates conservation of energy.

Edit. Oops. I didn't see that Crick is asking the same question as I just did. 

.


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2019)

No problem, you consistently ask it better.

I'm quite convinced that he has no intention of "settling down" and is assiduously avoids explaining the entire process he envisions because he knows it is complete bullshit and just wants to laugh at people who think he might be interested in the truth.   

That would be because *SSDD is a TROLL*


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Crick said:


> You seemed to have missed a step.  It is first absorbed by "radiative gases" (ie GHGs, primarily CO2 and water vapor).  It is then transferred by conduction and radiation to the rest of the atmosphere.  I am glad to see you accepting this mechanism.  But it leaves two questions regarding your other contentions:



I didn't miss a thing...Can you show me the part about the vast bulk of energy being conducted to the top of the troposphere in the description of the radiative greenhouse effect?  Of course you can't...the radiative greenhouse effect assumes that most energy is radiated about through the troposphere...and it just doesn't happen...



Crick said:


> 1) What prevents that thermal energy from traveling, via conduction or radiation, back to the Earth's surface?[;quote]
> 
> So since conduction is moving the energy now and there is no back radiation as you claim, you are going to now start to claim back conduction?  You are laughable skid mark...absolutely laughable
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> You still aren't clear. When you say "absorption and emission do not warm the air" do you mean absorption of LW IR and immediate re-emission at the same wavelength?
> Or do you mean absorption of LW IR and kinetic transfer to via collision with another molecule?



I don't guess you know the difference between radiation and conduction...conduction warms the atmosphere...not radiation...that being the case, a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science is not possible.


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2019)

As I expected, you still fail to clearly explain what you are talking about.

Are you stating that a molecule of gas that absorbs a photon does not warm?

Or, are you stating that a molecule that absorbs a photon and then passes that energy off by radiation or conduction does not, itself, end up at an increased temperature?

Or, as you stating that a molecule that absorbs a photon and then passes that energy off by conduction fails to warm the gas to which that energy transferred?

I hope I have explained the confusion your abbreviated descriptions have caused.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Crick said:


> As I expected, you still fail to clearly explain what you are talking about.
> 
> Are you stating that a molecule of gas that absorbs a photon does not warm?



Are you claiming that when energy is conducted, it is moved via photons?  Is that what you are claiming skidmark....say that is what you are claiming?


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2019)

I never said any such thing.  You have already admitted the GHGs absorb IR radiation.  Once that happens, it has been your claim that the energy is transferred to other molecules by conduction.  That is the model I am working with in all of my questions.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Crick said:


> I never said any such thing.  You have already admitted the GHGs absorb IR radiation.  Once that happens, it has been your claim that the energy is transferred to other molecules by conduction.  That is the model I am working with in all of my questions.



I have said as clearly as possible that radiation does not warm the air...it can warm water vapor, but that is not "air"    The radiative heating industry has plenty of experimental, observational, and operational evidence that this is true....Their product warms solid matter, not air...and their product radiates in the long IR wavelengths the same as the surface of the earth...


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2019)

It should bother those who think you know what you're talking about that you so consistently have to go to such round-about efforts to support your contentions.  Why are you going to the space heater industry when the subject has been widely studies for years by PhD scientists?

And, as expected, you still have made no effort to explain yourself.

Water vapor is a component of air.

From the sum of your statements I hold your position to be that IR from the surface is absorbed by water vapor and then transferred primarily by conduction to other molecules in the atmosphere.  Is that correct


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I never said any such thing.  You have already admitted the GHGs absorb IR radiation.  Once that happens, it has been your claim that the energy is transferred to other molecules by conduction.  That is the model I am working with in all of my questions.
> ...



*I have said as clearly as possible that radiation does not warm the air...it can warm water vapor, but that is not "air"*

IR from the ground also warms GHGs in the air.

*Their product warms solid matter, not air...and their product radiates in the long IR wavelengths the same as the surface of the earth...*

Their product radiates at the same wavelengths? What temperature do their heaters get up to?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Crick said:


> It should bother those who think you know what you're talking about that you so consistently have to go to such round-about efforts to support your contentions.  Why are you going to the space heater industry when the subject has been widely studies for years by PhD scientists?
> 
> And, as expected, you still have made no effort to explain yourself.
> 
> ...



I go to the source that is actually working, observing, and making a living based on how things actually work rather than those residing in ivory towers making their living on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...an engineer in the infrared heating industry can tell you more about the effect that IR has on the air than 50 academics who have never actually tested their theories against reality...


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You still aren't clear. When you say "absorption and emission do not warm the air" do you mean absorption of LW IR and immediate re-emission at the same wavelength?
> ...


You dodged the question again and gave a non answer. I asked for a clarification on what you meant by "absorption and emission" and you didn't use either of those words in your "explanation". Read the question again and try not to be distracted. 


.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...




I have described what I mean over and over...I won't be revisiting the topic...feel free to go back to previous incarnations of the same discussion....oh the tedium...the never ending tedium of talking to you...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



There goes Brave Sir Robin...……..


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



"Tedium" is a new fall back for you when you are cornered in a vicious circle of self-contradiction, and lost any logical capability in science. Maybe you need a nap.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



It has all been discussed over and over ad nauseam....not going to go over it yet again...my position has been clearly stated at lest 5 times...

the never ending mind numbing tedium of talking to you never ends......learn to use key words and revisit the discussion till your heart's content....till the rewrite the laws of physics, I will stick with them...not your wierd interpretations, but the laws as stated in both word and mathematical formula...


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> .my position has been clearly stated at lest 5 times...


Yes. Your position is to lie down and play dead. 



SSDD said:


> ..till the rewrite the laws of physics, I will stick with them...not your wierd interpretations, but the laws as stated in both word and mathematical formula...



Weird interpretations? So now you think accepted science is both tedious and weird. Poor Brave Sir Robin (thanks Tod). Your interpretation that spontaneous emissions are not possible because of prior work leads to the non-existence of spontaneous emissions. Now that is weird. 

.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


*IR from the ground also warms GHGs in the air.*

Naw.  show me warm CO2.

*Their product radiates at the same wavelengths? What temperature do their heaters get up to*

Buy one,  then put your hand in front of it. I bet your hand gets quite hot, while the air around your hand is ambient.  I've been at a restaurant with these heaters.  tough to sit in front of them, you bake like an oven while the air is cool


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




*show me warm CO2.*














^
See it?

*Buy one,  then put your hand in front of it. I bet your hand gets quite hot, while the air around your hand is ambient.  *

That is awesome!!!

How hot do the coils get?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*That is awesome!!!*

what is?

*How hot do the coils get*

I don't own one.are you implying you do?  cool,  how hot?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*what is?*

It's awesome that a heater made your hand feel hot.

*I don't own one.*

Let's talk about the one you felt.
Was it glowing?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*It's awesome that a heater made your hand feel hot.*

Well that is what IR heater would do. Not sure why that would be awesome.  what I did not feel was warm air.  hmmmm as expected.

*Was it glowing?*

sure.  Did you think it wouldn't?  why wouldn't it? it is a coil that has electricity running through it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*sure. Did you think it wouldn't? why wouldn't it? it is a coil that has electricity running through it. *

For a coil to glow, it has to get pretty warm, right?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Well sure, still no point yet


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Well sure*

Warmer than body temperature?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Does a bird poop?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


----------



## jc456 (Mar 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Crick (Mar 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Wuwei has a good understanding of physics.  SSDD's actual knowledge is indeterminant because he chooses to spout unsupportable nonsense just to wind up those who debate him.  This is the behavior of a TROLL.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 12, 2019)

Crick said:


> Wuwei has a good understanding of physics.  SSDD's actual knowledge is indeterminant because he chooses to spout unsupportable nonsense just to wind up those who debate him.  This is the behavior of a TROLL.



Says the biggest liar on the board...But do feel free to point out where I disagree with any physical law....do provide the statement of the law and quotes from me that are in opposition to it...

We both know that won't be happening, don't we skid mark?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei has a good understanding of physics.  SSDD's actual knowledge is indeterminant because he chooses to spout unsupportable nonsense just to wind up those who debate him.  This is the behavior of a TROLL.
> ...



*But do feel free to point out where I disagree with any physical law....*

You disagree with this one.

_The radiation energy per unit time from a black body is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature and can be expressed with *Stefan*-*Boltzmann Law* as: The *Stefan*-*Boltzmann* Constant. _


----------



## Crick (Mar 12, 2019)

You disagree with special relativity.  You disagree with the conservation of energy.  You disagree with Planck's theory of the quantisation of energy.  You assign sentient capabilities to either all matter or to photons or to both.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> .But do feel free to point out where I disagree with any physical law..



I will add to the list with some redundancy.

All textbooks are wrong about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
All textbooks are wrong about the second law of thermodynamics
The cosmic microwave background cannot penetrate the atmosphere.
CO2 absorbing IR energy will not cause air to heat.
Black body radiation fails near a warmer object.
All photons from a black body have the same wavelength.
Radioactivity is not spontaneous because of work in refining the ore.
Man-made systems can never exhibit spontaneous actions.
No thermodynamic process is spontaneous because of prior work.
.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> You disagree with special relativity.  You disagree with the conservation of energy.  You disagree with Planck's theory of the quantisation of energy.  You assign sentient capabilities to either all matter or to photons or to both.




Making up arguments to rail against again skidmark?  Nothing new...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > .But do feel free to point out where I disagree with any physical law..
> ...



Do feel free to prove that I either said those things....or that if I said that they don't, prove that they do...  making up arguments and assigning them to me, or twisting and interpreting what I said so that it becomes unrecognizable is just one more aspect of your flawed personality which is tedious....oh so tedious...


----------



## Crick (Mar 13, 2019)

You know what you said.  So does everyone else here.  But you haven't the SLIGHTEST hesitation to lie to our faces.

Evidence that humans are responsible for the warming we've observed may be found at www.ipcc.ch and almost any search of the scientific literature on the topic.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> You know what you said.  So does everyone else here.  But you haven't the SLIGHTEST hesitation to lie to our faces.
> 
> Evidence that humans are responsible for the warming we've observed may be found at www.ipcc.ch and almost any search of the scientific literature on the topic.


nope!


----------



## Crick (Mar 13, 2019)

Yeah, that'll shut those scientists down.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> Yeah, that'll shut those scientists down.


name them


----------



## Crick (Mar 13, 2019)

I realize you haven't the intellect to follow basic science.  But, I would have thought that living through what has to have been your very troubled life you would have learned what behavior (ie, what sort of statements) is not in your best interests. This is a good example.  Actually almost all your posts are good examples.  

Evidence of AGW may be found at www.ipcc.ch and by almost any search of the scientific literature.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> I realize you haven't the intellect to follow basic science.  But, I would have thought that living through what has to have been your very troubled life you would have learned what behavior (ie, what sort of statements) is not in your best interests. This is a good example.  Actually almost all your posts are good examples.
> 
> Evidence of AGW may be found at www.ipcc.ch and by almost any search of the scientific literature.


*Evidence of AGW may be found at www.ipcc.ch and by almost any search of the scientific literature*

Nope you are wrong. 

you would think that after posting that nonsense many a times, you'd know it doesn't support your claim.  See you won't even post the part that supposedly does.  Until you do that, your link is dead to the argument.

*I realize you haven't the intellect to follow basic science.  But, I would have thought that living through what has to have been your very troubled life you would have learned what behavior (ie, what sort of statements) is not in your best interests. This is a good example.  Actually almost all your posts are good examples.*

what one writes when one knows he is loosing the debate.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Everyone including you knows you made all the claims that Crick, Todd, and I posted. You obviously know better than to deny the claims. If there is a particular claim that you sincerely deny, which one is it?

.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> You know what you said.  So does everyone else here.  But you haven't the SLIGHTEST hesitation to lie to our faces.



Why yes I do...which is why I challenged him to bring forward quotes...you guys rarely read what is actually written, you interpret...maybe due to a learning disability...then you argue against your interpretation rather than what was actually said.



Crick said:


> Evidence that humans are responsible for the warming we've observed may be found at www.ipcc.ch and almost any search of the scientific literature on the topic.



No it can't...nothing like observed measured evidence that supports the claims that the present climate is in any way different from natural variability exists there...which is why you don't bring anything forward any more...everyting you have brought forward only demonstrated that you wouldn't know evidence if it bit you on the ass...and that you are very easily fooled...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2019)

jc456 said:


> what one writes when one knows he is loosing the debate.



Not losing...already lost...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Not a single quote brought forward...how completely unsurprising is that?


----------



## AyeCantSeeYou (Mar 13, 2019)

*Stick to the subject. Childish name-calling and insults should be taken to the Flame Zone, Rubber Room, or Badlands. It does not belong in this thread. *


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Not a single quote brought forward...how completely unsurprising is that?


Why do you want quotes? We all remember the fake science you have been promoting. Do you agree with most of the list I gave you? Are you now disagreeing? Here is the list again. Which do you think misrepresent you now.

All textbooks are wrong about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
All textbooks are wrong about the second law of thermodynamics
The cosmic microwave background cannot penetrate the atmosphere.
CO2 absorbing IR energy will not cause air to heat.
Black body radiation fails near a warmer object.
All photons from a black body have the same wavelength.
Radioactivity is not spontaneous because of work in refining the ore.
Man-made systems can never exhibit spontaneous actions.
No thermodynamic process is spontaneous because of prior work.

.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 14, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Not a single quote brought forward...how completely unsurprising is that?
> ...


why do you want quotes?  folks, can't make this up.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Not a single quote brought forward...how completely unsurprising is that?
> ...



I want quotes becasue you claimed that I said something that I didn't... Like I have said before...I spend little time doing anything but correcting your "interpretations" of what I have said...

And all textbooks aren't wrong about the SB law...I provided you with a pretty comprehensive list of which ones promoted your wack job derivation, and which ones taught the actual SB law....it was only those used in the soft science of climate sceince and which had an agenda to prmote that taught that version...those used to teach actual physics stick to the actual SB law...

And when did I ever say that all photons from a black body have the same wavelength?  A black body emits whatever it absorbs...if it is absorbing a single wavelength then it is emitting a single wavelength...if it is absorbing multiple wavelengths, then it is emitting multiple wavelengths...more "interpretation" or outright lies...which is it?

and on and on and on...the tedium never ends with you...

Do you often get snubbed in the real world?  I can see that happening if you interpret everything you hear and answer based on your interpretation...I can see iintelligent people tiring of that very quickly.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> And all textbooks aren't wrong about the SB law...I provided you with a pretty comprehensive list of which ones promoted your wack job derivation, and which ones taught the actual SB law.



No you didn't provide any reference that taught the second factor in the SB law was always smaller. You only gave one that assumed a special case.



SSDD said:


> And when did I ever say that all photons from a black body have the same wavelength?


You said that photons can be a single frequency from a black body.
Paradoxical Earth..  Complex responses often misinterpreted...



SSDD said:


> A black body emits whatever it absorbs...if it is absorbing a single wavelength then it is emitting a single wavelength...if it is absorbing multiple wavelengths, then it is emitting multiple wavelengths...more "interpretation" or outright lies...which is it?



That goes in my compendium of your ridiculous quotes. I would think you would know what black body radiation is by now. Look it up and you will see that it's a continuum of wavelengths.

One obvious counterexample is a high intensity laser used in heating metal is absorption of single wavelength. It re-radiates a spectrum of BB colors and not just the laser frequency!

If you want quotes you will have to tell me what else you think has been misrepresented in my list above in post #1558.

.


----------



## IanC (Mar 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> And when did I ever say that all photons from a black body have the same wavelength? A black body emits whatever it absorbs...if it is absorbing a single wavelength then it is emitting a single wavelength...if it is absorbing multiple wavelengths, then it is emitting multiple wavelengths...more "interpretation" or outright lies...which is it?



This is a perfect example of why you so seldom put anything down in your own words. You have screwed up royally and painted yourself into a corner. 

Most likely you simply do not understand. Any material absorbs some types of radiation and has the ability to emit the exact same frequencies that it can absorb. 

The problem is that outside source of radiation may be a different temperature than the receiving material. Temperature of the material in question is the limiting factor in how energetic a photon it can produce.

Visible light may warm the soil underfoot but until it is 5000K it will never emit its own visible light. Instead it emits infrared, just as you would predict from its temperature. 

Anyways, it's time for you to run away from this thread now. Bye bye.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> No you didn't provide any reference that taught the second factor in the SB law was always smaller. You only gave one that assumed a special case.



Sure I did...title and author...more lies...more tedium.



Wuwei said:


> You said that photons can be a single frequency from a black body.
> Paradoxical Earth..  Complex responses often misinterpreted...



And that is perfectly true...If a black body is absorbing a single frequency, it will emit in that same frequency...do you think it can absorb a single frequency and emit in a different frequency?  



Wuwei said:


> That goes in my compendium of your ridiculous quotes. I would think you would know what black body radiation is by now. Look it up and you will see that it's a continuum of wavelengths.



Observed measured evidence?  



Wuwei said:


> One obvious counterexample is a high intensity laser used in heating metal is absorption of single wavelength. It re-radiates a spectrum of BB colors and not just the laser frequency!



Is the laser firing into a perfect black body?  Of course not...so we are no longer talking about black bodies...oh the tedium...



Wuwei said:


> If you want quotes you will have to tell me what else you think has been misrepresented in my list above in post #1558.
> 
> .



Why bother...you will just make up something as always...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 24, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And when did I ever say that all photons from a black body have the same wavelength? A black body emits whatever it absorbs...if it is absorbing a single wavelength then it is emitting a single wavelength...if it is absorbing multiple wavelengths, then it is emitting multiple wavelengths...more "interpretation" or outright lies...which is it?
> ...



When I talk about black bodies...I am talking about a theoretical ideal black body..sitting in a perfect vacuum...anything else is some variation on an actual ideal black body...

Sorry ian...your error is that you believe actual ideal black bodies exist..and you believe that non ideal black bodies behave as ideal black bodies...and you believe that non ideal black bodies not in a perfect vacuum also behave as ideal black bodies which are theorized to be in perfect vacuums...you aren't able to differentiate between what is real, and what is modeled...  Why would I run away from your misunderstanding?


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Sure I did...title and author...more lies...more tedium.


That's a lie. Nobody assumes the second term is always smaller.



SSDD said:


> And that is perfectly true...If a black body is absorbing a single frequency, it will emit in that same frequency...do you think it can absorb a single frequency and emit in a different frequency?


Yes, you are really slipping and wallowing in ignorance or maybe its just the troll nature coming out. The laser example is exactly that. 



SSDD said:


> Observed measured evidence?


You are compounding your idiocy with more idiocy. The black body spectrum was measured in countless experiments and it is always a continuum of frequencies. Simply google _black body spectrum_. I would think you would know the nature of black bodies by now.



SSDD said:


> Is the laser firing into a perfect black body? Of course not...so we are no longer talking about black bodies...oh the tedium...


Yes, again your reference to tedium means you are cornered in either lies or ignorance.

Glowing metal heated by a single frequency laser is black body radiation which has a continuum of frequencies around the visible range that follows Planck's law. The emisivity may not be unity. *Of course* *we are talking about black body radiation*.



SSDD said:


> Why bother...you will just make up something as always...


I will give a reference to anything that you think is misrepresented on the list. Just run and hide if you doubt it.


.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 24, 2019)

IanC said:


> This is a perfect example of why you so seldom put anything down in your own words. You have screwed up royally and painted yourself into a corner.
> 
> Most likely you simply do not understand. Any material absorbs some types of radiation and has the ability to emit the exact same frequencies that it can absorb.
> 
> ...


I really don't know what he is thinking at this point. His limited understanding of physics seems to be in retrograde right now. It should have been obvious to him that the one major example is the one you gave about the hot sun warming the earth.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> That's a lie. Nobody assumes the second term is always smaller.



And the tedium of correcting you never ends...lies and made up facts...that is all you have...

These texts, which tend to be found in the hard science classrooms of physics, meteorology, geology, chemistry, etc do not present your bullshit SB equation

Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis by Goody and Yung
Radiative Heat Transfer by Modest
Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar
3D Radiative Transfer in Cloudy Atmospheres by Marshak-Davis
An Introduction to Radiative Transferby Peraiah

These books which tend to be found in the soft science classrooms of climate science do provide your bullshit SB equation...the bullshit version seems to be an ad hoc invention of climate science, invented for the purpose of supporting an alarmist narrative.

An Introduction to Atmospheric Physic by Andrews
A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation by Petty
The Greenhouse Effect by Lindzen   (Big surprise there)
Assessing Climate Change by Rapp
Advancing the Science of Climate Change 2010, NRC


The tedium never ends...and neither, apparently do the lies...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > This is a perfect example of why you so seldom put anything down in your own words. You have screwed up royally and painted yourself into a corner.
> ...




It is funny when you guys try and stroke each other's fragile little egos by pretending that you have any idea of what you are talking about...both of you really should at least try to learn what is real...and what is not..


----------



## boedicca (Mar 24, 2019)




----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > That's a lie. Nobody assumes the second term is always smaller.
> ...



Any of those "texts" explicitly agree with your "one-way only" flow of photons? DURR


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> And the tedium of correcting you never ends...lies and made up facts...that is all you have...
> 
> These texts, which tend to be found in the hard science classrooms of physics, meteorology, geology, chemistry, etc do not present your bullshit SB equation
> 
> ...





SSDD said:


> These texts, which tend to be found in the hard science classrooms of physics, meteorology, geology, chemistry, etc do not present your bullshit SB equation



It's not my equation. Let me guess the equation that those books represent is some form of this equation:
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



That is the real Stefan Boltzmann equation that is derived. Look up stefan boltzmann equation in google and you will see that practically all the hits show that as the SB equation.

In fact it is the energy radiated by every object no matter what temperatures are in the vicinity. You will not find a reference that states otherwise.

If you say otherwise, you are badly mistaken, a liar, or a troll. You choose.

Give us a reference to your bullshit interpretation and quit stalling by saying it's tedious. It's about time for you to own up.


.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> It's not my equation. Let me guess the equation that those books represent is some form of this equation:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > It's not my equation. Let me guess the equation that those books represent is some form of this equation:
> ...



Nope you are totally wrong. This is the equation that is derived by Boltzmann. 




You didn't look up *stefan boltzmann equation* in google to see that practically all the hits show that as the SB equation.

You are correct that this equation works for radiation in a vacuum. But it is also the equation used in the presence of other matter. 

It refers to emitted radiation from a body at temperature T. There are no other constraints about what is in the vicinity. It is up to you to find a reference that states otherwise. You simply can't. Right?


.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Or perhaps, do you think work has to be done in order for your body to emit said IR? *

Or perhaps, do you think work has to be done in order for the Earth's surface to emit IR?


----------



## SSDD (May 28, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



I bet you actually believe that.  Do you find it easy to get whipped up into episodes of self deception where you actually believe the bullshit you write?


----------



## emilynghiem (May 28, 2019)

SSDD said:


> *1.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
> 
> 2.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
> 
> ...


 
Dear SSDD and BlackFlag 
Can anyone explain to me how we expect to isolate WHICH causes of climate change
are coming from WHICH factors to WHAT degree, when all these are concurrent.

As I understand scientific study, you'd have to isolate CONTROL group factors,
and isolate "one variable at a time" to prove which ones are causing what changes,
WHILE THE OTHER VARIABLES REMAIN CONSTANT.

How in the UNIVERSE can this be done -- when all these factors co-influencing the planet's climate
CANNOT be isolated as constants to determine which factors are causing what degree of change?

????

Isn't this FAITH BASED which assessments and interpretations of data 
are more accurate than others?  Please explain if I am missing the obvious here.

????


----------



## miketx (May 28, 2019)

It's funny all the libbys who base their claims about global warming on science and claim those who disagree are uneducated science deniers while they scream gender is a choice.


----------



## SSDD (May 29, 2019)

emilynghiem said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > *1.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
> ...


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 29, 2019)

emilynghiem said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > *1.  There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
> ...


You have just uncovered why climate sciecne is no where near settled sciecne.  Right now it is in its infancy due to the may interacting systems, many of which we still do not understand. It is shear lunacy to say CO2 drives anything when all empirical evidence shows it lags the temperature change by 80-200 years on average. A lagging indicator is caused by the what ever initially caused the temperature to change, most likely the suns output in some respect.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Billy, if CO2 is so powerful, why is it missing the Northern Hemisphere?  I mean, I woke up to 42F today, a buddy of mine told me this morning 3 degrees C in Montreal.  It's fking June 3?  And did you see the forecast of the water vapor throughout the US North?  holy fk I feel bad for those in the midwest, all due to this fking cooler jet stream that doesn't wish to leave.  I'm sorry, but someone be drinking wayyyy too many koolaids on the warmers tables.


----------

