# Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.



## Billy_Bob (Sep 27, 2017)

With the rash of articles that are coming out and the Gavin Schmidt Twitter Trick now clearly evident as a blatant attempt at covering up the total failure of all modeling, I think its time to expose the modeling failure and how bad it really is.. 

If we post up the current crop of Global Climate Models that were projections starting back in 1990 and then overlay the reality we find that all the modeling of the day has failed.

SO lets show you how modeling is falsified by empirical review. 




 

When you create a model it is understood that empirical review after specified duration of time will confirm or falsify the model. If the system modeled and the empirical evidence diverge then the model is proven falsified and useless. At this point you start over and reassess why your modeling failed.

In the above image all of the models fail because they diverged from reality. This means the perceived understanding of system has failed and must be redone. Any policy or actions taken are therefore based on a failed hypothesis.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 27, 2017)

The divergence from reality is massive.. The hypothesis is therefore falsified.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Sep 27, 2017)

So billions if not trillions of dollars dumped and it got .05C warmer since '95.


awesome..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 27, 2017)

Now comes along Gavin Schmidt and Thomas Karl with their fantasy derived fiction.

The first thing they did was to cool the past making the slope of warming double. (Karl Et Al)




When that wasn't enough...

The second thing they tried is to update the models and change the hind cast moving the point of convergence to 2010 (from 1990) erasing the massive divergence.



When that wasn't enough....

The next thing they tried was to increase the size of the 95% confidence range to almost +/- 4.0 deg C.  This is an error bar of 8 deg C..  Are the models so bad that they increased the target point because they don't know or is it an attempt to make it appear that the modeling has not failed and keep the meme alive.  I say its the later..

Everything they are doing is to keep the lie alive and NEVER address that their hypothesis was wrong and their understanding of the system they attempted to model is poor to nonexistent.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Sep 27, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Now comes along Gavin Schmidt and Thomas Karl with their fantasy derived fiction.
> 
> The first thing they did was to cool the past making the slope of warming double. (Karl Et Al)  When that wasn't enough...
> 
> ...


Trillions of dollars can make for some fuzzy math.


----------



## Manonthestreet (Sep 27, 2017)

transform America,,.....they want you to hand over control of everything and have your life radically altered for this BS
Scientists Urge ‘System Change’ to Avoid Catastrophic Climate Change
*Step 1: Change the whole system, not just its parts*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 27, 2017)

Mods: Please move this thread to the "Conspiracy Theory" section.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 27, 2017)

A couple of good articles showing the fraud of the alarmist camp are on WUWT..

Are Climate Models Overstating Warming?

Gavin’s Twitter Trick

Its rather funny to see just what lengths these people will go to, to avoid the admission that they are wrong..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 27, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Mods: Please move this thread to the "Conspiracy Theory" section.


Why?  Its factually based.  I provided you empirical evidence. Is your position so weak that you have to scream like a little child throwing a tantrum because you disagree? Common practice from the left wing cry babies who cant stand seeing their lies smashed to a pile of sand.

Refute the empirical evidence or admit you want a pacifier and your safe space...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 27, 2017)

Can someone justify the intentional deception that is going on? Clearly I have shown that the CAGW meme is shown nothing short of total deception.


----------



## Crick (Sep 28, 2017)

Roy Spencer's model bullshit was refuted about five minutes after he published it and it pretty much marked the end of his career as a respected climate scientist. It surprises me not the least that a liar such as you would grab that particular bag of bullshit and run with it.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 28, 2017)

Thread summary:

By posting Spencer's faked data, Billy confirmed the way that deniers depend entirely on faked data.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 28, 2017)

Thread conclusion is the Alarmists have nothing..  No empirical evidence and no facts...  Name calling is all they have...


----------



## SSDD (Sep 29, 2017)

Crick said:


> Roy Spencer's model bullshit was refuted about five minutes after he published it and it pretty much marked the end of his career as a respected climate scientist. It surprises me not the least that a liar such as you would grab that particular bag of bullshit and run with it.




Based on what skid mark?...consensus of the crybabies who just can't stand to have their abject failure exposed?


----------



## Crick (Sep 29, 2017)

FactCheck: Are 95% of models linking human CO₂ emissions and global warming in error?

How reliable are climate models?

Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception | HotWhopper


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 29, 2017)

Crick said:


> FactCheck: Are 95% of models linking human CO₂ emissions and global warming in error?
> 
> How reliable are climate models?
> 
> Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception | HotWhopper


LOL..


Hotwhopper.... Slandering Sue's web site..  And then they use the same model that I demonstrated how they moved the convergence point forward 20 years, hind cast away the divergence, and then hope that no one would notice the slight of hand...

I guess if your going to go with a lie, it may as well be the big one..


----------



## SSDD (Sep 29, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > FactCheck: Are 95% of models linking human CO₂ emissions and global warming in error?
> ...




We are witnessing a total disconnect from reality...even when their high priests finally admit that the models are failures, these wack jobs can't come to terms with it...I suppose learning that you have been worshiping at the altar of a false religion would be a tough pill to swallow.  It is somewhat entertaining to watch though...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 29, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Stunning indeed.  Any first year student in modeling knows that empirical real world review is necessary to validate any mathematical construct.  So all the crying now is pure religious wailing...


----------



## mamooth (Oct 1, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Slandering Sue's ...



I saw the treatment you got for being a trolling imbecile. It was hilarious. You're permanently displayed in the hall of stupid, to be laughed at for all eternity. Good to know that outside of denier SafeSpaces, there's still a price to be paid for trolling and dishonesty.



> And then they use the same model that I demonstrated how they moved the convergence point forward 20 years, hind cast away the divergence, and then hope that no one would notice the slight of hand...



Even Hansen's 1988 estimate was very close to his scenario B. Since then, the models have only gotten better.

Models «  Open Mind






Sucks to be a denier. You devote your lives to faking and fudging everything, yet it has no effect at all. Everyone still laughs at you. You'll be laughed at for the rest of your life, and possibly longer.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Oct 1, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> View attachment 151722
> The divergence from reality is massive.. The hypothesis is therefore falsified.


yup 

the models as demonstrated can be made as scary as needed to 

hoodwink the unsuspecting and the willingly ignorant


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 1, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Slandering Sue's ...
> ...


LOL...  love that made up bull shit...  You see there are these things called empirical facts, you just don't get to make shit up and say its true... You alarmists love to make shit up..  Your choice of made up crap from a far lefty wacko site is telling.

The desperation is priceless..


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 1, 2017)

LOL  Ol' Silly Billy, the purveyor of stinky facts freshly pulled from his ass is accusing others of making things up. LOL When all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the Major Universities say that AGW is real, and we have an internet ignoramus that states it is not, then who should we believe? LOL


----------



## SSDD (Oct 2, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL  Ol' Silly Billy, the purveyor of stinky facts freshly pulled from his ass is accusing others of making things up. LOL When all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the Major Universities say that AGW is real, and we have an internet ignoramus that states it is not, then who should we believe? LOL



Rocks....can you show me a single measurement made with an instrument at ambient temperature that establishes a coherent relationship between absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere?....of course you can't..because there are none, which leads to the question of what exactly those scientific societies are basing their positions on?   The only thing that I can think of that could create such consensus is money...can you think of anything else?...and don't say good science because it seems that climate science is the only branch of science where such a claimed consensus exists.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 2, 2017)

Manonthestreet said:


> transform America,,.....they want you to hand over control of everything and have your life radically altered for this BS
> Scientists Urge ‘System Change’ to Avoid Catastrophic Climate Change
> *Step 1: Change the whole system, not just its parts*


so the main question is change what?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 2, 2017)

Whats the matter rocks...got nothing?  Of course you don't....I wouldn't have asked if I thought there was the slightest chance you could show an actual measurement that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...no such measurement exists...the relationship between CO2 and temperature only exists in failed hypotheses and the models based on those same failed hypotheses...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 2, 2017)

This is  the kind of lies the alarmists are doing. Snageltooth above used a hind cast model that has no predictive phase shown.  Hind Cast is "trained" or adjusted to meet known data. The whole of the graph is a deception... LOL...




 
I am in awe that an idiot would use an easily disproved false graph all while claiming to be pure... lying little puke!


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 3, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Whats the matter rocks...got nothing?  Of course you don't....I wouldn't have asked if I thought there was the slightest chance you could show an actual measurement that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...no such measurement exists...the relationship between CO2 and temperature only exists in failed hypotheses and the models based on those same failed hypotheses...


*Damn, but you are a stupid little twit. *


Why Carbon Dioxide Is a Greenhouse Gas


Here's a sampling of the Galileo Movement's facts and an assessment of how they stack up against the body of Earth and atmospheric science, based on an investigation by DailyClimate.org of several science sources.

*Claim:* CO2 is Nature's colorless, odorless, tasteless gas essential for all life on Earth. It's not toxic. It doesn't make land, water or air dirty or unsafe to use. It does not cause disease.

*Claim:* CO2 comprises less than 0.04 percent of the air.

*Assessment:* True but irrelevant in the global warming debate.

Nitrogen, oxygen and argon together make up close to 100 percent of the atmosphere. But all three are invisible to incoming "short-wave" radiation from the sun and outgoing "long-wave" radiation from the Earth's surface. They play no role in regulating the planet's atmospheric temperature.

But carbon dioxide and other trace gases in the atmosphere do absorb the outgoing long-wave radiation.

So while their concentrations are miniscule, their effect is anything but: If the atmosphere didn't have those trace amounts of greenhouse gases, New York City would be covered in ice sheets – not sweltering  – on a typical summer afternoon. The globe's average temperature would be almost 60 degrees Fahrenheit lower.

Similarly, toxicity is not an issue in the climate change debate. Yes, crops need CO2. Breathing a little more of it while out on the links won't impair your golf game. But earlier findings that suggested higher CO2 levels could increase crop yields have been disproved by recent research showing that other nutrients are more often the limiting factor.

The relevant questions for climate science are how CO2 changes atmospheric temperatures and circulation and alters the oceans' chemistry and heat capacity.

*Source:* Scott Mandia, State University of New York, Suffolk Global Warming: Man or Myth, the Science of Climate Change
*Claim:* CO2 stays in the air only five to seven years, possibly less than 12 months before Nature cycles it into plants, animals and oceans.

*Claim:* Of Earth's annual production of CO2, humans produce just 3 percent.

*Assessment:* True but misleading.

In this case, the claim confuses residence time of individual molecules in the air with the much longer perturbation to the whole system. 

Carbon dioxide is continuously cycling among the earth, plants and animals, the atmosphere and the ocean's surface, with the deep ocean serving as a gigantic long-term reservoir.

Up until the last two centuries, this carbon cycle had been in close balance for the last 10,000 years. But society has pushed atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 278 parts per million at the start of the industrial revolution to 392 parts per million today, a 40 percent increase.

What's more, the bulk – some 57 percent – of carbon emitted from tailpipes and smokestacks is not even in the atmosphere. It has cycled into the ocean, and scientists generally agree that most of our carbon emissions will ultimately come to a rest in its deepest depths. But that will take  centuries. In the meantime, those extra CO2 molecules will slosh around from earth to atmosphere to upper ocean and back, absorbing energy, acidifying the seas and changing the planet in profound and potentially unwelcome ways. In other words, CO2 emitted today will still be impacting the planet for hundreds of years.

*Source:* Fortunat Joos, University of Bern, Switzerland http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/publications_html/joos_eps_96/joos_eps_96.html

*Claim:* Measurements reveal that CO2 levels are a consequence of temperature, not the cause. Temperature drives CO2 levels.

*Assessment:* True before 1800. But false today.

Some 800,000 years' worth of ice core records indicate that temperature rises did drive an increase in CO2 levels. But that was before humans started digging up huge quantities fossil fuels and transferring all that sequestered carbon to the atmosphere.

It is worth noting, however, that even in the past CO2 had an impact on temperatures, given its role as a greenhouse gas.

It's also worth noting that ancient temperature and CO2-level changes happened over thousands of years. The Earth needed, for example, 5,000 years to bring atmospheric CO2 concentrations up 80 ppm after the last glacial period.

With the onset of industrialization, the tables turned. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 levels almost 80 ppm in just 60 years. Now humans are the drivers of CO2 level, not temperature.

And what frightens climate scientists is that temperature hasn't caught up yet.


----------



## westwall (Oct 3, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Mods: Please move this thread to the "Conspiracy Theory" section.







Why?  It is factual unlike your nonsense.


----------



## westwall (Oct 3, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Whats the matter rocks...got nothing?  Of course you don't....I wouldn't have asked if I thought there was the slightest chance you could show an actual measurement that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...no such measurement exists...the relationship between CO2 and temperature only exists in failed hypotheses and the models based on those same failed hypotheses...
> ...








"True before 1800 but false today"  Provide proof of that statement.  Show your work.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 3, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> *Damn, but you are a stupid little twit.*.



You don't seem to be able to get anything right rocks...including your "little" comment.  Little is the last word any rational human being would use to describe me...but hey...being wrong is just the way you roll....right?

What I asked you for was a single measurement made by an instrument at ambient temperature that shows a coherent relationship between absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.  What do you give me?...nothing.   More models...more poor thinking...more of the same...What didn't you give me?...a single shred of actual evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between absorption of IR and warming in the atmosphere....now, do you care to know why you had to dodge rather than simply provide what I asked for?....well, its because there is not a single piece of actual evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between absorption of IR and warming in the atmosphere YOU  STUPID  TWIT...




Old Rocks said:


> And what frightens climate scientists is that temperature hasn't caught up yet



No rocks...what frightens scientists is the slowly dawning realization that the temperature is never going to catch up because CO2 has no coherent relationship with warming in the atmosphere...what frightens them is having the curtain torn down to reveal the abject fraud behind the curtain...what frightens them is having their political cause exposed and marginalized for 3 generations....


----------



## SSDD (Oct 3, 2017)

westwall said:


> "True before 1800 but false today"  Provide proof of that statement.  Show your work.



You don't expect anything like actual evidence from these wackos do you?...and showing work..what a joke...they are handed talking points by pseudoscientists who also don't do the work.


----------



## westwall (Oct 3, 2017)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > "True before 1800 but false today"  Provide proof of that statement.  Show your work.
> ...







I know, but i want to see what sort of nonsense he tosses out.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Oct 3, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > LOL  Ol' Silly Billy, the purveyor of stinky facts freshly pulled from his ass is accusing others of making things up. LOL When all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the Major Universities say that AGW is real, and we have an internet ignoramus that states it is not, then who should we believe? LOL
> ...


*Eco-Eunuchs*

These nerds are also driven by their defective personalities.  Since social life humiliates them, they have a desperate need to fantasize about being superheroes out to save the world.  They are bitter and vindictive against a society that rejects cowardly inhibited weaklings like themselves.  Their mental-illness category is that of the Unabomber.

Another defect is that they indulge in so much escapist and lonely conformity to their father-figure professors that their mental growth gets stunted.  That makes them B students jealous of creative A students.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 7, 2017)

What a wonderful week..

I asked one of the boys, down in the Boulder Co AP lab, to move his convergence training point back twenty years as he had sufficient data to train his model prior to 1990.  HE ran it again and it ran hot on 10 different runs exiting 2 standard deviations within 3 years.

I asked him why his model could not predict the last 27 years and why it failed without exception. He refused to answer. By moving the convergence (training point) point forward they erase the massive divergence giving them cover for 30 more years..

And they wonder why no one trusts them..


----------



## mamooth (Oct 8, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> I asked one of the boys, down in the Boulder Co AP lab, to move his convergence training point back twenty years as he had sufficient data to train his model prior to 1990.



Stop lying. You're not a scientist of any sort. You're just a crazy guy making up stories on the internet.

The models have been very good. Only the most desperate and dishonest liars still try to pretend otherwise. That would be you, along with your other Stalinist cult pals here.

It's must be rough for deniers. As they've devoted their lives to pushing party propaganda, support for global warming theory has only continued to grow. They've failed as hard as a person can fail. All those years of effort, totally wasted. No wonder they're always so grumpy.

For example ....

Most now see climate change as responsible for hurricane severity


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 8, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > I asked one of the boys, down in the Boulder Co AP lab, to move his convergence training point back twenty years as he had sufficient data to train his model prior to 1990.
> ...


Says the Crazy Cat lady who only knows how to cut and paste... You have a serious credibility problem...

I called a scientist colleague out to prove his model was credible.  it wasn't...  That's the kind of thing that ends careers and why they defend their positions at all costs.  Admitting failure would be the end..


----------



## SSDD (Oct 8, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > I asked one of the boys, down in the Boulder Co AP lab, to move his convergence training point back twenty years as he had sufficient data to train his model prior to 1990.
> ...




Are you kidding?  Is this really the best you can do?....a poll?  I guess when you have no actual data, a poll is about as good as you could expect to have....but damn, it is funny to watch...f'ing polls to support your pseudoscience...about as good as fake consensus I guess.

Here is a bit of actual data for you...it would seem that your poll is, as usual, exactly, dead wrong.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


manufactured too... If you dig into their polling they have targeted specific groups who believe their crap to get a desired outcome..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 11, 2017)

Meshing issues on global temperatures – warming data where there isn’t any

Excellent article showing why grid modeling is such a failure..  Read through the comments as well.  It will give you insight to why ALL current modeling fails..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 11, 2017)

data extrapolation and homogenization always create a false positive bias.....ALWAYS!!

When you do it globally you make areas that are cool warm, like the oceans or Africa.  There are no devices measuring temp in the grey areas.. So how do we know if the extrapolations are correct or even near the actual temperatures?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 11, 2017)

I see. All the satellites went dead in 2016? Silly Billy, your ass must really be sore from all the nonsense you are pulled out of it. LOL


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 11, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> I see. All the satellites went dead in 2016? Silly Billy, your ass must really be sore from all the nonsense you are pulled out of it. LOL


Old Fraud is feeling a bit butt chapped from all the spankings... LOL

Hows it feel to be on the lying side of history..  It's finally coming back to ride your ass.. And it didn't bring any KY jelly..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 11, 2017)

*"Consider measuring the surface temperature of the water in Lake Michigan in shallow water on the north shore and similarly on the south shore on a warm, sunny, windless day. One would not really expect those measurements to be representative of the water temperature in the middle of the lake. However, the approach demonstrated by Stokes would interpolate between those two distant points and proclaim to have an accurate estimate of everything in between. The only thing one should have any confidence in is the temperature of the shallows. This is the difference between a ‘mathematician’ crunching numbers and a physical scientist examining the data for reasonableness."*

The above quote is damn funny.. it very astutely shows why the alarmists fail.. They ASSUME to much and much of what they ASSUME is fantasy...

Source


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 11, 2017)

"Realistically, when dung is mixed with high quality food in a blender, the former degrades the whole. Climate science takes the opposite approach and claims that good data mixed with crap data makes the latter good."

Source

Bwhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 11, 2017)

IF the argument is that the error in extrapolating/interpolating gridded anomalies is roughly 1-2 degree C, then I might buy that.

However, we are asked to believe that this technique produces an answer for the whole globe that is within 0.1 of a degree or better (see claims that one month or the other is the “hottest” by .04 degrees). That is pure nonsense, even if we had an accurate thermometer in every 5 sq miles over the entire earth, much less with the patchwork we do have. It’s why the only answer is satellite measurements, and even they can’t claim very high precision.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 11, 2017)

> It absurd that the whole premise of CAGW as ‘settled’ science is based on a sensitivity with +/- 50% uncertainty. On top of this is even more uncertainty from the fabricated RCP scenarios. Even worse is the low end of the presumed range isn’t low enough to accommodate the maximum effect as limited by the laws of physics!
> 
> The actual limits are readily calculated. The upper limit is the sensitivity of an ideal BB at 255K (about 0.3C per W/m^2) and the lower limit is the sensitivity of an ideal BB at the surface temperature of 288K (about 0.2C per W/m^2). Interestingly enough, the sensitivity of a BB at 255K is almost exactly the same as the sensitivity of a gray body at 288K with an emissivity of 0.61, where the emissivity is the ratio between the emissions at 255K and the emissions at 288K.
> 
> ...



*"To illustrate the abject absurdity of the IPCC’s upper limit, a 1.2C increase in the surface temperature increases its emissions by more than 6 W/m^2. If emissions are not replenished with new energy, the surface must cool until total forcing == total emissions."*

Just Wow.... Took a bit to run this through SB and the equations but the good Dr is right on the money.... The IPCC forgings are total fantasy...

Source


----------



## elektra (Nov 11, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Mods: Please move this thread to the "Conspiracy Theory" section.


mods, kindly remove this comment, and mine as well, as being irrelevant to the topic and hence off subject.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 11, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > I see. All the satellites went dead in 2016? Silly Billy, your ass must really be sore from all the nonsense you are pulled out of it. LOL
> ...




Billy........we gotta admit. I think we've become a bit OCD with the daily spankings we dish out in here.. And gotta give some of these forum members their due. They are resilient mfo's.......to come in here each day and get freight trained and keep coming back.

I know when I started in here in 2009, things were bleak. Gore still commanded the respect of the public, Obama came into office. Climate change stories were on the TV all the time and I had expected the worst in terms of the science turning into an explosion of new renewable energy. Instead, virtually nothing has happened in all those years and now Trump is busy nuking CPP and Paris. And climate change stories even on cable TV are virtually non-existent in 2017. Its ended up being a rout.........and the winning has really ramped up in the past year ........has gotten to the point of giddy.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 13, 2017)

Ah, our Trumpanzess breaking their arms patting themselves on the back like the treasonous fat senile old clown himself. And, as usual, demonstrating their idiocy.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 14, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Ah, our Trumpanzess breaking their arms patting themselves on the back like the treasonous fat senile old clown himself. And, as usual, demonstrating their idiocy.


----------



## IanC (Nov 14, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> > It absurd that the whole premise of CAGW as ‘settled’ science is based on a sensitivity with +/- 50% uncertainty. On top of this is even more uncertainty from the fabricated RCP scenarios. Even worse is the low end of the presumed range isn’t low enough to accommodate the maximum effect as limited by the laws of physics!
> >
> > The actual limits are readily calculated. The upper limit is the sensitivity of an ideal BB at 255K (about 0.3C per W/m^2) and the lower limit is the sensitivity of an ideal BB at the surface temperature of 288K (about 0.2C per W/m^2). Interestingly enough, the sensitivity of a BB at 255K is almost exactly the same as the sensitivity of a gray body at 288K with an emissivity of 0.61, where the emissivity is the ratio between the emissions at 255K and the emissions at 288K.
> >
> ...




I think it is hilarious that you latch on to a comment like this with so much gusto.

You fail to realize the implications. Solar imput to the surface is less than 200w yet the surface radiates at roughly 400w. Where does the extra 200w come from? Hahahaha.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 14, 2017)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > > It absurd that the whole premise of CAGW as ‘settled’ science is based on a sensitivity with +/- 50% uncertainty. On top of this is even more uncertainty from the fabricated RCP scenarios. Even worse is the low end of the presumed range isn’t low enough to accommodate the maximum effect as limited by the laws of physics!
> ...



You don't think the oceans store energy to be released at some time in the future?...and does the surface radiate 400wm/2 uniformly?....or do some places radiate more than others resulting in a homogenized, "average" being used as if it were a global figure like the average temperature?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 14, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> View attachment 151722
> The divergence from reality is massive.. The hypothesis is therefore falsified.



Reality, the ultimate AGW Denier!


----------



## IanC (Nov 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



The point is...every spot on the surface is radiating more energy than it is getting from solar input. Where is the extra energy coming from? 

I have repeatedly tried to explain it to you but to no avail.

And no, geothermal energy is not the answer.


----------



## IanC (Nov 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> You don't think the oceans store energy to be released at some time in the future?.




In that case where did the oceans get the energy from in the first place? And how long before they freeze up from losing 200w/m^2?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 14, 2017)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > > It absurd that the whole premise of CAGW as ‘settled’ science is based on a sensitivity with +/- 50% uncertainty. On top of this is even more uncertainty from the fabricated RCP scenarios. Even worse is the low end of the presumed range isn’t low enough to accommodate the maximum effect as limited by the laws of physics!
> ...



What is funny, is the fact you cant see how fuzzy the math is and how it does not reflect reality.  If we were truly emitting 400w/m^2 at the surface, the earth would be an ice cube in short order.  Doubling the output is the only way you can justify CO2, because it is not doing what you think it should..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 14, 2017)

What I find interesting is the fact that the energy budget doesn't take into account near surface water vapor. much of the problem with those calculations are the serious error bars when it comes to near surface atmospheric content and its roll.

As SSDD points out to you over and over again the tools used to determine the flow of energy must be cooled to -80 deg F to work properly and even then your not sure of the focal point of the readings. Being fooled by your tools is very common problem in climastrology..


----------



## SSDD (Nov 15, 2017)

IanC said:


> The point is...every spot on the surface is radiating more energy than it is getting from solar input. Where is the extra energy coming from?
> 
> I have repeatedly tried to explain it to you but to no avail.
> 
> And no, geothermal energy is not the answer.



You got any actual evidence of that, or is it just more "data" from unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 15, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> What I find interesting is the fact that the energy budget doesn't take into account near surface water vapor. much of the problem with those calculations are the serious error bars when it comes to near surface atmospheric content and its roll.
> 
> As SSDD points out to you over and over again the tools used to determine the flow of energy must be cooled to -80 deg F to work properly and even then your not sure of the focal point of the readings. Being fooled by your tools is very common problem in climastrology..



And being fooled by people who are being fooled by their instrumentation is a rampant problem among the luke warmer community....and not recognizing that the output of mathematical models is somewhat different from reality.  

Hell, Ian misses the boat right off the bat by accepting that the earth is receiving only 341wm2 from the sun...that flat earth model puts you off the track of realty from the start.  It appears that he actually believes that greenhouse gasses increase the energy coming in from the sun.  If we could only put that magic to use in a real way, our energy problem would be solved.


----------



## IanC (Nov 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Hell, Ian misses the boat right off the bat by accepting that the earth is receiving only 341wm2 from the sun...that flat earth model puts you off the track of realty from the start.




Surely that is the least ambiguous measurement of all. The two dimensional disk shape is used to calculate how much sunlight is intercepted. We then use the area of the sphere to calculate the average input per unit of area. Most locations are not 'average', but so what? We were looking for the total input.

Satellites have measured all the regions of the Earth, both in reflected solar and in infrared. Those measurements can also be averaged. I am much less certain of those results.

In the process of turning highly ordered and energetic sunlight into diffuse low energy IR, useful energy has powered such things as atmospheric winds and ocean currents leaving behind crap IR that can't be used to perform any more work. Entropy has increased, the energy leaving the Earth is the same amount as entered it but it is now in a form that is relatively useless.

BTW, this is a main reason why climate models go  off track. They keep the energy budget equal but ignore entropy. A watt of IR is not the same as a watt of sunlight.


----------



## IanC (Nov 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> It appears that he actually believes that greenhouse gasses increase the energy coming in from the sun. If we could only put that magic to use in a real way, our energy problem would be solved




Any time energy as heat flows through a system there is a temperature gradient. Different conditions cause differences in the gradient. CO2 reduces the ability to shed energy at the surface/atmosphere boundary. This energy that is not lost immediately to space accumulates and temperature rises to a new equilibrium. This is not new energy, it is redistributed energy. Space is cooler, the surface boundary is warmer. Once equilibrium is reached the input matches the output, as it was before CO2 changed the conditions.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 15, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It appears that he actually believes that greenhouse gasses increase the energy coming in from the sun. If we could only put that magic to use in a real way, our energy problem would be solved
> ...


And yet you can not show any evidence of you hypothesis. NO HOT SPOT... So how are you slowing energy release? IN what bands, and what corresponding bands are now carrying the heat to release?

Water vapor may receive energy at 14-18 microns but it emits it at near 20-24 microns due to its energy residency time and the lower temperature of water vapor in our atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 15, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Hell, Ian misses the boat right off the bat by accepting that the earth is receiving only 341wm2 from the sun...that flat earth model puts you off the track of realty from the start.
> ...



So the answer is no...you have no actual evidence...what you have is the output from unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 15, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It appears that he actually believes that greenhouse gasses increase the energy coming in from the sun. If we could only put that magic to use in a real way, our energy problem would be solved
> ...



So at this point, all you can say for sure is that we don't really have a clue how energy moves through the system or what happens to it as it moves and failing computer models are just our best guess right now.  Pretty much what I have been saying all along...I just choose to be rational about it and admit that we don't have a clue, while you like to pretend those failed climate models actually mean something other than that we don't have a clue.

The fact is Ian, that today,  science is broken...and a field of physics that doesn't openly rebel at the claims and modeling being made and done by climate science is also broken.


----------



## IanC (Nov 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



There is a mountain of evidence that supports the contention that CO2 slows the escape of surface radiation and pushes the surface equilibrium temperature up. You just reject it all, with no alternate reasoning to explain the evidence drawn from measuring reality.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 15, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



There is not one piece of actual evidence...observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of a gas and warming in the atmosphere...the model output you cherish so is not evidence of anything  more than the failure of the modeling process by climate science.


----------



## westwall (Nov 15, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...








No, Ian, there really isn't.  There are no lab tests to support it.  There are only computer models that tell us it is happening.  But the very mechanism for maintaining the warmth of the planet refutes the claim.  The oceans are the heat sinks of the world.  UV radiation is the only KNOWN source of warming for those vast bodies of water.  

Long wave IR, which as you know is what is returned to the surface from CO2 interference, is incapable of warming the oceans.  That is KNOWN.  So come up with a different mechanism to generate your heating.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 16, 2017)

The only hypothesis that works wherever it is applied is the gravity-thermal effect...no need for fudge factors, and it accurately predicts temperatures both in the models and out in the real world.

Continued belief in a radiative greenhouse effect, and its bastard stepchild AGW is pure politics and pseudoscience.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 16, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Hell, Ian misses the boat right off the bat by accepting that the earth is receiving only 341wm2 from the sun...that flat earth model puts you off the track of realty from the start.
> ...



_*"BTW, this is a main reason why climate models go  off track. They keep the energy budget equal but ignore entropy. A watt of IR is not the same as a watt of sunlight."
*_
And this Ian is where your models go off the rails.. Your "retention" scenario is based on false assumptions and over estimations that have no basis in empirically observed facts, yet you believe..

Absent a hot spot in our atmosphere, there is no downward pressure to create the work necessary to defeat entropy and energy escape. Either your assumptions are wrong, you failed in your attempt to model the system, or both are wrong. In any case you failed. Most modeling failures are due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the system your trying to model. 

If I read your posts correctly, you admit both are wrong, yet you believe. Why?


----------



## IanC (Nov 16, 2017)

westwall said:


> Long wave IR, which as you know is what is returned to the surface from CO2 interference, is incapable of warming the oceans. That is KNOWN. So come up with a different mechanism to generate your heating.




Why the strawman? 

You are a smart and educated man. Is it possible that you honestly don't understand my position after the hundreds of times that I have said that only the Sun heats the Earth surface? In dozens of ways?

Entropy (decay, increasing disorder) would be a lot easier for people to understand if we had a common word for the opposite (building up, increasing order). That is what makes life forms so amazing, they defy entropy at least for a short time.

Thermodynamics can be broken down into two types of processes. Passive, where every particle is trying to shed energy, every system is trying to shed heat in the most efficient way. And active, where an outside power source is adding energy and reversing entropy. There is of course a fuzzy boundary between the two. Is it new energy or just a redistribution of energy.

Ultimately, the Sun is our only power source (nuclear power on earth is just a remnant of a different star). Because the Earth is a spinning sphere it warms up roughly half the time and cools half the time. The surface is always passively trying to shed heat but it is only obvious to us when the Sun is not actively heating it. The surface is actually expelling more energy during the daylight heating phase, with a lag of course due to thermal inertia.

CO2 only effects the passive shedding of energy. It DOES NOT actively heat the surface, it reduces the surface passive cooling. There is no creation of extra energy, there is only a change in the distribution that leads to an accumulation energy in the atmosphere near the surface. This energy has just been 'borrowed' from space by not expelling it. Once equilibrium is again reached, the solar input matches terrestrial output again. The Earth's surface can have a wide range of average temperatures, and every one of them can be at equilibrium, it just depends on the conditions.

I think the total influence of CO2 from zero ppm to 400 ppm is probably about 8C. Extra CO2 has rapidly diminishing effect, but it still has an affect.


----------



## IanC (Nov 16, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I believe in the mechanism of CO2 because it is relatively simple, easy to demonstrate and calculate.

I disbelieve in the feedbacks due to H2O because there are many mechanisms and complex interactions but mostly because the models and predictions have been shown to be wrong. The hotspot is based on the water cycle, not CO2. Why do you keep saying it disproves the influence of CO2?


----------



## IanC (Nov 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


> The only hypothesis that works wherever it is applied is the gravity-thermal effect...no need for fudge factors, and it accurately predicts temperatures both in the models and out in the real world.




As I have in the past, I publicly concur with SSDD that the atmosphere is a basic scaffold in determining the possible range of temperatures for the surface. Energy accumulated in the atmosphere is the main storage vehicle. Kinetic exchange at the boundary a main instrument for expressing the energy transfer from the surface.

I disagree with N&Z because they use specific parameter of pressure rather than the universal parameter of density. Their results are an example of circular reasoning and line fitting. Many temperatures would be found to be 'correct' by their method.


----------



## IanC (Nov 16, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...









Obviously I am talking about the 14-16 micron band absorbed by CO2. When you increase CO2 the notch becomes slightly deeper and wider. That extra energy accumulates in the atmosphere and warms it. The warmer atmosphere accepts less kinetic energy from the surface so the surface temperature goes up. The warmer surface temperature expels more radiation through the atmospheric window bringing the system back into equilibrium. The input matches output again but the temperature has gone up.

The opposite would also hold true. With less CO2 the atmosphere would absorb less surface radiation and cool. The cooler atmosphere would then accept more kinetic energy transfer at the boundary, which in turn would cool the surface and decrease the amount of energy escaping through the atmospheric window. The equilibrium would be restored.

In the first case atmospheric energy is accumulated, in the second it is dissapated.


----------



## IanC (Nov 16, 2017)

The hotspot is a prediction based on the water cycle. Warmer water can evaporate more, warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapour. Convection carries the lighter moist air up by convection. The water vapour condenses and releases the latent heat of phase change. What could be simpler, right? The mid troposphere must warm up from all the extra energy being released.

But water and ice particles in clouds reflect sunshine, cooling the water below them in shade. Not only that but it makes a difference WHEN the clouds form. If they reflect the sunlight at noon when the flux is greatest it makes more of a difference than in the late afternoon.

The water cycle acts as both a heater and an air conditioner, working at the same time. Climate science seems to have focused on the heater side and ignored the other effects because their predictions are wrong.


There is one other aspect of the hotspot model that does involve CO2. More CO2 means the emission layer for CO2 goes up, where CO2 specific radiation can finally escape because it is not being recaptured. This layer is close to the stratosphere. More CO2 means more atmospheric energy is converted to radiation. This has apparently happened because parts of the stratosphere are cooling. I am not thoroughly convinced but it is indicative until a better reason comes along.

Some of you may have noticed that there is an upward spike in the CO2 notch instead of a downward one. This is CO2's most favoured wavelength. It cannot escape the atmosphere until it is even farther up. Why does it appear to be coming from lower down in the atmosphere? Because the Stratosphere's temperature gradient starts going up with height. There are two intercepts for temperature, and this is the counter intuitive one.


----------



## westwall (Nov 16, 2017)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Long wave IR, which as you know is what is returned to the surface from CO2 interference, is incapable of warming the oceans. That is KNOWN. So come up with a different mechanism to generate your heating.
> ...







HOW does the CO2 have an effect?  I agree that when dealing with an exoatmosphere, CO2 would have an effect, but in our atmosphere I have seen no evidence that it does.


----------



## IanC (Nov 16, 2017)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




Sorry, I don't get your point. Space doesn't care whether it goes without the temporarily retarded energy. It makes no difference.

The mean free path for 15 micron radiation is two metres. We take surface temperature readings at 1.5 metres. Much of the surface radiated 15 micron has already been absorbed by that point. All of it by 10 metres. All of that surface energy has been immediately absorbed and converted to other forms of atmospheric energy. It then bounces around until much farther up where it finally starts escaping but from a cooler temperature. Absorption is not controlled by temperature but emission is. The difference between the amount that goes in at the bottom, and comes out at the top is the amount of energy that accumulates until it finds a new path out of the system.

Adding more CO2 shortens the mean free path. Which puts that energy into a smaller volume of air. And while the energy does find a different pathway out, there must be some change of temperature, or something, because the energy wasn't taking that path before.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 16, 2017)

IanC said:


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


Because without it and a positive response from water vapor it can not create the downward pressures necessary to force warming back to the surface.  The absence of the hot spot shows there is no downward pressure to create warming.  Without CO2 and this link the whole premise dies..

All Modeling, reflecting your beliefs, fails inside three years. So your understanding is wrong. Now you need to assess what it is that is wrong..


----------



## SSDD (Nov 17, 2017)

IanC said:


> I believe in the mechanism of CO2 because it is relatively simple, easy to demonstrate and calculate.



 Believe being the operative word there. It is relatively simple to demonstrate and calculate all manner of fantasy so long as you are required to measure them in reality. 

As I have already said there are no actual measurements that demonstrate a coherent relationship between absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. It’s all models and all calculations and no relationship to reality.

You believe Ian, and belief is faith, not science.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 17, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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



  I’m not surprised that Ian is denying that the hotspot was supposed to be smoking gun, the observable measurable fingerprint of man-made global warming due to our CO2 emissions,  He seems to reject climate science when it suits him in favor of his own personal hypotheses. His description of the mechanism of AGW is not the same as that claimed by climate science but is just as unobservable and untestable as that promoted by climate science

What he doesn’t seem to be able to reject, are the unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable models based on QM.  I have heard him expound at Length on how  theoretical particles interact with matter. I wonder how he squares that with the QM claim that matter it’s not even real.


----------



## westwall (Nov 17, 2017)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...








My point is that in the complete absence of water vapor CO2 does indeed exert some power to warm.  But in a dense water vapor atmosphere, such as ours, it doesn't.   Whatever impact it could have was lost in the far more powerful water vapor signal.  This belief that CO2 is the "control knob" is silly based on the observed scientific record.


----------



## IanC (Nov 17, 2017)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...










You keep saying CO2 doesn't matter, at all.

I have no problem with admitting it is a small effect. I have said so myself on many occasions. I have also scoffed at the idea that CO2 is the control knob for climate.

Water is a much bigger player. With more mechanisms, and much great uncertainties. So what? How does that negate the effect of CO2?

Surface temperature is controlled by a myriad of factors and the interaction between them. Why do you think a simple and straight forward influence like CO2 should be removed? Shouldn't we be looking for more factors and interactions, rather than ignore one of the ones we know and understand to a fair degree?


----------



## IanC (Nov 17, 2017)

SSDD said:


> You believe Ian, and belief is faith, not science.



What a dolt you are!

How do you make the the jump from believing to faith?

Science is observing reality and proposing a reason for what you see. 

Then you make more and different observations and see if they agree with your reasoning. Typically you refine your reasoning and keep getting closer to the truth.

CO2 absorbs 15 micron IR. Proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Molecular collision redistributes energy in a gas. Also proven. More 15 IR goes into the bottom of the atmosphere than comes out the top, by measurement. Where does the missing energy go, if not to warm the atmosphere?

I believe this simple mechanism because it is supported by observation and measurement. There are more factors, both found and unfound that can affect the details but not the direction of the underlying principle.

If you want me to disbelieve this rational explanation of how CO2 affects the atmosphere, then start knocking out the underpinnings. Calling me names is not scientific. Give me an actual reason, backed up by evidence.


----------



## IanC (Nov 17, 2017)

SSDD said:


> His description of the mechanism of AGW is not the same as that claimed by climate science but is just as unobservable and untestable as that promoted by climate science




I believe the parts of AGW that have enough rationality and evidence to convince me. I am agnostic where the evidence is insufficient one way or the other, and I am highly skeptical when the evidence seems counter to the conclusion.


----------



## westwall (Nov 17, 2017)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...









Because we know that the oceans are the heat engines of the world and that long wave IR can't affect oceanic heat in the slightest.  That's why.


----------



## IanC (Nov 17, 2017)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



What a load of self serving drivel.

Liquid water is both a good absorber and emitter of IR. Any incoming IR is absorbed to extinction within the first few centimetres.(edit. Millimetres, most of it in less than that)

Luckily water is not such a good absorber of visible and UV light. If it was, the top skin of the ocean would just boil off during daytime. As it is, much of the energy is transmitted deeper, and it is all absorbed sooner or later. The atmosphere works differently. Any surface radiation not absorbed close to the surface gets more and more likely to be lost to space.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 17, 2017)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Wrong:

This is a provable fallacy.  IR in the 12-20um bands can not go beyond the skin layer (10 microns) of the water. It results in skin tension evaporation, which cools much more than the energy from LWIR can infuse.

12. Light


----------



## westwall (Nov 17, 2017)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...










You are incorrect Ian.  Long Wave IR can not penetrate even one millimeter into water.  10 or so microns is the limit.  There is no possible way that heat from Long Wave IR can transfer to water.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 17, 2017)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Anything above 2.4µ cant penetrate beyond the skin layer..  I'm not sure were hes getting his info.


----------



## IanC (Nov 17, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




EMR can do three things when it encounters matter. Be absorbed, be transmitted or be reflected. 

Which are you choosing as the predominant mode for IR?

We know visible light can do all three. It is weakly absorbed but there is no other way out.

IR is not transmitted, so that leaves absorption or reflection.

The emissivity of water is quite high, which means it emits and absorbs IR well.

As far as I can tell, you are saying that IR only adds energy at the surface, where it can easily find a path out again. Is that the jist of it?


----------



## westwall (Nov 17, 2017)

IanC said:


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










He explained it to you already.  The IR instantly evaporates the skin of the water creating a boundary it can't penetrate.  This is very well known.  Thus there is no energy transfer beyond the skin of the water, and as heat rises, it is immediately reflected back into the atmosphere.  The ocean heat comes from UV radiation that penetrates 500-550 meters deep and has been doing so for the last 4 billion years or so.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 17, 2017)

westwall said:


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


The evaporation cools the molecules and the LWIR that is released is above 20µ due to the temperature of the emitting molecules. Thus there is no effect of warming that can be seen at the surface as the energy is lost to space. IE; No hot spot is created.


----------



## IanC (Nov 17, 2017)

westwall said:


> He explained it to you already. The IR instantly evaporates the skin of the water creating a boundary it can't penetrate. This is very well known. Thus there is no energy transfer beyond the skin of the water, and as heat rises, it is immediately reflected back into the atmosphere. The ocean heat comes from UV radiation that penetrates 500-550 meters deep and has been doing so for the last 4 billion years or so.




Visible and UV light aren't transmitted into a rock lying in the sunshine but it still warms up.

Perhaps you are saying that incoming IR slows the transfer of heat from below the skin, while keeping the same rate of evaporation.

Well, that is what I have been saying all along. The atmosphere doesn't directly heat the surface, it only reduces the loss of heat.

Do you really not understand the concept?


----------



## IanC (Nov 17, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




What a load of nonsensical Cliff Clavin bullshit.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 17, 2017)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Until you can come up with an empirically observed and quantifiable explanation I will stay with known Physics.  Physics tells me that the temperature of the emitter, of the LWIR energy, determines the wavelength of the emission. This is why cooling water will always emit at greater wavelengths than what it absorbed. ALWAYS!

Evaporating water IS COOLING. Therefore the wavelength of the energy emitted is congruent to that temperature. This is a well documented FACT from empirically observed repeatable experiment. This is also why there is not a redundant loop of heat retention. NO HOT SPOT!


----------



## IanC (Nov 18, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Until you can come up with an empirically observed and quantifiable explanation I will stay with known Physics. Physics tells me that the temperature of the emitter, of the LWIR energy, determines the wavelength of the emission. This is why cooling water will always emit at greater wavelengths than what it absorbed. ALWAYS!




Sorry, I didn't find a Planck curve for water so I'll just settle for this one comparing two temperatures 20 degrees apart.






As you can see they both have nearly identical ranges, with the warmer one being able to produce a small amount of slightly more energetic radiation. And more radiation in the whole range. The peak power band is also slightly shifted to more energetic wavelengths.

But for most of the range there is a one-to-one comparison, with the area left over representing the amount of power available to warm the cooler object.

There are no large changes for a 20C difference, the amount of change for 1C gap would be much smaller. Your claim of noticable changes in the quality and quantity or radiation between the ocean skin and the water lying immediately below it appears to be bullshit.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 18, 2017)

Oddly enough, I think that I will go along with the real scientists, Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius, Callender, and Hansen, rather than the fakes on this board claiming to be Phd Geologists and Atmospheric Physicists. LOL


----------



## IanC (Nov 18, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Evaporating water IS COOLING. Therefore the wavelength of the energy emitted is congruent to that temperature. This is a well documented FACT from empirically observed repeatable experiment. This is also why there is not a redundant loop of heat retention. NO HOT SPOT!



Evaporation is powered by the kinetic energy available in the water and is not directly related to radiation. The molecules that randomly achieve enough speed to break through the surface tension escape, taking their energy with them. Obviously the remaining molecules will have less average kinetic energy than before the 'hot' ones left.

I have no idea what you mean by redundant heat retention loop. Likely it is just more of your bullshit.


----------



## westwall (Nov 18, 2017)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Until you can come up with an empirically observed and quantifiable explanation I will stay with known Physics. Physics tells me that the temperature of the emitter, of the LWIR energy, determines the wavelength of the emission. This is why cooling water will always emit at greater wavelengths than what it absorbed. ALWAYS!
> ...


----------



## IanC (Nov 18, 2017)

westwall said:


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



Thanks for that. Because absorption equals emission the righthand part of that graph would be similar to the Planck graph for emission at normal terrestrial temperatures. It also backs up my claim that water is a poor absorber of visible light. The portion above visible light involves mechanisms other than vibrational modes and rotation, beyond the scope of IR comparisons.






Added to show the graph lost in the quote block.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 18, 2017)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Evaporating water IS COOLING. Therefore the wavelength of the energy emitted is congruent to that temperature. This is a well documented FACT from empirically observed repeatable experiment. This is also why there is not a redundant loop of heat retention. NO HOT SPOT!
> ...


Water absorption changes EM energy into kinetic energy as evidenced by the internal motion of the molecule (vibration).  Water does this as the energy resides for .5 to 6 seconds and CO2 does not as the energy resides for less than 0.01 nanoseconds.  The long residual time is what allows the water molecules to cool and the resulting emission at a much longer bandwidth outside that which CO2 can affect.

The thermal/chemical process of evaporation expends energy and then releases heat as LWIR >20um when the water re-nucleates into a liquid at a much cooler temperature.

example:

CO2 absorbs energy at 16um. Short residency does not allow cooling of the molecule or energy consumption. Energy is re-emitted at the same wave length unattenuated.

H20 absorbs energy in the 16um. Long residency allows molecular vibration and heating. Molecule changes form due to heat application and ENERGY CONSUMPTION. As it rises it cools rapidly in its vapor form to the point of re-nucleation where it releases the reduced energy at a lower temperature.(moderate to heavily attenuated)

Westwall's image is of absorption not correlated with emission. I does not indicate what happens after absorption or the changes in emission.







Even Ian admits there is a 5-7um shift in spectral output as a molecule cools. Water is no exception.  The graph below is of CO2 with a 20deg K drop. Water is far more pronounced.







The study below is for imaging techniques and what is causing the problems. It gives huge insight into what water vapor does in our atmosphere.

ABSTRACT
This study investigates small aerosol particles as a source of
an imaging phenomenon observed in thermal remote sensing
data. The phenomenon is characterized by degraded atmospheric
transmissions in the thermal infrared while high transmissions
(clear conditions) are observed in the visible wavelength
region. This atmospheric anomaly has been linked to
conditions of high environmental humidity. A hypothesis attributes
the cause of this phenomenon to small hygroscopic
particles (under the 200 nm diameter) which weakly scatter in
the visible region, but may have (for high particle concentrations)
sufficient absorption effects in the Longwave Infrared
(LWIR).
We describe an experiment to test this hypothesis. The
method takes a simple, but novel approach of using a suite
of cameras to image an aerosol stream from a Harvard Ultrafine
Concentrated Ambient Particle System (HUCAPS). Used
primarily for toxicology studies of environmental aerosols,
the HUCAPS has the ability to control and vary properties of
humidity, temperature, particle size distribution, and number
density of aerosol particle stream concentrated by this system.
This gives a unique opportunity to image a controlled and well
characterized plume of very fine aerosol particles and determine
if any significant optical effects can be observed in the
LWIR region.
Index Terms— Aerosol, LWIR , Humidity, MODTRAN,
HUCAPS, Mie, Atmospheric Transmission

www.cis.rit.edu/~cnspci/references/raqueno2008.pdf


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 18, 2017)

As ambient air temperature drops water re-nucleates and water vapor decreases. In just the first 30 feet above the surface air temps can drop 10-20 deg F or 4 deg K, depending on wind speed.

Attenuation Caused by Water Vapor and Oxygen

What current modeling does not take into account is how water vapor reacts and how it is a COOLING effect not a positive warming one..

And then wee need to address the mass/mass of our atmosphere. A 0.00000400 object can not drive a 20.8 pound object..


----------



## IanC (Nov 20, 2017)

noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/molecular-radiation-and-collisional-lifetime/

A good primer.



Billy_Bob said:


> Even Ian admits there is a 5-7um shift in spectral output as a molecule cools. Water is no exception. The graph below is of CO2 with a 20deg K drop. Water is far more pronounced



I never 'admitted' anything of the sort. Please directly quote me in the future.

The graph is not for CO2 but for blackbodies to show the general changes as temperature of the object goes up. What are the general changes? Increased production of radiation at every wavelength, and a slight trend towards higher energy wavelengths.

This is the visual explanation as to why 'heat' always flows from warm to cool. There is always an excess of radiation at every wavelength for the warmer object. During the exchange or radiation between the two objects all of the cooler radiation is cancelled out (in effect not existence), leaving the excess to perform the work of heating the cooler object.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 21, 2017)

IanC said:


> noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/molecular-radiation-and-collisional-lifetime/
> 
> A good primer.
> 
> ...


YOU POSTED THE GRAPHING SHOWING THE SHIFT!

Just wow... Your making some wild assumptions that are not shown by empirical evidence..


----------



## IanC (Nov 21, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> YOU POSTED THE GRAPHING SHOWING THE SHIFT!
> 
> Just wow... Your making some wild assumptions that are not shown by empirical evidence



This graph?






This is for a full 20C difference in temperature. The maximum power peak has shifted by at most 2 um. The absolute max by less than 1 um. Over the range of 95, or even 99% of the power there is direct correspondence of wavelengths. The only differences are that the warmer object produces slightly more radiation at a very slightly higher average wavelength.

The difference in temperature between the skin of the ocean and the water directly beneath it is on the order of 1C. There are no significant changes of the wavelengths being emitted.


----------



## IanC (Nov 21, 2017)

Somewhat off topic but here is a video showing how a cool object can make a warm one even warmer.


Unfortunately it glosses over how the energy required to warm the objects is acquired by reducing energy loss to the environment until the new equilibrium is achieved.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 21, 2017)

I guess we need to go back to high school level science for a bit.

Water tension boundary.  Fill a cup until it is full and then slowly add drop after drop until the glass is over full yet water is above the rim in a bubble shape.  This is called surface tension. It is the molecular bond that water molecules have with each other and the evaporation of water which creates a thin skin of particulate matter and water in its fluid/vapor state.

This boundary is about 10 microns thick. When LWIR is introduced only the boundary is affected and it creates a fast exchange of energy back into the atmosphere. This cools the water below more than the skin was warmed to create the reaction.

It is well known that temperatures at the sea surface are typically a few-tenths degrees Celsius cooler than the temperatures some tens of centimeters below [Saunders, 1967; Paulson and Simpson, 1981; Wu, 1985; Fairall et al., 1996; Wick et al., 1996; Donlon et al., 2002]

If you are concerned about transfer of heat from atmosphere to ocean, get yourself an electrical heat gun and hold it over a bucket of water at about 16 inches for 5 minutes. Light wind and LWIR will be all that interacts.  No heat transfer. The reason, surface tension. NO heat transfer period.

*The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires heat to flow one-way from hot to cold.*
        Since the atmosphere is colder (average radiating temperature of ~ -10 C) than the ocean surface (~ 17 C), the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that heat can only be transferred one-way from the ocean surface to the atmosphere, not the other way around.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 21, 2017)

The recent paper by Roy Clark, PhD also discusses the physics and concludes;
"Application of Beer’s law to the propagation of solar and LWIR [long-wave infrared] flux through the ocean clearly shows that only the *solar* radiation can penetrate below the ocean surface and heat subsurface ocean layers. *It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase *[predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases]* in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans.*" (p. 196). Increasing levels of IR-active 'greenhouse gases' would instead be expected to cause increased evaporative surface *cooling* of the oceans."


----------



## IanC (Nov 21, 2017)

Surface tension is caused the attractive force between water molecules in the liquid phase. It has nothing to do with evaporation. Any blob of water will take on a spherical shape if there is no gravity to deform it, because a sphere has the least amount of surface to volume. The meniscus above the rim of the glass is simply an artifact of this tendency fighting the effect of gravity. The meniscus would be higher on top of Mt Everest, where gravity is weaker.


----------



## IanC (Nov 22, 2017)

Evaporation is a function of the temperature of the water. If a molecule gathers enough speed by random collision, in the right direction, and close to the surface, it will break away and become water vapour in the air, taking away its above normal energy. A water vapour molecule, given the threshold speed, orientation and proximity to the surface will become part of the liquid again, adding energy.

I couldn't be bothered to describe how humidity and pressure affect the rate of evaporation. 

Radiation has no direct effect on evaporation until it has been absorbed and thermalized. ie the radiation adds potential energy to a molecule which is then transformed into kinetic energy via molecular collision. Of course the reverse is also happens but the wavelength is limited by the temperature.


----------



## IanC (Nov 22, 2017)

Note well that absorption is not limited by temperature but emission is. Water can absorb visible light (poorly) but it cannot emit it because it is not hot enough.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 22, 2017)

IanC said:


> Somewhat off topic but here is a video showing how a cool object can make a warm one even warmer.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately it glosses over how the energy required to warm the objects is acquired by reducing energy loss to the environment until the new equilibrium is achieved.




I haven't looked at the video, but let me guess...another thought experiment...another string of calculations based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

I bet what they don't show is an actual observed, measured example of a cool object making a warm object warmer...why do you suppose that is ian?  You don't think we have thermometers sensitive enough to measure a warm object getting warmer?  You think science just hasn't advanced far enough to measure such a thing?

BULLSHIT ian...it is bullshit on its face.  If the phenomena happened out here in the real world, someone would have demonstrated it by now as a result of all the discussion the topic has generated.

It simply does not happen because it can't happen.  In fact, it seems that most of what you believe has never been observed...it is all the product of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models, and when you are presented with objections, you present more unmeasurable, untestable, unobservable mathematical models as evidence in support of your position.  How circular is that?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 22, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Somewhat off topic but here is a video showing how a cool object can make a warm one even warmer.
> ...


Nailed it!

They use the SB equations as their "proof"


----------



## IanC (Nov 22, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Somewhat off topic but here is a video showing how a cool object can make a warm one even warmer.
> ...





SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Somewhat off topic but here is a video showing how a cool object can make a warm one even warmer.
> ...





SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Somewhat off topic but here is a video showing how a cool object can make a warm one even warmer.
> ...




The mechanism is ubiquitous. I cannot fathom why you refuse to acknowledge it.

There are two types of redistribution of energy that I classify as either passive or active.

Passive is a fixed amount of energy, that decays by entropy. The warmest object gives up energy to objects around it, which in turn give up their energy to objects around them, etc, until all the energy is released into space. Everything is cooling except space. Entropy increases until there is no order left and every object has the same temperature.

Active means there is an energy source that is adding energy and reversing entropy. This energy can be electricity, fossil fuels,etc but the original source is the nuclear reactor at the centre of the Sun. When you continuously add a fixed amount of energy to an object it warms up until it reaches a point where it is releasing as much energy as it is taking in. Thermal equilibrium.

This is an overview. Typically we are interested in smaller local systems, such as a house. If we want the house to have an average temperature higher than the colder outside then we have to actively add energy to replace the energy being lost. But you can reduce the active energy required by reducing the amount of energy lost by the enclosure. More insulation results in the same inside temperature from less active heating. 

This is where cool objects result in making warm objects warmer if, and only if, there is a source of energy being inputted. If you turn off the furnace the house cools by passive redistribution of energy but at a slower rate than it would without insulation.

So where do we see obvious examples of adding a second 'plate'? Double pane windows for one. Drawing the drapes across the window is another. Putting on a sweater allows the body to maintain it's core temperature without burning as much food. Adding a coat further lessens the loss of body heat to the environment.

This is where some idiot will chime in with 'insulation reduces conduction and convection not radiation'. It reduces all three. All three pathways are happening at the same time, depending on local conditions. Redistribution of energy takes the most efficient combination of the three.

I have little doubt that experiments have been done in a vacuum to remove the effects of convection and conduction, leaving only energy transfer by radiation. Do I have a link to one? No. That doesn't mean they haven't been done, or that mind experiments do not show the basic mechanism. Newton's laws are next to impossible to prove by experiment, should we toss them aside?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 22, 2017)

IanC said:


> Evaporation is a function of the temperature of the water. If a molecule gathers enough speed by random collision, in the right direction, and close to the surface, it will break away and become water vapour in the air, taking away its above normal energy. A water vapour molecule, given the threshold speed, orientation and proximity to the surface will become part of the liquid again, adding energy.
> 
> I couldn't be bothered to describe how humidity and pressure affect the rate of evaporation.
> 
> Radiation has no direct effect on evaporation until it has been absorbed and thermalized. ie the radiation adds potential energy to a molecule which is then transformed into kinetic energy via molecular collision. Of course the reverse is also happens but the wavelength is limited by the temperature.


Ian,

I cant help you.  You are locked into a loop of circular logic. Until you break this your lost. I used very basic tenets of science to show you what it is and why it will not work.  But you insist..


----------



## IanC (Nov 22, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Ian,
> 
> I cant help you. You are locked into a loop of circular logic. Until you break this your lost. I used very basic tenets of science to show you what it is and why it will not work. But you insist..



Hahahaha. As if you could help anyone with science of any sort!!! Hahahaha.

You are not only a dunce but a blowhard as well. You claim to be a meteorologist and a post graduate student. Neither are possible given your inane and often hilarious wrong comments. I seldom make fun of posters here because it is unseemly and probably habit forming. But let's look back into the recent history of this thread.


----------



## IanC (Nov 22, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> As ambient air temperature drops water re-nucleates and water vapor decreases. In just the first 30 feet above the surface air temps can drop 10-20 deg F or 4 deg K, depending on wind speed.
> 
> Attenuation Caused by Water Vapor and Oxygen
> 
> ...




"In just the first 30 feet above the surface air temps can drop 10-20 deg F or 4 deg K, depending on wind speed."

The dry adiabatic lapse rate is 10C (can also be called 10K) per kilometre of height. The moist rate is only roughly half that, at 6C/km. Moisture ATTENUATES cooling with height because it releases heat as it changes phase back to liquid (or ice). Why do you convert a range of temperature in Farenheit to a single value in Kelvin? Why does the temperature in Kelvins not even exist in the Farenheit range? A change of 4K equals a smidge over 7F. You are pathetic and uninformed, with no concept of how to describe things scientifically.

And then you top it off at the end with
"And then wee need to address the mass/mass of our atmosphere. A 0.00000400 object can not drive a 20.8 pound object."

WTF is this supposed to mean? We're you trying to describe 400 parts per million in the first part, because you specifically mentioned mass? If you were, then you are off by a factor of 100. 

Then you mention 20.8 pounds. What is it that weighs 20.8 pounds? The atmosphere weighs about 15 pounds per square inch at sea level, so that's not it. A cubic metre of air weighs about 3 pounds at sea level so that's not it either.

Dude... Your verbal diarrhea makes no sense.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 23, 2017)

At best, Silly Billy is a burger flipper. His posts on science are absolutely hilarious. He has even tried to put the Alps in Australia.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 23, 2017)

IanC said:


> The mechanism is ubiquitous. I cannot fathom why you refuse to acknowledge it.



If it were even the smallest fraction as ubiquitous as you claim, then the phenomenon would be observed, measured, and quantified.

What is ubiquitous is the belief in the phenomenon without the first observed instance of it in reality.

You are a believer...you don't question what you believe with anything like rational skepticism...you have your faith..you have your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models and you will ride right over the cliff clinging to them as if they represented reality.  You are a lost cause.

I may not be able to explain the fundamental mechanism of the reality that I accept, but every damed observation, measurement and quantification ever made supports me...while you believe your models explain the fundamental mechanism of what you believe while there doesn't exist a single measurement or observation of it ...ever.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 23, 2017)

IanC said:


> Hahahaha. As if you could help anyone with science of any sort!!! Hahahaha.



Anyone who is able to accept reality over unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models is a step ahead of you ian and therefore in a position to help you.  You are locked in a fantasy that doesn't exist in reality...anyone who has at least a foot in reality can help you.


----------



## IanC (Nov 23, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The mechanism is ubiquitous. I cannot fathom why you refuse to acknowledge it.
> ...




Throw a towel over your computer tower. In half an hour both the tower and the towel will be much warmer. The energy needed to warm both came from the energy not released into the environment. 

If there was a power outage, turning off both the computer and heating to the room, everything would start to cool. But the computer would cool more slowly with the towel than without.

An easy experiment that anyone can do. The variations are endless.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 23, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> The recent paper by Roy Clark, PhD also discusses the physics and concludes;
> "Application of Beer’s law to the propagation of solar and LWIR [long-wave infrared] flux through the ocean clearly shows that only the *solar* radiation can penetrate below the ocean surface and heat subsurface ocean layers. *It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase *[predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases]* in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans.*" (p. 196). Increasing levels of IR-active 'greenhouse gases' would instead be expected to cause increased evaporative surface *cooling* of the oceans."



*Increasing levels of IR-active 'greenhouse gases' would instead be expected to cause increased evaporative surface cooling of the oceans."*

Oh no! That means downward LWIR is adding energy to the atmosphere.
That totally refutes the Greenhouse Effect......wait....what?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 23, 2017)

Well Tod, I see you have found your peer level concerning science. 






http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2017_v6-1.jpg

Empirical falsification of the denier meme. LOL


----------



## IanC (Nov 23, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Well Tod, I see you have found your peer level concerning science.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Educated skeptics don't deny that there has been some warming. They disagree with how much. Satellites and radiosondes show less warming than surface stations, which in turn show less warming than climate models.

Educated skeptics don't deny that increased CO2 has a warming influence, they question the amount, and the significance compared to other factors.

The climate models are wrong. If more effort was being made to improve the models instead of trying to distort the data to fit the models we would be farther ahead in the game.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 23, 2017)

*Are they now? There prediction for the melt in the Arctic was way to conservative. The alpine glaciers have been melting faster than predicted. Many of the occurrences predicted for the end of the 21st century have already happened. *

1981 Climate Change Predictions Were Eerily Accurate - Universe Today

Even though the paper was given 10 pages in _Science_, it covers a lot of advanced topics related to climate — indicating the level of knowledge known about climate science even at that time.

“The concepts and conclusions have not changed all that much,” van Oldenborgh and Haarsma note. “Hansen et al clearly indicate what was well known (all of which still stands today) and what was uncertain.”

Within the paper, several graphs note the growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide, both naturally occurring and manmade, and projected a future rise based on the continued use of fossil fuels by humans. Van Oldenborgh and Haarsma overlaid data gathered by NASA and KNMI in recent years and found that the projections made by Hansen et al. were pretty much spot-on.

If anything, the 1981 projections were “optimistic”.




Data from the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index fit rather closely with the 1981 projection (van Oldenborgh and Haarsma)

Hansen wrote in the original paper:

“The global temperature rose by 0.2ºC between the middle 1960’s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4ºC in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean rend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980’s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climate zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.”


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 23, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> *Are they now? There prediction for the melt in the Arctic was way to conservative. The alpine glaciers have been melting faster than predicted. Many of the occurrences predicted for the end of the 21st century have already happened. *
> 
> 1981 Climate Change Predictions Were Eerily Accurate - Universe Today
> 
> ...


The model was BACK CALIBRATED from 2012... so it erased the divergence.. The bull shit never ends with you..


----------



## SSDD (Nov 23, 2017)

IanC said:


> Throw a towel over your computer tower. In half an hour both the tower and the towel will be much warmer. The energy needed to warm both came from the energy not released into the environment.
> 
> If there was a power outage, turning off both the computer and heating to the room, everything would start to cool. But the computer would cool more slowly with the towel than without.
> 
> An easy experiment that anyone can do. The variations are endless.



An experiment that anyone can do...unfortunately, only a doofus of the first order would believe it was an example of a cool object making a warm object warmer..

You throw the towel over the computer and the computer starts losing heat to the towel, till such time as it is as warm as the computer..then you have two objects, in something like thermal equilibrium...one of which is blocking the convection of energy from the powered object.

You don't have a cool object causing a warm object to get warmer...

I noticed that you had two people who tagged your post as a winner...without even looking, let me guess...two of the biggest doofuses on the board...old rocks and toddster...am I right?

It is no wonder that you people have been duped so thoroughly...rocks by the AGW propaganda machine, and you and toddster by post modern physics. First class idiots..all of you.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 23, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The recent paper by Roy Clark, PhD also discusses the physics and concludes;
> ...


What is the wavelength of the energy ?  Guess what, at 16um the temperature of your molecule is -80 deg F.  What exactly are you going to warm Todd?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 23, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Well Tod, I see you have found your peer level concerning science.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Let me guess, you believe that every other possible reason for the minor temperature increase that graph depicts...even with the massive amount of tampering, homogenization, and in-filling that it represents has been eliminated and only CO2 is left...and not just CO2...specifically our CO2.....I bet you really believe that which demonstrates conclusively that you are f'ing nuts.

Here, this is what the latest science is looking like...

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8536366/file/8536367



> *During the last 4000 years, particularly low [sea surface temperature] values occur at 3500-3300 cal yr BP and during the most recent decades, and high values persisted between 2400 and 1600 cal yr BP.
> 
> t is likely that the abrupt increases in SST around 3300-3200 and 2400-2200 cal yr BP participated in triggering the meltwater events at 3250-2700 and 2000-1200 cal yr BP, respectively.  … [O]ur sediment record clearly shows that CDI outlet glaciers melted rapidly at 3250-2700 and 2000-1200 cal yr BP, but re-advanced to calving locations relatively soon afterwards (Neoglacial III and IV).
> 
> [T]he marked cooling of the last ~800 years may have very little to do with meltwater input and may rather represent the regional decrease in ocean temperatures during the last ~900 years (Caniupan et al., 2014).*



_Unraveling the forcings controlling the vegetation and climate of the best orbital analogues for the present interglacial in SW Europe




*[T]he millennial-scale vegetation changes in SW Iberia under warm interglacial climate conditions might be essentially generated by hydrological changes primarily induced by insolation [solar variability], as they are reproduced in the simulations despite the absence of ice sheet dynamics and all associated feedbacks in our experiments.

The transient simulations under the combined effect of insolation and CO2 indicate that the interglacial vegetation and climate dynamics over SW Iberia have no apparent relationship to atmospheric CO2 concentration, as suggested by the pollen-based reconstructions. Although the direct impact of CO2 changes on the vegetation growth is not included in the model, a prominent example for this negligible CO2 forcing is given by its relatively high concentrations over the end of the interglacials, in particular for MIS 1 and MIS 11c, while the forest cover, annual temperature and annual precipitation achieved minimum values.

We find that the vegetation and climate changes at this time scale are mainly driven by astronomical forcing, in particular [solar] precession, in agreement with the strong impact of precession on the climate of the Mediterranean region south of 40°N.*

Click to expand...

*
*
And on and on it goes...get a clue.
_


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 23, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Well Tod, I see you have found your peer level concerning science.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Old Rocks said:


> Well Tod, I see you have found your peer level concerning science.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*
Well Tod, I see you have found your peer level concerning science.
*
Just because I'm mocking Billy's idiocy doesn't mean I want to waste trillions on windmills.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 23, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Throw a towel over your computer tower. In half an hour both the tower and the towel will be much warmer. The energy needed to warm both came from the energy not released into the environment.
> ...



*An experiment that anyone can do...unfortunately, only a doofus of the first order would believe it was an example of a cool object making a warm object warmer..
*
Is the Earth warmer with an atmosphere than it would be without an atmosphere? Why?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 23, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*Guess what, at 16um the temperature of your molecule is -80 deg F.*

If the surface emits IR at 16um, it's -80F? DERP!


----------



## IanC (Nov 23, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Throw a towel over your computer tower. In half an hour both the tower and the towel will be much warmer. The energy needed to warm both came from the energy not released into the environment.
> ...




???? Why do you say it is not a cool object making the warm object warmer.

Explain yourself in detail, and be prepared to defend your ideas. 

What is making the tower warmer? The electricity? The impaired ability to lose energy? What exactly?

I have explicitly stated that it is the Sun that warms the surface, literally hundreds of times. If the surface loses any of its ability to shed heat, the temperature will get higher even though the solar input remains the same.

So, state your explanation. If it doesn't agree with my explanation then I will have some pointed criticisms for you to rebut. If it agrees with my explanation I will ask you why you have been claiming I am in error.


----------



## IanC (Nov 24, 2017)

Both the warmer and cooler objects are radiating at all wavelengths between 5-50 microns.

How does the warm object recognize a 5 micron (hot) photon is coming from the cool object, and needs to be rejected?

Likewise, how does the cool object recognize a 50 micron (cold) photon from the warm object needs to be accepted?

Obviously there are no temperature labels on molecules or photons. Temperature is a quality of large groups of particles, not an individual particle.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 25, 2017)

LOL..

Is energy present?  yep it sure is.. However, just like the energy in your electrical socket on the wall, what it doesn't do is affect the earth like you think it does. Just like the energy in the wall socket, without a path to deliver that energy and create work nothing will warm...

Now I am supposed to believe a very narrow band of LWIR, that can not affect 73% of the earth surface positively, is going to raise temperatures...

Gawd I love this place... The shear ignorance is stunning... Ignore the physics at your own peril..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 25, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Well Tod, I see you have found your peer level concerning science.
> ...


Idiocy is when you don't look at the energy in the wave length and assume it can warm something that is at a much higher energy level.. A less energetic photon, by QM, can not affect a more energetic molecule...  but hey keep on keep'in on....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 25, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> LOL..
> 
> Is energy present?  yep it sure is.. However, just like the energy in your electrical socket on the wall, what it doesn't do is affect the earth like you think it does. Just like the energy in the wall socket, without a path to deliver that energy and create work nothing will warm...
> 
> ...


*
Is energy present?  yep it sure is.. However, just like the energy in your electrical socket on the wall, what it doesn't do is affect the earth like you think it does.
*
Absorbed photons don't affect the Earth?
*
Now I am supposed to believe a very narrow band of LWIR, that can not affect 73% of the earth surface positively
*
You said it causes water to evaporate. That's not a positive change?

*Gawd I love this place... The shear ignorance is stunning
*
Yes, your sheer ignorance is massive.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 25, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



*A less energetic photon, by QM, can not affect a more energetic molecule
*
Right. So a photon from 60 degree matter avoids 70 degree matter?
Isn't emitted toward 70 degree matter? Isn't absorbed by 70 degree matter?
Or gets absorbed but doesn't change anything at 70 degrees?


----------



## IanC (Nov 25, 2017)

Let's discuss passive and active thermodynamics some more. With another mind experiment! Hahahaha.

We need a cannon ball with a one square metre surface area. Inside it is a heater that can be powered by an outside power source.

First we check the passive loss of energy to the environment. To do this we need to heat the cannonball in an oven until it reaches a consistent temperature throughout that produces a surface radiation of 500w per metre squared. By doing this we have reduced entropy and enforced order to the object. There is a fixed amount of energy present in the cannonball.

When we take the cannonball out it will be radiating at 500w and immediately starts to cool at the surface (ignore the temperature of the environment, it affects the rate of cooling but not the direction). The interior of the cannonball is not yet cooling because it is surrounded by material at the same temperature and there is no place for the energy to escape to.

After the the surface cools a bit the next layer in has a place for the energy to migrate to. A temperature gradient has begun to form. This migration of energy continues, with a temperature gradient, until all of the excess energy has been released and the cannonball is the same temperature as the environment.

The surface cooling can be enhanced by using conduction instead of just radiation, but that is a change in the environment not the cannonball. If the environment is a fluid and a gravity field is present then convection will also enhance the cooling. Again, a change in environment not the cannonball. 

So, what happens if we turn on the 500w heater when we remove the cannonball from the oven? The surface still cools, forming a temperature gradient. As the surface cools it is radiating less than 500w. There is now an imbalance. The 500w heater is warming the interior, also causing a temperature gradient. These two gradients continue to grow until they meet each other. The warming gradient wins out because it has a constant input of energy and will eventually come to equilibrium when the gradient reaches the surface and the 500w loss matches the 500w input. But there is much more energy in the cannonball. Every layer inside the cannonball is warmer than the next outer one. 

This little mind experiment illustrates the need to account for the energy stored in the system, rather than just the inputs and outputs once equilibrium has been reached.

Our atmosphere stores a huge amount of energy. This stored energy is the reason why the surface is much warmer than the solar input could maintain by itself.


----------



## IanC (Nov 25, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




You have not defined your terms.

What do you mean by an energetic molecule? Kinetic speed is irrelevant to the absorption of a photon. The molecule can either absorb a photon or it can't. 

Temperature is important to emission of photons. The speed at which molecules collide determines how much energy is available to be converted into a photon. A head on collision between two fast moving molecules can produce a higher energy photon than a glancing blow between two slower moving ones.

That is why there is a wide range of radiation produced by a substance at any temperature.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 25, 2017)

Individual molecules don't have a "temperature". Temperature is a statistical property of a collection of molecules. In any collection of gas or liquid molecules at a given temperature, some will be moving more slowly, some more quickly.

That makes the SSDD/BillyBob theory even more peculiar. In their theory,  the slower moving molecules in a hotter gas somehow know that their neighboring molecules are moving faster, and thus those slower molecules know they also need to reject the slightly lower energy photons. Or is it the other way, that emitter molecules know not to emit towards the slower individual molecules in a hotter gas? In any case, the molecules show intelligence on multiple levels.

Billy and SSDD need to quantify their new theory exactly. Specifically, is the intelligence with the emitter or receiver?

Does each emitter-molecule know not to emit if a receiver-mass of temperature warmer than the emitter-mass will be in the emission path at some point in the future?

Or does each receiver-molecule know not to receive if the receiver-mass is warmer than the emitter-mass which the photon came from?

We need to know if the actual photons are flying through space or not, at which point we can continue the discussion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 25, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Individual molecules don't have a "temperature". Temperature is a statistical property of a collection of molecules. In any collection of gas or liquid molecules at a given temperature, some will be moving more slowly, some more quickly.
> 
> That makes the SSDD/BillyBob theory even more peculiar. In their theory,  the slower moving molecules in a hotter gas somehow know that their neighboring molecules are moving faster, and thus those slower molecules know they also need to reject the slightly lower energy photons. Or is it the other way, that emitter molecules know not to emit towards the slower individual molecules in a hotter gas? In any case, the molecules show intelligence on multiple levels.
> 
> ...


*
In any case, the molecules show intelligence on multiple levels.
*
SSDD's causality violating, all knowing, future seeing, smart photon theory is funny.
All created to back up his "no back radiation" theory.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 27, 2017)

IanC said:


> ???? Why do you say it is not a cool object making the warm object warmer.



Because it isn't ian...and if you were able to think half as well as you seem to believe that you can, you would never have invented such a stupid mind experiment...



IanC said:


> Explain yourself in detail, and be prepared to defend your ideas.[/qote]
> 
> Already did...again, you aren't exhibiting much mental wattage here.
> 
> You throw a cool towel over the computer...if you had sensors placed all over the computer, you would see that initially, the cooler towel starts to cool the computer as it loses heat to the towel.  As the towel warms and comes to equilibrium with the computer, the fact that it is blocking convection comes into play....but by now, the towel is no longer cooler than the computer.  It isn't rocket science ian...in fact, it's damned simple if you aren't stuck in some alt.reality where you actually believe that cool objects can cause warm objects to get warmer...


----------



## SSDD (Nov 27, 2017)

IanC said:


> ???? Why do you say it is not a cool object making the warm object warmer.



I already did ian...sorry it went over your head.  You are so wrapped up in your mind experiments that you can't see how quickly they fail.



IanC said:


> Explain yourself in detail, and be prepared to defend your ideas.]quote]
> 
> Already did. but for you, I will go over it again...wish I had some crayons.
> 
> ...


----------



## IanC (Nov 27, 2017)

Here is your detailed explanation that you decided to hide from sight by inbedding it inside one of my quotes.

"
IANC SAID: ↑
Explain yourself in detail, and be prepared to defend your ideas.[/qote]

Already did...again, you aren't exhibiting much mental wattage here.

You throw a cool towel over the computer...if you had sensors placed all over the computer, you would see that initially, the cooler towel starts to cool the computer as it loses heat to the towel. As the towel warms and comes to equilibrium with the computer, the fact that it is blocking convection comes into play....but by now, the towel is no longer cooler than the computer. It isn't rocket science ian...in fact, it's damned simple if you aren't stuck in some alt.reality where you actually believe that cool objects can cause warm objects to get warmer...
"

The towel is always cooler than the tower. While the skin of the tower may have a slight initial drop from conduction, the total energy being stored by both immediately starts to increase. As this two object system heads towards equilibrium, the extra stored energy results in an increased temperature of both objects. At equilibrium the waste heat being lost to the environment once again matches the electrical input into the tower.

The change in conditions by adding the towel resulted in an increased temperature of the tower. QED

This type of interaction happens all the time. If you're too hot you reduce the input/increase the output. If you're too cold you increase the input or decrease the output. Temperature is a function of input AND output, and the amount of stored energy as it heads to equilibrium.

Your explanation was so sparse that it was practically useless. Try again, and make sure you are specific when terms need to be defined.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 27, 2017)

IanC said:


> The towel is always cooler than the tower.



That's the problem with mind experiments...when they are done you still don't know jack..  I used a point and shoot Fluke IR thermometer and took the temperature of my computer...threw a towel over it...it didn't take long before the towel was registering the same temperature as the case of the computer and shortly after that, the tower was warmer than the computer because it was blocking convection from the computer case...

Your mind experiment failed because your mind has failed....all you had to do was check it yourself before you suggested such a stupid experiment...but no..you are so wrapped up in your phantasy physics that you don't dare do any actual science that might show you a different thing than your predetermined outcome.


----------



## IanC (Nov 27, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The towel is always cooler than the tower.
> ...




You certainly haven't done your homework on how to perform a temperature measurement experiment. 

First you have to let everything come to equilibrium with the power unplugged. Do the tower, towel and ambient air all give the same readings? Different substances and textures may need to be corrected for.

Are you measuring the same spot every time? It may be useful to also measure a spot lower down that will not be covered when you add the towel. 

After powering up the tower and waiting a sufficient time for equilibrium to ensue, remeasure the air and towel (should be the same, and the upper and lower spots on the tower (both should be warmer than the ambient air, the lower spot may be cooler than the upper).

Then add the towel and wait for equilibrium. Measure the air, the towel at the same spot on the upper tower as before, the lower tower, and finally flip the towel up and measure the upper tower at the same spot.

Doing the experiment twice would also be a good idea.

BTW, why do you talk about the computer and the tower as separate objects? Did you actually open up the tower? The guts of the tower are where electricity is converted into waste heat but that is opening up a new can of worms to quality control the temperature measurements.


----------



## IanC (Nov 27, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The towel is always cooler than the tower.
> ...



Any time you put another object between a power source and the cooler environment a temperature gradient is formed. The towel must be cooler than the tower, according to the laws of thermodynamics.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 28, 2017)

IanC said:


> Are you measuring the same spot every time? It may be useful to also measure a spot lower down that will not be covered when you add the towel.



Speaking of measurements...do you have any actual observed, measured, quantified data, gathered with an instrument at ambient temperature that supports your phantasy physics?  Any at all?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 28, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




And a cooler object can't make a warm object warmer according to the laws of thermodynamics either, but you sure have no problem barking up that tree.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 28, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Did you ever contact GSU about their errors?
You should post their response.


----------



## IanC (Nov 28, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Of course it can. Any time you replace the cold environment with an object of intermediary temperature, the warm object will lose energy less quickly.

There are two options. If the warm object has no additional heating source then it will cool less quickly, and be warmer at every interval than it would have been without the secondary object.

If the warm object does have a heating source then it will arrive at a higher equilibrium temperature because the secondary object has reduced the heat loss.

A house cools down slower, and warms up to a higher temperature when it has less exposure to the environment. Don't believe me? Try opening all the windows and doors in the dead of winter.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 28, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


So that the bitter cold winter air can heat the warmer house?


----------



## IanC (Nov 28, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Are you measuring the same spot every time? It may be useful to also measure a spot lower down that will not be covered when you add the towel.
> ...



You're the one who wanted to do an experiment with your Fluke. I was just giving you pointers on how to do it without (ahem) being fooled by instrumentation.


----------



## IanC (Nov 28, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Are you retarded?


----------



## IanC (Nov 28, 2017)

If you like to keep the interior of your house at a nice 75F, which day would cost you more in heating bills? An outside temperature of 70F, 40F, or minus 20F? Why?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 28, 2017)

IanC said:


> If you like to keep the interior of your house at a nice 75F, which day would cost you more in heating bills? An outside temperature of 70F, 40F, or minus 20F? Why?



The cold heats the warm, but just as much when it colder -- or something, wait let me post the SB Equation to prove that cold heats warm


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 28, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Individual molecules don't have a "temperature". Temperature is a statistical property of a collection of molecules. In any collection of gas or liquid molecules at a given temperature, some will be moving more slowly, some more quickly.
> ...



So a bowling ball shows intelligence when it falls to the alley after being release, right?


----------



## IanC (Nov 28, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > If you like to keep the interior of your house at a nice 75F, which day would cost you more in heating bills? An outside temperature of 70F, 40F, or minus 20F? Why?
> ...



So you really are retarded then?

Obviously you have had all this explained to you before but you lack the brain power to understand it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 28, 2017)

IanC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



You're telling us that the cold is not moving through the open door to heat the house?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 28, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Yes, the bowling ball shows more intelligence than SSDD's smart photon theory.


----------



## IanC (Nov 28, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Now you're talking like 'cold' is a thing which is opposite to heat. 

So no, there is no anti energy. Hot, warm, cool and cold are all relative descriptions of how much energy an object has.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 28, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



How does following their laws make them smart? Is the bowling ball smart for following the laws of gravity?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 28, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



You think there is a law that says a photon measures the temperature of surrounding matter and decides not to travel toward anything warmer?

Tell me more!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 28, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Does the bowling ball measure the gravity differential above and below it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 28, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



As soon as SSDD comes up with a smart bowling ball theory, I'll be happy to discuss.

Now about those smart photons..........


----------



## mamooth (Nov 28, 2017)

Does the bowling ball violate the laws of causality? Can it predict future events on the other side of the universe billions of years in advance?

No? Then it's not like SSDD's smart photons.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 28, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Does the bowling ball violate the laws of causality? Can it predict future events on the other side of the universe billions of years in advance?
> 
> No? Then it's not like SSDD's smart photons.



You realize that photon do not experience time so saying things like "predict future events on the other side of the universe billions of years in advance" has no meaning from the photon POV


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 28, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Does the bowling ball violate the laws of causality? Can it predict future events on the other side of the universe billions of years in advance?
> ...



*You realize that photon do not experience time
*
Doesn't mean it can predict the future.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 28, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



The "future" has no meaning to a photon!  You keep trying to pin human constraints on almost imaginary particles.  Should the photon have hurt feeling because you think it's not "Smart"?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 28, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



*The "future" has no meaning to a photon!
*
Is that how it knows the temperature of matter millions of years in the future? LOL!
*
You keep trying to pin human constraints on almost imaginary particles.* 

I would never pin a constraint on SSDD's brain.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 28, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



"I have no idea what you mean by 'the future'" -- a photon


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 28, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



"Stop violating causality" Todd


----------



## mamooth (Nov 28, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> You realize that photon do not experience time so saying things like "predict future events on the other side of the universe billions of years in advance" has no meaning from the photon POV



Well that's one point, nothing has meaning for the photon, because it's not sentient.

However, it's not the photons that are smart in your universe. It's apparently the emitter molecules, and they do experience time. Unless you're saying the emitter molecules always emit, and the photons actively dodge the hotter matter. You and SSDD won't get specific, so nobody knows what you believe.

Now, the bowling ball reacts due to the factors directly touching it, such as the curvature of space-time in the space occupied by the bowling ball.

Everything in the universe acts the same way, only affected by factors that touch it. (I'm leaving out quantum effects operating at incredibly small distances).

The single exception? Your smart photons. SSDD won't say why only the photons get that exception. You seem to be saying that each individual photon constantly experiences the totality of all space and time. Those are some super duper magical photons.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Did you contact them to ask if they have the first observation and measurement made with an instrument at ambient temperature to support the story they told you which you have swallowed hook line and sinker.  Or are you afraid to face the truth..  And just think of the victory you would enjoy IF they actually could provide such measurement to you.

But you won't ask because you know that no such measurements exist...its all just unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Cooling less quickly is not warming ian...cooling less quickly is cooling.  And the towel is blocking convection...are you saying that CO2 is blocking convection?  Can you show me a single measurement made with an instrument at ambient temperature that establishes a coherent link between absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...just one?

Trillions of dollars are at stake...people's lives are at stake...over that very claim...wouldn't you think that there would exist a single measurement made with an instrument at ambient temperature that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.  Wouldn't you think that a reasonable, rational, logical thinking human being would expect to see some evidence, beyond an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model that there is such a link before accepting said link as fact?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



And you are the one who is always spouting about what is happening everywhere and yet, you can't provided the first real world observation or measurement of it made with an instrument at ambient temperature...if it is happening at ambient temperature why do you suppose it can't be measured with instruments at ambient temperature?

Here is a pointer for you...till such time as you can show some demonstrable evidence that your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models are happening in reality...they are not real...they remain phantasy physics.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Does the bowling ball violate the laws of causality? Can it predict future events on the other side of the universe billions of years in advance?
> 
> No? Then it's not like SSDD's smart photons.



Idiot....  I didn't invent photons, nor did I invent the rules by which they exist...  I didn't determine via an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model that photons exist at every point along their path at the same time...but if you are going to believe they exist, and exist as science claims, then that is just how they are...they exist at every point along their path, from beginning to end at the same time.  That statement has ramifications...sorry you can't accept them.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 29, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



You're the only one to notice all our instruments are lying.
Spread the word!!
Let us know what GSU says. TIA!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 29, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


*
Cooling less quickly is not warming ian...cooling less quickly is cooling. And the towel is blocking convection...are you saying that CO2 is blocking convection?* 

CO2 is causing us to cool less quickly. (Because of back radiation)


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 29, 2017)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Does the bowling ball violate the laws of causality? Can it predict future events on the other side of the universe billions of years in advance?
> ...



*I didn't invent photons, nor did I invent the rules by which they exist
*
No, but you did invent all knowing, causality violating photons.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



So the answer is no..you didn't ask them if they had any actual observations or measurements made with instruments at ambient temperature that support their belief.

And I never said the instruments were lying...I said that you were being fooled by the data they provide.  There is a difference.  And I can't blame you for not asking them about observations or measurements...if they told you then you would be faced with the fact that you are working from a position of faith and not scientific evidence....i guess that would be hard for you to take.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Got a measurement of this mythical back radiation made with an instrument at ambient temperature? 

Thought not.  All you have is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Nope...I just applied their claimed nature to reality...combined with the second law of thermodynamics that states that it is not possible for energy to spontaneously move from cool to warm.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 29, 2017)

SSDD said:


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


*
So the answer is no..
*
You should tell them!!
Burst their bubble.
Also, explain your discovery of matter ceasing all emission at equilibrium.

*And I never said the instruments were lying...I said that you were being fooled by the data they provide
*
Like the discovery of CBR? The telescope on Earth couldn't detect that energy, because the radio photons wouldn't travel toward the warmer atmosphere of the Earth?

You remember radio photons? LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 29, 2017)

SSDD said:


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


*
...I just applied their claimed nature to reality
*
Who claimed their nature could violate causality? Besides you?

*the second law of thermodynamics that states that it is not possible for energy to spontaneously move from cool to warm.
*
The second law of thermodynamics doesn't state that it is not possible for photons to spontaneously move from cool to warm, does it?

You still haven't explained why photons from the Sun's surface moving toward the hotter corona don't violate your ridiculous misinterpretation of the 2nd Law.

Why not?
What are you afraid of?


----------



## mamooth (Nov 29, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Got a measurement of this mythical back radiation made with an instrument at ambient temperature?



Well, yes. Any thermal imaging camera will measure the backradiation from the sky, and those camera are not cooled. That is, common consumer electronics now demonstrate how you're crazy and dishonest.

As far as more detailed measurements of backradiation, that's also been done. Measurements done over 10 years show the slow increase in backradiation caused by the increase in greenhouse gases. That's global warming theory confirmed by direct observation, hence only the most desperate liars still try to deny it.

First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface | Berkeley Lab
---
Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade.
---


----------



## IanC (Nov 29, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




You keep ducking the issue and refuse to address my points. An object placed between a warm object and a cool environment will either 1. slow the rate of cooling if there is no energy source, or 2. increase the equilibrium temperature if there is a source of energy input.

These types of interactions are seen are under us all the time. For example... My cedar deck has a bench on one side that is only supported at the ends and is otherwise totally open to the environment. After a cold clear night there will be frost on the deck except underneath the bench, but the top of the bench will also be frosty.

The reason for this is simple. Most of the deck is radiating away energy to the cold sky and the surface gets colder than the air. Likewise for the top of the bench. But the bottom of the bench and deck underneath it are at the same temperature as the air. 

When moist air comes in contact with a cold surface it cools and cannot hold as much moisture, so frost precipitates out.

Why does the deck cool faster than the air? Because its emissivity is greater and a bigger fraction of the radiation escapes to space than is the case for the atmosphere.

The bench slowed down energy loss and made the deck below it warmer than it would have been otherwise.

This is one glaringly obvious example from real life. There are a myriad of others if you look for them instead of stuffing your fingers in your ears and chanting 'no, no, no'.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 30, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Well, yes. Any thermal imaging camera will measure the backradiation from the sky, and those camera are not cooled. That is, common consumer electronics now demonstrate how you're crazy and dishonest.



Sorry hairball...I have provided plenty of information to you on this topic...It is tragic that it was so far over your head that you could not understand it.  

Thermal cameras are nothing more than an array of thermopiles which form an image based on how quickly they warm and cool.  If you point them at the sky, which is cooler, they form an image based on the amount and rate of cooling due to the loss of heat by the array to the cooler sky.

There is ample information on thermal cameras, fair, etc., that anyone should be able to find it at a level at which they are able to understand.  Most everyone that is...apparently you are every bit as stupid as I have thought you to be all along.

Lets try it one more time...

You provided this link to wiki in defense of your ignorance and in your own link, it said this:

*"Uncooled thermal cameras use a sensor operating at ambient temperature, or a sensor stabilized at a temperature close to ambient using small temperature control elements. Modern uncooled detectors all use sensors that work by the change of resistance, voltage or current when heated by infrared radiation. These changes are then measured and compared to the values at the operating temperature of the sensor."
*
That isn't cryptic, or complicated...Are you not able to read even easy words and grasp what they mean? It says right there...using small TEMPERATURE CONTROL ELEMENTS" i.e. thermopiles...modern uncooled detectors WORK BY THE CHANGE OF RESISTANCE, VOLTAGE, OR CURRENT, when heated by infrared radiation...that also means that when they are cooling due to the fact that the source is cooler than the camera itself...The thermopiles change temperature, and the rate and amount of change is then converted into voltage which is then interpreted into a picture via software...

And again, here...from the Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications; Jacob Fraden.  The passage below is on page 307, section 7.8...the page is visible through google books.

*"Note that infrared flux which is focused by the lens on the surface of the sensing element is inversely proportional to the squared distance (L) from the object and direction proportional to the areas of the lens and object. For a multifaceted lens, the lens area a relates only to a single facet and not to the total lens area.

If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction:  the heat goes from the sensor to the object. This may happen when a person walks into a warm room from the cold outside. Surface of her clothing will be cooler than the sensor and thus the flux becomes negative. In the following discussion, we will consider that the object is warmer than the sensor and the flux is positive"*

Is there any number of times you can look at that and actually come to understand it?  He says it right there is very simple language...IF THE OBJECT IS COOLER, THE FLUX BECOMES NEGATIVE...that means the sensor array is losing heat to the cooler object..it is not gaining cold FROM the cooler object.    He says right there, the flux changes direction and the heat goes from the sensor to the object.  Precisely what I have been telling you for years now but you seem to really be to stupid to understand..  Or maybe you do understand but are such a liar that you don't mind repeating deliberate lies in an effort to support your religion.  Personally, I attribute it to abject stupidity.

So lets restart the clock...how long until you claim again, that all you have to do is point a thermal camera at the sky to see back radiation?  How long before you "forget" that you have been given a straight forward statement from a very respected text on the topic of thermal sensors and claim that thermal cameras can see and record backradition?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 30, 2017)

IanC said:


> You keep ducking the issue and refuse to address my points. An object placed between a warm object and a cool environment will either 1. slow the rate of cooling if there is no energy source, or 2. increase the equilibrium temperature if there is a source of energy input.



Sorry ian, but alas it is you who is ducking...what you refuse to acknowledge is the BIG HAIRRY ASSED FACT that for all your mind experiments, if this were happening, at a magnitude capable of altering the global temperature it would be a very simple matter to observe it, measure it, quantify it, and present the evidence to the world.

Alas, it hasn't been done because it can't be done because it simply isn't happening.  And you are now reduced to trying to compare a f'ing wooden bench which to CO2....just as stupid as trying to compare the glass walls of a greenhouse to CO2.  The comparison is simply not rational..and if you were a rational human being rather than a crazed pseudoscience cultist, you would see this obvious fact as well.

The effect of CO2 on the global climate is zero or less.


----------



## IanC (Nov 30, 2017)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Well, yes. Any thermal imaging camera will measure the backradiation from the sky, and those camera are not cooled. That is, common consumer electronics now demonstrate how you're crazy and dishonest.
> ...




200+ years ago a great many leading scientists of the day thought there were both frigoric (cooling) waves and caloric (heating) waves because the radiation coming off an object could be collected and aimed at a different object which would then either cool or warm depending on the temperature difference between the two objects.

It soon became apparent that all radiation was caloric, and that cooling/heating was a relative quality controlled by the net flow left over after the gross flow in either direction had their impacts.

A thermal imager or an IR gun compares it's known amount of radiation against the radiation coming off an object being measured. An object with the same temperature would replace the same amount radiation that was being given off by the detector and no change would occur because there was no net flow, even though radiation was going in both directions. 

I will leave it to the reader to contemplate the gross and net flows for different combinations of temperature. There is only one special case, absolute zero, where no radiation is coming back to the detector. In all other instances it comparing two gross flows which result in a net flow.

It is also interesting to note that the detectors are only sensitive to wavelengths in the atmospheric window, radiation that freely moves through air with little interaction. If you measured at CO2'S 15 micron wavelength, the air would be opaque, black, and the only temperature reading you would get would be from the area immediately in front of the aperture.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 30, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Sorry hairball...I have provided plenty of information to you on this topic...It is tragic that it was so far over your head that you could not understand it



I've humiliated you many times on this topic before. That's always fun to watch, so let's do it again.



> Thermal cameras are nothing more than an array of thermopiles which form an image based on how quickly they warm and cool.  If you point them at the sky, which is cooler, they form an image based on the amount and rate of cooling due to the loss of heat by the array to the cooler sky.



And yet the camera shows the differences in temperature between the cold clouds and colder sky, both of which are colder than the camera.

According to your lunatic theory, the camera sensors do not absorb any energy from the colder sky or cold clouds. The camera sensors only lose energy by radiation.

Thus, by your theory, the camera sensors should be losing energy at the same rate for the two different temperature colder points, so the camera should not be able to differentiate between cold clouds and colder sky. But it does, hence your moron theory is proven to be totally wrong.

This is where, instead of addressing that simple point that shows your kook theory is crazy cult gibberish, you evade, cry, insult and run. Please proceed. Everyone appreciates a good laugh.


----------



## IanC (Nov 30, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You keep ducking the issue and refuse to address my points. An object placed between a warm object and a cool environment will either 1. slow the rate of cooling if there is no energy source, or 2. increase the equilibrium temperature if there is a source of energy input.
> ...




Now you are just changing the subject. We were discussing thermodynamics, how placing another object between a warm object and the cold environment will reduce the cooling rate, and in fact increase the equilibrium temperature if there is an active heating source.

So far you have not directly addressed the issue. Will you? Probably not. 

You purposely refuse to back up your claims with explanations because in the past every time you do you find yourself painted into a corner. So you just keep changing the subject. Like this time.


----------



## IanC (Nov 30, 2017)

mamooth said:


> This is where, instead of addressing that simple point that shows your kook theory is crazy cult gibberish, you evade, cry, insult and run. Please proceed. Everyone appreciates a good laugh.




The poo flinging monkey is an expert on evading, crying, insulting and running. It takes one to know one.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 30, 2017)

IanC said:


> A thermal imager or an IR gun compares it's known amount of radiation against the radiation coming off an object being measured. An object with the same temperature would replace the same amount radiation that was being given off by the detector and no change would occur because there was no net flow, even though radiation was going in both directions.



Sorry ian, it appears that you know no more about thermal imagers, and IR thermometers than the hairball...personally, I would be f'ing embarrassed, but hey, you are so wrapped up in your beliefs that you can't get in contact with reality.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 30, 2017)

mamooth said:


> And yet the camera shows the differences in temperature between the cold clouds and colder sky, both of which are colder than the camera.



Of course it does hairball...the lens focuses an image on the sensor array...point it at clear sky and clouds and even though both are cooler than the camera, the rate of cooling for different areas of the image projected on the array is different, as is the amount of cooling...this isn't rocket science...but to you I suppose it is the next thing to magic.



mamooth said:


> According to your lunatic theory, the camera sensors do not absorb any energy from the colder sky or cold clouds. The camera sensors only lose energy by radiation.



Of course it doesn't since energy does not move from cool to warm....and I am afraid that it is you who has the lunatic theory believing that the warmer array is absorbing energy from the cooler sky...let me repeat...from page 307, section 7.8 of 
Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications; Jacob Fraden...one of the most respected texts on the topic...

"*If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: the heat goes from the sensor to the object."
*
I get that you might not be bright enough to understand or comprehend what the term negative flux means, but he states in clear concise english that negative flux means that the energy is moving from the warmer sensor to the cooler object...which part of that are you having a hard time understanding...or is it that it just flies in the face of your cult beliefs?



mamooth said:


> Thus, by your theory, the camera sensors should be losing energy at the same rate for the two different temperature colder points, so the camera should not be able to differentiate between cold clouds and colder sky. But it does, hence your moron theory is proven to be totally wrong.



You really are an idiot aren't you...apply the SB equation...a warm object will lose heat more quickly to an object at -80 degrees than it will to an object at 40 degrees...Wherever did you get the ludicrous idea that I thought that two cooler objects at different temperatures would absorb energy from a warmer object at the same rate?  This really is like magic to you isn't it?

It is tragic to be as stupid as you.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 30, 2017)

IanC said:


> Now you are just changing the subject. We were discussing thermodynamics, how placing another object between a warm object and the cold environment will reduce the cooling rate, and in fact increase the equilibrium temperature if there is an active heating source.



No we aren't...you are trying to discuss your failed mind experiments....Thermodynamics is a real science with real observations, and real measurements, and real quantification....if energy were moving from cool to warm, then it could be measured with an instrument at the ambient temperature...it can't bcecause it isn't....and I really have no interest in your mind experiments which only have validity in your mind...they have no analog out here in the real world


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 30, 2017)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > And yet the camera shows the differences in temperature between the cold clouds and colder sky, both of which are colder than the camera.
> ...


*
You really are an idiot aren't you...apply the SB equation...a warm object will lose heat more quickly to an object at -80 degrees than it will to an object at 40 degrees...
*
How does the warm object know how quickly it can lose heat to a cooler object?
Does the cooler object somehow broadcast info about its temperature?


----------



## IanC (Nov 30, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > A thermal imager or an IR gun compares it's known amount of radiation against the radiation coming off an object being measured. An object with the same temperature would replace the same amount radiation that was being given off by the detector and no change would occur because there was no net flow, even though radiation was going in both directions.
> ...




Back to mind experiments. There is a target to be measured by IR guns, and it controlled to show a surface temperature of 20C.

One gun is outside at an ambient temperature of 15C and it reads the target as 20C because it detects a surplus of radiation.

The second gun is inside a building with an ambient temperature of 25C, and it takes the reading through an open window, and reads the target as 20C because it detects a deficit of radiation.

You are one of a very small group that thinks the radiation coming off the target is controlled by the IR gun, or vice versa. And believes both the gun and the target stop radiating completely if the temperatures match.

Every sane person thinks the gun is simply comparing the unknown amount of radiation coming off the target to it's own known amount of internal radiation. A surplus of outside radiation causes the sensor to warm up, a deficit cools it. An exact match causes no change but that does not mean either the gun or the target stopped radiating.


----------



## IanC (Nov 30, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...




That's where SSDD'S magic photons come to the rescue! They just know, they don't need no steenkin' information.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 30, 2017)

IanC said:


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



All knowing photons are cool......or hot......or something.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2017)

IanC said:


> Back to mind experiments. There is a target to be measured by IR guns, and it controlled to show a surface temperature of 20C.



Has the thought ever entered into that mind of yours to question why you are restricted to mind experiments when discussing your beliefs regarding back radiation, net energy flows, CO2 slowing the escape of energy to space etc?  You claim all of this stuff is happening all the time...right around us...at a magnitude that you claim is altering the temperature of the entire f'ing globe.  Have you ever wondered why there are no measurements?  Not a single measurement made with an instrument at ambient temperature...the very temperature you claim all of this phantasy physics is happening, that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere?  Ever wondered?  Even just a little bit?




IanC said:


> You are one of a very small group that thinks the radiation coming off the target is controlled by the IR gun, or vice versa. And believes both the gun and the target stop radiating completely if the temperatures match.



Then I suppose I am one of a very small group that actually grasps how the instruments work, and am not being fooled by what they say...and it is a f'ing sad statement that I am part of a very small group that wonders why there are no actual measurements made with instruments at the same temperature you claim all this is happening that support the claim.  Has science sunk so low that a lowly lab tech is one of the last people who wonders why none of this phantasy physics has never been measured?



IanC said:


> Every sane person thinks the gun is simply comparing the unknown amount of radiation coming off the target to it's own known amount of internal radiation. A surplus of outside radiation causes the sensor to warm up, a deficit cools it. An exact match causes no change but that does not mean either the gun or the target stopped radiating.



People who actually know how the gun works know that the gun is doing absolutely nothing more than measuring how much and how quickly the internal thermopile(s) are warming or cooling and running that through an equation and determining a temperature...the gun isn't doing anything else..thermal cameras are doing the same thing with a more complex array of sensors.  If the thermopile is warming, it is because it is receiving energy from a warmer object..positive flux...if it is cooling, it is because it is losing energy to a cooler object...negative flux...that is what is happening ian...nothing else.  The rest of your "understanding" is pure fantasy.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2017)

IanC said:


> How does the warm object know how quickly it can lose heat to a cooler object?



Doesn't have to know...simply obey the laws of physics and you can't go wrong.



IanC said:


> Does the cooler object somehow broadcast info about its temperature?



Again, you are operating from your own point of view...you need to know things that happened at some time in the past in order to react...energy transfer is happening at the speed of light...no time..no distance.  Till you get your head wrapped around that, you will be forever lost.



IanC said:


> That's where SSDD'S magic photons come to the rescue! They just know, they don't need no steenkin' information.



Needing to know before taking action assumes the passage of time, and distance....not applicable to energy transfer happening at the speed of light.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 1, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Doesn't have to know...simply obey the laws of physics and you can't go wrong.



Your magic photons wildly violate the laws of physics. S-B says emission is sigma*area*T^4 for any bit of matter, period. Your fraudulent version of S-B openly violates the laws of phsyics, which is yet another reason everyone knows you're just nuts.



> Again, you are operating from your own point of view...you need to know things that happened at some time in the past in order to react...energy transfer is happening at the speed of light...no time..no distance.



Your magic photons can receive info from stars that haven't even formed yet on the opposite side of the universe. Your magic photons are apparently the only thing in the universe that can both predict future events, and receive information at far faster than the speed of light, yet you've never explained why only they get that special exemption. That's how we know you're a babbling lunatic.


----------



## IanC (Dec 1, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Again, you are operating from your own point of view...you need to know things that happened at some time in the past in order to react...energy transfer is happening at the speed of light...no time..no distance. Till you get your head wrapped around that, you will be forever lost.




Here in our universe, light travels at a finite speed, and it takes time to travel a distance.

Your imaginary point of view for a photon is based on division by zero. While it is interesting to contemplate, it is cut off from our reality.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Your magic photons wildly violate the laws of physics. S-B says emission is sigma*area*T^4 for any bit of matter, period. Your fraudulent version of S-B openly violates the laws of phsyics, which is yet another reason everyone knows you're just nuts.



Sorry hairball..you just don't seem to be able to speak without being wrong...it must get old.  S-B says emission is sigma*area*T^4 for a black body...The S-B law is about black bodies which is why it is wrongly used in the atmosphere as gas molecules are not black bodies.



mamooth said:


> Your magic photons can receive info from stars that haven't even formed yet on the opposite side of the universe.



Haven't formed yet references time...on the other side of the universe references distance...meaningless concepts to an entity that travels at the speed of light...sorry that this is all so far over your head that you find yourself unable to even grasp the concept of time and distance being meaningless concepts.



mamooth said:


> Your magic photons are apparently the only thing in the universe that can both predict future events



Future...again, a reference to time...meaningless when speaking about photons.  Again...sorry you are so stupid.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Again, you are operating from your own point of view...you need to know things that happened at some time in the past in order to react...energy transfer is happening at the speed of light...no time..no distance. Till you get your head wrapped around that, you will be forever lost.
> ...



Cut off from reality...like speaking of theoretical particles and what they are doing as if it were real...you mean cut off from reality like that?  

At least when I talk about photons, I do so with the caveat that they may or may not exist and may or may not behave as post modern physics claims...and I keep the fact that they are entirely theoretical in the forefront of my mind and never assume that they are real.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 1, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Haven't formed yet references time...on the other side of the universe references distance...meaningless concepts to an entity that travels at the speed of light...sorry that this is all so far over your head that you find yourself unable to even grasp the concept of time and distance being meaningless concepts.



So, according to you, every single photon constantly experiences the totally of the entire universe over its entire existence, past and future.

And to think you wonder why everyone laughs so hard at you.

So, how do healing crystals and aromatherapy work into your physics? Is there any new age babble you don't embrace?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2017)

mamooth said:


> So, according to you, every single photon constantly experiences the totally of the entire universe over its entire existence, past and future.



Not according to me you idiot...according to post modern physics....according to physics, they exist at every point along their path at the same time.  Personally, I don't even believe photons exist...I believe light is a wave with properties we have yet to understand.

And where you get the whole universe over its entire existence is just more of your idiotic bullshit.  No one, not even post modern physics has suggested such a stupid notion...that one is all yours...not surprising at all.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 1, 2017)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > So, according to you, every single photon constantly experiences the totally of the entire universe over its entire existence, past and future.
> ...



*according to post modern physics....according to physics, they exist at every point along their path at the same time.
*
Post anything from modern physics that backs up your causality violating smart photon theory.


----------



## IanC (Dec 2, 2017)

Not that I want to appear that I am supporting SSDD but the process is not clear.

Can a photon get emitted without a receiver?

Just because something doesn't exist, that doesn't mean it can't be useful. Eg _i ,_ the square root of negative one.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2017)

IanC said:


> Not that I want to appear that I am supporting SSDD but the process is not clear.
> 
> Can a photon get emitted without a receiver?
> 
> Just because something doesn't exist, that doesn't mean it can't be useful. Eg _i ,_ the square root of negative one.



Well, that would explain why energy does not move from cool to warm.  If a photon is not emitted till it has a receiver, then it would not emit till a receiver capable of receiving that frequency was available.  It would put a quick end to the idea that matter emits randomly in all directions and make sense of the fact that energy is only observed moving spontaneously from warm to cool.

And if the peanut gallery is able to wrap their heads around such an idea, it would explain that photons don't have to be smart...they just obey the laws of physics..and that means if no receiver is present, then they don't get emitted..

Set T1 and T2 to the same number and P=0...zero.

Interesting that toddster thanked you for the post when the referenced article supports my position.


----------



## IanC (Dec 2, 2017)

SSDD said:


> . It would put a quick end to the idea that matter emits randomly in all directions and make sense of the fact that energy is only observed moving spontaneously from warm to cool.



Actually, at first blush, it would seem that radiation would preferentially choose to radiate towards close nearby matter. This would decrease entropy.  A big no-no in thermodynamics.

The whole Wheeler-Feynman thing is pretty cool, and perhaps helps to explain inertia, but all that is above my pay grade.

The takeaway here is that individual radiation processes are controlled by internal conditions. Temperature is a macroscopic property and does not apply to individual particles.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 2, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Not that I want to appear that I am supporting SSDD but the process is not clear.
> ...



I thanked an article which referenced real science.
You've provided none which support your claim of zero emissions at equilibrium.
You've provided none which support your claim that emitters know the temperature of their target without any information leaving that target.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2017)

IanC said:


> The takeaway here is that individual radiation processes are controlled by internal conditions. Temperature is a macroscopic property and does not apply to individual particles.



If, however at the microscopic level a photon only emits when it has a receiver capable of absorbing at its particular frequency, the whole two way net energy flow fantasy flies out the window.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I thanked an article which referenced real science.
> You've provided none which support your claim of zero emissions at equilibrium.
> You've provided none which support your claim that emitters know the temperature of their target without any information leaving that target.



Leaving implies time and distance...irrelavent to entities moving at the speed of light.

Yeah..all I could provide was the law of thermodynamics, the SB law and every observation and measurement ever made....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 2, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I thanked an article which referenced real science.
> ...



*Leaving implies time and distance...irrelavent to entities moving at the speed of light.
*
The emitter, or the photon, receives info that never leaves the target because.....speed of light? LOL!
*
Yeah..all I could provide was the law of thermodynamics,
*
Yeah, you'll have to post the part that mentions photons.
Meanwhile......





Second Law of Thermodynamics

it's almost like GSU directed that specifically at you.


----------



## IanC (Dec 2, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




Objects continuously radiate according to their temperature. They don't know or care what the receiving object's temperature is.

Energy in the form of photons is continuously being swapped back and forth. Heat is a type of energy that is described by the net flow of photons, a macroscopic property like temperature. An individual particle has no temperature, no heat, until it part of and compared to a large cohort of other particles.

Temperature is basically the rate of speed the molecules are traveling. But speed is a relative thing. The temperature isn't increased because the molecules are traveling a km/second around the Sun, or ten km/sec around the centre of the Galaxy.

The kinetic speed of molecules is important. Head on collisions between fast moving particles make more energy available to produce more photons, at higher energy wavelengths than a glancing blow between slow moving ones.

But once that photon is produced it makes no difference how fast the receiving particle is moving.


----------



## IanC (Dec 2, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The takeaway here is that individual radiation processes are controlled by internal conditions. Temperature is a macroscopic property and does not apply to individual particles.
> ...




Again, the speed at which the receiver is moving makes no difference to the photon.

In a gas at normal terrestrial temperatures, the ratio of excited molecules to groundstate molecules is very low, something like one in ten thousand. Most of the energy is stored as kinetic energy and potential energy in the gravity field, neither of which affects the absorption of a photon. In solids and liquids there are many more bonds capable of absorbing a variety of photons. That is why their emissivities are typically much higher and over a broader range than gases.


----------



## IanC (Dec 2, 2017)

There is no label on a molecule that can pass on information about temperature to a photon 'testing' it for suitability. Only internal conditions apply. And this probably only applies to photons passing a force (the added property of attraction or repulsion), and not to radiative photons which are simply shedding energy.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2017)

IanC said:


> Objects continuously radiate according to their temperature. They don't know or care what the receiving object's temperature is.



That is only in a vacuum ian...when they are in the presence of other matter, they radiate according to their own emissivity, area, and the difference between their own temperature and that of their surroundings...if you have some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence to the contrary, I would be interested in seeing it.  Of course you don't though...just models all the way down.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2017)

IanC said:


> Again, the speed at which the receiver is moving makes no difference to the photon.['/quote]
> 
> makes no difference to the theoretical particle?  When you talk about photons, and energy movement as if we actually had a grasp of the topic, it is just sad.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2017)

IanC said:


> There is no label on a molecule that can pass on information about temperature to a photon 'testing' it for suitability. Only internal conditions apply. And this probably only applies to photons passing a force (the added property of attraction or repulsion), and not to radiative photons which are simply shedding energy.



And you are sure about that...exactly..how?  Unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable models?

All you are doing ian is spewing spew..you don't have the first bit of actual evidence to support any of it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 2, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Objects continuously radiate according to their temperature. They don't know or care what the receiving object's temperature is.
> ...


*
when they are in the presence of other matter, they radiate according to their own emissivity, area, and the difference between their own temperature and that of their surroundings...
*
Objects can't know the temperature of their surroundings in the absence of information (photons) from the surroundings impacting the object.

But you'll never square that circle you've placed yourself in.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Objects can't know the temperature of their surroundings in the absence of information (photons) from the surroundings impacting the object.
> 
> But you'll never square that circle you've placed yourself in.



So why do you suppose the S-B equation for matter not alone in  a vacuum specifies T1-T2?  You think it is there just for fun?


----------



## IanC (Dec 2, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Objects continuously radiate according to their temperature. They don't know or care what the receiving object's temperature is.
> ...




You keep saying vacuum but that is not what you mean. You actually mean no other radiation present than what is coming off the object in question. Vacuums often contain significant amounts of radiation. And the presence of matter would not be of concern if it was at absolute zero.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 2, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Objects can't know the temperature of their surroundings in the absence of information (photons) from the surroundings impacting the object.
> ...



*So why do you suppose the S-B equation for matter not alone in a vacuum specifies T1-T2?  
*
Because objects emitting toward each other lose/gain energy according to the T1-T2 formula.


----------



## IanC (Dec 2, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Again, the speed at which the receiver is moving makes no difference to the photon.['/quote]
> ...



Quit imbedding your comments in my quote.

Present some evidence that speed of a molecule affects its ability to absorb a photon.


----------



## IanC (Dec 2, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > There is no label on a molecule that can pass on information about temperature to a photon 'testing' it for suitability. Only internal conditions apply. And this probably only applies to photons passing a force (the added property of attraction or repulsion), and not to radiative photons which are simply shedding energy.
> ...




Yup. I am very certain that all atoms of the same variety are exactly alike, no graffiti allowed.


----------



## IanC (Dec 2, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Objects can't know the temperature of their surroundings in the absence of information (photons) from the surroundings impacting the object.
> ...




Mathematical equivalence. The S-B equations you use are ultra simplified. They are organized to emphasize the temperature relationship, not to disavow gross energy flows in both directions.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 3, 2017)

The "net" energy banter has been fun but its end result can not explain why  the warming seen has been but a sliver of what should have happened in our atmosphere.  From the back and forth in the last few pages nothing has been gained. It is clear we have no clear understanding of how our atmosphere actually works.  

The models all fail the predictive stage without exception. This indicates our understanding of the system, that has been modeled, is wrong. Its rather stunning that a simple engineering pressure model is far more accurate than any other complex construct. 

Mathematical constructs including the Steffan-Boseman equation are flawed. Predictive phase evaluation with the real world shows that it is wrong.  The why has yet to be found.

The CAGW myth has been shown false. The effect of CO2 on our atmosphere is but 10-15% of what CO2 should be able to do on its own. The lack of a hot spot at altitude or at surface shows that CO2 is not warming anything and the hypothesis is wrong.

Its about time we moved on to fixing the hypothesis and stop the fear mongering of the left wing CAGW alarmists..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 3, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> The "net" energy banter has been fun but its end result can not explain why  the warming seen has been but a sliver of what should have happened in our atmosphere.  From the back and forth in the last few pages nothing has been gained. It is clear we have no clear understanding of how our atmosphere actually works.
> 
> The models all fail the predictive stage without exception. This indicates our understanding of the system, that has been modeled, is wrong. Its rather stunning that a simple engineering pressure model is far more accurate than any other complex construct.
> 
> ...



*The "net" energy banter has been fun
*
More fun than your energy field that prevents cool photons from hitting hotter matter?

*From the back and forth in the last few pages nothing has been gained. 
*
Pointing out SSDD's confusion is never a waste.

*Mathematical constructs including the Steffan-Boseman equation are flawed. 
*
DERP!


----------



## SSDD (Dec 4, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Any observed, measured evidence to support that claim?  Of course not.  But your faith is strong.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 4, 2017)

IanC said:


> [
> 
> Present some evidence that speed of a molecule affects its ability to absorb a photon.



Present some conclusive evidence that photons even exist.  Then we can start talking about what has an effect on them and what doesn't.  So long as they remain hypothetical, it really doesn't matter what you claim they do or don't do or what does or does not effect them...they aren't real.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 4, 2017)

IanC said:


> Yup. I am very certain that all atoms of the same variety are exactly alike, no graffiti allowed.



Are you equally certain that all molecules of the same variety don't have the same graffiti?  

Of course you aren't...but your faith is strong...right?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 4, 2017)

IanC said:


> Mathematical equivalence. The S-B equations you use are ultra simplified. They are organized to emphasize the temperature relationship, not to disavow gross energy flows in both directions.



Any actual observed measurements to support that claim?  Of course not.  You have the dogma...what you don't have is evidence.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 4, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> The "net" energy banter has been fun but its end result can not explain why  the warming seen has been but a sliver of what should have happened in our atmosphere.  From the back and forth in the last few pages nothing has been gained. It is clear we have no clear understanding of how our atmosphere actually works.
> 
> The models all fail the predictive stage without exception. This indicates our understanding of the system, that has been modeled, is wrong. Its rather stunning that a simple engineering pressure model is far more accurate than any other complex construct.
> 
> ...



Not till there is no money to be had by engaging in the scam.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 4, 2017)

SSDD said:


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


*
Any observed, measured evidence to support that claim?  
*
Yes.

Any observed, measured evidence to support your claim that at equilibrium matter stops emitting?

Of course not.  But your delusion is strong.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 4, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


The 2 of you are still stuck in this groove? Let me try to mitigate this one more time.
I guess both of you agree that an insulated body looses less heat per time.
I also guess that both of you agree that the additional energy to increase the temperature is coming from the sun and not from the layer which insulates the earth.
Or is it already at that stage where the 2 of you diverge ?
If not then consider that the barrier which lessens heat loss also acts as a barrier to transmit heat not just from the inside of the system to the outside but also from the outside to the inside (from the sun to the earth surface). This is quite evident:




How much heat radiation from the sun is absorbed by the thermosphere which is at altitudes > 110 km hotter than the surface. It does not get that hot because it`s heated from the colder layers below it !
The other thing is that if you use the StB equation for this layer to calculate the radiated energy and then convert that back to temperature you would be way out of whack with reality:
_the highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day.
A normal thermometer might indicate significantly below 0 °C (32 °F), at least at night, because the energy lost by thermal radiation would exceed the energy acquired from the atmospheric gas by direct contact._
Ref.:
Thermosphere - Wikipedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 4, 2017)

polarbear said:


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


*
I guess both of you agree that an insulated body looses less heat per time.
*
Sure.
*
I also guess that both of you agree that the additional energy to increase the temperature is coming from the sun and not from the layer which insulates the earth.
*
The energy input is from the Sun, yes.
*
If not then consider that the barrier which lessens heat loss also acts as a barrier to transmit heat not just from the inside of the system to the outside but also from the outside to the inside (from the sun to the earth surface).
*
Yes, the atmosphere which slows the loss of IR to space also blocks/reflects some sun light before it reaches the surface.

*The other thing is that if you use the StB equation for this layer to calculate the radiated energy and then convert that back to temperature you would be way out of whack with reality:
*
Not sure what you're trying to say here. Please restate.


----------



## IanC (Dec 4, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Let me try to mitigate this one more time.
> I guess both of you agree that an insulated body looses less heat per time.
> I also guess that both of you agree that the additional energy to increase the temperature is coming from the sun and not from the layer which insulates the earth.



This is funny. You are coming back into the discussion acting like you are an impartial judge that is going to settle some little squabble.

Yet in the past you vehemently disagreed with me when I said the same thing as your quote.

And you have refused to give your 'judgement' on SSDD'S theory that radiation simply ceases to be emitted when two objects are at the same temperature. Do you care to make your opinion known at this time?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 4, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes.



Why lie...there has never been a measurement taken of spontaneous two way energy flow...the only evidence you could produce is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Any observed, measured evidence to support your claim that at equilibrium matter stops emitting?



Only every observation ever made.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 4, 2017)

IanC said:


> And you have refused to give your 'judgement' on SSDD'S theory that radiation simply ceases to be emitted when two objects are at the same temperature. Do you care to make your opinion known at this time?



Can you produce any observed, measured, quantified instance of spontaneous two way energy flow?  Any at all?  All you can provide is what if's and failed mind experiments with no analog in reality.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 4, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > And you have refused to give your 'judgement' on SSDD'S theory that radiation simply ceases to be emitted when two objects are at the same temperature. Do you care to make your opinion known at this time?
> ...


Forget about Ian he is too inflexible to ponder a problem from a different view point other than the one where he has cemented his feet. Toddster at least debates it. Tell me now how exactly did they label you with that "intelligent photon" thing. Which post did you make where you supposedly said cooler objects do not emit photons. I looked whenever I had the time but have not found it. The only thing I do find is that you say cooler objects do not warm a hotter one...which is true. The extra heat comes from the third and hotter source, the sun not the cooler object. They keep confusing heat with temperature because that is the only way to "explain" the man made global warming using ...actually mis-using well established physics equations the way they were never intended to be used. Those who want to fake that they do understand go along with it because they fell for that trap being a "denier" of some sort of "established" science...much the same way you can`t say anything about open borders without being a Nazi. Ian thinks you can stack up individual elements of a lower temperature to yield the sum of all individual temperatures because energy can be the sum of individual elements. Then if you ask him why he can`t weld steel if I let him have as many BIC cigarette lighters as he wants he deflects the subject to something else.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 4, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yes.
> ...



*there has never been a measurement taken of spontaneous two way energy flow
*
Ignoring the Sun's corona/surface again?
Ignoring downward IR in Earth's atmosphere?

Any observed, measured evidence to support your claim that at equilibrium matter stops emitting?

*Only every observation ever made.
*
Excellent! List 2 such observations that explicitly back your claim.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 4, 2017)

polarbear said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



*Tell me now how exactly did they label you with that "intelligent photon" thing
*
He said back radiation does not exist.
That cooler matter in the atmosphere simply CANNOT emit photons toward the warmer surface.

After much back and forth about how matter knows the temperature of other matter before deciding whether and in what directions to emit photons, I realized the only answer was smart photons (or smart emitters).

He's expanded his claim to include matter knowing the temperature of other matter billions of light years away, billions of years in the future. A more accurate label could be "omniscient photons" or "God photons".


----------



## IanC (Dec 4, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Ian thinks you can stack up individual elements of a lower temperature to yield the sum of all individual temperatures because energy can be the sum of individual elements. Then if you ask him why he can`t weld steel if I let him have as many BIC cigarette lighters as he wants he deflects the subject to something else.




What utter fucking bullshit!

Quote one of my posts that led you to make such a ridiculous and incorrect strawman of my position. 

You won't because you can't. 

On the other hand I can provide examples of where you abandoned threads after being asked pointed questions that would have illustrated your mistakes if you tried to answer.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 5, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ignoring the Sun's corona/surface again?



You got any compelling evidence that that is spontaneous energy flow?  Of course not...once again..just a story you tell in an effort to support your belief.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ignoring downward IR in Earth's atmosphere?



Got any measurements of downward IR in any discrete wavelength in the atmosphere made with an instrument at ambient temperature?  Of course not.  You have measurements made across the spectrum with instruments at ambient temperature measuring the temperature changes within an internal thermopile...nothing more.  Just more evidence of how easily you are fooled by instrumentation...it is like magic tricks to you.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Excellent! List 2 such observations that explicitly back your claim.



Pick any instance...show me a measurement of two radiators at equilibrium absorbing radiation from each other...just one.  I can't show you such a measurement because it doesn't happen.    You are the one claiming they radiate towards each other and absorb each other's radiation...the onus is upon you to show the measurements to support the claim...You can't because it doesn't happen.  And what do two black bodies at equilibrium have to do with the claim of downward radiation, or any other claim made by climate science?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 5, 2017)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Ian thinks you can stack up individual elements of a lower temperature to yield the sum of all individual temperatures because energy can be the sum of individual elements. Then if you ask him why he can`t weld steel if I let him have as many BIC cigarette lighters as he wants he deflects the subject to something else.
> ...



Ian, if you accept the 33 degrees warmer with an atmosphere than without an atmosphere argument, then you, in fact, accept adding temperatures together to reach a higher temperature.  I already demonstrated that ....so yes, you do believe that you can add temperatures together to get a higher temperature.

The demonstration was at this thread...this post specifically

Questions.....RE:  The Greenhouse Effect

It went something like this.



			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> OK....at long last someone has the cojones required to state the obvious...or more likely, the brains and education required to see the obvious....can you believe 83 posts just to get someone to state what that simple equation is saying?
> 
> So here is the point of my thread....we have 239.7 more or less radiating from the surface...and 239.7 more or less radiating down from the atmosphere which combine to give us enough radiation to achieve an approximate of the average global temperature.
> 
> ...



And a couple of posts down, I plugged the temperature of a couple of different objects into the equation that is the basis of the greenhouse effect and got a startling result.

Questions.....RE:  The Greenhouse Effect



			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> So check this out...using the formula which describes the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect....
> 
> 239.7 + 239.7 = sigmaT^4
> =>T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67x10^-8) = 303K or 29.85C
> ...



So yes ian, you believe that you can add temperatures and get a higher temperature...in order to believe the basis of the greenhouse effect, you must also believe that if you put two ice cubes together they will radiate at a little higher than 50 degrees C.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 5, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Ignoring the Sun's corona/surface again?
> ...



*You got any compelling evidence that that is spontaneous energy flow?
*
Unless fusion is occurring at the surface or in the corona, how could it be anything but spontaneous?

*Got any measurements of downward IR in any discrete wavelength in the atmosphere made with an instrument at ambient temperature?
*
Yes.

Do you have measurements of matter ceasing radiating at equilibrium?

*You have measurements made across the spectrum with instruments at ambient temperature measuring the temperature changes within an internal thermopile
*
Do you have anything that explains how the thermopile knows how quickly to radiate away energy to cooler matter without any temperature information about that cooler matter being transmitted?

Do you have any other examples of matter changing behavior based on unknowable information?

*Pick any instance..
*
As soon as you post 2 observations that explicitly back your claim, I'll be happy to discuss them.
Unless you're admitting you have none???????

* I can't show you such a measurement because it doesn't happen.  
*
Cool. So post a couple of journals, articles or books discussing this really interesting example of matter above 0K ceasing radiating........there must be hundreds of possibilities for you to link/post here.

*You are the one claiming they radiate towards each other and absorb each other's radiation..
*
Only because that's what Stefan-Boltzmann claims as well as every physicist who ever discussed matter at equilibrium absorbing and emitting the same amount of energy, not zero energy.

*And what do two black bodies at equilibrium have to do with the claim of downward radiation, 
*
Those are just two examples of your smart photon idiocy.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 5, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



The corona defies our understanding of physics, I don't know why you feel that gives you license to site it as an example of cooler flowing to warmer


----------



## IanC (Dec 5, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



Hahahaha. I followed your link to that thread. I am surprised that I did not post until #272. Perhaps I wanted to see what direction it would go without my input.

This is my first post-
"???? SSDD thinks the Sun is -18C? hahahahaha, what a fucking idiot.

I admit I havent read the article that goes with the graph. the graph makes little sense out of context but it appears to be more related to Willis's shell problem than the Earth. it goes from a simple energy in, energy out example to a example where the new added atmosphere is at equilibrium but the surface is not. all changes in surface or atmospheric temperatures are powered by solar input that is not released to space but instead is retained by the system (the amount that would continue to radiate to space if solar input stopped)."

I'll check to see if I made another post that directly responds to this 'addition' claim.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 5, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



*The corona defies our understanding of physics
*
You're looking at it from the wrong direction.
For the sake of this argument, I'm only interested in the ability of the Sun's surface 
to emit toward hotter matter. I don't care why the corona is hotter.

I care that SSDD says photons know that they can't be emitted toward hotter matter.
If that were correct, the Sun's surface would be invisible and the only photons we'd see from the Sun
would be those emitted by the corona toward the Earth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 5, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



That's funny. Love looking back at old examples of SSDD's and Billy_Bob's idiocy.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 5, 2017)

The fact that I don't have to eat 16,000 Calories a day to stay alive demonstrates two-way energy flow.

16,000 Calories a day is how much the S-B equation says my body radiates each day (conduction losses would only add to that tally). Yet I only eat 2,000 Calories a day.

I wonder where the missing 14,000 Calories comes from? Oh, that's right, it comes from the backradiation that I absorb after the environment around me emits it, an environment that is almost always cooler than I am.


----------



## IanC (Dec 5, 2017)

#289- The quality of the Sun's radiation is such that it could heat the Earth to 5000C if perfectly insulated. Likewise, the atmosphere could heat the Earth to the temperature of the atmosphere but not beyond.

The simplified S-B Law cannot be used to calculate the temperature of the incoming radiation without accounting for the areas radiating and receiving, and the angles.

Using temps in Celsius is misleading, as is ignoring the amount of energy stored to approach equilibrium

#325- I have often wondered whether you actually believe the tripe that you spew, or if just like to play Devil's advocate for nonsensical ideas.

The Sun radiates at a known quantity and quality, but the intensity varies according to the inverse square law (1/d^2). A perfectly insulated object sharing a line of sight with the Sun would warm up to the temperature of the Sun at which point the radiation out would match the radiation in. A simple experiment would show this. Take a large magnifying glass and concentrate sunlight on a small object. Obviously the object couldn't get hotter than the Sun because that would mean it would be sending back more radiation than it received, heating the Sun! Sunlight always carries the characteristics of its source, no matter the intensity.

Therefore any surface temperature of the Earth is possible up to a maximum of the Sun's temperature, depending on the amount of insulation.

At present the Earth's surface receives radiation from both the Sun and the atmosphere. These two quantities are added together because they are separate sources. While the atmosphere/surface can be described at least somewhat adequately by the S-B equations, the Sun/surface relationship is dominated by the inverse law. You cannot pretend that the Sun is -18C just because the energy being received is attenuated by distance.

#399- The concept of the S-B law is simple, but the actual calculation is complex.

For example, take a rectangular room with a lamp in it. The spot(s) on the wall closest to the lamp, at right angles, gets the most illumination. All other spots get less, they vary by distance and angle. This does not change the lamp or its output. Likewise the Sun is not changed by our distance from it, but the amount of radiation we receive is. The angle is also important. The poles receive less than the equator.

You cannot derive the temperature of a radiating object by the amount you are receiving, only by the type of radiation you are receiving.

Wow, a lot of stuff was discussed in that thread. I bumped it to show my direct answer to 'adding temperatures'.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 5, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



In theory, that sounds plausible. It looks like the cooler Sun Surface photons are passing through the corona unmolested. You can say that photons are acting contrary to the laws of physics by passing through an area that defies the laws of physics.


----------



## IanC (Dec 5, 2017)

mamooth said:


> The fact that I don't have to eat 16,000 Calories a day to stay alive demonstrates two-way energy flow.
> 
> 16,000 Calories a day is how much the S-B equation says my body radiates each day (conduction losses would only add to that tally). Yet I only eat 2,000 Calories a day.
> 
> I wonder where the missing 14,000 Calories comes from? Oh, that's right, it comes from the backradiation that I absorb after the environment around me emits it, an environment that is almost always cooler than I am.



It pains me to agree with an asshole like you but ideas have intrinsic value that is not dependent on the person stating them.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 5, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



*You can say that photons are acting contrary to the laws of physics by passing through an area that defies the laws of physics. 
*
Which laws of physics are those photons ignoring?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 5, 2017)

As an aside, on July 31, 2018, NASA will be launching the Parker Solar Probe into the solar corona to study the "coronal heating problem", among other things.

Parker Solar Probe: Humanity’s First Visit to a Star


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 5, 2017)

^ Old Rocks understanding of Corona


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 5, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



That whole flowing from cooler to warmer thingy


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 5, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Genesis 1:16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.

Probably the best explanation for both the Corona and why something as ridiculously enormous as the Moon is doing in earth orbit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 5, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



Which law mentions photons measuring temperatures before they're emitted?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Unless fusion is occurring at the surface or in the corona, how could it be anything but spontaneous?



So the answer is no...you have nothing more than an assumption that the energy flow is spontaneous.  Why do you find that you can't simply state that?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes.



No you don't...so now you are either a liar or don't have even as much knowledge of the instrumentation in question as I gave you credit for.

Do you have measurements of matter ceasing radiating at equilibrium?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Do you have anything that explains how the thermopile knows how quickly to radiate away energy to cooler matter without any temperature information about that cooler matter being transmitted?



Nope...do you have anything that explains the fundamental mechanism of gravity?...after all, that is a phenomenon that we have studied far longer than energy transfer...and yet. we don't yet have a grasp on what actually makes it work.  



Toddsterpatriot said:


> As soon as you post 2 observations that explicitly back your claim, I'll be happy to discuss them.
> Unless you're admitting you have none???????



All observations back my claim toddster...every example of energy movement ever made backs my claim.  Sorry that is so difficult for you to grasp.  If you believe energy is moving in two directions then show an observed measured example...

It won't ever happen because there are none..that being the case, all observations and measurements point towards gross one way energy flow.  



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Only because that's what Stefan-Boltzmann claims as well as every physicist who ever discussed matter at equilibrium absorbing and emitting the same amount of energy, not zero energy.



Nope...set T1 and T2 to the same temperature and P=0..that is what Stefan Boltsman says.  Anything more than that is your misunderstanding or deliberate misinterpretation, or your addition of something that isn't there in the equation.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 7, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The corona defies our understanding of physics, I don't know why you feel that gives you license to site it as an example of cooler flowing to warmer



Because he is so desperate for back radiation to be true that he will happily believe, and say anything to soothe his troubled mind.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're looking at it from the wrong direction.
> For the sake of this argument, I'm only interested in the ability of the Sun's surface
> to emit toward hotter matter. I don't care why the corona is hotter.



And in looking at it that way, you miss the entire point...energy can not move SPONTANEOUSLY from cool to warm...apply work and you can get it to move in that direction.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 7, 2017)

mamooth said:


> The fact that I don't have to eat 16,000 Calories a day to stay alive demonstrates two-way energy flow.
> 
> 16,000 Calories a day is how much the S-B equation says my body radiates each day (conduction losses would only add to that tally). Yet I only eat 2,000 Calories a day.
> 
> I wonder where the missing 14,000 Calories comes from? Oh, that's right, it comes from the backradiation that I absorb after the environment around me emits it, an environment that is almost always cooler than I am.



So not only are you a black body but you are also photosynthetic?  Interesting.  I have always thought that you weren't much brighter than a potted plant...now you confirm my hypothesis.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Which law mentions photons measuring temperatures before they're emitted?



Which law mentions photons at all?  Got any evidence that they actually exist?  Got anything that puts them in any other category than theoretical particles?  You are pretty emotionally, and intellectually invested in a theoretical particle to which there is no actual physical evidence of its existence.  You exemplify the problem with post modern science...who needs evidence right?...a mathematical model will do...till it doesn't.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Unless fusion is occurring at the surface or in the corona, how could it be anything but spontaneous?
> ...



*So the answer is no...you have nothing more than an assumption that the energy flow is spontaneous*

Yeah, it sucks when the Sun demonstrates the stupidity of your "smart photon" theory.

Do you have anything that explains how the thermopile knows how quickly to radiate away energy to cooler matter without any temperature information about that cooler matter being transmitted?
​*Nope...*​​DERP!​​*All observations back my claim toddster...every example of energy movement ever made backs my claim.*​​That is so awesome!​Post 2 examples that explicitly show matter stops emitting at equilibrium.​​*Nope...set T1 and T2 to the same temperature and P=0..that is what Stefan Boltsman says.  *​​_This is known as Stefan-Boltzmann law, which states that the rate of outward radiative energy (per unit area) emitted by an object with temperature T is proportional to the 4th power of T_​​No caveat concerning the temperature of surrounding matter.​It's almost like that surrounding matter doesn't matter (especially because it can't transmit info about it's temperature if it isn't emitting LOL!)​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You're looking at it from the wrong direction.
> ...


*
energy can not move SPONTANEOUSLY from cool to warm..
*
Good point. So why is energy allowed to move from surface to corona? Spell it out.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Which law mentions photons measuring temperatures before they're emitted?
> ...



*Which law mentions photons at all? 
*
You're right, the 2nd Law isn't violated by photons.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yeah, it sucks when the Sun demonstrates the stupidity of your "smart photon" theory.​




So you believe there is a spontaneous energy flow from cool to warm in the case of the sun.

_


Toddsterpatriot said:



			This is known as Stefan-Boltzmann law, which states that the rate of outward radiative energy (per unit area) emitted by an object with temperature T is proportional to the 4th power of T
		
Click to expand...


You guys are stuck on stupid...I have already provided emails from several top shelf physicists who state pretty clearly that what you are describing is the equation for a black body alone in a vacuum...that's it...include other matter and then T1-T2 matters...sorry again, that this is all so far over your head._



Toddsterpatriot said:


> No caveat concerning the temperature of surrounding matter.
> It's almost like that surrounding matter doesn't matter



There is no other matter in the equation you keep going to...sorry you don't understand and apparently will never understand.​


----------



## SSDD (Dec 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *
> energy can not move SPONTANEOUSLY from cool to warm..
> *
> Good point. So why is energy allowed to move from surface to corona? Spell it out.



So again, you believe the energy flow from the surface to the corona is spontaneous?  No evidence....you just think the sun is the only place in the known universe where energy just spontaneously moves from cool to warm and can be measured?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Of course it isn't...since they don't move spontaneously from cool to warm.  Nothing violates the second law.  Energy only moves from cool to warm if work is done to make it happen.  Unbelievable that you can't seem to get that through your skull. There is something at work which we don't understand which is causing energy to move from the surface of the sun to the corona...but the fact that we don't yet understand doesn't mean it isn't happening.  Only an idiot would jump straight to it invalidating the second law of thermodynamics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, it sucks when the Sun demonstrates the stupidity of your "smart photon" theory.​
> ...



*So you believe there is a spontaneous energy flow from cool to warm in the case of the sun.
*
Yes, cooler matter of the surface of the Sun freely radiates in all directions, including toward the hotter corona.


_*You guys are stuck on stupid...I have already provided emails from several top shelf physicists who state pretty clearly that what you are describing is the equation for a black body alone in a vacuum...that's it...
*_
Grey bodies in an atmosphere don't radiate?

*There is no other matter in the equation you keep going to
*
Have you ever found a source that says, the rate of outward radiative energy (per unit area) emitted by an object with temperature T is proportional to the 4th power of T, unless there is warmer matter nearby (or billions of light years away)?

Or any source that says matter at equilibrium doesn't radiate at all?

_Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.” 
_
Was Kirchhoff wrong?
_
Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "
_
Or Einstein?

Prove it.....................


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



*So again, you believe the energy flow from the surface to the corona is spontaneous? *

Why don't you explain the non-spontaneous flow of energy from the surface to the corona?


----------



## IanC (Dec 7, 2017)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that I don't have to eat 16,000 Calories a day to stay alive demonstrates two-way energy flow.
> ...




Yes, skin has an emissivity very close to a perfect black body.

Yes, the human body has a complex system for regulating core temperature to keep it in a range where necessary chemical reactions can take place. This includes both heating and cooling according to need.

Food is the fuel, muscle movement produces most of the heat, the blood circulation system distributes it.

Naked humans need a warm and consistent environment to survive because the human body has only limited ability to heat and cool itself.

We know by measurement that average human skin operating temperature is about 100w/m^2, and the average area is about 1m^2, so the energy being radiated is about 10,000+ calories per day.

Few of us eat 10,000 calories a day, so the extra energy must be coming from somewhere. The source is our surroundings. While we are radiating out the environment is radiating in. 

That's why we keep our artificial environment (houses,etc) about 25C. It's easy to make up the heat loss by small amounts of muscle movement. 15C is too cold, necessitating extra clothing to reduce heat loss, and 35C is too hot necessitating the body to go into a heat loss regimen that includes sweating and increased blood flow to the skin and extremities.

SSDD says your skin and body stop radiating if the environment is the same temperature as your skin. I say both the skin and environment continue to radiate but the net movement of heat is reduced to nothing.

Humans are sensitive to heat flow, and we spend much of our time fine tuning our environment to maximize our comfort level. In the meantime our bodies are taking unconscious actions to do the same.

And many of these tweaks towards maximum comfort involve 'a cool thing making a warm (actively heated) thing warmer'.


----------



## IanC (Dec 7, 2017)

Stefan provided the experimental results that led to the S-B equations. Boltzmann provided the mathematical underpinnings.

Let's look at the experiment. A spherical cavity was coated with black carbon to give near perfect blackbody radiation and absorption. The object containing this cavity was heated to various temperatures, and a very small aperture was opened to allow a trivially small amount of radiation to escape and be measured.

SSDD says the simple one object S-B equation is useless unless you measure it in a void berift of matter or extraneous radiation. That it cannot be done and is basically meaningless.

Yet the cavity experiment does measure the amount of radiation produced. The interior is extremely close to a blackbody, there is no extraneous radiation, at least until the aperture is opened and even then the exchange is trivial.

I suppose that the instruments measuring the radiation were somewhat antiquated and could be called into question but if that is so, why does SSDD have such certainty about the S-B equations?

The simple one object equation has been endlessly reproduced by undergrad students for over a hundred years. There is little doubt that the relationship is correct.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 8, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, cooler matter of the surface of the Sun freely radiates in all directions, including toward the hotter corona.



The second law says that you are wrong...but you go ahead and believe.  




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Grey bodies in an atmosphere don't radiate?



Yes, but they radiate according to their emissivity, their area, and the difference in temperature between themselves and their surroundings..Set T1 and T2 to the same number and P=0.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Have you ever found a source that says, the rate of outward radiative energy (per unit area) emitted by an object with temperature T is proportional to the 4th power of T, unless there is warmer matter nearby (or billions of light years away)?



Years and distance are irrelevant to entities traveling at the speed of light.  Most sources assume that the reader already knows this and therefore aren't interested in teaching basics all over again.  Ever go to college?  When you get to 2000 and 3000 level physics they assume that you already know the math so spend little to no time teaching algebra, trig, and calculus.  If you are unaware that time and distance are irrelevant concepts when you are talking about entities that are moving at the speed of light, then you need to go back to the remedial level.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Or any source that says matter at equilibrium doesn't radiate at all?



Just the SB law...again set T1 and T2 to the same temperature and P=0...that statement actually has a literal and mathematical meaning...and since the equation has no variable that would allow for calculations of net, it is speaking to gross, one way energy movements.  Sorry that you can't read an equation and know what it says.  I get that your dogma requires that it say something else, but alas, the language of mathematical equations is very explicit..if you don't have an expression or expressions within the equation that would allow you to calculate net, then it isn't speaking to net.

_


Toddsterpatriot said:



			Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”
		
Click to expand...


Again, set T1 and T2 to the same number...P=0  that means that the power being radiated is equal to the power being absorbed from other bodies at equilibrium
_


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Was Kirchhoff wrong?



Of course not...you are just unable to read mathematical equations...which is required if you want to know what he is saying...in verbal language, statements are open to interpretation..in mathematical language, they are not...set T1 and T2 to the same number and P=0...that mathematical statement is not open to interpretation.  
_


Toddsterpatriot said:



			Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "
		
Click to expand...


According to an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.  Einstein had some opinions on models..maybe you should look them up.
_


----------



## SSDD (Dec 8, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why don't you explain the non-spontaneous flow of energy from the surface to the corona?



Their is reason that sceintists say that the movement of energy from the surface to the corona defies our understanding...it isn't because they believe energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm..it is because they believe something is happing there that we don't understand...that would be some process that equates to work making the movement happen.  You seem to be the only one suggesting that the energy movement is spontaneous.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 8, 2017)

IanC said:


> S
> 
> Yet the cavity experiment does measure the amount of radiation produced. .



No ian..the cavity experiment measures the amount of radiation present...and then makes assumptions about what it is doing.  Measuring the amount of radiation being produced, and the amount of radiation present are two very different things.


----------



## IanC (Dec 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > S
> ...




Please explain these two very different things.

According to SSDD'S version of physics, there is no radiation present in the cavity.  Then when the aperture opens, only particles that are in direct line-of-sight are allowed to emit, and even then only at specific angles which would escape. 

And, needless to say, only in amounts commensurate with the difference in temperature between the cavity and detector. And the type/amount is not in the shape of a Planck curve but in the shape left over when the Planck curve of the cooler temp is subtracted from the Planck curve of the warmer temp.

And we haven't even discussed how we are being fooled by poor instrumentation yet.

Hahahaha.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you explain the non-spontaneous flow of energy from the surface to the corona?
> ...



*Their is reason that sceintists say that the movement of energy from the surface to the corona defies our understanding..
*
Post links for 2 scientists who say that "the movement of energy from the surface to the corona" defies their understanding.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, cooler matter of the surface of the Sun freely radiates in all directions, including toward the hotter corona.
> ...



*The second law says that you are wrong..
*
The second law says something about directional emission of photons? LOL!

*Yes, but they radiate according to their emissivity, their area, and the difference in temperature between themselves and their surroundings..
*
Right, the dimmer switch theory of emission.

*Years and distance are irrelevant to entities traveling at the speed of light
*
You would have saved time by just saying, "No. I have no source that says, the rate of outward radiative energy (per unit area) emitted by an object with temperature T is proportional to the 4th power of T, unless there is warmer matter nearby (or billions of light years away)"
*
Just the SB law...again set T1 and T2 to the same temperature and P=0...that statement actually has a literal and mathematical meaning...and since the equation has no variable that would allow for calculations of net, it is speaking to gross, one way energy movements. *
_
The Stefan–Boltzmann constant can be used to measure the amount of heat that is emitted by a blackbody, which *absorbs all of the radiant energy that hits it, and will emit all the radiant energy*. Furthermore, the Stefan–Boltzmann constant allows for temperature (K) to be converted to units for intensity (W m−2), which is power per unit area.

Stefan–Boltzmann constant - Wikipedia
_
Isn't it strange that all these sources talk about bodies absorbing and emitting at the same time.
How could they get something so basic, "all energy flow must be one way", so wrong.

Is it safe to say you don't have at least 2 sources that explicitly say, "All energy flow must be one way"?
I mean besides your solo misinterpretations?

_Gustav Robert Kirchhoff “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”_
*
Again, set T1 and T2 to the same number...P=0  that means that the power being radiated is equal to the power being absorbed from other bodies at equilibrium
*
Wait, what?

Radiating and absorbing from bodies at equilibrium? Two way flow? What? WHAT?

WHAT?


----------



## IanC (Dec 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Years and distance are irrelevant to entities traveling at the speed of light. Most sources assume that the reader already knows this and therefore aren't interested in teaching basics all over again. Ever go to college? When you get to 2000 and 3000 level physics they assume that you already know the math so spend little to no time teaching algebra, trig, and calculus. If you are unaware that time and distance are irrelevant concepts when you are talking about entities that are moving at the speed of light, then you need to go back to the remedial level




Physics is done in the real world. Light travels at 300,000 m/s. It takes minutes to reach the Earth from the Sun.

Light, in all its forms has been intensely studied for hundreds of years. Experimental evidence show it to have both the properties of a wave and a particle depending on conditions. So, obviously it is neither.

You keep saying photons are theoretical, as if that negates their reality. Light is real, and doesn't give a shit about how we name it or describe it.


----------



## IanC (Dec 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Just the SB law...again set T1 and T2 to the same temperature and P=0...that statement actually has a literal and mathematical meaning...and since the equation has no variable that would allow for calculations of net, it is speaking to gross, one way energy movements. Sorry that you can't read an equation and know what it says. I get that your dogma requires that it say something else, but alas, the language of mathematical equations is very explicit..if you don't have an expression or expressions within the equation that would allow you to calculate net, then it isn't speaking to net




The equation is easily rearranged to give gross amounts going in either direction. It has been shown to you a hundred times or more.

P = k (T^4 - Tc^4) is exactly the same as
P = kT^4 - kTc^4

The first arrangement emphasizes the temperature relationship, and shortens it because the components of k ( emissivity, S-B constant, and Area) only have to be written once.

The second arrangement emphasizes the two gross flows that combine together to make a net flow.

Both give the same answer. Neither arrangement is 'better' than the other.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 9, 2017)

IanC said:


> The equation is easily rearranged to give gross amounts going in either direction. It has been shown to you a hundred times or more.
> 
> P = k (T^4 - Tc^4) is exactly the same as
> P = kT^4 - kTc^4



If all you want is an answer, then yes, they are the same...if you want to make a mathematical statement regarding a physical phenomenon, then no, they are not the same...in fact, they are quite different.  And since there has never been a measurement of two way energy flow, the very idea of trying to substitute a mathematical statement that reflects every observation and measurement ever made for one that only applies in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models stinks of deliberate fraud.



IanC said:


> The first arrangement emphasizes the temperature relationship, and shortens it because the components of k ( emissivity, S-B constant, and Area) only have to be written once.



The first arrangement is the actual equation used by the SB law..it describes a gross one way energy movement from cool to warm.



IanC said:


> The second arrangement emphasizes the two gross flows that combine together to make a net flow.



The second statement is deliberate fraud...it makes a mathematical statement of a physical process that has never been observed or measured.



IanC said:


> Both give the same answer. Neither arrangement is 'better' than the other.



The point of the equation is to describe a physical process..one describes an actual observable, measurable process..one is deliberate fraud which pretends to describe a physical process which has never been observed, or measured.

Follow through with your bastardized equation without violating SB's assumption that T1 is ALWAYS greater than T2

Just to put a period to the discussion, can you show me a two way Planck law by which to prove the two way version of the SB law?  Answer:  No.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The equation is easily rearranged to give gross amounts going in either direction. It has been shown to you a hundred times or more.
> ...


*
 And since there has never been a measurement of two way energy flow
*
You ever post your sources that agree with your "one-way only flow"?

Or are we supposed to take your word for it?


----------



## IanC (Dec 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> No ian..the cavity experiment measures the amount of radiation present...and then makes assumptions about what it is doing. Measuring the amount of radiation being produced, and the amount of radiation present are two very different things.




You still haven't made any effort to explain how these are two very different things. Why not?


----------



## IanC (Dec 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Follow through with your bastardized equation without violating SB's assumption that T1 is ALWAYS greater than T2




It makes no difference which order they are inserted into the equation. A negative result just means the net flow is going into the first object.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 9, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Follow through with your bastardized equation without violating SB's assumption that T1 is ALWAYS greater than T2
> ...



Not what the SB law says...and I am still waiting for a single measurement of two way energy flow....it only happens in your models...never out here in the real world where the rest of us live.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 9, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No ian..the cavity experiment measures the amount of radiation present...and then makes assumptions about what it is doing. Measuring the amount of radiation being produced, and the amount of radiation present are two very different things.
> ...



Geez ian...i thought you were smarter than that...hell, look at an atomic blast..there is an amount of radiation produced..and an amount of radiation present...they aren't the same thing.


----------



## IanC (Dec 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Hahahaha!!!!!!!

An atomic blast! That's your answer. Hahahaha.

We were discussing Stefan's cavity experiment. Did you forget?

I say the surface of the cavity is emitting and absorbing equally in both quantity and quality. You say there is no radiation present because the surface has no temperature difference, the emissions have been throttled down to nothing.

Please inform me if you have changed your mind.


Why do you believe so fervently in the S-B equations when they were obviously produced with inferior equipment and bastardized physics?


----------



## IanC (Dec 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




It's right there in the equation. Net power equals the power of the first object less the power of the second object, with due consideration given to emissivity and area.


----------



## IanC (Dec 10, 2017)

What happens when we take due consideration of emissivities for surface and atmosphere?

At 15 microns the atmosphere is black, all surface 15 micron radiation is absorbed within the first few metres.

At 10 microns the atmosphere is clear, the surface radiation is almost totally transmitted out to space as if the atmosphere was not even there.

Cloud are more like liquid water than a gas so they have more bonds to absorb a variety of photons than does water vapour.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 10, 2017)

IanC said:


> Hahahaha!!!!!!!
> 
> An atomic blast! That's your answer. Hahahaha.



Pick your own example..they are practically all the same...an amount of radiation being produced is a different thing from an amount of radiation present...sorry you are unable to grasp such a basic fact.  Guess you didn't learn much about the real world in modeling 101.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 10, 2017)

IanC said:


> It's right there in the equation. Net power equals the power of the first object less the power of the second object, with due consideration given to emissivity and area.



If you believe the actual SB equation has an expression for net, then you are a f'ing idiot who lacks the ability to read even the most basic mathematical equation.

That equation is a very precise sentence describing a physical reality..and there is nothing there about net energy flows...your dogma and, frankly, pitiful belief in models over reality is just sad ian...sad as it can be.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 10, 2017)

IanC said:


> What happens when we take due consideration of emissivities for surface and atmosphere?
> 
> At 15 microns the atmosphere is black, all surface 15 micron radiation is absorbed within the first few metres.
> 
> ...



Show me an actual measurement made with an instrument at ambient temperature that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...leave your models at home...show me some actual evidence...something that illustrates more than the already obvious fact that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.


----------



## IanC (Dec 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Hahahaha!!!!!!!
> ...



Quit ducking.

You said the amount of radiation present in the cavity was a totally different thing than the amount of radiation being measured from the cavity.

When questioned as to what you mean, you responded with 'atomic blast', as if that means something.

How did Stefan figure out the relationship between temperature and radiation if the experiment cannot work according to your version of physics? And why do you believe in it so fervently if it was discovered with false data?


----------



## IanC (Dec 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > It's right there in the equation. Net power equals the power of the first object less the power of the second object, with due consideration given to emissivity and area.
> ...




I find it hard to believe you have ever taken any physics, chemistry or calculus courses if you are unfamiliar with rearranging terms to solve equations.


----------



## IanC (Dec 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > What happens when we take due consideration of emissivities for surface and atmosphere?
> ...




Do you actually believe the instruments are giving the wrong readings? They appear to be thoroughly repeatable. Are you questioning their precision or their accuracy?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2017)

IanC said:


> Quit ducking.
> 
> You said the amount of radiation present in the cavity was a totally different thing than the amount of radiation being measured from the cavity.



Quit changing my statements...I said that an amount of radiation being produced and an amount of radiation present were two different things....nothing more.  Anything else you think is there is from your own head.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2017)

IanC said:


> I find it hard to believe you have ever taken any physics, chemistry or calculus courses if you are unfamiliar with rearranging terms to solve equations.



I am perfectly familiar with rearranging terms...it is fine in math..in fact, it is expected of you.  The example you are using with the SB equation however, is unacceptable in physics and in addition, it is just bad math.  When would you ever find it necessary to complicate an equation that has already been reduced in order to solve the equation.

Again, in physics, a mathematical equation is a sentence making an explicit statement about something that is happening in reality.  When you alter the equation, you alter the statement regardless of what the answer is at the end of the equation.

Tell me ian, since you seem to believe that so long as the answer is correct, that you can alter whatever you want without changing the reality; do you believe you can alter a chemical equation so long as at the bottom line you get the same result?  Do you think altering a chemical equation doesn't change the chemical process so long as you end up with the same bottom line?  Is that how you think?  Well here is a newsflash for you...the language of mathematics is just as explicit as the language of chemistry.  It isn't ambigous and it isn't up to be altered unless you can justify the alteration.  If you believe you can, then it would seem that you haven't taken any upper level chemistry or physics.

And once again...do explain why you would need to rearrange an equation that has already been reduced to its lowest terms in order to solve it?  Under what conditions would that be necessary unless you were trying to perform some slight of hand.  You claim the education in mathematics and physics, give me a few examples where you would need to, or where it would be acceptable to complicate an equation that had already been reduced in order to solve it.

Describe a couple of other physical laws where you might find that you need to complicate the equation so that you can claim something about it that the original equation does not say.  For example: When would you find it necessary to complicate the equation K=C + 273.15, Or  PV=nRT, or p = mv.    And I am not talking about rearranging an equation to solve for a different variable, I am talking about complicating an equation that has already been simplified.  

Tell me when that might be acceptable to do for no reason other than to be able to change your statement about what physical process is occurring?  And if you don't believe that in changing the mathematical statement changes the statement about what physical process is happening, why even bother to do it?  Face it ian, your dogma is turning you into a very dishonest person in your attempt to rationalize it.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2017)

IanC said:


> Do you actually believe the instruments are giving the wrong readings? They appear to be thoroughly repeatable. Are you questioning their precision or their accuracy?



Not at all.  I believe the instruments are quite accurate...As I have stated before, and as you have demonstrated with your IR thermometer examples, you don't know what is being measured.  You make assumptions that simply are not true.  In that hollow sphere experiment, IR is being measured, but there is no measurement being made of two way energy flow.  Is the inside of the sphere warmer or cooler than the atmosphere on the outside?  Is there any reason that you would be surprised to see energy flow from that warmer inside to the cooler outside?  What do you think the fact energy flows from the warmer inside to the cooler outside tells you about what is happening inside the sphere?


----------



## IanC (Dec 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Let's look at the experiment. A spherical cavity was coated with black carbon to give near perfect blackbody radiation and absorption. The object containing this cavity was heated to various temperatures, and a very small aperture was opened to allow a trivially small amount of radiation to escape and be measured.
> ...



Here is my statement and your response. 

When I asked for clarification you said 'atomic blast'.

How am I changing your statement?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 12, 2017)

My statement was very clear...the amount of radiation present and the amount of radiation being produced are two very different things...you are making assumptions about the amount of radiation present that can't be demonstrated with the  instrumentation.  You live on assumptions.  You believe models and their assumptions over reality and every observation and measurement ever made.  Ever wonder why?


----------



## PredFan (Dec 12, 2017)

Crick said:


> Roy Spencer's model bullshit was refuted about five minutes after he published it and it pretty much marked the end of his career as a respected climate scientist. It surprises me not the least that a liar such as you would grab that particular bag of bullshit and run with it.



Translation: "He dared tell the truth and those True Believers ran the heretic off."


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 12, 2017)

SSDD said:


> My statement was very clear...the amount of radiation present and the amount of radiation being produced are two very different things...you are making assumptions about the amount of radiation present that can't be demonstrated with the  instrumentation.  You live on assumptions.  You believe models and their assumptions over reality and every observation and measurement ever made.  Ever wonder why?



Both Ian and Todd have been shown there is energy present in the wall sockets of their homes, but they can not parallel this with energy in the atmosphere.  Until there is a conductor capable of responding to the energy it can be present but have no effect.  They think simply, that if energy is present, there must be an effect. the difference of presence and effect of that presence.. they refuse to separate the two.

This is the same problem with Trenberth's cartoon of earths energy balance. IT is why he always comes up with massive extra energy and demands that something must happen..


----------



## IanC (Dec 12, 2017)

SSDD said:


> My statement was very clear...the amount of radiation present and the amount of radiation being produced are two very different things...you are making assumptions about the amount of radiation present that can't be demonstrated with the  instrumentation.  You live on assumptions.  You believe models and their assumptions over reality and every observation and measurement ever made.  Ever wonder why?




This is very confusing. You disagree that the cavity experiment gives the right results but you agree with the conclusion about the temperature relationship drawn from the results? As long as the equation is arranged in your preferred order, that is.

You don't seem to be very logical in your thoughts. Could you be more specific in where you think Stefan went wrong?

Why do you keep saying every single observation ever made supports your version? Even the wrong ones? How does that work?


----------



## IanC (Dec 12, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > My statement was very clear...the amount of radiation present and the amount of radiation being produced are two very different things...you are making assumptions about the amount of radiation present that can't be demonstrated with the  instrumentation.  You live on assumptions.  You believe models and their assumptions over reality and every observation and measurement ever made.  Ever wonder why?
> ...




You're a retard. If you really are an atmospheric physicist as you claim, it goes a long way in explaining why climate science is so fucked up.


----------



## IanC (Dec 12, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Do you actually believe the instruments are giving the wrong readings? They appear to be thoroughly repeatable. Are you questioning their precision or their accuracy?
> ...




Sorry, I missed this one.

The spherical cavity is enclosed in an oven. This leads to the unusual state of uniform temperature throughout the object with the spherical cavity.

The aperture is very small compared to the surface area of the cavity, therefore the slight loss of radiation does not affect the equilibrium in any significant way. 

The concept of the experiment was very clever. It removed confounding influences and allowed the undisturbed radiation to be measured.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > My statement was very clear...the amount of radiation present and the amount of radiation being produced are two very different things...you are making assumptions about the amount of radiation present that can't be demonstrated with the  instrumentation.  You live on assumptions.  You believe models and their assumptions over reality and every observation and measurement ever made.  Ever wonder why?
> ...



The cavity experiment gives a result...it doesn't give the result you claim it does, but by all means explain if you like.  What does the amount of radiation escaping from that tiny hole, tell you about what the radiation inside the cavity is doing?  What do you think it tells you beyond the fact that the energy is moving from the warmer inside to the cooler outside?

And I don't think Stefan went wrong...His equations are accurate and confined by every observation ever made...your interpretation, your alteration is wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2017)

IanC said:


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



No ian, the people who promote the phantasy physics you believe so strongly in are the reason climate science, and physics itself has become so screwed up.  Physics has adopted a new language...call it Q speak.  I don't know if you ever read 1984, but Q speak is very similar in nature to Newspeak.  The field of physics expected that Q speak would replace....call it C speak...that being the language of classical physics by the mid 21st century.  Like Newspeak, Q speak was not only formulated to provide a means of passing on information in the quantum view, but to make it impossible to express an idea in any other mode of speech...such as C speak.  Once everyone accepts Q speak, then C speak becomes in essence, heretical thought.  

_When asked ... [about] an underlying quantum world, Bohr would answer: *There is no quantum world.* There is only an abstract quantum physical description.* It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature i*s. Physics concerns *what we can say* about Nature.

As I have stated over and over...you don't have any more knowledge than you did before..all you have is some more interesting stories to tell till such time as we actually learn more.  The problem lies with those who actually believe the stories represent reality._


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2017)

IanC said:


> The spherical cavity is enclosed in an oven. This leads to the unusual state of uniform temperature throughout the object with the spherical cavity.
> 
> The aperture is very small compared to the surface area of the cavity, therefore the slight loss of radiation does not affect the equilibrium in any significant way.
> 
> The concept of the experiment was very clever. It removed confounding influences and allowed the undisturbed radiation to be measured.



All the experiment is showing is that energy moves from the warmer inside to the cooler outside...you are making assumptions about what is happening inside.  The only thing the experiment is proving is that energy moves from warmer to cooler as if that needed to be proven in the first place.


----------



## IanC (Dec 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The spherical cavity is enclosed in an oven. This leads to the unusual state of uniform temperature throughout the object with the spherical cavity.
> ...




Just to get you down on record, are you saying that there is no radiation present in the cavity until the aperture is opened? A simple 'no radiation present' will suffice but if you say 'yes, radiation is present' then further explanation will be required as that is contrary to your previous statements


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2017)

IanC said:


> Just to get you down on record, are you saying that there is no radiation present in the cavity until the aperture is opened? A simple 'no radiation present' will suffice but if you say 'yes, radiation is present' then further explanation will be required as that is contrary to your previous statements



Excellent question...and a fine opportunity to demonstrate to you the extent to which you are making assumptions based on your belief in models.

1.  Is the metal the sphere made of perfectly homogenous in its metallic structure and is it perfectly uniform in its thickness?

2.  Is the inside perfectly insulated from the outside?

3.  Is the carbon coating on the inside perfectly uniform?

4.  Is the sphere heated to precisely the same temperature across its entire inside surface?

If the answer to any of those questions is no then you have temperature gradients, however small within the sphere which would allow the transfer of energy across said gradients.

If you answer yes to any of them, I would ask how you know.  What measures were taken to determine that this metal sphere is as perfect as the theoretical structure in the mind experiment.  Especially number 4.  How exactly would you go about heating a hollow sphere to precisely the same temperature across its entire inside and outside surfaces?  I asked a fellow who would know and he said that he is unaware of any method to which you could heat such a sphere...or anything else for that matter,  so precisely that every atom was in thermal equilibrium....or test it to assure that it was in fact heated so precisely that every atom was in thermal equilibrium.

Your belief in models has blinded you to everything else.  It leads you to be easily fooled by instrumentation, and to assume that the set up of a physical experiment is even capable of achieving the standard necessary to mirror a theoretical mind experiment. 

If every atom in the sphere is not in thermal equilibrium, then you have energy transfer going on along the temperature gradients, however small, inside the sphere and opening the aperture within the sphere only allows the radiation that is already moving among the inevitable temperature gradients within the sphere which is warmer than the outside to move from the warmer inside to the cooler outside.  Again, all the experiment actually proves is that energy moves from cool to warm..yet one more observation that does nothing but further support my position.

Your faith has made you dull witted...incapable of questioning the very experiments which you want so desperately to support your belief.  The first question anyone capable of actually thinking...anyone who is actually interested in the physics,  would ask about any experiment set up with the intent to show energy movement at thermal equilibrium would be how exactly are you going to achieve true thermal equilibrium in a structure larger than a couple of atoms?  A dullard would not even think to ask but would just run off with an assumption and claim evidence of his belief.  Congratulations dullard.


----------



## IanC (Dec 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> 1. Is the metal the sphere made of perfectly homogenous in its metallic structure and is it perfectly uniform in its thickness?
> 
> 2. Is the inside perfectly insulated from the outside?
> 
> ...



1. Only the spherical shape of the cavity matters. The enclosure can be any shape, any thickness. The oven removes the temperature gradient of the enclosure. I have talked about this special case before, in terms of entropy being decreased.

2. I don't understand your question. You haven't specified what inside or what outside. The oven is doing work to keep the enclosure at a specific temperature. Is this what you mean by 'insulation'?

3. The carbon coating is as uniform as the technology can make it. Are you arguing that emmisivity of .999 is not the perfect 1.0 of a blackbody?

4. Yes, the enclosure has been heated to a uniform temperature, therefore the surface of the cavity is also at a uniform temperature. Or are you arguing about the natural variation of kinetic speed between molecules of any substance? Temperature is defined as average speed, no substance has perfectly even motion of all its constituents. This is where you have denied the atomic world in the past. Are you now changing your tune?

To sum up...the enclosure containing the cavity is heated up by the oven to a uniform temperature. The cavity surface is emitting and absorbing perfectly equal amounts of radiation. The amount of radiation released by the aperture is insignificant (<<<) to the amount present.

You appear by your questions to be trying to weasle out a reason for some radiation to be present but not the full amount defined by j=aT^4.

So, answer the question. Is there radiation present before the aperture opens? Or is the cavity just in limbo, with molecular collisions somehow forbidden, or at least the radiation created by the collisions impaired by some unknown mechanism that you found in your insane version of physics?

Edit- for question #1, I am mistaken. The shape of the cavity doesn't matter. If you can see something then it can see you.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2017)

IanC said:


> 1. Only the spherical shape of the cavity matters. The enclosure can be any shape, any thickness. The oven removes the temperature gradient of the enclosure. I have talked about this special case before, in terms of entropy being decreased.



If you believe that, then I am afraid that you have shown yourself to know even less about the real world than I had given you credit for.  The fact is that we aren't even close to having the technology to put all of the atoms of any object into perfect equilibrium, which is what would be necessary to prevent energy flow across those temperature gradients.  Your models are not real...they are not observable, they are not measurable, and most importantly they are not TESTABLE.  If you believe they are then not only are you easily fooled by instrumentation, but by terribly flawed experimental setups as well.



IanC said:


> 2. I don't understand your question. You haven't specified what inside or what outside. The oven is doing work to keep the enclosure at a specific temperature. Is this what you mean by 'insulation'?



Of course you don't ian...you are willing to accept any experimental set up no matter how flawed if the result, no matter how twisted, or ambiguous allows you to make up a story about it that suits your needs.



IanC said:


> 3. The carbon coating is as uniform as the technology can make it. Are you arguing that emmisivity of .999 is not the perfect 1.0 of a blackbody?



I asked if it were perfect..the answer is no.  The whole point is that the set up of the experiment is not perfect, therefore it does not demonstrate what you want it to demonstrate.  All it shows is that energy flows from the warmer inside to the cooler outside.



IanC said:


> 4. Yes, the enclosure has been heated to a uniform temperature, therefore the surface of the cavity is also at a uniform temperature. Or are you arguing about the natural variation of kinetic speed between molecules of any substance? Temperature is defined as average speed, no substance has perfectly even motion of all its constituents. This is where you have denied the atomic world in the past. Are you now changing your tune?



Here is a question for you ian...perhaps it will get you to actually use your brain.  Is "uniform temperature" the same as thermal equilibrium down to the atomic level?  Because this experiment claims to demonstrate something happening at the atomic level.  A simple yes or no will do...then you might expound on how the experimenters determined that all the atoms in the sphere were at perfect atomic equilibrium if you are stupid enough to claim that the sphere was actually in that state.



IanC said:


> To sum up...the enclosure containing the cavity is heated up by the oven to a uniform temperature. The cavity surface is emitting and absorbing perfectly equal amounts of radiation. The amount of radiation released by the aperture is insignificant (<<<) to the amount present.



Perfectly?  Really ian?  Are you really that uninformed?



IanC said:


> You appear by your questions to be trying to weaslel out a reason for some radiation to be present but not the full amount defined by j=aT^4.



I am not weaseling out of anything..I am trying to point out how blind to reality your belief in models has made you.  It apparently never even occurred to you to question the experiment or its set up or if it was even capable of demonstrating what you believe it demonstrates.



IanC said:


> So, answer the question. Is there radiation present before the aperture opens? Or is the cavity just in limbo, with molecular collisions somehow forbidden, or at least the radiation created by the collisions impaired by some unknown mechanism that you found in your insane version of physics?



Yes ian, radiation is present because all of the atoms in the sphere are not heated to a state of perfect thermal equilibrium...and energy is moving across those temperature gradients, no matter how small they are.  So long as you have atoms that are not in PERFECT thermal equilibrium, you have energy movement.  One way gross energy movement..but energy movement none the less.


----------



## IanC (Dec 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Only the spherical shape of the cavity matters. The enclosure can be any shape, any thickness. The oven removes the temperature gradient of the enclosure. I have talked about this special case before, in terms of entropy being decreased.
> ...



WOOHOO!!!!!!!!!!

SSDD finally caved in! This comment is bookmarked. Hallelujah!

I am too giddy to know where to start...but I will.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2017)

IanC said:


> WOOHOO!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> SSDD finally caved in! This comment is bookmarked. Hallelujah!
> 
> I am too giddy to know where to start...but I will.



Apparently you are to dense to understand what I just said...which happens to be what I have been saying all along.  The radiation in the sphere is moving from warmer to cooler across temperature gradients within the sphere...since it is impossible to bring all the atoms making up the sphere into perfect thermal equilibrium.  Exactly how do you think that is different from what I have been saying all along?  What story have you made up in your head to make what I said somehow different from what I have been saying all along?


----------



## IanC (Dec 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > WOOHOO!!!!!!!!!!
> ...




Define temperature, temperature gradients and thermal equilibrium. You obviously do not understand the concepts involved.


----------



## IanC (Dec 19, 2017)

SSDD- I am actually rather pleased that you are finally taking atomic scale interactions into your worldview of how things work. If you follow the implications through to the logical conclusions you will have a much more mature grasp of physics. 

Of course it may just be anthropomorphism on my part to think you are making progress. You may just backslide into your old position.

Let's look at temperature in its simplest case, a gas. If the gas is constrained by an enclosure or even just gravity, then the temperature is derived by how fast the average molecule is moving, how hard the molecules are hitting the walls or each other.

If we examine this same average molecule with the same average speed but isolate it in outer space, does it still have a 'temperature'? No, because it's not bumping into anything. There is no kinetic energy being transferred to a different particle. 

The ability of the molecule to absorb or emit a photon would remain unchanged but the likelihood of the molecule becoming excited by collision would drop to practically nil. Even though the molecule has the SAME kinetic energy as when it was a member of a larger cohort.

Temperature is a macroscopic quality that only appears when there are large numbers of particles and interactions present. It represents average conditions not individual ones. There is a wide range of possible speeds, a wide range of possible collision types from head-on to glancing blows.

You have finally acknowledged individual variation within temperature but now you are demanding a perfectly uniform energy distribution across every atom of an object. Absolutely impossible, and no one claims that it is. I said the cavity surface was a uniform temperature, and it is. The constant swapping of radiation back and forth assures this. Any chance variation would be immediately smoothed out again.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2017)

IanC said:


> Define temperature, temperature gradients and thermal equilibrium. You obviously do not understand the concepts involved.



If two objects are in thermal equilibrium..no energy exchanges between them...if any temperature difference exists, no matter how small, energy exchanges are possible.

Sorry ian, the real world just isn't going to provide you proof for your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD- I am actually rather pleased that you are finally taking atomic scale interactions into your worldview of how things work. If you follow the implications through to the logical conclusions you will have a much more mature grasp of physics.



What a bloviating, bleating  ass you are ian...I have always taken atomic scale interactions into account...and still energy does not move from cool to warm...just doesn't happen on any scale.




IanC said:


> The ability of the molecule to absorb or emit a photon would remain unchanged but the likelihood of the molecule becoming excited by collision would drop to practically nil. Even though the molecule has the SAME kinetic energy as when it was a member of a larger cohort.



There would be no photon to absorb if the molecule were in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings as there would be no energy exchange taking place...



IanC said:


> You have finally acknowledged individual variation within temperature but now you are demanding a perfectly uniform energy distribution across every atom of an object. Absolutely impossible, and no one claims that it is. I said the cavity surface was a uniform temperature, and it is. The constant swapping of radiation back and forth assures this. Any chance variation would be immediately smoothed out again.



I don't demand it...the laws of physics do...so long as objects are not in perfect thermal equilibrium, then energy exchanges take place and they only move in one direction..from warm to cool...objects in perfect thermal equilibrium do not exchange energy...energy is only exchanged from warm to cool.

And since you finally acknowledge that perfect thermal equilibrium is not possible, one would hope that you could realize that the experiment does not show what you assume that it shows because the assumption is perfect thermal equilibrium within the sphere..


----------



## IanC (Dec 20, 2017)

SSDD said:


> And since you finally acknowledge that perfect thermal equilibrium is not possible, one would hope that you could realize that the experiment does not show what you assume that it shows because the assumption is perfect thermal equilibrium within the sphere..



Why do you refuse to acknowledge the definition of temperature?

Temperature is the AVERAGE kinetic speed of a very large number of particles that are being observed. There has never been an expectation that all of the particles has the same exact speed, nor is that possible.

The experiment heats an iron enclosure with a spherical cavity inside of it. The enclosure equilibrates to a uniform temperature, but it must be remembered that energy can only enter or leave via the surface exposed to the oven.

The inside cavity has a surface of uniform temperature. There is no possibility of energy entering or leaving.

The cavity surface is radiating photons according to the T^4 relationship. It is not cooling despite losing energy by photon emission because it is absorbing the same amount of radiation. Any radiation produced by the cavity surface is also absorbed by the cavity surface. This is the brilliant idea behind the experiment!

Radiation is produced in response to internal conditions occuring in individual particles. The only way to stop or slow radiation production is to change the internal conditions. 

I say any large group of particles will produce a predictable amount of radiation that depends on the average amount of energy available to be converted into photons. This average amount of available energy is also known as temperature.

You say no radiation is ever produced unless it can escape to an area of lower average available energy. That warm areas produce less radiation than S-B suggest by the equation j= aT^4, and that cool areas cannot produce any radiation at all!

When asked how the temperature of the distant cool area controls the internal conditions of an individual particle in a warm area, you respond by saying "how does a rock know which way to fall?". 



I think I will stay with the accepted version of physics that says everything radiates according to it's temperature, and that the flow of heat by radiation is the net result of flows going in either direction.


----------



## IanC (Dec 20, 2017)

*temperature*
[tem-per-uh-cher, -choo r, -pruh-, -per-cher, -choo r]
*noun*

a measure of the warmth or coldness of an object or substance with reference to some standard value. The temperature of two systems is the same when the systems are in thermal equilibrium.


----------



## IanC (Dec 20, 2017)

*thermal equilibrium*. The condition under which two substances in physical contact with each other exchange no *heat* energy. Two substances in *thermal equilibrium* are said to be at the same temperature. See also thermodynamics. The American Heritage® Science*Dictionary*.


----------



## IanC (Dec 20, 2017)

_Heat energy_ (or thermal energy or simply _heat_) is a form of energy transfer among particles in a substance (or system) by means of kinetic energy of those particles. In other words, under kinetic theory, the heat is transferred by particles bouncing into each other.

...

*HEAT VS. TEMPERATURE*
Note this crucial component to the above definition:
Heat always refers to the _transfer_ of energy between systems (or bodies), not to energy contained within the systems (or bodies).

This distinction between heat and temperature is subtle, but very important. Heat refers to the total energy of the molecular motion or kinetic energy of a material. Temperature, on the other hand, is a measure of the average or apparent energy of molecular motion. In other words, heat is energy, while temperature is a measure of energy. Adding heat will increase a body's temperature, while removing heat will lower the temperature. In thermodynamics equations, heat is a quantity of energy which may be transferred between two systems. In contrast, both temperature and internal energy are state functions. Heat is measurable (as temperature), but it is not a material.


----------



## IanC (Dec 20, 2017)

Heat transfer due to emission of electromagnetic waves is known as thermal radiation. Heat transfer through radiation takes place in form of electromagnetic waves mainly in the infrared region. Radiation emitted by a body is a consequence of thermal agitation of its composing molecules.


----------



## IanC (Dec 20, 2017)

When I asked you for definitions, these are examples of what I wanted.

Clipping a sentence out of an article on aerogels is not. Aerogels have emissivities approaching zero while we are discussing examples of emissivities approaching one.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2017)

IanC said:


> The inside cavity has a surface of uniform temperature. There is no possibility of energy entering or leaving.



Look at that statement ian...proof positive that you are simply unable to think past your predetermined beliefs.

No possibility of energy entering or leaving...pure bullshit.  The inside of the sphere is warm...where did the energy that heated up the sphere come from?...inside the sphere or outside the sphere?  Since the energy clearly came from outside, there is nothing preventing energy from entering or leaving...because?????...A:  the whole system is not in perfect thermal equilibrium..therefore there are energy exchanges throughout the system.  

Your experiment isn't showing what you believe it to be showing...all you are proving is that energy from the warm system will move to the cooler outside system as if that needed to be proven.

Your belief and bias has made you blind and stupid.  So stupid in fact, that you aren't even able to grasp the blatantly obvious fact that the energy that is causing the inside of the sphere to be warm is coming from outside the sphere.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2017)

IanC said:


> When I asked you for definitions, these are examples of what I wanted.
> 
> Clipping a sentence out of an article on aerogels is not. Aerogels have emissivities approaching zero while we are discussing examples of emissivities approaching one.



Grab the one mention out of how many posts that mention aerogels...and it doesn't matter what the material is...so long as an object is not in perfect thermal equilibrium with another object, one way energy exchange from the warmer object to the cooler object will take place..when they are in perfect thermal equilibrium, no energy exchange is possible.  So sayeth the real world and every measurement ever taken.


----------



## IanC (Dec 21, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The inside cavity has a surface of uniform temperature. There is no possibility of energy entering or leaving.
> ...



The oven does work to heat the enclosure inside of it. The temperature gradient moves from the outside of the enclosure towards the middle, at which point the enclosure stops absorbing energy from the oven. Even when the oven is turned off, it will take a long time for the new temperature gradient to reach the middle. 

So yes, once the enclosure is preheated it is at a stable and uniform temperature, with no ability to gain or lose energy until the oven settings are changed. And even then it will take considerable time for the outside of the enclosure to reach the cavity within.


----------



## IanC (Dec 21, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > When I asked you for definitions, these are examples of what I wanted.
> ...




Are you denying that you clipped a sentence out of a paper on aerogels to give a definition that was to your liking?

Why was there even one? Did you do a search for a specific term and then post up the link without reading it for context? 

I am getting tired of wasting my time reading your links only to find that they don't say what you claim they say.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 21, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



*I am getting tired of wasting my time reading your links only to find that they don't say what you claim they say.
*
My favorite thing is when he posts something to back up his claim, and it disagrees with him.
It has to be rough when you're the only person in the world with that particular misunderstanding of physics.


----------



## IanC (Dec 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It has to be rough when you're the only person in the world with that particular misunderstanding of physics.



That is why he can't find links to support his version. No one agrees with him except a few sycophants here on this message board who know even less physics than he does.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2017)

You are drowning in models ian...and as such, you have lost touch with reality....the only thing your experiment shows is that energy moves from the warmer sphere to the cooler outside...congratulations.


----------



## IanC (Dec 21, 2017)

SSDD says we are being fooled by instrumentation. 

He doesn't dispute that the results are correct but he says we aren't actually measuring radiation. 

If you measure the height of a tree by observing its shadow and the angle of the sun that is also being fooled by instrumentation because you're not actually measuring the tree. Or something like that.

Stefan's experiment produced data that allowed the radiation to be quantified and qualified into a Planck curve for each temperature. The shape for each curve is congruent to the shape of any other curve for temperature.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 22, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD says we are being fooled by instrumentation.



Of course you are...it is a demonstrable fact.  You believe that an instrument cooled to -80F is measuring back radiation while an instrument at ambient temperature can't because of the amount of noise...all the while believing that backradiation is happening at a magnitude that can alter the global temperature...but can't be measured with an instrument at ambient temperature...of course you are being fooled by instrumentation.



IanC said:


> He doesn't dispute that the results are correct but he says we aren't actually measuring radiation.



The result is that energy moves from the warm inside of the sphere to the cooler outside...of course you are measuring radiation moving from the inside to the outside...it is misinterpreting the results, and ignoring obvious flaws in the experiment and believing you are demonstrating something that you aren't that is the problem.



IanC said:


> If you measure the height of a tree by observing its shadow and the angle of the sun that is also being fooled by instrumentation because you're not actually measuring the tree. Or something like that.



Of course not, because you can actually measure the height of the tree to check against your trigonometric calculation...you can't actually measure energy moving in two directions because it doesn't happen...energy movement is a one way gross flow from warm to cool.



IanC said:


> Stefan's experiment produced data that allowed the radiation to be quantified and qualified into a Planck curve for each temperature. The shape for each curve is congruent to the shape of any other curve for temperature.



The experiment is not showing what you believe it to be showing...you claim that energy can not move from the outside of the sphere to the inside of the sphere when the very energy that is heating the inside came from the outside...and since neither the sphere nor the interior of the oven can ever be brought to perfect thermal equilibrium, there is going to be energy movement across those temperature gradients no matter how small they may be...the experiment doesn't demonstrate what you claim it demonstrates.

You are trying to demonstrate the perfect theoretical conditions of the model with a flawed experiment in reality.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 22, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD says we are being fooled by instrumentation.
> ...



*you can't actually measure energy moving in two directions because it doesn't happen...energy movement is a one way gross flow from warm to cool.
*
Except the Sun.


----------



## IanC (Dec 22, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Of course not, because you can actually measure the height of the tree to check against your trigonometric calculation...you can't actually measure energy moving in two directions because it doesn't happen...energy movement is a one way gross flow from warm to cool.




The S-B equations calculate the power from one object and subtract it from the other, resulting in net power going from the warmer object to the cooler one.

Mathematically true, and based in reality. For your version to work then the average temperature of the two objects would have to be able get inside of individual particles and change the internal conditions to block radiation. What is the mechanism by which the movement of molecules is stopped or slowed? Even though the temperature is maintained? Temperature IS the movement of molecules. You make no sense at all.


----------



## IanC (Dec 22, 2017)

SSDD said:


> The experiment is not showing what you believe it to be showing...you claim that energy can not move from the outside of the sphere to the inside of the sphere when the very energy that is heating the inside came from the outside...and since neither the sphere nor the interior of the oven can ever be brought to perfect thermal equilibrium, there is going to be energy movement across those temperature gradients no matter how small they may be...the experiment doesn't demonstrate what you claim it demonstrates.



The oven conditions the air to stay at a specific temperature, the enclosure absorbs energy and passes it along until the whole enclosure is at a uniform temperature. This takes time to come to equilibrium and a specific amount of energy has been absorbed. Once at equilibrium the interior cavity surface can only lose energy the same way it came in, through the outside of the enclosure.(edit- there is no direct path from the cavity to the outside, the energy must flow there via temperature gradients). No small fluxuations of individual particles changes the temperature of the whole, or even smaller areas. A wide range of individual particle motion is expected in any substance, after all temperature is an average of a large number of constituent particles.

Your demand that every particle is equal right down to the atomic scale is foolish and unrealistic. No one claims that happens or that it is even possible.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 22, 2017)

IanC said:


> The S-B equations calculate the power from one object and subtract it from the other, resulting in net power going from the warmer object to the cooler one.



Mental masturbation ian.....nothing more... The SB equations for objects in the presence of other matter depict a one way gross flow of energy...why else do such bad math....complicating an equation that has already been reduced in an effort to convince someone other than yourself.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 22, 2017)

IanC said:


> The oven conditions the air to stay at a specific temperature, the enclosure absorbs energy and passes it along until the whole enclosure is at a uniform temperature. This takes time to come to equilibrium and a specific amount of energy has been absorbed. Once at equilibrium the interior cavity surface can only lose energy the same way it came in, through the outside of the enclosure.(edit- there is no direct path from the cavity to the outside, the energy must flow there via temperature gradients). No small fluxuations of individual particles changes the temperature of the whole, or even smaller areas. A wide range of individual particle motion is expected in any substance, after all temperature is an average of a large number of constituent particles.



Sorry ian...the system is not at perfect thermal equilibrium...no matter how much you wish it were true...there are temperature variations both within the sphere, within the material the sphere is made of, and within the oven the sphere resides in...we can not produce perfect thermal equilibrium.



IanC said:


> Your demand that every particle is equal right down to the atomic scale is foolish and unrealistic. No one claims that happens or that it is even possible.



And yet, that is the only way that the experiment shows what you believe it to show...and by the way...at thermal equilibrium, no energy exchange is possible.


----------



## IanC (Dec 23, 2017)

Okay, let's try yet another slightly different explanation that leads to the same conclusions.

Planck curves for two blackbodies 20C apart.






The shape of the curve is very common. A Bell curve with a fat tail. The range for both curves is almost identical, with just a very small increase in maximum energy wavelength for the warmer curve. At every point of the range the warmer blackbody produces more radiation than the cooler one. This is why the SLoT is immutable.

The radiation is created by molecular motion and collisions. Here is a graph on molecular speeds-






Another Normal (Bell) curve with a fat tail.

SSDD says thermal equilibrium is only possible if all molecules are exactly equal in speed, presumably the root mean square speed. That cannot happen. Physically impossible. 

Apparently SSDD is claiming that radiation can only be created by a faster moving molecule that passes it over to a slower moving molecule. Even if that was true (it's not) how would that stop radiation from happening between two objects at the same temperature, or even a cooler object to a warmer one?

An average speed molecule can always find a slower moving molecule to radiate at, even if it is from a cooler object. Any temperature object has some has some molecules at close to zero speed.

TBC


----------



## polarbear (Dec 23, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The S-B equations calculate the power from one object and subtract it from the other, resulting in net power going from the warmer object to the cooler one.
> ...


Yeah it`s back to the ideal black body and the Planck curve as if warm air over the earth`s surface would have anything in common with it. Even if you let him have the toys for the game he wants to play it would not jive.
Suppose you got a situation where T1 is at a level where most of the available oscillators are in the excited state at any given time. Then 100% of all the photons emitted by the colder body would have to be able to find the few % of the oscillators in the T1 body that can absorb them. Now that would take "intelligent" photons!
I already showed him what happens if you radiate a cathode ray light beam through a flame aspirated with a substance that can absorb the light ray. The hotter the flame the less light it absorbs from the cathode ray light source. That`s not an experiment but a well known effect that anyone who works in Spectroscopic Analysis knows. Like as if Perkin Elmer and all the other AA spec instrumentation designers & manufacturers would give a shit about IanC`s utterings  how a hotter body absorbs energy from a colder one via photons and rewrite their user manuals because a consensus of climatologists says it is so. And from now on flame settings no longer matter.


----------



## IanC (Dec 23, 2017)

polarbear said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




So you're back to this bullshit? We are talking about passive heat transfer at common terrestrial temperatures and temperature gradients. 

You are talking about controlled experiments using an outside fuel source to artificially heat a substance until many of its orbitals and bonds are in an excited state.

Apples and oranges. 

Why do you run away when realistic examples are being discussed, only to resurface weeks later with more off topic crap?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 23, 2017)

polarbear said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



*Yeah it`s back to the ideal black body and the Planck curve as if warm air over the earth`s surface would have anything in common with it.
*
Air doesn't emit according to the Planck curve?


----------



## IanC (Dec 23, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



No. It doesn't absorb like a blackbody either.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 28, 2017)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



What you don't seem to grasp ian, is that the second law applies to everything...no exceptions...  The experiment he references just proves the point...it doesn't point to some exception.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 28, 2017)

IanC said:


> No. It doesn't absorb like a blackbody either.



Does that statement of fact now mean that you agree that the SB law is being wrongly applied to the atmosphere in order to fabricate a greenhouse effect, and with it, its bastard stepchild the AGW hypothesis?...because if you can't apply the SB law to the atmosphere, then you can't have a greenhouse effect as described by climate science.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 28, 2017)

By sometime in February we should have a solid cost estimate of what the extreme weather events have cost us. I think that the label of CAGW will fit this year.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 28, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> By sometime in February we should have a solid cost estimate of what the extreme weather events have cost us. I think that the label of CAGW will fit this year.



What's the annual cost of baseline "extreme weather"?


----------



## IanC (Dec 28, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > No. It doesn't absorb like a blackbody either.
> ...



There you go again. You make a bald statement with no explanation of what you mean, and then claim victory.

I am no fan of the consensus science version of AGW theory and the doomsday conclusions drawn from it. Get that straight in your head.

But I am a big fan of the notion that CO2 is a warming influence, directly on the atmosphere and indirectly on the surface by making the atmosphere warmer. 

You are a big fan of the S-B equations but refuse to take into consideration any of the complexities in actually deriving real world answers from it. The area component is beyond your ken, as proven by past conversations, and is not of primary concern here anyways.

That leaves emmisivity, which is the primary concern here. A blackbody is a theoretical substance that perfectly absorbs and emits radiation at all wavelengths, over the range of all temperatures. Doesn't happen, impossible. But you can measure emmisivity for substances over narrow ranges of wavelengths and temperatures.

CO2 (in gaseous form) has a known emmisivity for the terrestrial range of wavelengths and temperatures, by measurement. It is close to zero for all wavelengths but three, with only the 15 micron radiation being of primary interest here. At 15 microns CO2 is a near blackbody, the atmosphere is opaque at this wavelength. The mean free path for a 15 micron photon emitted from the surface is a mere 2 metres before it is absorbed by CO2 at a concentration of less than one percent, and all of it is gone by 10 metres.

The surface 15 micron energy for the most part does not stay in the CO2 molecules or get reemited as 15 micron photons. It is converted by molecular collision into different forms of energy, kinetic and potential as part of the total energy of the atmosphere.

We could do the same type of exercise for water vapour but it is further complicated by the presence of liquid and solid forms as well for absorption, and latent heat from phase change for emission.


If you want to say CO2 has no warming influence then you have to explain away the surface energy being absorbed by CO2 in the first few metres of atmosphere. It can't just disappear and be forgotten. So far your only explanation is to say "absorption and emission do not equal warming". So go into detail. What absorption and where, what emission and where? Why do you think they are equal amounts if they predominantly happen in different locations with a large difference in temperature ?

Convince me. Stop making claims out of thin air and start making logical explanations with supporting evidence.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 28, 2017)

IanC said:


> But I am a big fan of the notion that CO2 is a warming influence, directly on the atmosphere and indirectly on the surface by making the atmosphere warmer.



And yet, none of the predicted fingerprints of CO2 having any warming influence at all are present.  You believe based on a model...not any sort of actual evidence...so once again..you have nothing but your faith...and alas...that isn't science.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 28, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Come on Ian.. I just showed you why CO2 cant affect the earth like you think it can in the other thread. Without the functions you claim working, it can not do what you think it can..  The problem with modeling is, they never look out the window to evaluate if the model is paralleling reality.


----------



## IanC (Dec 28, 2017)

SSDD said:


> And yet, none of the predicted fingerprints of CO2 having any warming influence at all are present. You believe based on a model...not any sort of actual evidence...so once again..you have nothing but your faith...and alas...that isn't science.



Your memory is getting as selective as Old Rocks'.

So, what is the fingerprint of CO2 warming? CO2 warms the lower atmosphere by absorbing surface radiation that would otherwise escape directly to space. The warmer lower atmosphere accepts less thermal contact energy from the surface because of the smaller temperature gradient. The surface warms up until the extra radiation escaping through the atmospheric window puts the energy budget back into equilibrium.

So what would we expect to find if we looked at graphs of TOA radiation for the same area, but separated by 20+ years of increasing CO2? A warmer surface temperature, more radiation escaping through the atmospheric window, and less CO2 specific radiation because the emission height has raised into a cooler part of the atmosphere.

What was found in the actual data? Exactly what was expected. Were the atmospheric radiation models accurate? Yes, amazingly so. 

And where did I get this information? FROM YOU! Your link. Hahahaha


----------



## IanC (Dec 28, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




No, you have not disproven the CO2 warming influence. I even broke down the mechanism into its component parts and asked you which area you had a problem with. You declined to answer.

I am supporting the obvious and real CO2 warming influence. I am not supporting the feedback mechanisms because I think AGW theory has the physics wrong in many areas. 

You keep putting up non sequiturs that have little or nothing to do with CO2, and you keep ducking the issues that are intrinsically tied to CO2.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2017)

IanC said:


> What was found in the actual data? Exactly what was expected. Were the atmospheric radiation models accurate? Yes, amazingly so.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## IanC (Dec 30, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > No. It doesn't absorb like a blackbody either.
> ...



Actually this is a great question. If you answer some of my questions directed at you I will gladly talk about this.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Since all you have is models, and those models are unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable, what exactly is the point of further fueling your fantasy?


----------



## IanC (Dec 31, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Since all you have is models, and those models are unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable, what exactly is the point of further fueling your fantasy?



What??? Now you don't want to discuss the unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable Stefan Boltzmann model?

You are no student of history. If you were, then you would know that Planck invented the concept of quantum distance and energy because the thermodynamic models of the time couldn't work without it. Google the ultraviolet catastrophe.

I think it is funny that you have total faith in a model that was known to be wrong or  incomplete as soon as it was proposed.

You dismiss QM yet you use one of the most esoteric, edge of the envelope suggestions that because photons travel at the speed of light they can test their landing spot without being hampered by time or distance. Even the great Maxwell said it was above his pay grade. He gave us the equations to calculate what happens but refused to hazard a guess as to HOW it happens.

Most of us have double standards. We accept certain things more readily if we agree with them and they fit our worldview. And reject other things unless the evidence is overwhelming if we disagree. But you take it to a whole new level. The evidence not only fits our version of physics better but actually disproves yours. You simply play Catch-22.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2017)

IanC said:


> What??? Now you don't want to discuss the unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable Stefan Boltzmann model?



We discussed it..you can't even grasp, or recognize an equation that describes gross one way energy flow...you are perfectly willing to do absolutely piss poor math and needlessly complicate an already reduced equation in an attempt to make it say something that it doesn't...and you can describe no other instance in physics where you might want to apply the distributive property to an equation that is reduced...or when it might be something other than bad math.

And by the way...I don't even believe photons exist...I believe light is a wave with properties we are yet to understand...You believe in photons and if you are going to make arguments about them, then your arguments must take into account the properties that those who believe in photons have assigned to them...they explain why energy only moves from cool to warm...the fact that you don't like it isn't my problem.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 1, 2018)

IanC said:


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


According to NASA, the two measurements are indistinguishable from one another.  You have shown no rise..  Just like your hot spot in the atmosphere, its a no show..  You do know that means your hypothesis has failed, don't you?  Now what is wrong and how are you going to fix it?


----------



## IanC (Jan 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




And you have something other than models?

I spent a week or two asking for some of 'all the evidence is on my side' from you. You presented nothing.

I personally like having you around. There is nothing as efficient as having to defend your ideas to bring those ideas into sharper focus. I have changed my position on many of the smaller details because of your challenges but the general ideas remain intact. Stronger actually.

Thanks for that.

I still wish you would be more forthcoming in your defense of N&Z. That is an area that most laymen are blind to. Unfortunately so, because it is an integral part of the discussion of the greenhouse effect.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2018)

IanC said:


> And you have something other than models?



Yes ian, observed measured evidence...



IanC said:


> I spent a week or two asking for some of 'all the evidence is on my side' from you. You presented nothing.



what do you wan't more than every observation and measurement ever made?



IanC said:


> I still wish you would be more forthcoming in your defense of N&Z. That is an area that most laymen are blind to. Unfortunately so, because it is an integral part of the discussion of the greenhouse effect.



The simple fact that their hypothesis works on every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse hypothesis only works here if you allow an ad hoc fudge factor...how much more evidence do you need?  And there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science...never was..and never will be.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > And you have something other than models?
> ...



*what do you wan't more than every observation and measurement ever made?
*
How about a couple of observations and measurements that show the cooler object ceases radiating?
And an explanation of how the hotter object determines the temperature of the cooler object, so the dimmer switch knows how much radiating to allow?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> [
> 
> 
> How about a couple of observations and measurements that show the cooler object ceases radiating?



 The cooler object will radiate if there is a direction in which the radiation can move to a cooler area...I suppose it would only stop radiating if it were completely surrounded by warmer material...and if you care to set up the experiment and try measuring energy moving from the cooler object with an instrument at ambient temperature, you will detect no radiation coming from the cooler object.



IanC said:


> And an explanation of how the hotter object determines the temperature of the cooler object, so the dimmer switch knows how much radiating to allow?



How does a rock know which way to fall?  Does it have to be intelligent...does it ask the other rocks in its vicinity?  Does it perhaps ask the sky? How does it know?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



*I suppose it would only stop radiating if it were completely surrounded by warmer material..
*
So post some experiments where they prove your supposition.
Or even discuss the idea that cooler matter doesn't emit toward warmer matter.

*How does a rock know which way to fall? 
*
We're not talking about rocks or the current theory of mass curving space-time.
We're talking about information being sent without an exchange of radiation.
Faster than light.

Never seen you post anyone else making your particular causality violating claim.


----------



## IanC (Jan 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> We're talking about information being sent without an exchange of radiation.
> Faster than light.



You have to be really, really careful about making assumptions about light and QM.


Bell's Theorum is a real kick in the nuts to anyone wanting to just stick with classical physics.


----------



## IanC (Jan 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > And you have something other than models?
> ...



As per usual, you make a naked claim and refuse to back it up. 

Whenever I try to get you to discuss the nuts and bolts you simply run away. I assume that you simply don't understand what is going on, but there is no reason why you couldn't learn more about it.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




Ian...any hypothesis that doesn't work on any other planet with a solar system and only works here if you apply an ad hoc fudge factor is not worth discussing.  What could you possibly say about a hypothesis that requires an ad hoc fudge factor in order to even be close?  A hypothesis which has experienced predictive failure after predictive failure after predictive failure...Why would you even want to try to defend such a steaming pile?  There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science....period.  If you want to discuss fiction, there are a whole universe of more interesting topics than the greenhouse effect as described by climate science...

If you were capable of real critical thought, it would take you about 2 seconds to discount such an obvious politicization of science for monetary gain and move on looking for someone promoting a hypothesis that works wherever it is tried.


----------



## IanC (Jan 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




I don't give a shit about political ramifications, I only care about figuring out what is happening.

I have repeatedly tried to engage you in a discussion about N&Z. There are a lot of interesting ideas there, with or without adding GHGs to the mix.

You keep asking me to defend the IPCC position when I have already stated I don't agree with it. They get water feedbacks wrong, they probably get convection wrong (remember the Pot Lid Hypothesis?)

What I am asking you to do is explain and defend your position. I will do the same. I find it hard to find my weaknesses without someone challenging my ideas and assumptions. 

Probably you just don't understand the N&Z paper. Are you just parroting their ideas? On faith?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Your position is indefensible ian...As I said, if you want to discuss fiction, there is a universe of more interesting topics than the greenhouse effect....here have a look at some empirical evidence...

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-ac...ment-against-the-greenh-2157-7617-1000393.pdf

Clips:

The starting point of the here referenced research was the generally accepted greenhouse thesis which assumes that the present climate change is mainly due to the observed growing amount of the so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, particularly of carbon-dioxide in spite of the fact that, unlike a greenhouse, the Earth atmosphere doesn’t exhibit a transparent roof …  *This *[greenhouse effect]* idea takes its source in Fourier’s treatise made in 1827, exhibiting* *no empirical data or physical calculations and experimental data*.

The first results were delivered by Tyndall in the sixties of the 19th century, using artificial IR (= infrared) radiation. His photometric [light-measuring] apparatus consisted of metallic tubes as gas vessels and Leslie cubes as heat radiation sources, entailing comparatively low temperatures, namely 100°C and lower. In the [eighteen] nineties, *Arrhenius* continued such measurements. He *established the greenhouse thesis claiming that, unlike air, carbon-dioxide considerably absorbs infrared-radiation*. Thereby we distinguish between near IR (λ = 0.8 – 3μm), emitted at high temperatures (> 1000 K), and medium IR (λ = 3 – 50μm) occurring at lower temperatures as usual thermal radiation, while IR-radiation with larger wavelengths (λ = 50 – 1000μm) is defined as far IR.

*[O]verall, the greenhouse thesis has been commonly settled even if*[…] *its empiric basis appears poor while several theoretical presumptions are speculative*.  … there is reason enough to examine the current climate theory, and in particular the greenhouse thesis, regarding fundamental scientific principles and possibly to question the usual assumptions.

The analytic methods applied in climatology were exclusively photometric [light-measuring] ones. … *Thermal measurements have never been made, except those by pyranometers comprising the whole spectrum, so that direct coherences between light absorption and warming-up effects at matter have not been detected yet*.

The natural laws which were used for constructing the theory were confined to the temperature law of Stefan-Boltzmann (1), Planck’s distribution law (2), both being solely valid for black bodies, and BeerLambert’s absorption law (3), being unequivocally valid solely for visible light, and not compellingly for IR radiation (see below). *These laws were often impermissibly generalized and used in an incorrect way leading to wrong conclusions*.

*Questioning The CO2-IR-Warms-The-Atmosphere Assumption*
[A]ccording to this [greenhouse theory] model the assumption is made that any warming-up of the atmosphere is exclusively due to a partial absorption of medium-wave IR-radiation while any short-wave IR-absorption can be excluded since it has never been detected spectrometrically.

Against this, at least the following [5] arguments may be alleged [just the 1st , 4th, and 5th arguments are included here in very condensed form]:

1. As already found within a previous investigation [12], the greater part – namely *at least 60% – of the energy being emitted from a warmed plate to the surrounding atmosphere is transferred by heat conduction, and not by heat radiation* [i.e., via the greenhouse effect] obeying Stefan-Boltzmann’s law which is only valid in the vacuum. That part is even enhanced when the air convection is enhanced. Moreover, *near the ground the molar concentration of water vapour is much higher than that one of carbon dioxide *letting assume that its absorbance of heat radiation is much stronger. (e.g. at 20°C and 60% rel. humidity, the molar concentration of *water vapour is 36 times larger than that one of carbon-dioxide *being 0.038 volume%). Hence it can be assumed that *the major part of the heat transfer between Earth surface and atmosphere occurs near the ground while the greenhouse theory neglects that part solely regarding the radiative absorption by CO2 passing the whole atmosphere*.

4. Between the energetic absorption of electromagnetic radiation by gases and their resulting warming-up no empirical – and also no
theoretical – coherence is known which would be needed to carry spectroscopic results onto thermodynamic properties. *There is no good reason to assume that absorbed IR-radiation will be entirely transformed into heat. Rather it is conceivable that a part of it is re-emitted, to wit in all directions*.* But the link between the two phenomena is not known*.

5. The question of radiation emission by hot gases is related with it since it is obvious that *any gas, also air, begins to radiate to such an extent as it is warmed-up*. This question arises when the so-called radiative energy transfer is studied. But instead of empiric measurements, complicated theories were developed [15-17] starting from the abstruse assumption that the atmosphere behaves like a black body obeying Stefan-Boltzmann’s emission law, and disregarding the kinetic gas

*Overall it must be assessed that the atmospheric theory is on a shaky ground. widely missing empiric key methods to check the principles and their consequences*.

*Air Vs. CO2 Experiment: ‘The Final Proof That The Climate Theory Cannot Be True’*
Beyond, there is an aspect which hitherto has been overlooked, and which delivers* the final proof that the climate theory cannot be true*. It is the topic of the here reported author’s work [*Allmendinger, 2016*] concerning thermal measurements instead of spectroscopic ones, and delivering the evidence that *any gas absorbs IR-radiation – but in the short wavelength range -, with the consequence that air is warmed up by direct solar insolation – as well as by artificial IR-light – up to a limiting temperature due to radiative emission, and leading to an equilibrium state*.

Preliminary tests for the present investigation were made with solar light using square twin-tubes from Styrofoam (3 cm thick, 1 m long, outer diameter 25 cm), each equipped with three thermometers at different positions, and covered above and below by a thin transparent foil (preferably a 0.01 mm thick Saran-wrap). The tubes were pivoted on a frame in such a way that they could be oriented in the direction of the solar light (Figure 3). *One tube was filled with air, the other with carbon-dioxide*. Incipiently, the tubes were covered on the tops with aluminium-foils being removed at the start of the experiment.

The primary experimental result was quite astonishing in many respects.

Firstly: *The content gases warmed within a few minutes by approximately 10°C up to a constant limiting temperature*. This was surprising – at least in the case of air – for no warming-up was anticipated since sunlight is colourless and allegedly not able to absorb any IR-radiation. However, the existence of a limiting temperature is conceivable since a growing radiative emission has to be expected as far as the temperature rises.

Secondly: *The limiting temperatures were more or less equal at any measuring point. This means that the intensity of the sun beam was virtually not affected by the heat absorption in the gas tube* since the latter one was comparatively weak.

And thirdly: *Between the two tubes *[one filled with air, the other with CO2]* no significant difference could be detected*.  Therefore, thanks to this simple experiment* a special effect of carbon dioxide on the direct sunlight absorption could already be excluded*.

*As evident from Figure 8*, *any gas absorbs IR-light – even the noble *[non-greenhouse]* gases argon, neon and helium do so* – while there is no significant difference between argon and carbon dioxide, but *only a small difference between carbon-dioxide and air*.






*Conclusion/Summary*
*Besides a critical discussion of the convenient atmosphere theory profoundly questioning the greenhouse thesis by disclosing several basic errors,* *the here reported investigation reveals the discovery of direct absorption of shortwave IR-radiation by air*. It is part of the incident solar light, but also of artificial light which enables a more exact detection. It is caused by another effect than the one which is responsible for the longer-wave absorption being observed at carbon dioxide, and* it is not detectable by IR-spectroscopy* since its absorption coefficient is too low. However, it is clearly detectable by means of the here applied apparatus leading to a distinct temperature elevation up to a limiting temperature which depends on the radiative emission.* The limiting temperature depends on the gas kind, whereby* *practically no difference between air and carbon-dioxide could be found*.

*Nevertheless, that direct absorption effect *[shortwave]* which was discovered thanks to this method probably contributes significantly to the warming up of the atmosphere while* *the warming-up due to carbon-dioxide can be neglected*.

But since the direct absorption cannot be influenced, the surface albedo must be focused as the governing factor providing the only [anthropogenic] opportunity to mitigate the climate, or at least the microclimate, by changing colour and structure of the surface, particularly in urban areas. However, a prediction seems not feasible since the global climate is too complex. But *the greenhouse theory turns out to be a phantasm delivering the wrong diagnosis for the climate change, and a wrong diagnosis cannot enable a healing*.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2018)

By the way ian, if, indeed, the atmosphere absorbs short wave, as that paper, and the observational evidence seems to suggest, that could very well account for that "extra" energy that you obsess over so much of the time.  As I have pointed out, whatever it is, it will turn out to be something we didn't understand and would have nothing to do with CO2.


----------



## IanC (Jan 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Are you now spamming the board with the same long cut and paste? 

Pick a topic, explain your point, add the link to buttress your position.


----------



## IanC (Jan 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> By the way ian, if, indeed, the atmosphere absorbs short wave, as that paper, and the observational evidence seems to suggest, that could very well account for that "extra" energy that you obsess over so much of the time.  As I have pointed out, whatever it is, it will turn out to be something we didn't understand and would have nothing to do with CO2.



There is a perfectly obvious source of the energy needed to explain the surface temperature. You just claim it can't happen.

How could energy absorbed in the atmosphere warm the surface when you say no atmospheric energy can move towards the surface? Your thoughts and ideas are not consistent, many are mutually exclusive. And when they are pointed out to be at odds with each other you say "rocks fall down", as if that explains everything.


----------



## IanC (Jan 5, 2018)

A planet with an atmosphere has less extreme temperatures, and a higher average temperature than a planet without one.

That is the basic scaffold. Adding GHGs changes some of the parameters but you have to understand the energy storing capacity of an atmosphere in the gravity field first.

That is why I want to discuss N&Z.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 7, 2018)

IanC said:


> There is a perfectly obvious source of the energy needed to explain the surface temperature. You just claim it can't happen.



Unicorn flatulance?  Right..it can't happen  because there are no unicorns...of course, unicorn flatulence is a more plausible reason than magical CO2.



IanC said:


> How could energy absorbed in the atmosphere warm the surface when you say no atmospheric energy can move towards the surface? Your thoughts and ideas are not consistent, many are mutually exclusive. And when they are pointed out to be at odds with each other you say "rocks fall down", as if that explains everything.



Does water vapor exist all the way down to the surface?  Does water vapor actually hold energy?  Geez ian, give up the magical CO2 BS and grasp reality firmly by the horns..In addition to the fact that water vapor holds energy, there is the heat generated by the mass of the atmosphere...Wake up...my position is based in observable, measurable testable physical phenomena while yours is entirely founded in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...which have failed repeatedly by the way.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 7, 2018)

IanC said:


> A planet with an atmosphere has less extreme temperatures, and a higher average temperature than a planet without one.



Atmospheric thermal effect.



IanC said:


> That is the basic scaffold. Adding GHGs changes some of the parameters but you have to understand the energy storing capacity of an atmosphere in the gravity field first.



The only so called GHG that alters energy transfer beyond its contribution to the total mass of the atmosphere is H2O


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 7, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Ian: Answer the damn question and quit dodging!

"*The limiting temperature depends on the gas kind, whereby* *practically no difference between air and carbon-dioxide could be found*."

IF air has the same ability as CO2 and there is no discernible difference then O2 is warmed by LWIR also and CO2's affect is diminished by 85-97%.

Your "heat retention mechanism" is shown to be a unicorn fart by empirically observed and quantified experiment!


----------



## IanC (Jan 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Atmospheric thermal effect



Sure. That is what I want you to explain, preferably in your own words so that I can tell if you understand what is going on.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 7, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Atmospheric thermal effect
> ...




Read N&Z...they describe the mechanics...and no...I am not playing your "do you understand games"  I understand well enough to keep you backed into a corner attempting to defend your magical CO2 fantasy every day of your life...Do you think it is just coincidence that I keep slapping your models down with the very arguments that you can't defend against?  Are you that f'ing arrogant?  The fact is, ian, that I have a better gasp on the whole topic than you...the evidence being that I don't buy it while you are still a hoodwinked believer even though the empirical evidence says that you are wrong.


----------



## IanC (Jan 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Why are you so afraid of writing down a few paragraphs describing how an atmosphere warms up the average surface temperature of a planet?

I don't expect, or even want you to add water into the explanation because that would just add unneeded complexity. Just describe the daytime and nighttime energy flows without putting numerical values to them. Should be a piece of cake for someone as knowledgeable as you.


----------



## IanC (Jan 8, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




You know, I have no problem with experiments done with styrofoam boxes, Saran wrap and terrarium heat lamps.

I kinda draw the line when the experimenter claims to have found a new thermal effect  though.

This wasn't the article I thought it was, but it does suffer from similar flaws. 

CO2 absorbs three bands of IR, and we are primarily concerned with the 15 micron because it is only absorbed by CO2 and it is produced in significant amounts by the surface. Solar radiation hitting the surface has no 15 micron radiation. Incandescent light bulbs have very little. So called IR heat lamps might have more but it is still a small percentage of the total energy being emitted.

So I wonder why so many people are so sure CO2 doesn't warm the air when they are using a radiation source that CO2 can't absorb.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 8, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Tell you what ian..you read N&Z and let me know what you don't understand and I will help you out.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 8, 2018)

IanC said:


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



Ian, can you kindly provide us with a single observed, measured piece of evidence, made with an instrument at ambient temperature which establishes a coherent relationship between IR being absorbed by a gas and warming in the atmosphere?  Just one?...I didn't think so.  All you can provide is your faith.


----------



## IanC (Jan 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Okay, I read it. It fails to give any details about how the atmosphere stops the surface from getting bitterly cold at night or blazingly hot in the daytime. What is your explanation?


----------



## IanC (Jan 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Ian, can you kindly provide us with a single observed, measured piece of evidence, made with an instrument at ambient temperature which establishes a coherent relationship between IR being absorbed by a gas and warming in the atmosphere? Just one?...I didn't think so. All you can provide is your faith




A CO2 laser emits a stream of 10 micron radiation. That is in the Atmospheric Window where there is little reactivity to air molecules. Occasionally, some particle will drift into the beam and explode, sending out a flash of light and a noise. The air around it will have warmed considerably.

Presumably you could manufacture a laser that produced 15 micron radiation. But what usefulness would it have? The energy would be dissapated by interacting with CO2 molecules in the air, like the dust motes in the previous example.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Actually, it does.  Sorry you missed it...Try actually reading it rather than simply saying that you read it.  You might read this paper as well..

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-ac...-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

I am not interested in playing reality against your models...N&Z's hypothesis works every were it is tried and does not require an ad hoc fudge factor...your models don't work anywhere but here and only if you apply said ad hoc fudge factor...why you would want to defend such rubbish is beyond me...is your belief in the magic of CO2 so strong that you are willing to drag your intellect through the sewer in an attempt to defend something that doesn't even exist?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Ian, can you kindly provide us with a single observed, measured piece of evidence, made with an instrument at ambient temperature which establishes a coherent relationship between IR being absorbed by a gas and warming in the atmosphere? Just one?...I didn't think so. All you can provide is your faith
> ...



So that is what is happening in the atmosphere?  Exploding molecules?  That hardly describes absorption and emission in the atmosphere...face it ian...once more, you have nothing but models...models all the way down...and your faith...goody for you.  And I am just sitting here, secure in the observed evidence and physical laws, laughing at your attempt to defend your faith with models.


----------



## IanC (Jan 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Do you ever try to comprehend the points I make? Why do I have to spell everything out in detail while you make no attempt to explain any of your naked claims?

The laser produces collimated single wavelength radiation. Put a tube around the beam. Evacuate the tube and you will get a baseline reading. Fill the tube with air and you can measure how much radiation is absorbed, a small amount because air has a low absorption rate for 10 micron IR. Then add dust which does absorb 10 micron IR. Less radiation gets through and the air will be warmed by passive distribution of heat from the dust absorbing the radiation.

I am not saying CO2 molecules would explode if the laser was emitting 15 micron IR but it would certainly absorb some of it, and pass that energy off to the other constituents of the air. 

Are you really that stupid that you need every line drawn out for you in a game of connect-the-dots before you recognize the picture?

The surface emits 15 micron radiation. CO2 in the air absorbs it. Molecular collision sequesters it as alternate forms of stored energy. It can only start escaping at cold rarified heights in the atmosphere. There is a deficit between what goes in at the warm surface and what comes out at the cold emission height. 

That deficit warms the atmosphere, which warms the surface by reducing conduction heat loss. Equilibrium is restored because the warmer surface pushes more energy out through the Atmospheric Window.

You can huff and puff all you want about how convection powered by the water cycle is a more effective mover of energy in the lower atmosphere. But energy only leaves the planet by radiation.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You might read this paper as well..
> 
> https://www.omicsonline.org/open-ac...-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf


I read that reference in detail. Author's quotes are boldfaced.

The author uses curve-fitting models. The word model occurs 152 times throughout the text.

*Thus, our working hypothesis was that a general physical model should exist...*​
He uses 7 physical variables to define a set of 12 dimensionless variables, as would be required in empirical dimensional analysis, and engages them as models (see Table 5.)

*Based on the current state of knowledge we identified seven physical variables of potential relevance to the global surface temperature*
...
*The second step of DA (after the construction of dimensionless products) is to search for a functional relationship between the [12] variables of each set using regression analysis.*
...
*The following four-parameter exponential-growth function was found to best meet our criteria: 
y = a exp(bx) + c exp(dx)*​
In short, the author defined a menu of 12 dimensionless variables to be used to compute 4 parameters to fit the data from 6 planets. That kind of empirical liberty makes good curve-fitting an almost certainty.

After heuristically fitting curves he gets to the physical significance of the formulas starting at the bottom of page 11. He finds a close similarity to the adiabatic Poisson formula derived from the ideal gas law. However his conclusion is quite limited according to his statement,

*while qualitatively similar, Equations (10a) *[the author's curve fit]* and (13) *[Poisson formula]* are quantitatively rather different. . . .[they] describe qualitatively very similar responses in **quantitatively vastly different systems**.*​
His results, (equation 10a) *could neither be analytically deduced from known physical laws nor accurately simulated in a small-scale experiment*.​
That is to say it is unreproducable, and unphysical.

His conclusion: *To our knowledge, this is the first model accurately describing the average surface temperatures of planetary bodies throughout the Solar System *​
I would word it that his model fits the 5 planet data points rather well, but has no further significance. His further conclusions sort of renege his disclaimer of physical significance and more directly relates it to Poisson's formula. Go figure.

The author is quite knowledgeable about physics except for one thing: adiabatic systems are very fleeting in nature and have no long term effect. I have no quarrel with his mathematical technique - what he did and how he did it - but I do think his rampant use of fudge factors in his curve fitting effort did not carry much significance, and as he admits, his result is vastly different than what he physically attempted to show.

.


----------



## IanC (Jan 9, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You might read this paper as well..
> ...




Isn't it odd the way SSDD judges models he likes compared to models he doesn't like? I don't think he even realizes the extent of his double standards.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 10, 2018)

IanC said:


> Are you really that stupid that you need every line drawn out for you in a game of connect-the-dots before you recognize the picture?



Quite the contrary ian...I see exactly what you are saying...and see that it does not constitute any evidence whatsoever in support of the claim of a coherent relationship between the absorption and emission of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...That is what I asked you for and since there is no such evidence, you drag lasers into the discussion as if that would be a good analog for energy passing through the atmosphere.


----------



## jillian (Jan 10, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Mods: Please move this thread to the "Conspiracy Theory" section.



they think we should ignore actual climate scientists and listen to some hack on the inter webs.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> He uses 7 physical variables to define a set of 12 dimensionless variables, as would be required in empirical dimensional analysis, and engages them as models (see Table 5.)



And how many variables do you think drive the climate?




Wuwei said:


> short, the author defined a menu of 12 dimensionless variables to be used to compute 4 parameters to fit the data from 6 planets. That kind of empirical liberty makes good curve-fitting an almost certainty.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 10, 2018)

jillian said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Mods: Please move this thread to the "Conspiracy Theory" section.
> ...



I have been asking for decades for just two pieces of evidence that should exist in abundance if the man made climate change hypothesis has any merit at all...thus far, no such evidence has appeared...I have looked, I have asked, and it just doesn't exist.  It isn't as if I am asking for overwhelming evidence, or a mountain of proof...I am just asking for two pieces of actual evidence.  Maybe you can provide them, but my bet is that you can't...further I would wager that the fact that you can't provide such fundamental pieces of evidence to the manmade climate change hypothesis doesn't prompt you to ask why they don't exist or apply that question to climate science in general.

1.  I would like a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2.  I would like a single piece of observed, measured evidence made with an instrument at ambient temperature which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

Now if the hypothesis had any merit at all, after all the money that has been spent, data of that sort should exist in abundance...there should be mountains of it...and yet, not the first piece of either exists.  How is it, that lacking such fundamental data, you believe the hypothesis, or climate science has any credibility at all?..just because people whom you perceive as smarter than you tell you to trust them?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > He uses 7 physical variables to define a set of 12 dimensionless variables, as would be required in empirical dimensional analysis, and engages them as models (see Table 5.)
> ...


My goal was to look at the alternate view of the paper you cited and understand where the author was coming from. You didn't understand the simplest gist of the paper but still thought it might prove a point you wanted.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 10, 2018)

IanC said:


> Isn't it odd the way SSDD judges models he likes compared to models he doesn't like? I don't think he even realizes the extent of his double standards.


Very early on I would have thought it very odd, but having seen how his mind works, it no longer surprises me to what lengths he would lie, bluff, misunderstand, and swear at others on this forum. 

Double standards? I don't think he has any standards.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't it odd the way SSDD judges models he likes compared to models he doesn't like? I don't think he even realizes the extent of his double standards.
> ...



His epicycles are very intricate.......


----------



## SSDD (Jan 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



Dream on bulwinkle..fact is that you have been just talking out of your ass...anyone who thinks that you can rightly apply the SB law to the atmosphere doesn't have a clue.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 10, 2018)

IanC said:


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



Sorry ian...wrong again...I am all for models that can be observed and tested in real life...like the version of the SB law that applies to a radiator emitting into its cooler surroundings...every observation is of one way gross energy movement in accordance to the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings...that is how it became a physical law...it is exquisitely predictable...the same thing happens every time it is observed....


----------



## SSDD (Jan 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't it odd the way SSDD judges models he likes compared to models he doesn't like? I don't think he even realizes the extent of his double standards.
> ...



Project much....lying and bluffing are your tools in trade, and very low standards...you have made that abundantly clear.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Dream on bulwinkle..fact is that you have been just talking out of your ass...anyone who thinks that you can rightly apply the SB law to the atmosphere doesn't have a clue.


You have no observed, measurable, testable experiment that says that you can't apply the SB law to the atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Dream on bulwinkle..fact is that you have been just talking out of your ass...anyone who thinks that you can rightly apply the SB law to the atmosphere doesn't have a clue.
> ...



Only the physical law itself...The SB is applicable to a radiator with a single  radiating surface...sorry you didn't know that...and even more sorry that you never will....like your nonsense in believing that a black body has a high heat capacity...what a laugh...an ideal black body absorbs everything and emits everything..it doesn't store jack....  The very fact that the greenhouse hypothesis can only predict the temperature here by using an ad hoc fudge factor should tell you that the physics is wrong and since they rely heavily on the SB law, that should give you the first clue but alas..you remain clueless.


----------



## IanC (Jan 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Here we are at the same road block.

I say every object MUST radiate according to its temperature because of the internal conditions controlled by the amount of energy available.

You say the radiation of an object is controlled not by internal conditions of the object, but by the external conditions of its surroundings. You give no plausible mechanism for how this happens.

I say the net flow of heat is simply the radiation of one object less the radiation of the other.

You say the cooler object stops radiating completely, and the warm object throttles down its emissions so that the only radiation produced is the exact amount (and type) that would be left over if you simply subtracted one flow from the other. Again, you give no mechanism. 

You refuse to acknowledge entropy. You refuse to explain how an excited molecule can be stopped from dropping back to groundstate and emitting a photon, somehow being controlled by distant conditions rather than internal ones.

I could go on and on. And have in the past. You simply refuse to answer any criticisms of your version of physics, other than to say "how do rocks know which direction to fall".


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The SB is applicable to a radiator with a single radiating surface.


All substances have millions of radiating surfaces. There are many layers of atoms radiating. Lambert's coefficient defines the depth the radiation can penetrate.


SSDD said:


> .like your nonsense in believing that a black body has a high heat capacity...what a laugh...an ideal black body absorbs everything and emits everything..it doesn't store jack.


A black body emits everything???   Why do you think it is called "black". Please cite a scientific source that says a black body emits everything. That is one of the most self-negating statements I have seen. It says one thing and negates it all in the same sentence.


----------



## IanC (Jan 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The SB is applicable to a radiator with a single radiating surface.
> ...



A blackbody must be just as good of an emitter as an absorber.

I think the original description of a perfect Blackbody also said it was 'infinitely thin'. Perhaps to get around some of the questions you and SSDD are fighting about.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 10, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


*
You say the radiation of an object is controlled not by internal conditions of the object, but by the external conditions of its surroundings. You give no plausible mechanism for how this happens.
*
It's even worse than that.

Cooler matter cannot radiate toward warmer matter, because 2nd Law.
Unless work is done, in which case it can radiate toward warmer matter.

How does the matter know that work was done?

A CO2 molecule at 5000 feet and at 50 F can't radiate toward the 70 F ground, 
but if I perform some work and raise the temperature to 50.1 F, suddenly it is allowed 
to radiate toward the ground. I wonder how low its temperature is allowed to go by radiating............


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


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


*
an ideal black body absorbs everything and emits everything.
*
Absorbing and emitting at the same time? According to your theory, that's not allowed.


----------



## IanC (Jan 10, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Hahahaha, good one.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 10, 2018)

IanC said:


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


Right. But in practice no materials function at an infinitely thin surface. 

Theoretically, black bodies can absorb all frequencies, but only emit  radiation according to Plank's Law. Thanks for clarifying what you think SSDD is thinking, but to say that it can't store energy is flat-out wrong.


----------



## IanC (Jan 10, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




There is another conondrum imbedded in your example.

Air molecules at 5000 feet have much of their total energy stored as potential energy in the gravity field rather than kinetic energy (temperature).

Does this stored potential energy affect radiation physics?


----------



## IanC (Jan 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Yup. CO2 can absorb all the 15 micron radiation emitted from the surface.

CO2 would emit 15 micron radiation according to its temperature if it was not being short circuited by molecular collision, but the impact is still there even though it is shunted into a different pathway.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 10, 2018)

IanC said:


> Yup. CO2 can absorb all the 15 micron radiation emitted from the surface.
> 
> CO2 would emit 15 micron radiation according to its temperature if it was not being short circuited by molecular collision, but the impact is still there even though it is shunted into a different pathway.


Yes. The way I like to think of it is that there are populations of GHG molecules in various rotation, kinetic energy, and internal vibration states according to the equipartition theory. Various GHG molecules can absorb the thermal radiation that they are tuned to, but will probably undergo collisions with air before they re-emit that internal energy. The GHG vibration states can also be excited simply due to collisions with other air molecules. So the easiest and most fruitful way of thinking of CO2 is in terms of what percentages occupy each possible state, what the absorption cross-section is for each state and go from there.


----------



## IanC (Jan 10, 2018)

There is one important pathway that seems to get ignored here and elsewhere.

Conduction to the atmosphere from the surface, and the atmospheric analogue to the surface.

This is another instance of net energy transfer. It is also the largest pathway, which defines the possible range of temperatures at the surface, with GHGs only making alterations, mostly to energy flow into the atmosphere but also outwards at increased height.

This is the pathway that gives N&Z's theory its limited predictive power.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 10, 2018)

I'm not familiar with the term atmospheric analogue. 
In the real world I would think convection would also play a very large role. Horizontal wind and rising air warm air being replaced by falling cool air would create turbulence that would be hard to realistically model.


----------



## IanC (Jan 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I'm not familiar with the term atmospheric analogue.
> In the real world I would think convection would also play a very large role. Horizontal wind and rising air warm air being replaced by falling cool air would create turbulence that would be hard to realistically model.



Heat conduction in solids is different than in gases. That was the point I was trying to make.

Air movement would be dramatically reduced without the water cycle but that is just redistribution of energy in the lower atmosphere rather than passage of energy at the boundaries.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 10, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



When did I ever suggest that?  Maybe you cold provide a quote from me saying that....or we could just chalk it up to just one more lie on your part.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


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


*
When did I ever suggest that?
*
When you said that objects cease emitting when warmer objects are nearby.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 10, 2018)

IanC said:


> Here we are at the same road block.
> 
> I say every object MUST radiate according to its temperature because of the internal conditions controlled by the amount of energy available.
> 
> You say the radiation of an object is controlled not by internal conditions of the object, but by the external conditions of its surroundings. You give no plausible mechanism for how this happens.



Been through it all before and you lost then also.  Set Tc to a lower temperature than T...which is assumed by the SB law...and watch P change...what is the underlying mechanism?  who knows...we don't even have a grasp on the underlying mechanism of energy transfer...



IanC said:


> I say the net flow of heat is simply the radiation of one object less the radiation of the other.



Yeah..you say net....but neither the second law of thermodynamics, nor the SB law say net...all the equations describe a gross one way flow of energy and every observation and measurement ever made show us a one way energy movement from warm to cool.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Here we are at the same road block.
> ...


*
all the equations describe a gross one way flow of energy and every observation and measurement ever made show us a one way energy movement from warm to cool. 
*
Have you ever provided any sources that agree with this one-way only flow?

I mean besides your unique, confused misinterpretation of SB?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The SB is applicable to a radiator with a single radiating surface.
> ...



Keep talking...at this point, I have to wonder how much bullshit Ian will listen to from you before he corrects you...or perhaps there is no limit so long as you support his position...



Wuwei said:


> A black body emits everything???   Why do you think it is called "black". Please cite a scientific source that says a black body emits everything. That is one of the most self-negating statements I have seen. It says one thing and negates it all in the same sentence.



And the crazy talk just goes on and on...a black body is a perfect radiator...what do you think that means?  Here...from the science dictionary...

A theoretically perfect absorber and emitter of every frequency of electromagnetic radiation. The radiation emitted by a blackbody is a function only of its temperature.

Also look up perfect emitter, you will be referenced to black body...what...you think that because it is called a black body it absorbs and holds on to energy like a black Chevrolet?  you get more laughable all the time...keep talking...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Keep talking...at this point, I have to wonder how much bullshit Ian will listen to from you before he corrects you...or perhaps there is no limit so long as you support his position...


Invectives, but no science.


SSDD said:


> A theoretically perfect absorber and emitter of every frequency of electromagnetic radiation. The radiation emitted by a blackbody is a function only of its temperature.


That function of temperature is Planck's Law. Look it up. 

Do you think a black body at room temperature emits gamma rays? If so how much?

Please cite a source that says a black body doesn't store any energy. Nobody else believes that.


----------



## IanC (Jan 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Here we are at the same road block.
> ...



Okay, I'll try again in yet a different way. 

Your favorite S-B equation is describing the power radiated from the warm object to the cool object. That is all it is describing, with an emphasis on the relationship to the temperature difference.

The equation can be easily rearranged to emphasize the radiation being emitted by either object, and the power being simply the difference between the two.

The two variations of the equation both give the same answer. There is no reason to choose one over the other. They are equivalent.

The original equation is j = sigmaT^4. Which describes the relationship between radiation and temperature. If anything the radiation is emphasized because it stands alone. But it would be equally correct to isolate sigma, or the temperature. All the variations give the same answer. All are correct. The arrangement you prefer has no special meaning. There is no mathematical difference.

Your arrangement is correct but so is mine. There is no such thing as a corrupt version of the S-B laws.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2018)

IanC said:


> The equation can be easily rearranged to emphasize the radiation being emitted by either object, and the power being simply the difference between the two.



You mean complicate an already reduced equation as if applying the distributive property to an equation would actually change what is happening in the physical world?  Like that you mean?



IanC said:


> The two variations of the equation both give the same answer. There is no reason to choose one over the other. They are equivalent.



The original equation is describing a physical process...a real physical process...the second equation is describing a fantasy process that can not be observed...so no, they are not equivalent...they may provide the same answer, but the processes they describe are very different.  When you are using math to describe a physical reality...altering the equation is no different than altering the story line of a narrative.  Even if you have  the same ending...by altering the narrative, you have told a different story.



IanC said:


> The original equation is j = sigmaT^4. Which describes the relationship between radiation and temperature. If anything the radiation is emphasized because it stands alone. But it would be equally correct to isolate sigma, or the temperature. All the variations give the same answer. All are correct. The arrangement you prefer has no special meaning. There is no mathematical difference.



NO.



IanC said:


> Your arrangement is correct but so is mine. There is no such thing as a corrupt version of the S-B laws.



If all you are concerned with is the answer at the end, then they are both the same although yours reflects terrible mathematics...and exhibits the use of a property when there is no valid reason to use it...and I remember asking you of some other instance when you might apply the distributive property to an equation that was already reduced and you could come up with nothing...in physics, however, it isn't just the number after the equals sign that matters..the equation is describing a physical process...change the equation and you change the description of the physical process...do you have any observations, or measurements to support your alteration of the description of the physical process?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 11, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The equation can be easily rearranged to emphasize the radiation being emitted by either object, and the power being simply the difference between the two.
> ...



*You mean complicate an already reduced equation as if applying the distributive property to an equation would actually change what is happening in the physical world?  
*
Your one-way misinterpretation is the complication.
It leads to matter ceasing radiating when near warmer matter and requires smart photons 
and future predicting emitters.


----------



## IanC (Jan 11, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Here we are at the same road block.
> ...



The (T^4-Tc^4) term in your equation is where the 'net' result comes from. Temperature is a real property of reality. But what the fuck is temperature to the fourth power? That is not an actual thing. T^4 is useful as a mathematical concept to derive the radiation (an actual thing) coming off an object (an actual thing) according to temperature (an actual thing).

_i _is a useful mathematical concept to derive relationships but the square root of negative one does not actually exist. It is an imaginary number.

Why do you choose T^4, an imaginary thing, over _j, _a real amount of radiation?

Your favorite S-B equation can be rearranged as net power = power of the warm object minus power of the cool object. Three real things. Yet you choose T^4, an imaginary concept over real things.

And then have the audacity to say I am being unrealistic.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 15, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



You assume net in every example...and you assume it based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models and your faith in them...there is no expression there from which to derive net...with the expression T - Tc you can only derive the gross change.


----------



## IanC (Jan 15, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You assume net in every example...and you assume it based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models and your faith in them...there is no expression there from which to derive net...with the expression T - Tc you can only derive the gross change



First, there is no expression T - Tc in the equation.

Second, any time you subtract one value from another you are implying a net value from two gross values. Subtracting 25 dollars from 100 dollars gives you a net value of 75 dollars.

If two people start with $1000 and $500 respectively, then give 10% of their money to the other every minute, then after an hour they will each have $750 and no more change in total will happen.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 15, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You assume net in every example...and you assume it based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models and your faith in them...there is no expression there from which to derive net...with the expression T - Tc you can only derive the gross change
> ...



He never has posted reputable sources backing his one-way only flow of energy.
Weird.
It's almost as though he's the only person with that misinterpretation of SB and the 2nd Law.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 15, 2018)

IanC said:


> If two people start with $1000 and $500 respectively, then give 10% of their money to the other every minute, then after an hour they will each have $750 and no more change in total will happen.


That monetary example should explain it so that a 10 year old can understand equilibrium. I once cited about a dozen references that said that at equilibrium two objects will exchange the same thermal energy. They were from two Nobel prize winners and professors at elite universities, but he changed the subject and refused to respond to that.


----------



## IanC (Jan 15, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > If two people start with $1000 and $500 respectively, then give 10% of their money to the other every minute, then after an hour they will each have $750 and no more change in total will happen.
> ...



I actually used an Einstein quote from that comment once. SSDD casually dismissed Einstein as being wrong.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 15, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You assume net in every example...and you assume it based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models and your faith in them...there is no expression there from which to derive net...with the expression T - Tc you can only derive the gross change
> ...



That sounds clever, but that's not how energy flows. If you wanted to inflate a flat tire, starting at 0 pressure by hooking it to an air pump that generated 32psi per minute, it would take 1 minute to pressurize the tire.  In your example it would take much longer, perhaps infinity, as the pressure in the tire approached 32psi.

Do you see why you're wrong and SSDD is correctly explaining the phenomenon?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 15, 2018)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I think he said Einstein didn't use any actual experimental info.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 16, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*That sounds clever, but that's not how energy flows
*
Energy doesn't flow in all directions? Why not?

*Do you see why you're wrong and SSDD is correctly explaining the phenomenon?
*
SSDD is a moron. His only redeeming feature is he's against wasting trillions on windmills.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You assume net in every example...and you assume it based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models and your faith in them...there is no expression there from which to derive net...with the expression T - Tc you can only derive the gross change
> ...



So one way energy flow from warm to cool is the new "net"...laughable ian...absolutely laughable.  At least you admit that there is no expression that suggests that energy is moving two ways.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Anyone who suggests that energy is moving spontaneously from cool to warm is wrong..it doesn't matter who they are.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



He will never see it...he has been completely bamboozled by the models to the point that he is unable to separate them from reality...they are his reality and it doesn't matter a whit to him that the energy movement he describes remains unobservable, untestable, and unmeasurable, even though he claims the energy movement is happening at a magnitude that can actually alter the global climate...he believes and his faith is strong.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



using their logic when the pressure in the tire is at 31, the pressure from the pump would only be 1 psi (32-31) and therefore impossible to pressurize any further.


----------



## IanC (Jan 16, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



There are several things that make your counter example totally different.

First off, you are using an air pump that produces pressure from an outside power source. If you used a cannister of air, attached it to the tire, then after a nominal amount of time both the cannister and the tire would have the same internal pressure. The total amount of air molecules would be unchanged, but the distribution has changed. Entropy has increased. You could have harnessed some of that entropy change to do work. That is why air tools are a popular choice.

Secondly, you are conflating the properties of radiation with the properties of matter. Only one particle of matter can occupy a point of space at one time. Light has no such restriction. Any number of photons can exist at one point in space, travelling in any direction, all at the same time. Radiation does not interact with other radiation, there is no change in a photon between emission and absorption. (Yada,yada,yada, expansion of space, curvature of space by gravity, matter mediated refraction and reflection).


----------



## IanC (Jan 16, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Hahahaha, WTF are you talking about? Using the gas laws, if you double the volume then the pressure is halved. If you had two tires, one at 64 psi and one at zero, then when you connect them you will have two tires at 32 psi. And an increase of entropy.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Are you already backing away from your "Net flow" model?  I gave a specific example using the parameters you described to show that the net flow cannot work.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 16, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I did a quick mathematical check on IanC's monetary example. Within 15 minutes the 10% exchange would amount to much less than 1 penny. In one hour it would be much less than one quintillionth of a penny. Unless you go to the monetary system in Venezuela it would be impracticable to carry on an exchange. 

Thermal equilibrium is the same. Mathematically it never comes to equilibrium. In reality it becomes immeasurably small. 

I don't like quibbling on examples, but it was an interesting exercise.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



So you're telling us that when the tire is as 31psi, the pump pushing out air at 1 psi will bring the system to equilibrium? 

See, in reality, the 32psi per minute pump will fill the tire to 32 in a minute, under your methodology it will take forever


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 16, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So you're telling us that when the tire is as 31psi, the pump pushing out air at 1 psi will bring the system to equilibrium?
> 
> See, in reality, the 32psi per minute pump will fill the tire to 32 in a minute, under your methodology it will take forever


Reread my post. I didn't say anything about tires.


----------



## IanC (Jan 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Thanks. I was going to say 20 minutes, as I use certain landmarks in estimating values. 2^20 is about a million. A full hour was overkill.


----------



## IanC (Jan 16, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



My example was money. If you trade 10% back and forth, you quickly come to equilibrium with both piles of cash being equal even though 20% of the total cash is being exchanged at every iteration.

You gave an odd and illogical counter example that had an outside power source, and was constrained by the properties of matter.

Frankly, I didn't understand your point because you didn't make one.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 16, 2018)

So you post an example of "Net energy" flow by using currency, then when it's pointed out that your example does not related to the topic...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 16, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So you post an example of "Net energy" flow by using currency, then when it's pointed out that your example does not related to the topic..


IanC's example was about the nature of *thermal equilibrium*. Your example has nothing to do with *thermal equilibrium*. Frank, you and SSDD go up against people who know science. But you don't understand science. You have to be prepared to be wrong.


----------



## IanC (Jan 16, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So you post an example of "Net energy" flow by using currency, then when it's pointed out that your example does not related to the topic...




Looks like someone laced Homer's cereal with chunks of sodium.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> You gave an odd and illogical counter example that had an outside power source, and was constrained by the properties of matter.



Absolutely laughable ian...you are complaining about his "odd and illogical" example which can relate to reality when your "example" is entirely fictitious ...it is not relatable to reality in any as it is completely unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable...

I'm stepping off onto a tangent here, but I would wager that you have little doubt that black holes exist...am I correct?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So you post an example of "Net energy" flow by using currency, then when it's pointed out that your example does not related to the topic..
> ...



If you are including yourself among people who "know" science, you couldn't be more wrong...you clearly know unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable hypotheses...but alas, apparently have no idea that those things are not real...they do not relate to reality...they are fiction...and those models will change a hundred times or more as we gain knowledge and the means to actually begin to test them.

I asked ian just out of curiosity, and will ask you as well...I would wager that you have little doubt that black holes exist...am I correct?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> If you are including yourself among people who "know" science, you couldn't be more wrong...you clearly know unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable hypotheses...but alas, apparently have no idea that those things are not real...they do not relate to reality...they are fiction...and those models will change a hundred times or more as we gain knowledge and the means to actually begin to test them.


Yes, yes, we already know you don't and will never believe the efficacy of models of modern physics even though they predict particle phenomena to parts per billion or trillion depending on experimental accuracy.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So you post an example of "Net energy" flow by using currency, then when it's pointed out that your example does not related to the topic..
> ...



So you're saying that the lower energy (Pressure) can affect the higher (energy) pressure area and that there is a net exchange, That right?  Even though the example makes a mockery of your logic are you standing by your net energy flow argument?


----------



## IanC (Jan 16, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Your example is limited by the property of mass. Only one particle of mass can occupy one point of space at one time. Two particles of mass cannot pass through each other unchanged. Two photons can.

That is why matter moves in the direction of the the overwhelming net force. And why all radiation completes the journey from emitter to absorber unchanged.


----------



## IanC (Jan 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I'm stepping off onto a tangent here, but I would wager that you have little doubt that black holes exist...am I correct?



I cannot see how that is a tangent. It is a totally different topic.

I am impressed that the Chandrasehkar Limit predicts neutron stars, and the further gravitational collapse into a black hole.

It makes a lot of sense but I don't think all the bugs are worked out. Gravitational lensing is a prediction that was later found. Pretty strong evidence that black holes exist even if we are unsure of some of the details.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 16, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So you're saying that the lower energy (Pressure) can affect the higher (energy) pressure area and that there is a net exchange, That right? Even though the example makes a mockery of your logic are you standing by your net energy flow argument?


You will have to describe exactly what you are talking about. I have not said anything about tire pressure so I don't know what you are referring to.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So you're saying that the lower energy (Pressure) can affect the higher (energy) pressure area and that there is a net exchange, That right? Even though the example makes a mockery of your logic are you standing by your net energy flow argument?
> ...



You were one of the first people to hop on the Currency $ exchange as a great example of the net energy flow idea, correct?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 16, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Currency exchange, yes. Tire pressure, no.

You will have to describe exactly what you are talking about. I have not said anything about tire pressure so I don't know what you are referring to.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



So you weren't agreeing that there's a net exchange to reach thermal equilibrium, that the cooler object heats the warmer one and that the currency example was a good way of showing that?


----------



## IanC (Jan 16, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



At no time does the cooler object ever give the warmer object more radiation than the warmer object is giving the cool one. That would be the necessary condition for the warm object to be 'heated'. The cooler object IS causing the warm object to cool less quickly though.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 16, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So you weren't agreeing that there's a net exchange to reach thermal equilibrium, that the cooler object heats the warmer one and that the currency example was a good way of showing that?


I agree with IanC above. Likewise the person starting with $1000 always gives more each minute to the person that starts with $500.


----------



## IanC (Jan 16, 2018)

We need polarbear to do some calculations for us.

Take a round ball of carbon with a surface area of one metre squared, find the total heat content at zero Celcius, calculate the radiation emitted, then see what percentage it is of the total.

Then do it again for 100 Celcius. Just to see what a x^4 relationship looks like at a familiar temperature range.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Energy doesn't move from cool to warm...not spontaneously anyway...so sayeth the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> We need polarbear to do some calculations for us.
> 
> Take a round ball of carbon with a surface area of one metre squared, find the total heat content at zero Celcius, calculate the radiation emitted, then see what percentage it is of the total.
> 
> Then do it again for 100 Celcius. Just to see what a x^4 relationship looks like at a familiar temperature range.




What, you can't do it for yourself?  I am going to guess that you are assuming that the carbon ball has an emissivity of 1.

We will assume the surroundings are -5C since the SB always assumes the radiator is radiating into cooler surroundings...spontaneous energy movement being a one way street and all...

when the ball is at 0C   P=...22.485 wm^2

when the ball is at 100C  P= 806.191 wm^2

If the ball is in a vacuum, not in the presence of any other matter, then at 0C P = 315.637wm^2

If the ball is in a vacuum, not in the presence of any other matter, then at 100C  P= 1099.302 wm2


----------



## IanC (Jan 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > We need polarbear to do some calculations for us.
> ...




Hahahaha, I already know there is an online S-B calculator!

I asked for the total heat content so we could figure out what percentage the radiation was.

Off you go. Chop chop.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2018)

Sure...just as soon as you explain how you think that is going to demonstrate two way energy flow...otherwise it is just another meaningless mental exercise that gets you no closer whatsoever to supporting your position..


----------



## IanC (Jan 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> ...otherwise it is just another meaningless mental exercise ...



What a sad thing to say.

Do you really have so little curiosity that looking for patterns is meaningless?

My practically number free way of estimating things has come up with a ratio of 3 3/4 for the percentages, coming by two different pathways. But I am far too lazy to actually pick up a pencil and paper and produce a real estimate.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ...otherwise it is just another meaningless mental exercise ...
> ...



There is no greenhouse effect as claimed by cliamte science...calculating the heat content of a carbon ball isn't going to get you any closer to supporting a hypothesis that has already failed so miserably...


----------



## IanC (Jan 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> There is no greenhouse effect as claimed by cliamte science...calculating the heat content of a carbon ball isn't going to get you any closer to supporting a hypothesis that has already failed so miserably



I don't agree with the explanation given by consensus climate science either. But just because some parts are wrong that doesn't mean every part is wrong.

I don't agree with anything until it makes sense to me. When I am exposed to new information I incorporate it into my worldview. Sometimes it strengthens my position, sometimes it weakens it, sometimes it alters it.

I would like to know the percentage of radiation to heat content for a common substance, at a common size, for two common temperatures because it would give me a landmark to make other estimates. Information is good. You can't find patterns without data points. You can't interconnect patterns without coming at them from different directions.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 17, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> If you wanted to inflate a flat tire, starting at 0 pressure by hooking it to an air pump that generated 32psi per minute,



So, Frank can't do engineering either. But we knew that.

No pump is ever rated at "PSI per minute".  That's because you don't know what it's pumping into. For an air pump, a big tire will take longer to inflate to a certain PSI than a small tire.

Pumps are usually rated at maximum PSI, and for flow rates when pumping against different output pressures.



> In your example it would take much longer, perhaps infinity, as the pressure in the tire approached 32psi.



Frank has apparently never filled a tire with a small air pump, because that's exactly how it works. As the pressure in the tire goes up, the pump pumps more and more slowly.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 17, 2018)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > If you wanted to inflate a flat tire, starting at 0 pressure by hooking it to an air pump that generated 32psi per minute,
> ...



I didn't realize I'd have to explain that the point was that it would take a minute to fill the flat to 32psi. You're too clever for your own good.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > There is no greenhouse effect as claimed by cliamte science...calculating the heat content of a carbon ball isn't going to get you any closer to supporting a hypothesis that has already failed so miserably
> ...



When your hypothesis is flawed at its foundation, everything that comes after is flawed as well.



IanC said:


> I don't agree with anything until it makes sense to me. When I am exposed to new information I incorporate it into my worldview. Sometimes it strengthens my position, sometimes it weakens it, sometimes it alters it.



The problem with that statement, in your case, is that energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm makes sense to you...and everything you build on that flawed assumption will be wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*The problem with that statement, in your case, is that energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm makes sense to you...
*

_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. _

Is the energy moving from the wall,  ceiling, and other surroundings.....spontaneous?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Absolute bullshit...they are calculating a human radiating in a vacuum devoid of other matter...apply the SB equation for a radiator radiating into cooler surroundings and look for P...if you are unable to do the math, under the circumstances described above, the human body would be radiating about 134 watts...there is no back radiation...there is no net energy flow..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



*they are calculating a human radiating in a vacuum devoid of other matter...
*
Of course they are, because that's how the SB calculation works.
*
under the circumstances described above, the human body would be radiating about 134 watts...
*
Right, because under your theory, the surroundings at 296 K emit just as much energy as they'd emit at 0 K.
Zero.

*there is no back radiation...there is no net energy flow.. 
*
The walls, ceiling, furniture isn't allowed to radiate?
It's weird that Science would get something so simple, so wrong.
Along with everyone else Wuwei cited, who all discussed matter emitting and absorbing at the same time.

Besides you and your unique interpretation of the 2nd Law and SB,
no one else thinks radiation only flows one way.


----------



## IanC (Jan 18, 2018)

I just spent 15 minutes googling the definition of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

I saw a whole lot on entropy, some history on who originally defined the SLoT and why, examples of what happens, equations that give quantities and qualities of the degeneration of ordered conditions to disordered ones, etc.

I didn't find a definition similar to the one that SSDD misinterprets to say that photons are forbidden to be emitted in certain directions.

I hadn't realized just how misdirected and off topic his references to the SLoT are.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2018)

And the second law still states that energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm...and that is all that I have said...the rest of the stuff like photons being forbidden to do this or that is all made up by you wack jobs...my position is only, and has always been that energy will not move spontaneously from cool to warm..nothing more.

all the rest of that crap is nothing more than straw men you guys erected to rail against.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> And the second law still states that energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm...and that is all that I have said...the rest of the stuff like photons being forbidden to do this or that is all made up by you wack jobs...my position is only, and has always been that energy will not move spontaneously from cool to warm..nothing more.
> 
> all the rest of that crap is nothing more than straw men you guys erected to rail against.


You should know by now that you have mischaracterized the argument against you. Science tells us that there is a two way flow of thermal energy. It's the *net energy* that does not move spontaneously from cool to warm.  

You have always said there is a one way flow. But you have never given a scientifically valid reason forbidding two way flow.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You should know by now that you have mischaracterized the argument against you. Science tells us that there is a two way flow of thermal energy. It's the *net energy* that does not move spontaneously from cool to warm.



Science, through the years has told us all sorts of nonsense, and as the ability to experiment and observe improve, their nonsense was exposed as nonsense.  This is just one more example and poor self depreciating dupes such as yourself who, I can only suppose, will buy any line of nonsense from anyone whom you perceive as more intelligent than yourself just eat it up and by some strange mental gymnastics, convert unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models into reality within your brain.

Who gives a shit what someone told you...when the claims can't be either observed, measured, or tested...are you really that gullible?

_


Wuwei said:



			”
		
Click to expand...

_


Wuwei said:


> You have always said there is a one way flow. But you have never given a scientifically valid reason forbidding two way flow.



Considering that a two way net flow of energy has never been observed, or measured, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm..and makes no mention of net anything, all the sources and observation support me...the only support you have is unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical models...

Net energy flow is nothing more than an unsupported assumption....let me know when they change the 2nd law of thermodynamics to state that energy moves spontaneously in two directions.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You should know by now that you have mischaracterized the argument against you. Science tells us that there is a two way flow of thermal energy. It's the *net energy* that does not move spontaneously from cool to warm.
> ...



*Considering that a two way net flow of energy has never been observed, or measured,
*
You should post your favorite source that explicitly backs up your claim.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 19, 2018)

Science tells us that there is a two way flow of thermal energy. *Net energy* does not move spontaneously from cool to warm. Give us a scientifically valid reason forbidding two way flow.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Science tells us that there is a two way flow of thermal energy. *Net energy* does not move spontaneously from cool to warm. Give us a scientifically valid reason forbidding two way flow.



Science tells you...science tells you...science tells you.  If that is all you have, then you have exactly jack squat...Science shows us that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...science shows us that PV=nRT...science shows us that pressure = force / area...science shows us that speed = distance/time...science shows us that an objects weight is directly proportional to its mass....science shows us that work = force x distance...science shows us that resistance = voltage / current...

Science has shown us all sorts of things and repeatable experiment has demonstrated those things to be true...if all you have is science telling you but science can't demonstrate the claim then you have nothing but faith...I prefer empirical evidence before I jump on a bandwagon....people who believe without evidence are faithful, or gullible, or marks, or suckers..or any number of adjectives for people who believe with no actual evidence in support of their belief...

I don't care to hear what anyone has "told" you as I am by nature a critical thinker and skeptical of what people go about saying...I favor empirical, hard, repeatable evidence along with what am being "told"...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Science tells you...science tells you...science tells you. If that is all you have, then you have exactly jack squat...Science shows us that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...science shows us that PV=nRT...science shows us that pressure = force / area...science shows us that speed = distance/time...science shows us that an objects weight is directly proportional to its mass....science shows us that work = force x distance...science shows us that resistance = voltage / current...
> 
> Science has shown us all sorts of things and repeatable experiment has demonstrated those things to be true...if all you have is science telling you but science can't demonstrate the claim then you have nothing but faith...I prefer empirical evidence before I jump on a bandwagon....people who believe without evidence are faithful, or gullible, or marks, or suckers..or any number of adjectives for people who believe with no actual evidence in support of their belief...
> 
> I don't care to hear what anyone has "told" you as I am by nature a critical thinker and skeptical of what people go about saying...I favor empirical, hard, repeatable evidence along with what am being "told"...


What I hear you saying is that you do believe in old classical physics before QM, but you don't believe in modern science. That is your problem.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Science tells you...science tells you...science tells you. If that is all you have, then you have exactly jack squat...Science shows us that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...science shows us that PV=nRT...science shows us that pressure = force / area...science shows us that speed = distance/time...science shows us that an objects weight is directly proportional to its mass....science shows us that work = force x distance...science shows us that resistance = voltage / current...
> ...



Believing in what someone you perceive as smarter than you when they can't even begin to demonstrate what they are saying is true is a problem...asking for empirical evidence to support a claim is science...believing because someone told you is far from science...and saying a thing that you can't prove with the intent of fooling dupes isn't science...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Believing in what someone you perceive as smarter than you when they can't even begin to demonstrate what they are saying is true is a problem...asking for empirical evidence to support a claim is science...believing because someone told you is far from science...and saying a thing that you can't prove with the intent of fooling dupes isn't science...


What scientists know is that there is no possible physical concept that would prevent objects at the same temperature from radiating equal amounts of energy toward each other. And you can't come up with a concept either. But still, you believe in that unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable one-way energy flow. That's weird.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



_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. _
*
if you are unable to do the math, under the circumstances described above, the human body would be radiating about 134 watts...there is no back radiation...there is no net energy flow..*

You've said radiation can move from cooler matter to warmer matter, only if work was done.

_if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, _

How do you think the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings got up to 296 K?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> What scientists know is that there is no possible physical concept that would prevent objects at the same temperature from radiating equal amounts of energy toward each other. And you can't come up with a concept either. But still, you believe in that unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable one-way energy flow. That's weird.



No possible concept?  Are you kidding?  At this point, we have almost no understanding whatsoever of how, or why energy transfers...we can detect its movement, we can measure how much moves, and we can predict its effects, but how, or why it transfers?...we are still damned near totally ignorant.  And you claim that there is no possible concept as if we even began to know the concepts...

You really are quite far removed from reality and clearly have almost no inkling of how much science doesn't know...at this point, we don't even know what we don't know...

And since all observations and measurements of energy movement are gross one way movements, your attempt at using my request for actual evidence of your position falls flat...unless of course, you are unaware that all measurements and ovbservations of energy movement are one way...in which case you are just ignorant.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 20, 2018)

Years ago when I was learning the basics of fiber-optic transmission we applied a laser to each end of the 1 mile long spool, at the same frequency, and measured the output of the ends.  There was a drop of about 67% of the optical power. When a single laser was used it emitted 94% of the input optical power.  

When we used a higher transmission power on one end, the lower transmission power dropped by 83% while the higher power dropped by 51%.  using 1.3 and 1.9 lasers (offset wave lengths) resulted in the same losses. (the experiment was deigned to show that bi-directional communications in fiber will not function)

Either the photons collided and caused scattering attenuation or there is still a very low understanding of photon energy process. Given that the QAM transmission was totally destroyed, for either end, its a good bet that it is a collision related event.

QM theory shown extremely questionable by observable experiment. Even if all matter radiates in all directions the temperature (power-output) of the matter, matters. The energy of a colder object reaching the other hotter object is also very questionable.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> No possible concept? Are you kidding? At this point, we have almost no understanding whatsoever of how, or why energy transfers


What you mean is that *you* have no understanding.


SSDD said:


> You really are quite far removed from reality and clearly have almost no inkling of how much science doesn't know...at this point, we don't even know what we don't know.


*You* are far removed; *you* have no inkling; *you* don't know what you don't know.


SSDD said:


> And since all observations and measurements of energy movement are gross one way movements, your attempt at using my request for actual evidence of your position falls flat...unless of course, you are unaware that all measurements and ovbservations of energy movement are one way...in which case you are just ignorant.


*You* are repeating again that *you* have no evidence.

Science knows much more than you can ever imagine. Science agrees with QM experiments with an accuracy of parts per billion or trillion. And you say science has no understanding? Think again.


----------



## IanC (Jan 20, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Years ago when I was learning the basics of fiber-optic transmission we applied a laser to each end of the 1 mile long spool, at the same frequency, and measured the output of the ends.  There was a drop of about 67% of the optical power. When a single laser was used it emitted 94% of the input optical power.
> 
> When we used a higher transmission power on one end, the lower transmission power dropped by 83% while the higher power dropped by 51%.  using 1.3 and 1.9 lasers (offset wave lengths) resulted in the same losses. (the experiment was deigned to show that bi-directional communications in fiber will not function)
> 
> ...



Photons don't interact with each other. Photons do interact with matter.

Fiber optics do constrain light by internal reflection, although not perfectly. There is obviously a chance that two photons hitting the fiber optic matter simultaneously will result in a different outcome than simple reflection.

Someone here posted up an interesting experiment showing two laser beams coming off a surface as one reasonably coherent stream of light that was a different colour than the original two lasers. 

Weird stuff happens when you play with light, so what? General principles are seldom seen in reality without confounding factors obscuring them..


----------



## IanC (Jan 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No possible concept? Are you kidding? At this point, we have almost no understanding whatsoever of how, or why energy transfers
> ...



Yes indeed. Not only that but QM has made many predictions that led to understanding the previously unexplainable.

Fission and fusion can't happen under classical physics. Then those probability density function results showed that electrons have a faint possibility of existing on that side of the barrier even though they arrived from this side. 

Some wag said that anything not expressly forbidden by QM must happen, no matter how improbable. So far that seems to be holding up.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> What you mean is that *you* have no understanding.



No...I mean that science has almost no understanding..but if you believe that they do grasp the underlying mechanism of energy transfer, by all means, reference a paper that I might read.  My bet is that like all claims that science grasps such things, you will only prove that you don't even grasp the difference between being able to observe, and measure a thing and actually understanding how it works.

So lets see a paper that describes the fundamental mechanism of energy exchange.

*


Wuwei said:



			You
		
Click to expand...

*


Wuwei said:


> are far removed; *you* have no inkling; *you* don't know what you don't know.



Sorry guy, but I have quite a firm grasp on what science knows and what it doesn't.  Do you think it is just coincidence that I keep asking for data that you can't provide?  Does it surprise you that you can't provide it?  Does the fact that you can't provide it, even though you believe science knows it even register in your brain?



SSDD said:


> *You* are repeating again that *you* have no evidence.



Thanks for proving my point...all the evidence supports me and you are completely unable to grasp that...there are no measurements of spontaneous two way energy movement...No measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a radiator to an object and then back to the radiator...no measurements of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object at all...it is a very sad comment on your education that you are still asking for measurements to support my position when EVERY MEASUREMENT supports my position.



Wuwei said:


> Science knows much more than you can ever imagine. Science agrees with QM experiments with an accuracy of parts per billion or trillion. And you say science has no understanding? Think again.



And yet, you can't provide a single observed, measured example to support what you believe science knows...you have deified science...you are a religious zealot..you believe that because a thing is hypothesized, that it must be true...again, you are completely unable to differentiate between what is real and what is imagined.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2018)

IanC said:


> Photons don't interact with each other. Photons do interact with matter.



Never fails to make me smile when you start talking as if you know what these theoretical particles are doing..what they can and can't do..talking as if you actually had some concrete evidence that they exist.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > What you mean is that *you* have no understanding.
> ...



I hear you saying that your hubris trumps all of science. Sorry that doesn't work for me nor any scientist.

In physics there is no possible physical concept that would prevent objects at the same temperature from radiating equal amounts of energy toward each other. And you can't come up with a concept either. But still, you believe in that unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable phenomenon.

Here is why a body at any temperature above zero must radiate energy. The atoms at and near the surface are vibrating with a wide spectrum of wavelengths (Plank's radiation law.) When charges vibrate, they must radiate energy. There is nothing outside that body that can stop atoms from vibrating. There is nothing outside that body that can stop the vibrating atoms from radiating EM energy.


----------



## IanC (Jan 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Photons don't interact with each other. Photons do interact with matter.
> ...



So now you deny that light exists?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I hear you saying that your hubris trumps all of science. Sorry that doesn't work for me nor any scientist.



I hear you talking but you still aren't saying anything at all.



Wuwei said:


> In physics there is no possible physical concept that would prevent objects at the same temperature from radiating equal amounts of energy toward each other. And you can't come up with a concept either. But still, you believe in that unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable phenomenon.



In order for that claim to have any credibility at all, you must know what the fundamental mechanism driving energy exchange is...lets hear it.  Describe the how and why of energy exchange.  If you can't do that..and we all know that you can't since science doesn't know, then your statement regarding no possible physical concept is just another bullshit statement by a religious zealot.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Of course not..light exists as a wave, and that wave exists with properties that we as yet don't understand..photons are just a place holding story that we use till such time as we understand all the properties of the wave.


----------



## IanC (Jan 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Good grief! Light has properties of both waves and particles, so obviously it is neither.

Hahahaha. SSDD thinks light is a binary choice between wave and particle, and his vote is for wave. Hahahaha.

That actually helps to clear up some of his other positions. Once he makes an either/or binary decision, he simply stops taking in new information. Fuzzy boundaries become sharp.


----------



## IanC (Jan 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I hear you saying that your hubris trumps all of science. Sorry that doesn't work for me nor any scientist.
> ...



What kind of energy transfer? There are different types and different mechanisms.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



And the wait continues for you to say something substantive...and while we are waiting, photons remain theoretical particles which were hypothesized in an effort to explain a thing about the nature of light that we still don't understand...

When do you suppose, if ever, you might start concentrating on developing the skill to differentiate between what is real, and what is not?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2018)

IanC said:


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



Since the only sort of energy transfer that we actually understand the mechanism for is along the line of rocks rolling down hill, or hammers hitting nails, then lets make it radiative energy transfer...As I said, we can measure it, we can observe it, we can make predictions based on what we have measured and observed, but the how and why of it remain a mystery...we have not scratched the surface..we have hypothesized, and theorized, and put together stories that mesh with our observations, but in so far as understanding what and how it is happening at the microscopic level, we are in the dark.


----------



## IanC (Jan 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



So you think light is real. But calling a single bit of light a photon is 'unreal'. Calling light a wave is real, pointing out examples where it acts like a particle is unreal.

If you are unhappy with how I have interpreted your words, please, explain yourself.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2018)

IanC said:


> So you think light is real. But calling a single bit of light a photon is 'unreal'. Calling light a wave is real, pointing out examples where it acts like a particle is unreal.



Since we don't know whether we understand all the properties of waves, exactly how do you know that it is acting like a particle rather than some property of a wave that we don't understand...again, refer to the ability to differentiate between what is real, and the stories we tell in an attempt to explain things we don't understand.


----------



## IanC (Jan 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> ..we have hypothesized, and theorized, and put together stories that mesh with our observations, but in so far as understanding what and how it is happening at the microscopic level, we are in the dark




So none of our explanations are real? No matter how successful they are at describing our observations? No matter how many predictions come to fruition?

Do we really have to know everything before we can say we know anything at all? Are Newton's laws wrong because they are incomplete?

You say the first version of the SLoT makes the prediction that energy can only go from 'warm to cold', for any type of transfer. Yet the molecules in a volume of gas have a wide range of kinetic speeds. How did that happen, and why does the variation continue? Why aren't they all the same speed? Where does random chance fit in if everything is determined by your version of the SLoT?


----------



## IanC (Jan 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > So you think light is real. But calling a single bit of light a photon is 'unreal'. Calling light a wave is real, pointing out examples where it acts like a particle is unreal.
> ...



Why do all your arguments devolve into fighting over the 'correct' definition of terms? A wave is a wave, a particle is a particle. A photon shows the attributes of both therefore it is something else, neither a wave nor a particle. You can't define the quantum world by direct analogies with the macroscopic world. We only discovered QM because macroscopic rules couldn't explain the paradoxes.

You seem to prefer ignoring the paradoxes.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> In order for that claim to have any credibility at all, you must know what the fundamental mechanism driving energy exchange is...lets hear it. Describe the how and why of energy exchange. If you can't do that..and we all know that you can't since science doesn't know, then your statement regarding no possible physical concept is just another bullshit statement by a religious zealot.



This is the mechanism:

Here is why a body at any temperature above zero must radiate energy. The atoms at and near the surface are vibrating with a wide spectrum of wavelengths (see Plank's radiation law.) When charges vibrate, they must radiate energy. There is nothing outside that body that can stop atoms from vibrating. There is nothing outside that body that can stop the vibrating atoms from radiating EM energy.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2018)

IanC said:


> You can't define the quantum world by direct analogies with the macroscopic world. We only discovered QM because macroscopic rules couldn't explain the paradoxes.



*There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature...Niels Bohr
*
Your chief error is that you believe there is a quantum world...there isn't...there is only the stories we tell.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Here is why a body at any temperature above zero must radiate energy. The atoms at and near the surface are vibrating with a wide spectrum of wavelengths (see Plank's radiation law.) When charges vibrate, they must radiate energy. There is nothing outside that body that can stop atoms from vibrating. There is nothing outside that body that can stop the vibrating atoms from radiating EM energy.


]

Like I guessed...you don't even understand the concept of an underlying mechanism..I suppose your description of the underlying mechanism of an internal combustion engine is that it makes the wheels turn.  Or that gravity makes things attract...You didn't even begin to touch on an actual how or why energy moves...no worries though...no one knows....and that includes you.

It is sad, however, that you believe your explanation even touched on the underlying mechanism of energy transfer.  Shows how little you actually know.


----------



## IanC (Jan 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > In order for that claim to have any credibility at all, you must know what the fundamental mechanism driving energy exchange is...lets hear it. Describe the how and why of energy exchange. If you can't do that..and we all know that you can't since science doesn't know, then your statement regarding no possible physical concept is just another bullshit statement by a religious zealot.
> ...



He has never addressed this issue in the past, I doubt that he will now. Except perhaps to deny the atomic scale world.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Like I guessed...you don't even understand the concept of an underlying mechanism..I suppose your description of the underlying mechanism of an internal combustion engine is that it makes the wheels turn. Or that gravity makes things attract...You didn't even begin to touch on an actual how or why energy moves...no worries though...no one knows....and that includes you.
> 
> It is sad, however, that you believe your explanation even touched on the underlying mechanism of energy transfer. Shows how little you actually know.


That was spoken like a petulant child. Why don't you give me a physical counterargument.


----------



## IanC (Jan 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Here is why a body at any temperature above zero must radiate energy. The atoms at and near the surface are vibrating with a wide spectrum of wavelengths (see Plank's radiation law.) When charges vibrate, they must radiate energy. There is nothing outside that body that can stop atoms from vibrating. There is nothing outside that body that can stop the vibrating atoms from radiating EM energy.
> ...



He gave a mechanism for radiation. You don't like it even though it makes sense and is built up from physical laws that are demonstrable.

Unlike your claim that has no basis in physics.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 21, 2018)

IanC said:


> He has never addressed this issue in the past, I doubt that he will now. Except perhaps to deny the atomic scale world.


Yes, he is still afraid to address it. But no doubt he is searching the web with some key words.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Like I guessed...you don't even understand the concept of an underlying mechanism..I suppose your description of the underlying mechanism of an internal combustion engine is that it makes the wheels turn. Or that gravity makes things attract...You didn't even begin to touch on an actual how or why energy moves...no worries though...no one knows....and that includes you.
> ...



Your attempt at describing the mechanism of energy movement was that of a petulant child...rather than simply acknowledge that we don't know, you come up with some half assed description of energy movement...and nothing to do with the actual mechanism...pointing out your error is what adults do with petulant children so that they don't grow up believing that they know things that they don't.  Guess your parents dropped the ball with you.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2018)

IanC said:


> He gave a mechanism for radiation. You don't like it even though it makes sense and is built up from physical laws that are demonstrable.
> 
> Unlike your claim that has no basis in physics.



No he didn't...but it is interesting that you think he did...guess you know even less than I had given you credit for.

And 2 way energy flow is not demonstrable...also interesting that you believe it is...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Your attempt at describing the mechanism of energy movement was that of a petulant child...rather than simply acknowledge that we don't know, you come up with some half assed description of energy movement...and nothing to do with the actual mechanism...pointing out your error is what adults do with petulant children so that they don't grow up believing that they know things that they don't. Guess your parents dropped the ball with you.


You are still stalling. You still haven't given me a reason why you think this is wrong:

The atoms at and near the surface are vibrating with a wide spectrum of wavelengths (see Plank's radiation law.) When charges vibrate, they must radiate energy. There is nothing outside that body that can stop atoms from vibrating. There is nothing outside that body that can stop the vibrating atoms from radiating EM energy.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 21, 2018)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Years ago when I was learning the basics of fiber-optic transmission we applied a laser to each end of the 1 mile long spool, at the same frequency, and measured the output of the ends.  There was a drop of about 67% of the optical power. When a single laser was used it emitted 94% of the input optical power.
> ...


This IS the point... Those bits of matter known as photons DO COLLIDE and we are woefully ignorant of the process/interactions.  This general principal of QM is shown incorrect but you want to claim that it has no effect...  the babbling and going round in circles is pointless.

_*"Weird stuff happens when you play with light, so what?"*_

This is priceless...^^^^^  Now how a photon does or does not react is of no consequence....


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You are still stalling. You still haven't given me a reason why you think this is wrong:



Because we don't know..and the likelihood of you being the one to accurately describe what hundreds of years of physics has yet to scratch the surface of is pretty slim.  your explanation didn't even begin to describe why energy transfers, much less the fundamental mechanism for how...all you said was that energy moves...we already know that.  

But again...it is interesting to see what passes for a description of the fundamental mechanism of energy movement in your mind...it is always interesting to see how little people who fancy themselves as intelligent actually know.  

Your belief that science understands the underlying mechanism of energy exchange is just one more example of you not being able to differentiate between fact and fiction.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Because we don't know..and the likelihood of you being the one to accurately describe what hundreds of years of physics has yet to scratch the surface of is pretty slim. your explanation didn't even begin to describe why energy transfers, much less the fundamental mechanism for how...all you said was that energy moves...we already know that.
> 
> But again...it is interesting to see what passes for a description of the fundamental mechanism of energy movement in your mind...it is always interesting to see how little people who fancy themselves as intelligent actually know.
> 
> Your belief that science understands the underlying mechanism of energy exchange is just one more example of you not being able to differentiate between fact and fiction.


You are still stalling. What you are saying is that you don't know or accept the science. If you don't think it is the underlying mechanism. Say why.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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



I do love to watch him go on as if he actually knew what these theoretical particles were actually doing, and what the do and don't do...When you talk to warmers, and luke warmers it doesn't take long before you see that as a group, they really aren't able to differentiate between what is real and what is not...referring to unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models as if they were real....not much different than referring to the easter bunny, and fairies, and dragons as if they were real and going on about what they are up to in the world..  it is priceless....f'ing sad...but priceless none the less.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You are still stalling. What you are saying is that you don't know or accept the science. If you don't think it is the underlying mechanism. Say why.



I am not stalling...I am perfectly willing to admit what science knows and what it doesn't know...I spend a great deal of time educating myself on that very thing so that I can recognize and differentiate fact from fiction.  If you actually believe that you described the underlying, fundamental mechanism that drives energy exchange then you are far less informed than I thought you were.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You are still stalling. What you are saying is that you don't know or accept the science. If you don't think it is the underlying mechanism. Say why.
> ...


Still stalling. If you think I did not describe the underlying mechanism which is has been demonstrated time and again, then what do you think is wrong with the underlying mechanism description?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > He has never addressed this issue in the past, I doubt that he will now. Except perhaps to deny the atomic scale world.
> ...



If he ever posts another source, I doubt he will, what percentage of it will actually refute his claims?
50%, 75%, more?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 21, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If he ever posts another source, I doubt he will, what percentage of it will actually refute his claims?
> 50%, 75%, more?


My guess is 100% that he will post one of his many non sequiturs.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



The petulant child begins to respond to admonishment with ?why?

OK...if you insist on having your errors pointed out to you..

You said that atoms at and near the surface are vibrating with a wide spectrum of wavelengths...aside from the fact that all atoms throughout the object are vibrating at a wide spectrum of wavelengths  what do you think that tells you? 

Any idea why they are vibrating?  Any idea why they are vibrating at different wavelengths..any idea what microscopic force causes them to vibrate?  Any idea how this vibration is translated into infrared energy?  Any idea what force causes the infrared energy to leave the object?  The answer to all those questions is no..because those questions speak to the unknown underlying mechanism of energy movement...not to the known fact that energy moves.

Then you went on to state that when they vibrate they must radiate energy?  Why?  And again, what caused them to vibrate..what causes them to vibrate at different frequencies...what force determines how much energy is emitted?...again, the answer to those questions is no because they speak to the underlying mechanism of energy exchange..not the known fact that energy can emit from objects.

Then you went on to say that there is nothing out side that body that can stop them from vibrating...that is a statement of fiction...because you don't know...becasue you don't know what force causes them to vibrate, and causes them to vibrate at different frequencies...that is your belief, your opinion, your faith..whatever...but not a known fact. Hell, we haven't even got a good look at an atom and you believe you can confidently state what can and can't make them do anything.  Get a grip on reality.

So...all you did was tell me that atoms vibrate and that they can emit energy and then went on to give me your opinion about what can and can't have an effect on that energy. You didn't even begin to touch on the unknown, underlying mechanism that causes energy to move...all you did was say that energy moves...we all know that...what we don't know is why or how.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > If he ever posts another source, I doubt he will, what percentage of it will actually refute his claims?
> ...




Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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


*
This IS the point... Those bits of matter known as photons DO COLLIDE 
*
Is that how covailent bonds shield themselves from cooler photons?


----------



## IanC (Jan 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


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




Well, do an experiment. Keep the two lasers and individually measure the intensity drop. Then measure the drops when they are both operating, criss crossing each other. I say the difference will be undetectable. If there is a detectable drop then you must try again but in a vacuum.

There is no way that this sort of experiment hasn't been done but I have no idea where to find it.

Then add the reflecting surface back in and scratch your head on trying to figure out how two different laser beams came together and then left as one beam of a different colour. There is undoubtedly an answer, but it comes from QM not classical physics.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 21, 2018)

Internal heat is manifested in random kinetic motion. If you disagree state why.
The motion will be oscillatory in solids since the atoms are bound together. If you disagree state why.
Substances with dipole moments or free charges that are vibrating will emit EM waves. That has been measured many times over the last 100 years or so. If you disagree state why.

Again, what's to stop that from happening.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Again, what's to stop that from happening.



How many times must I say...I don't know...and you don't know...and science doesn't know....we don't understand the underlying mechanism of energy movement..when we do, then perhaps we will know.  The second law says that energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm..it doesn't say that some energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm but the net must be from warm to cool..it says that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm..how difficult is that to understand.

I believe the statement because no observation of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm has ever been made, nor will it ever be made.  I am not afraid to acknowledge that there are things...very fundamental things that science does not yet know because I have not deified science into some sort of weird assed religion for myself...I don't see science as all knowing...and as I said, I spend a great deal of time learning what science doesn't know....that allows me to spot bullshit like yours when i see it.  when you start making declarations about things that science does not yet know, then the bullshit-O-meter goes off and I know that I am talking to yet another hack who can't differentiate between what is real and what is fiction.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Your attempt at describing the mechanism of energy movement was that of a petulant child...rather than simply acknowledge that we don't know, you come up with some half assed description of energy movement...and nothing to do with the actual mechanism...pointing out your error is what adults do with petulant children so that they don't grow up believing that they know things that they don't. Guess your parents dropped the ball with you.
> ...



You have two molecules one at 10K and one at 236K.

These molecules are in a vacuum and in close proximity to one another..

Each one emits photons relative to their temperature towards the cold of space at 2K.

The photons from the molecule at 236K are moderately energetic and in a very short wave 16-22um

The photons from the other molecule at 10K are extremely low in energy and are in a 10 meter wave length. very low energy.

As gasses go, the photon can only be absorbed by another gas at roughly its same frequency.  The colder photon will pass through warmer molecule giving it no effect as will the warmer pass through the colder because they are grey bodies. Without absorption and molecular collisions neither gas will warm.

As solids go (black bodies), both will again radiate in wavelengths and excitement relative to their temperatures. The cooler molecule will throw out 1 photon to the warmer molecules 2,000 (temperature/excitement level).  These photons will have very little power from the cooler molecule and 2,000 times more power in each from the warmer molecule. (wave propagation theory)

A cooler object can not warm a warmer object by simple observation of the theoretical process.

A colder objects emitted energy is unable to influence the warmer molecule simply because the output and excitement of the outgoing photons can not overcome the warmer objects output.  This is why "reflection" in fiber optics might be important.

Again, this is all theoretical. No observations of WHY have been documented. But this is a thing that most radio, fiber-optic and microwave engineering people know and deal with every day. They observe the problems and deal with them.. And sometimes the fix makes absolutely no sense at all..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 21, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Can gravity bend the path of a photon?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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



That's the current theory.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 21, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's the current theory.


It was also directly observed.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> You have two molecules one at 10K and one at 236K.


You need many molecules in a substance to define temperature. A single molecule cannot ever define temperature. That makes the rest of your post moot.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Again, what's to stop that from happening.
> ...


Again, you are letting your anger and frustration get the best of you.

OK. You admit that you don't know how radiation can be stopped by hotter bodies. But vibrating charges have been observed to radiate time and again. Simple science covers that in detail. But science has no theory on how a distant warmer body could possibly stop radiation. However radiation exchange is consistent with the second law. So it is an obvious deduction that radiation exchange is the only viable mechanism of the behavior of radiant energy in the SLoT. 

Just because you can't see or imagine something does not mean it doesn't exist. You hold sacred the words of the SLoT, but you don't understand what those words actually mean. Laws often start by experimental observation that codify the law. But the next important endeavor is to understand the mechanism behind the law through a theory. You have never gotten past the original statement of a law to understand how the law falls in line with the rest of scientific knowledge. That is not science.


----------



## IanC (Jan 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > You have two molecules one at 10K and one at 236K.
> ...



You beat me to it. These guys are refractory to learning anything. 


Billy_Bob said:


> As gasses go, the photon can only be absorbed by another gas at roughly its same frequency. The colder photon will pass through warmer molecule giving it no effect as will the warmer pass through the colder



No, molecules absorb and emit the exact same wavelengths. Emmisivity.

The same molecules held together as a solid or liquid will react with extra wavelengths because of the bonds holding the molecules together. That is getting beyond the scope of our conversation because you can't even understand the the ultrasimple case of a single molecule.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 21, 2018)

IanC said:


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


Well said.

I have a hard time understanding how a lot of the guys on this board think. Some are steeped in trollism. That would easily explain their quest. But you are right. Their tenacious cling to gut-feel science is to the point where you would think they have no self-esteem whatsoever.


----------



## IanC (Jan 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I have a hard time understanding how a lot of the guys on this board think. Some are steeped in trollism. That would easily explain their quest. But you are right. Their tenacious cling to gut-feel science is to the point where you would think they have no self-esteem whatsoever.



I remember a physics prof correcting me in a blunt and somewhat derisive way. I had come at the problem from a different direction, and he had gently reframed it several times. Finally he had to be abrupt to stop my faulty but clever reasoning from tainting the rest of the class.

Unfortunately no one seems to have the scientific authority that would cause SSDD to re-examine his faulty framing of the questions here, or his narrow mindless when deciding what loosely defined terminology actually means in the context that it was written.

SSDD could learn, if he wanted to. Billyboob and jc are simply incapable of understanding higher order concepts.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 21, 2018)

Add Frank to that list. I think a number of people posting here have a good scientific and intuitive grasp of the issues involved, but the trollers and minions don't want to admit that.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > That's the current theory.
> ...



Really?  Someone observed a photon?  You mean that they are no longer theoretical particles?  Where is the paper?  

Refer to not being able to differentiate between what is real and what is not.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Again, you are letting your anger and frustration get the best of you.
> 
> OK. You admit that you don't know how radiation can be stopped by hotter bodies. But vibrating charges have been observed to radiate time and again. Simple science covers that in detail. But science has no theory on how a distant warmer body could possibly stop radiation. However radiation exchange is consistent with the second law. So it is an obvious deduction that radiation exchange is the only viable mechanism of the behavior of radiant energy in the SLoT.
> 
> Just because you can't see or imagine something does not mean it doesn't exist. You hold sacred the words of the SLoT, but you don't understand what those words actually mean. Laws often start by experimental observation that codify the law. But the next important endeavor is to understand the mechanism behind the law through a theory. You have never gotten past the original statement of a law to understand how the law falls in line with the rest of scientific knowledge. That is not science.



About the only thing more tedious than a root canal is talking to a weasel...someone who tries so desperately to pretend that he knows something that he does not...

And between us, I am afraid that the misunderstanding quotient lies far more heavily on you...you have exhibited gross misunderstanding on far to many basics to even bother to pretend that you grasp this topic.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2018)

IanC said:


> Unfortunately no one seems to have the scientific authority that would cause SSDD to re-examine his faulty framing of the questions here, or his narrow mindless when deciding what loosely defined terminology actually means in the context that it was written.



I never got corrected for trying to outthink the laws of physics...alas ian, it is you who needs to re-examine your faulty thinking...it is you who needs to stop interpreting, adding, and subtracting the items from the laws of physics that don't agree with your beliefs.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Add Frank to that list. I think a number of people posting here have a good scientific and intuitive grasp of the issues involved, but the trollers and minions don't want to admit that.



The very idea of you suggesting that someone else is unable to learn is laughable...still want to argue that potential energy is not a topic that falls under the domain of the 2nd law of thermodynamics...what a goob...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Einstein's general theory of relativity. Tod was referring to old experiments of seeing stars shifted during a solar eclipse.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Again, you are letting your anger and frustration get the best of you.
> ...


Yes, root canals are tedious aren't they. 

You still haven't responded how you think radiation is stopped by a hotter body.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Add Frank to that list. I think a number of people posting here have a good scientific and intuitive grasp of the issues involved, but the trollers and minions don't want to admit that.
> ...


Sure if you want to argue that a motionless rock has anything to do with thermodynamics.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You still haven't responded how you think radiation is stopped by a hotter body.



Oops, never mind. I forgot you already said that you didn't know.

What I meant to say is that you still haven't responded to how you think a cold gas adjacent to a hotter surface can draw heat from the surface since you said that the molecules in the gas do not give any energy to that surface.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



So no one observed a photon...and you were once again having a problem differentiating between reality and fiction.  got it.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



More tedium from a top shelf goob.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Oops, never mind. I forgot you already said that you didn't know.



And no one else does either even though that is what is observed every time we look.



Wuwei said:


> What I meant to say is that you still haven't responded to how you think a cold gas adjacent to a hotter surface can draw heat from the surface since you said that the molecules in the gas do not give any energy to that surface.



Draw heat?  Now cold objects operate like a vacuum cleaner.  Energy radiates from warm to cool...where do you get "drawing" from that?  Once more...you don't have a clue and the more you talk, the more clueless you appear.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So no one observed a photon...and you were once again having a problem differentiating between reality and fiction. got it.


You are observing photons as you read this.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


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


I accept your concession.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Oops, never mind. I forgot you already said that you didn't know.
> ...


I am trying to make it simple for you but you keep stalling. You should have seen from context the word "draw" could be replaced by the word "get". Here I will restate it more clearly:

How do you think a cold gas adjacent to a hotter surface can get heat from that surface since you said that the molecules in the gas just bounce. (I'm assuming by "bounce" you mean an elastic collision where atoms neither give nor receive any energy when contacting that surface.)


----------



## SSDD (Jan 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So no one observed a photon...and you were once again having a problem differentiating between reality and fiction. got it.
> ...



Really?  Got any conclusive evidence that photons even exist?...I am sure that the scientific world would be very interested to see it since as far as they are concerned, photons are still theoretical particles...

Refer to not being able to differentiate between what is real...and what is not.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



Typical....bore your opponent to tears then puff your chicken breast up and claim with all the machismo that you can muster that you made him cry...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I am trying to make it simple for you but you keep stalling. You should have seen from context the word "draw" could be replaced by the word "get". Here I will restate it more clearly:



Not bright enough to say what you mean.



Wuwei said:


> How do you think a cold gas adjacent to a hotter surface can get heat from that surface since you said that the molecules in the gas just bounce. (I'm assuming by "bounce" you mean an elastic collision where atoms neither give nor receive any energy when contacting that surface.)



Since infrared radiation can not warm air, then conduction would be the only means...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Really? Got any conclusive evidence that photons even exist?...I am sure that the scientific world would be very interested to see it since as far as they are concerned, photons are still theoretical particles...
> 
> Refer to not being able to differentiate between what is real...and what is not.


If you can't see photons, maybe your seeing eye dog can.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Not bright enough to say what you mean.


That word has over 20 definitions and you pick one that is irrelevant, just so you can snarl?



			
				Wuwei said:
			
		

> you said that the molecules in the gas just bounce. (I'm assuming by "bounce" you mean an elastic collision where atoms neither give nor receive any energy when contacting that surface.)





SSDD said:


> Since infrared radiation can not warm air, then conduction would be the only means...


Yes of course we are talking about conduction.
You are stalling. Let me ask again:
How do you think a cold gas adjacent to a hotter surface can get heat from that surface since you said that the molecules in the gas just bounce (i.e. elastic collision.)


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



Is light real? Is the electric force real? How about magnets?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Really? Got any conclusive evidence that photons even exist?...I am sure that the scientific world would be very interested to see it since as far as they are concerned, photons are still theoretical particles...
> ...



So you now claim that you can "see" photons?  you get more ridiculous all the time.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 23, 2018)

IanC said:


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


\

Of course...but that doesn't make photons real...photons are theoretical particles and will remain so till such time as we get a handle on the fundamental nature of light.


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



"*A rose by any other name* would smell as sweet"


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Photon counting is one my specialties. Glad you asked. I've designed dozens of long integrating intensified or cooled camera systems for observing material luminescence.  Like for tagging proteins to "glow" by methods of chemically tagging.

Literally in a HOLY DARK chamber, I can count the number of photons given off. Even SEE them accumulating.  At rates of intercept down to a couple thousand per second. 

So yeah.. Photons are containers of Electro-Magnetic energy which have an intrinsic optical frequency until they are absorbed by a material and converted to something else. Like heat or electric charge.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Of course...but that doesn't make photons real...photons are theoretical particles and will remain so till such time as we get a handle on the fundamental nature of light.



In some old experiments like the photoelectric effect, there was a strangely discrete property of light. Plank also noticed that experimental black body measurements made more sense if the emission of light in the math were parceled into discrete quantities. Also when photomultipliers are exposed to extreme low light conditions they will not give a continuous low current output, but they respond with sharp current spikes. It is as though the low light was not a continuous wave but came in packets.

Is this agent of discreteness real? What does "real" actually mean with something like that. What really matters is that all the experiments and mathematics and predictions actually work very nicely when that agent is assumed. The more senstive experiments and theories fail miserably without the agent. 

The agent of this experimental phenomenon was given the name "photon." Yes you can argue that photons are theoretical and will remain so. Even if you presume the agent is not real nor a meaningful entity in nature, you would not be able to predict and explain nature without it.

Real or not, "photon" is just a word that is attached to the agent that is necessary to explain experiments and allow theory to correctly predict outcomes. If you don't abide by that agent, your theory will fail miserably.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So you now claim that you can "see" photons? you get more ridiculous all the time.



BTW cockroaches, like photomultipliers, can detect single "photons."


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So you now claim that you can "see" photons? you get more ridiculous all the time.
> ...



Maybe I'm working too hard to tune cameras.  Should investigate a cockroach approach to low light detection..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 23, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


So gravity affects these particles..  Why wouldnt the gravity within molecules also act the same way?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Gravity within a molecule deflects cooler photons away?

Are you off your covailent bond theory?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 23, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Photon counting is one my specialties. Glad you asked.



I am sure that you are counting something that you are calling photons...but at present, photons remain theoretical constructs...don't be fooled by your instrumentation


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Photon counting is one my specialties. Glad you asked.
> ...


Yes, flacaltenn, you are counting "theoretical constructs". That's an awkward 7 syllable phrase. There must be a simpler word for that.

Heed SSDD. Don't be fooled by observable, measurable, testable, repeatable theoretical constructs.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Laughing about your ignorance is hardly a rational argument...the science you worship still calls photons theoretical particles...like it or not, their existence is far from proven.  It must suck to not be able to tell what is real and what is not.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Laughing about your ignorance is hardly a rational argument...the science you worship still calls photons theoretical particles...like it or not, their existence is far from proven. It must suck to not be able to tell what is real and what is not.


What me worry? Reread post #567 above.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 24, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I'm going to contact the FDA today..  And ask them to withdraw approval for four different measurement devices. On the basis that someone on the Internet told me that photons were just a figment of my imagination. And as such -- the operation of such machines is simply an exercise in faith... 

Probably means I have to refund close to $250,000 in development fees that I was paid. BUT --


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Photon counting is one my specialties. Glad you asked.
> ...



Well maybe it's a lucky guess, but we're actually creating the generation scheme for those photons by bombarding the protein materials with OTHER photons of a particular color to excite the generation..  Too many moving parts involving photons to be "just beginner's luck"...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Photon counting is one my specialties. Glad you asked.
> ...



I CREATED the instrumention..  Maybe I'm a lucky fool..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 24, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



theoretical constructs == hallucinatory sparkly thingies ???


----------



## IanC (Jan 24, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Good for you! Improving technology is a boon for humanity.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 24, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Gravity within a molecule deflects cooler photons away?



Sure, that's how a mirror works. I look into it.  It KNOWS I'm cool -- so it reflects me back..


----------



## IanC (Jan 24, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


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



SSDD only has a few tools in his toolbox. As the old adage goes- to a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

He keeps trying to pound his squared peg into every shaped hole, whether it fits or not.


----------



## IanC (Jan 24, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> So gravity affects these particles.. Why wouldnt the gravity within molecules also act the same way?



Grasp at straws much?

Just how many zeros would you need to describe the deflection of a photon by the gravity effect of an atom? One divided by googleplex to the power of googleplex?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


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




Appeals to ridicule won't make photons anything other than theoretical particles...

From Observables to Unobservables in Science and Philosophy

Clip pp 214,215: * "That is to say that as long as they exist, photons necessarily move at 300,000 kilometers per second.  But photons are theoretical entities; they are postulated in hypotheses to account for esoteric phenomena not a part of ordinary experience, and on that account we might be accused of resorting to the purely conceptual to illustrate our point."  

*


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2018)

IanC said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Afraid that describes you ian...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Gravity within a molecule deflects cooler photons away?
> ...



What is the temperature of the source that is lighting your face?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



You snipped off the BEGINNING of that quote. Explaining WHY photons have an esoteric nature. And that is that they only exist in motion. Nothing in the Title or quote says "they don't exist".  

Let's try a REAL physics reference paper.. 

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/1999/jul/16/first-for-single-photon-measurements


*First for single-photon measurements
Jul 16, 1999
The ability of physicists to control single quantum particles, such as individual atoms and photons, has increased greatly in recent years and has allowed many "thought" experiments to be actually performed in the laboratory. Experimental techniques have now advanced to the stage where it is possible to repeatedly observe a single photon without destroying it. In this latest breakthrough physicists at the Ecole Normale Supérieure in Paris used rubidium atoms to observe the photon in a superconducting niobium cavity (Nature 400 239).

Photons are traditionally detected by converting their energy into an electric signal, which destroys the photon in the process. An additional problem in quantum measurements is that if one variable - say the position - is measured accurately, then the consequent uncertainty in another, incompatible variable - the momentum in this example - will mean that future measurements of the position will yield different results. For photons the intensity (or photon number) and the phase are related through the uncertainty principle. Although various so-called quantum non-demolition (QND) measurement schemes have been demonstrated in which the photon intensity can be measured without destroying the photons, these experiments only work for macroscopic photon fluxes. Michel Brune, Jean-Michel Raimond, Serge Haroche and co-workers in Paris have now performed the first QND measurement on a single photon.
*
Go tell all these confused people that they are controlling and measuring just a theoretical construct. It's a construct for which we have rules, measurements and repeatable empirical observations.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 24, 2018)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > So gravity affects these particles.. Why wouldnt the gravity within molecules also act the same way?
> ...


If QM is to be believed, then the PHASE and POWER of the photon changes.  Absorption will change the phase and power of the emitted photon as well. That means weaker power and phase takes very little change to deflect it or attract it.

I understand a whole lot about QM you seem to be unable to grasp.

The phase of LWIR (16-300um) does not allow photons to interact with our atmosphere and will not warm it until it hits a black body which it can warm. Then convection and conduction take over.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> You snipped off the BEGINNING of that quote. Explaining WHY photons have an esoteric nature. And that is that they only exist in motion. Nothing in the Title or quote says "they don't exist".



I didn't say that they don't exist...I said that today, they are a theoretical particle.  You guys who get so into the models that you start speaking of theory, and theoretical particles as if they were reality have apparently lost the ability to differentiate between reality and fiction.  Photon is a story we tell because we don't understand the nature of light yet.  Photon explains some things that we observe but don't yet understand.  The story is subject to change as our ability to observe becomes better.

Theoretical construct...no matter how much you claim otherwise....and railing against anyone who points this out...or an inability to simply acknowledge that a thing is a theoretical thing not actually proven in reality suggests some odd psychology at work....it seems that all of science is developing some very odd psychology...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Even with literally millions of hours of experiment, and industry observation and measurement, they will not give up the failed hypothesis.  It has become a religion to these people...not a science.  If it were a science, then skepticism would rule and 100 hours of observation of IR NOT WARMING the air would raise the red question flags...much less more than a century of such observation.


----------



## IanC (Jan 25, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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



What a steaming pile of nonsense!

You aren't even trying to be coherent anymore. Get back on your meds.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2018)

IanC said:


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



There is a reason that IR can't warm the air and a great deal of evidence observations and experiment support that claim...what is your explanation?


----------



## IanC (Jan 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



Give me a laser that outputs at 15 microns and I will show you how IR can heat CO2, which would then pass energy to the rest of the molecules by collision and raise the temperature of the air.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > You snipped off the BEGINNING of that quote. Explaining WHY photons have an esoteric nature. And that is that they only exist in motion. Nothing in the Title or quote says "they don't exist".
> ...



Photons are no more theoretical than our understanding of gravity. In either case, it's not necessary to go deeper into "internalizing" what these things are. Because the rules they follow are known explicitly and CAN be repeatedly observed and verified. You're grasping at any flotsam from the wreckage to stay afloat.. 

We KNOW photons follow the rules for Electromagnetic propagation. And we KNOW the energy they contain, the way their emission frequencies are derived, the fact that the energy in quanitized at the quantum level,  etc, etc, etc.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2018)

IanC said:


> Give me a laser that outputs at 15 microns and I will show you how IR can heat CO2, which would then pass energy to the rest of the molecules by collision and raise the temperature of the air.



If we are talking about passing energy via conduction, then we aren't talking about a radiative greenhouse effect, are we?  In your example, the air is being warmed via conduction, not IR.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Photons are no more theoretical than our understanding of gravity. In either case, it's not necessary to go deeper into "internalizing" what these things are. Because the rules they follow are known explicitly and CAN be repeatedly observed and verified. You're grasping at any flotsam from the wreckage to stay afloat..



Our understanding of the fundamental mechanism of gravity is theoretical as well...we can make predictions based on our observations, but we don't know how gravity operates...



flacaltenn said:


> We KNOW photons follow the rules for Electromagnetic propagation. And we KNOW the energy they contain, the way their emission frequencies are derived, the fact that the energy in quanitized at the quantum level,  etc, etc, etc.



Rail all you like...photons, as they are described by science, remain theoretical particles...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Rail all you like...photons, as they are described by science, remain theoretical particles...


So what if they are theoretical. Just how does that change the way QM is used or how scientists develop new applications?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 26, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Rail all you like...photons, as they are described by science, remain theoretical particles...
> ...



The point is to point out a symptom...that being accepting the hypothetical, theoretical, and modeled as if they were reality...speaking of them in terms of reality rather than theory or hypothesis...beleiving that we actually know things that we don't and trying to apply that belief as if it were reality.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The point is to point out a symptom...that being accepting the hypothetical, theoretical, and modeled as if they were reality...speaking of them in terms of reality rather than theory or hypothesis...beleiving that we actually know things that we don't and trying to apply that belief as if it were reality.



Sure I agree you can think of it that way if you want. But I leave the study of the deep concept of reality to philosophers or religion. The hard sciences have been able to quite adequately deal with engineering, inventions, science experiments, mathematical models, etc to handle a wide breadth of applications and predictions that work quite well in our (real?) world. Just what is the reality of the universe? It's a nice thing to think about every once in a while, but it is not necessary to grasp in order to function in science.


----------



## IanC (Jan 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Give me a laser that outputs at 15 microns and I will show you how IR can heat CO2, which would then pass energy to the rest of the molecules by collision and raise the temperature of the air.
> ...



The total energy of the atmosphere is increased by GHGs absorbing radiation energy. The energy of the atmosphere is constantly changing form through molecular collision. When it is in kinetic form, that is measured as temperature, and it is indicative of the total energy but not perfectly so.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 26, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Only by the absorption of IR by water vapor..and then not all energy absorbed by water vapor is retained by the vapor...most of that moves on via conduction by collision.  Radiation plays such a small part in the temperature of the atmosphere that it is vanishingly insignificant....


----------



## IanC (Jan 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The mechanism of IR absorption is identical for water vapour and CO2. Only the emmisivity for wavelengths is different, and the emission time for the molecule in an excited state. I would imagine all 3 atom molecules are similar in this respect but of course there may be exceptions.

Edit- I forgot to add that most of the energy 'retained' by water vapour is latent heat of phase change. That is a different category than absorption/emission of radiation in gases. CO2 also carries latent heat but it does not release it because it does not precipitate out of the atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 29, 2018)

IanC said:


> The mechanism of IR absorption is identical for water vapour and CO2. Only the emmisivity for wavelengths is different, and the emission time for the molecule in an excited state. I would imagine all 3 atom molecules are similar in this respect but of course there may be exceptions.



But the mechanism for emission is very different...CO2, at atmospheric temperatures releases the energy it absorbs immediately..it does not warm...water vapor on the other hand, does not.

CO2 has no power to cause warming in the atmosphere unless you add so much that it makes the atmosphere significantly heavier.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> But the mechanism for emission is very different...CO2, at atmospheric temperatures releases the energy it absorbs immediately..it does not warm...water vapor on the other hand, does not.


Where do you think CO2 releases it's energy? Mostly up? Down? All directions? Where does it it's energy eventually end up?


----------



## IanC (Jan 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The mechanism of IR absorption is identical for water vapour and CO2. Only the emmisivity for wavelengths is different, and the emission time for the molecule in an excited state. I would imagine all 3 atom molecules are similar in this respect but of course there may be exceptions.
> ...



Another naked claim.

Now you seem to be saying CO2 and water vapour absorb radiation by a similar mechanism but emit radiation by different mechanisms.

How is the emission from H2O different from CO2, or any other three atom molecule?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 29, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > But the mechanism for emission is very different...CO2, at atmospheric temperatures releases the energy it absorbs immediately..it does not warm...water vapor on the other hand, does not.
> ...



The second law of thermodynamics says that energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm...that means that as the energy moves, it must keep moving towards cooler areas...where do you think it spontaneously moves to?...somewhere warmer?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 29, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Water vapor can hold on to absorbed energy....CO2 can not.  That would seem to be different.


----------



## IanC (Jan 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




You keep making that claim but refuse to explain it. How does water vapour hold on to radiation energy in a way that CO2 does not?


----------



## IanC (Jan 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


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




The second law of thermodynamics is a description of net energy movement by statistical probability.

You are giving it a mystical power to go inside a molecule and override the local conditions to prohibit radiation in certain directions, based on distant external conditions that have no direct contact with the molecule.

Can you give us a reference to any science experiment that finds this result? Or any theory that predicts this unusual result?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


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


*
The second law of thermodynamics says that energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm...
*
Which means the cooler walls of my home are allowed to emit toward my warmer body.
Just like Science said back in 1963. Glad you've finally seen your error.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 29, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Where do you think CO2 releases it's energy? Mostly up? Down? All directions? Where does it it's energy eventually end up?





SSDD said:


> ...that means that as the energy moves, it must keep moving towards cooler areas...where do you think it spontaneously moves to?...somewhere warmer?



You said IR can't move to air:


SSDD said:


> So...repeatable, replicable, experimental data by a true top shelf physicist and decades of application data that demonstrates conclusively that infrared radiation does not heat the air...



If you don't think the IR from the atmosphere can heat the earth, and you don't think it can heat air, just what do you think it heats?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You said IR can't move to air:



I never said that...I said that when IR is absorbed by all so called greenhouse gasses except water vapor, it is immediately emitted on to a cooler area, or in the vast majority of instances,  it is transferred to another molecule via collision.



Wuwei said:


> If you don't think the IR from the atmosphere can heat the earth, and you don't think it can heat air, just what do you think it heats?


[/quote]

It can warm water vapor somewhat, since water vapor has the capacity to store energy at atmospheric temperatures even though most of that energy is transferred via collision with other molecules...otherwise, it doesn't warm anything..it moves on towards space.  It doesn't move from the cooler atmosphere back to the warmer surface of the earth.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I never said that...I said that when IR is absorbed by all so called greenhouse gasses except water vapor, it is immediately emitted on to a cooler area, or in the vast majority of instances, it is transferred to another molecule via collision.
> 
> It can warm water vapor somewhat, since water vapor has the capacity to store energy at atmospheric temperatures even though most of that energy is transferred via collision with other molecules...otherwise, it doesn't warm anything..it moves on towards space. It doesn't move from the cooler atmosphere back to the warmer surface of the earth.



If a GHG is excited by IR, and that excitation energy is transfered to another molecule via collision, that other molecule would gain energy. The randomness of that process increases heat, by definition. In short, you are saying IR warms the air. That is the opposite of what you said earlier, that heating engineers claim IR does not not warm air. 

When you say that IR can warm water vapor, which is intimately interspersed in the atmosphere, you are saying that individual water molecules can absorb IR. Then you say water vapor has the capacity to store energy. How can it do that when that energy is immediately transfered to the atmospheric molecules (mostly N2 and O2). It is more correct to say that water molecules has the capacity to absorb and transfer energy. If water vapor has that property, then so do all other GHGs. Water vapor alone can't store and hold more energy than the atmosphere it is in.


----------



## IanC (Jan 30, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I really think you should answer the question.



> . How does water vapour hold on to radiation energy in a way that CO2 does not?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 31, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> If a GHG is excited by IR, and that excitation energy is transfered to another molecule via collision, that other molecule would gain energy. The randomness of that process increases heat, by definition. In short, you are saying IR warms the air. That is the opposite of what you said earlier, that heating engineers claim IR does not not warm air.



And yet once again, you fail on the basics...when energy is transferred to another molecule in the air, that is conduction, not radiation.  Energy moved via conduction is not IR.  Refer to the laws of thermodynamics...energy can be changed from one form to another but can not be created or destroyed...Energy transfer via molecular collision is not infrared radiation and has nothing to do with either radiation or the so called radiative greenhouse effect.

This is basic stuff and once again, you fail miserably.



Wuwei said:


> When you say that IR can warm water vapor, which is intimately interspersed in the atmosphere, you are saying that individual water molecules can absorb IR. Then you say water vapor has the capacity to store energy. How can it do that when that energy is immediately transfered to the atmospheric molecules (mostly N2 and O2). {/auote]
> 
> Can you read?  Go back and look at what I said.  Fabricating arguments from me to argue against is hardly a good defense of your position.
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 31, 2018)

IanC said:


> I really think you should answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > If a GHG is excited by IR, and that excitation energy is transfered to another molecule via collision, that other molecule would gain energy. The randomness of that process increases heat, by definition. In short, you are saying IR warms the air. That is the opposite of what you said earlier, that heating engineers claim IR does not not warm air.
> ...



Of course it's conduction when collisions occur. Don't use that simple fact to skirt the issue that the existence of IR at 15 microns still warms the air contrary to your blanket statement that engineers say it doesn't. (They were referring to *near *IR not *far *IR.)


----------



## IanC (Jan 31, 2018)

SSDD said-   (I can't directly quote him because he butchered the quote function again)



> .
> I have answered it over and over and will not answer it again...If you don't believe that water vapor holds energy, then explain the difference in temperature change at night between desert areas and coastal areas at the same latitude and altitude.
> 
> at atmospheric pressures and temperatures, no other gas has the capacity to retain energy.



The reason why dry deserts cool off faster is because more surface radiation directly escapes to space without being scattered by water vapour.

At a radiation wavelength absorbed by H2O, a photon absorbed will be reemited in a random direction, roughly half towards space and half towards the surface. Only half of the energy is lost, only half of the possible cooling happens.

In SSDD'S bizarre version of physics, the H2O molecule is only permitted to radiate towards space BUT the surface radiation is also reduced by the same unknown mechanism.

In both versions the energy loss and subsequent cooling is exactly the same. SSDD just added a magical epicycle so that he could claim no radiation was returning from the atmosphere.

Occam needs a shave. Where's his razor?


All three atom molecules can absorb and emit IR by the same mechanism. Only the wavelengths that they react with are different.

SSDD says water vapour is a special case, that it retains energy in a way that other molecules do not. I say bullshit as far as radiation is involved.

Latent heat for phase change by evaporation is drawn from the energy contained by water at the surface, and released by water droplets during condensation. This is a kinetic speed interaction. It also plays havoc with the Ideal Gas Law.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 1, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Of course it's conduction when collisions occur. Don't use that simple fact to skirt the issue that the existence of IR at 15 microns still warms the air contrary to your blanket statement that engineers say it doesn't. (They were referring to *near *IR not *far *IR.)



IR does not warm the air...there is IR at a wide range of frequencies...and far more of it..CO2 absorbs it then either emits it on towards cooler areas or loses the energy via collision...it does not warm the air...infrared radiation does not warm the air...and once again, you are a blithering idiot...they specifically said that far IR does not warm the air.

Rather than go back through them all, which all say the same thing...being physics and all, I will only visit one...

They say:  " Radiant heat does not heat air – which holds little heat and rapidly disperses."

then they go on to describe their own radiant heaters  "This “watt density” as it is called projects Far Infrared within a 2.5 to 3 metre distance from the heater (which spreads out radially from the panel to cover an arc up to 5 metres by 5 metres depending on panel power). This coverage is perfect for domestic or office “comfort” heating."

If you had bothered to look, and actually try to comprehend what was being said rather than looking for some rational way to dismiss millions of hours of observation of industrial application, you would have seen that they were all talking about far IR...

Do you never tire of being wrong?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 1, 2018)

IanC said:


> The reason why dry deserts cool off faster is because more surface radiation directly escapes to space without being scattered by water vapour.{/quote]
> 
> Scattered?  Really?  How far are you really willing to drag your intellect through the sewer in an effort to rationalize your beliefs?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it's conduction when collisions occur. Don't use that simple fact to skirt the issue that the existence of IR at 15 microns still warms the air contrary to your blanket statement that engineers say it doesn't. (They were referring to *near *IR not *far *IR.)
> ...


You still don't understand the difference between *near *IR and  *far *IR.
Near IR: the shorter wavelengths from a plug-in heater.
Far IR: the longer wavelengths from the earth.

They have different properties with air. Your engineers were only concerned about near IR.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 1, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You still don't understand the difference between *near *IR and  *far *IR.
> Near IR: the shorter wavelengths from a plug-in heater.
> Far IR: the longer wavelengths from the earth.
> 
> They have different properties with air. Your engineers were only concerned about near IR.



I understand perfectly..you, on the other hand are completely ignorant on the topic.  Since you apparently lack the intellectual wattage to do any research on your own, here...from "my" engineers.


Far Infrared Heating. It’s heating, Jim, but not as we know it!

*Far Infrared *comes in many forms these days – wall & ceiling panels, underfloor heating, and even domestic hot water (DHW) and ‘wet’ central heating systems. Whatever the form, they all use the same principle of generating FIR by passing electric current through a panel containing layers of carbon graphite polyimide, copper, nickel & nano silver to around 100c at which point long wave infra read / FIR is emitted. Unlike a traditional electric room heater, *FIR is only absorbed by ‘matter’ and not air, so it does not rely on convection for heat transfer. *The theory goes that as you are not heating air, but matter, far less energy is required to heat the same space than traditional electric heaters.

Types of Infrared Heater: Near, Middlewave and Far IR

"Far infrared”, “IRC”, “Long wave” or “Dark Radiators” operate in the wavelengths above 3 microns.  Far Infrared elements emit much lower temperatures, typically  around the 100°C mark and no visible light.  Human and animal skin absorbs Far infrared specifically well, because of its 80% water composition, making Far Infrared a biologically significant heating wavelength for humans and animals.

Far Infrared heaters use a number of different elements, with popular ones being nickel or fecralloy wiring or more recently carbon fibre.

Because of their lower temperatures, applications of “Far Infrared” heating include Domestic, Commercial and Public “comfort” heating applications.  It is also also used extensively in modern saunas."


Infrared Heating Technology - Clinically-tested Solocarbon® Heaters

"Sunlighten Solocarbon *far infrared* heating panels are the most effective far infrared sauna heaters on the market today. Scientific research shows that far infrared is most therapeutic in high concentrations. Solocarbon panels are proven 95% emissive, meaning that 95% of the energy being produced is in the therapeutic range to increase core body temperature for a deep, detoxifying sweat."


Infrared heater - Wikipedia

*"Far-infrared*
This heating technology is used in some expensive infrared saunas. It is also found in space heaters. These heaters use low watt density ceramic emitters (usually fairly big panels) which emit long wave infrared radiation. Because the heating elements are at a relatively low temperature, far-infrared heaters do not give emissions and smell from dust, dirt, formaldehyde, toxic fumes from paint-coating, etc. This has made this type of space heating very popular among people with severe allergies and multiple chemical sensitivity in Europe. Because far infrared technology does not heat the air of the room directly, it is important to maximize the exposure of available surfaces which then re-emit the warmth to provide an even all round ambient warmth."


Benefits of Far Infrared Heating

"*Far infrared* heating utilizes far-infrared waves which are defined as electromagnetic waves having a wavelength of more than 4 µm. These far-infrared waves (rays with a peak wavelength of 8-14µm) are capable of deeply penetrating the human body, gently elevating the body’s surface temperature, and naturally stimulating other major bodily functions (1). In China, Japan, and Korea far infrared radiation has been widely applied in health promotion (2-4), food preservation (5 and 6), and in treatment of many vascular-related disorders (7 and 8).


Infrared Heating | Electric Panel Heaters | Redwell GB

"Recent years have seen* far infrared* technology adapted into attractive, effective heating products for home, office, retail and commercial settings."


and on and on I could go...far IR is absorbed by solid matter...not the air.  Once again..do you never tire of being wrong?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You still don't understand the difference between *near *IR and  *far *IR.
> ...



The references are correct, but you are not. You didn't do enough research. 

Look up Beer-Lambert law, and absorption length of CO2 at atmospheric densities. You will find that at around 25 meters CO2 absorption is reduced by about 1/3. At around 3 meters, the size of a room, the absorption is exponentially smaller. So your references are correct for a room of standard size: CO2 absorption is negligible, since CO2 absorbs only some of the wavelengths, and the distances are so small.

But you can't extrapolate that negligibility to the thousands of meters of the atmosphere where CO2 absorption becomes very strong.

Again, when you try to use information from the web, you have to understand under what circumstances the information is valid, and where it does not apply. You have a penchant for going to the web, finding words that seem to be related to your argument, and ignoring the context that makes the information irrelevant.


----------



## IanC (Feb 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You still don't understand the difference between *near *IR and  *far *IR.
> ...




Interesting new technology.

My house has hot water in-floor radiant heating, and I can attest that it is far superior to forced air heating.

That said, it does not change the radiative physics of the atmosphere. You are saying IR is inefficient at warming air molecules compared to solid or liquid surfaces. I totally agree, and always have. I also agree that conduction and convection are more efficient than radiation for cooling or heating purposes. So what?

The Earth only loses energy by radiation. The importance of this point cannot be overstated. It doesn't really matter how effective conduction and convection are in moving energy around, it doesn't really matter that radiation is more effective at warming solids than gases. It only matters that radiation is the only way to leave the Earth/Atmosphere system.

Your links are making a general statement, an oversimplification by saying IR does not warm the air. Perhaps only 1%, or 5% of the radiated energy is absorbed by the air in the short distance between the heater and the solid objects around it.

The Earth's surface is radiating towards space. The radiation covers a range of IR wavelengths. Some wavelengths do not interact with the atmosphere at all and simply escape to space, which allows the surface to cool. But some wavelengths do interact with the atmosphere and are absorbed, warming the air. 

I will make my own general, oversimplified statement, which ignores the conduction and convection that happens in the atmosphere when IR is absorbed. The absorbed surface IR is reemited in a random direction. Half towards space, half towards the surface. 

At wavelengths that are not absorbed by the atmosphere the surface gets a full watt of cooling for every watt emitted. For wavelengths absorbed by the atmosphere, the surface loses only half a watt of cooling per watt emitted because the atmosphere returns half a watt back to the surface and the other half escapes to space.

Of course it is much more complicated than that. The thing to remember is that the radiation produced by the radiative gases that escapes to space is always emitted at a height that is cooler than the temperature at the surface.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 1, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



You just don't have a clue do you?  Who is saying that CO2 doesn't absorb IR?  No one is even starting to make that argument...absorption and emission, however, do not mean warming.  Infrared does not warm the air.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 1, 2018)

IanC said:


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



Radiation only becomes an actual player in the energy transport out to space above the troposphere...and at that point, it is irrelevant to the so called greenhouse effect.  Infrared does not warm the atmosphere...and it does not impede the movement of energy out of the atmosphere...to suggest that so called greenhouse gasses, which raise the emissivity of the atmosphere would cause warming is...in a word..stupid.  So called greenhouse gasses serve to help the atmosphere bleed off energy more quickly...that is what increasing emissivity does...you chose the wrong horse..the hypothesis has failed because a piss poor understanding of physics is at the basis of the hypothesis.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You just don't have a clue do you? Who is saying that CO2 doesn't absorb IR? No one is even starting to make that argument...absorption and emission, however, do not mean warming. Infrared does not warm the air.


CO2 is negligible in warming air in small areas such as rooms. But it does warm the atmosphere. What you don't realize is that you virtually said it yourself.


----------



## IanC (Feb 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



You can't have it both ways. Either the GHGs absorb and then immediately re-emit half back to the surface, with no atmospheric warming but direct energy addition to the surface.

Or you can have GHG absorbing the energy and warming the atmosphere, which reduces the amount of energy conducted into the atmosphere.

Either way, the surface is shedding less energy than if there was no GHGs in the air.

In reality both pathways are being used.


----------



## IanC (Feb 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I never said that...I said that when IR is absorbed by all so called greenhouse gasses except water vapor, it is immediately emitted on to a cooler area, or in the vast majority of instances, it is transferred to another molecule via collision




We are still waiting for you to explain how radiation energy is retained by water vapour in a different fashion than other greenhouse gases.

Are you ever going to explain your claim?


----------



## IanC (Feb 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Radiation only becomes an actual player in the energy transport out to space above the troposphere...and at that point, it is irrelevant to the so called greenhouse effect. Infrared does not warm the atmosphere...and it does not impede the movement of energy out of the atmosphere...to suggest that so called greenhouse gasses, which raise the emissivity of the atmosphere would cause warming is...in a word..stupid. So called greenhouse gasses serve to help the atmosphere bleed off energy more quickly...that is what increasing emissivity does...you chose the wrong horse..the hypothesis has failed because a piss poor understanding of physics is at the basis of the hypothesis.



Emmisivity is what allows surface radiation to enter the atmosphere at lower heights, transforming that energy into kinetic energy by molecular collision.

Emmisivity is what allows atmospheric kinetic energy to be transformed into radiation that can escape to space if the air density is low enough that it does not get reabsorbed.

The surface is warmer than the emission height, therefore more energy goes into the atmosphere than leaves it, for any wavelengths reacting with GHGs. The only other pathway out of the atmosphere is back to the surface by conduction.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 1, 2018)

IanC said:


> You can't have it both ways. Either the GHGs absorb and then immediately re-emit half back to the surface, with no atmospheric warming but direct energy addition to the surface.



You forgot to mention the 2nd law of thermodynamics way where the energy that is absorbed and is actually re radiated is emitted towards cooler areas since the second law says that energy can't spontaneously move from cool to warm.  Energy does not emit towards warmer areas and the ground is warmer except in rare instances of temperature inversion where the ground is cooler than the air.



IanC said:


> Or you can have GHG absorbing the energy and warming the atmosphere, which reduces the amount of energy conducted into the atmosphere.



IR does not warm the air...the air is warmed by conduction...energy exchange via molecular collision....not infrared radiation.



IanC said:


> Either way, the surface is shedding less energy than if there was no GHGs in the air.



No ian...adding so called greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere increases its emissivity..that allows the earth to shed more energy...suggesting that by increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere, the earth would be warmed is just plain stupid.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 1, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I never said that...I said that when IR is absorbed by all so called greenhouse gasses except water vapor, it is immediately emitted on to a cooler area, or in the vast majority of instances, it is transferred to another molecule via collision
> ...



I have and am not playing that game with you.  No gas known to man other than water vapor can retain energy at atmospheric temperatures and pressures..your ridiculous comment about water vapor "scattering" IR and therefore causing it to be warmer in humid areas at night was one of the stupidest things you have said thus far....did you get that from wuwei...you believe scattering energy results in warming?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 1, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Radiation only becomes an actual player in the energy transport out to space above the troposphere...and at that point, it is irrelevant to the so called greenhouse effect. Infrared does not warm the atmosphere...and it does not impede the movement of energy out of the atmosphere...to suggest that so called greenhouse gasses, which raise the emissivity of the atmosphere would cause warming is...in a word..stupid. So called greenhouse gasses serve to help the atmosphere bleed off energy more quickly...that is what increasing emissivity does...you chose the wrong horse..the hypothesis has failed because a piss poor understanding of physics is at the basis of the hypothesis.
> ...



You are hopelessly lost in your beliefs ian...observation tells you that the hypothesis has failed and the only reason the hypothesis has failed is because the understanding of physics upon which it is based is terribly flawed...if it weren't then observation would match the hypothesis.  Strange...and sad that you seem unable, or unwilling to grasp such an obvious fact.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IR does not warm the air...there is IR at a wide range of frequencies...and far more of it..CO2 absorbs it then either emits it on towards cooler areas or loses the energy via collision.



CO2 that absorbs IR is in an excited state. It loses energy by the predominate process, collision, which is transferring the IR energy to the molecule that it collided with. 

The energy transfer cycle is
1. IR strikes CO2. 
2. CO2 transfers energy to an air molecule via conduction.

That 2 step transfer process leads to increased kinetic energy of the air molecule in a random direction. That defines an increase in heat in the air. 

Step 1 is negligibly small in a small room. But large in the atmosphere. That is because of the Beer-Lambert law. Therefore IR room heaters effectively don't heat the air in the room, but the outside earth can heat the air in the atmosphere.


----------



## IanC (Feb 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> No ian...adding so called greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere increases its emissivity..that allows the earth to shed more energy...suggesting that by increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere, the earth would be warmed is just plain stupid.



It's weird how you compartmentalize your thinking. It's like you can see a coin that is heads-up but you refuse to acknowledge the coin's existence if it is tails-up.

CO2 has one band of absorption/emission that we are interested in. 15 microns. At that wavelength it is a Blackbody. Any 15 micron photon that crosses paths with a CO2 molecule will be absorbed, causing the molecules to go into a higher energy state, an excited state.

There are two main pathways for the excited CO2 to get rid of this energy. It can reemit the 15 micron photon. Or the energy can be transferred into a different form during a collision with another molecule, turning the energy into atmospheric warming. Of course the opposite also happens, molecular collision can also excite a CO2 molecule causing 'cooling'.

There are two areas we are interested in. The surface boundary, and the height at which an emitted 15 micron photon is likely to escape into space.

All the surface emitted 15 micron radiation is quickly absorbed, most of it is thermalized by molecular collision, causing warming.

At the emission height, Atmospheric energy is turned into radiation that escapes which causes cooling.

In between these two levels the the energy just bounces back and forth, not causing warming or cooling.

The amount of 15 micron radiation energy going into the atmosphere is defined by the surface temperature. The amount of 15 micron radiation energy leaving at the emission height is defined by the temperature there.

Because the surface is warmer than the emission height that means more energy went into the atmosphere at the bottom than left at the top.

Where does the surplus energy from the 15 micron band go? Back to the surface via the conduction pathway.


----------



## IanC (Feb 2, 2018)

What are the energy inputs to the atmosphere? Solar. The net surplus from GHGs. Latent heat from the water cycle.

What are the energy outputs? Conduction to the surface and some of the latent heat released at the cloudtops during precipitation.

That is why the atmosphere keeps us so much warmer. Energy that goes in has a helluva time getting out again. There is a huge amount of energy stored as potential (in the gravity field) and kinetic energies struggling to get out.

Basically the only cooling that happens is radiation from the surface that directly escapes to space, bypassing the atmosphere as if it wasn't there. And a secondary tranche at the quasi surface of the cloudtops which also emits a full spectrum of BB radiation from the liquid and solid forms of water.

Energy contained by the atmosphere must backtrack through the surface to escape.

Remember, we are very close to equilibrium. It is only changes that affect the equilibrium that will cause more energy to be stored, or less.

Doubling CO2 would push the 15 micron emission height higher, into a colder area. Therefore less radiation would be produced, less would escape, less cooling would happen. The atmosphere would start to warm because energy was being stored instead of escaping.

This new temperature gradient would eventually reach the surface, warming it as well. The warmer surface would emit more radiation that directly escapes to space, balancing the energy budget, and a new equilibrium is reached, albeit with warmer temperatures for both the atmosphere and surface.

The initial equilibrium and the second equilibrium both have the same input and output for the system as a whole.

It is the amount of stored energy that determines the temperature at the surface.

The same 340 Watts of solar input can result in a wide range of surface temperatures.


----------



## IanC (Feb 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I disagree with the way you framed the question.

Water vapour randomizes the direction of the radiation. Instead of surface radiation heading only in the direction of space, you now have radiation in all directions for wavelengths that interact with water. 

That results in less cooling.

It may be splitting hairs to make the distinction between warming and less cooling but it avoids some of the complications.

Do you disagree that intercepting and redirecting some of the radiation causes less cooling to happen?

Even your bizarre versions of the SLoT and S-B produce the same final answer. The surface would only be 'allowed' to produce half the radiation for water vapour affected wavelengths, and the H2O molecule would only be 'allowed' to radiate towards space.

Either way, only half of the energy is lost, only half the cooling happens.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I have and am not playing that game with you. No gas known to man other than water vapor can retain energy at atmospheric temperatures and pressures..your ridiculous comment about water vapor "scattering" IR and therefore causing it to be warmer in humid areas at night was one of the stupidest things you have said thus far....did you get that from wuwei...you believe scattering energy results in warming?



You are being disingenuous, to put it mildly. I never said scattering caused warming. Elastic scattering never causes warming. What can cause warming is absorption or partial absorption (inelastic scattering.)


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 4, 2018)

IanC said:


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


Just Wow...

Partisan warmer BS...What a steaming pile of nonsense!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 4, 2018)

IanC said:


> Water vapour randomizes the direction of the radiation. Instead of surface radiation heading only in the direction of space, you now have radiation in all directions for wavelengths that interact with water.


As with any molecule they will emit in random directions.  The problems, especially with water vapor, is residency time that the molecule holds the energy and what happens to that energy during its residency.

With water vapor, the molecule holds absorbed energy, warming the molecule to a gas state consuming some of the energy, then cools as it rises until it re-nucleates, where it is released at much longer wave length and high in our atmosphere.

With CO2 the release is instantaneous..


----------



## IanC (Feb 4, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> With CO2 the release is instantaneous.



Instantaneous? What is your definition of that word? There are many things that happen quickly but in a relative way. To What are you comparing the release of energy from a molecule of excited CO2?

A photon takes a very short time to traverse the atmosphere and escape to space. 100 kilometres of atmosphere divided by the speed of light. 100 km/300,000km/sec equals 1/3000th of a second. Is that a reasonable reference frame for 'instantaneous'?

I have seen various estimates for how long an excited CO2 molecule holds onto the energy before re-emitting, from a full second to 1/100th of a second. So that is anywhere from 3000 to 30 times slower than instantaneous.

But wait. Some times the CO2 molecule gives up its energy by molecular collision instead of by reemission. At surface temperature and pressure there are roughly a billion collisions per second per molecule. Perhaps we need to redefine instantaneous. Of course collisions will add energy just as often as they subtract it at local thermodynamic equilibrium. Does molecular collision really count as losing energy if it is still there but just in a different form?

No it does not. Cooling, the loss of energy, only happens when photons actually leave the surface or atmosphere, and escape to space.

Any absorption of surface radiation slows the loss of energy to space and stores that energy in the atmosphere. It then has to find a way out. 

CO2 absorbs and stores all the 15 micron radiation from the surface. Some, but not all of that energy migrates to a height in the atmosphere where CO2 can radiate to space and actually cause cooling. That takes time, lots of it. The surplus energy must find a different pathway out. The only available pathway is to return the energy to the surface, causing the equilibrium temperature to increase, which allows more radiation to be produced at wavelengths that can directly escape to space, bypassing atmospheric absorption altogether.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 4, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Water vapour randomizes the direction of the radiation. Instead of surface radiation heading only in the direction of space, you now have radiation in all directions for wavelengths that interact with water.
> ...



*As with any molecule they will emit in random directions.
*
Don't tell SSDD........


----------



## SSDD (Feb 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IR does not warm the air...there is IR at a wide range of frequencies...and far more of it..CO2 absorbs it then either emits it on towards cooler areas or loses the energy via collision.
> ...



Sorry guy....but you are once again wrong....but if you care to show me some actual measurements, made with instruments at ambient temperature that establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere we can talk about it...but you can't show any such data because none exist...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 5, 2018)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > With CO2 the release is instantaneous.
> ...



CO2 absorbs and emits...or loses the energy to a collision..it stores nothing at atmospheric pressures and temperatures.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


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


You think so? Then which of these do you think are false?

1. IR strikes and excites CO2.
2. CO2 transfers energy to an air molecule via conduction.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 5, 2018)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > With CO2 the release is instantaneous.
> ...


Co2 does not warm when it absorbs photon energy. it immediately re-emits that energy... PERIOD!   There is no storage because it can not store it.  Mythical bull shit Ian...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 5, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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


*
Co2 does not warm when it absorbs photon energy.
*
Not even for a nanosecond? A picosecond?
Any other matter that can absorb energy and not warm?

* it immediately re-emits that energy... PERIOD!  
*
And that energy then warms something else. Neat.
*
 There is no storage because it can not store it.
*
That explains why all CO2 is in the form of dry ice. DURR......


----------



## IanC (Feb 5, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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


 

You and SSDD keep saying that. But you refuse to say where the energy went.

Energy cannot disappear. It can change form but it can't just vanish.

CO2 absorbs more energy from the surface than it emits at the top of the atmosphere.

Where does it go? It's a simple question that must be answered. So far, you haven't. Would you like to try?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 6, 2018)

IanC said:


> You and SSDD keep saying that. But you refuse to say where the energy went.



Why do you find that you must lie ian?  I have said where I think it goes over and over.  If it is emitted from the CO2 molecule, then it is emitted towards a cooler region..if it is lost via collision then where it went is patently obvious.  Actually, the fact that downwelling radiation can not be measured with an instrument at ambient temperature makes it patently obvious that if it is radiated, it does not radiate towards the surface of the earth.



IanC said:


> CO2 absorbs more energy from the surface than it emits at the top of the atmosphere.



Where does it go? It's a simple question that must be answered. So far, you haven't. Would you like to try?[/QUOTE]

The bulk of it would be carried aloft by convective air currents in water vapor where it is radiated into space.

Face it ian, your hypothesis is an observational failure..


----------



## SSDD (Feb 6, 2018)

Here ian...go read this.

Shock Paper Cites Formula That Precisely Calculates Planetary Temps WITHOUT Greenhouse Effect, CO2

I will be most interested to hear your explanation for the temperature differences at the grand canyon where the only difference in environment is altitude.


----------



## IanC (Feb 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The bulk of it would be carried aloft by convective air currents in water vapor where it is radiated into space.



Again, you are pointing to the heads side of the coin while ignoring the tails side.

Any radiative gas absorbs more surface energy than it radiates out at a higher and cooler temperature. 

For any time interval where the surface is warmer than the emission height of the radiative there is energy being stored in the atmosphere.

If there was no radiative gases present, then all the surface radiation energy would directly escape to space. And more cooling would happen.


----------



## IanC (Feb 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Here ian...go read this.
> 
> Shock Paper Cites Formula That Precisely Calculates Planetary Temps WITHOUT Greenhouse Effect, CO2
> 
> I will be most interested to hear your explanation for the temperature differences at the grand canyon where the only difference in environment is altitude.



I haven't actually read the whole paper yet. I stopped at -



> .Holmes has argued that the average temperature for 8 planetary bodies with thick (0.1 bar or more) atmospheres can be precisely measured with “extreme” accuracy — an error range of just 1.2% — by using a formula predicated on the knowledge of 3 parameters: “[1] the average near-surface atmospheric pressure, [2] the average near surface atmospheric density and [3] the average mean molar mass of the near-surface atmosphere.”



This is circular reasoning. If you know the gravity and the density then you know how much energy is stored in the atmosphere. He is simply rearranging the terms.

If there were no GHGs present then there would be less stored energy and the density would be greater. You would still get the right answer but in this case the temperature would be lower. 

Holmes is saying he is predicting the temperature but the temperature is already present in the measured parameters that he is using for input.

Of course the bottom of the Grand Canyon is warmer. Lapse rate. Death Valley is also very warm because it is below sea level. So what? 

A more interesting conversation could be had by discussing dry and wet lapse rates and the reasons for the difference.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Feb 6, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> View attachment 151722
> The divergence from reality is massive.. The hypothesis is therefore falsified.


Come on. We need to reformat the entire economy based upon a computer model.


----------



## IanC (Feb 6, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 151722
> ...




Hahahaha. When are they going to reformat the models to reflect reality? Instead of reanalysing the data to bring them into line with the models.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 7, 2018)

IanC said:


> Any radiative gas absorbs more surface energy than it radiates out at a higher and cooler temperature.



I am pointing at observation and measurement ian...not your hypothetical coin.  Show me actual measurements of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm made with an instrument at ambient temperature.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 7, 2018)

IanC said:


> This is circular reasoning. If you know the gravity and the density then you know how much energy is stored in the atmosphere. He is simply rearranging the terms.



And let me guess...you believe that it is just coincidence that the numbers are always so accurate.



IanC said:


> Of course the bottom of the Grand Canyon is warmer. Lapse rate. Death Valley is also very warm because it is below sea level. So what?



So what?  Again, the ideal gas laws predict this...does your failed greenhouse hypothesis even come close?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 7, 2018)

IanC said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Reformatting the models to reflect reality would acknowledge that the fundamental understanding of physics upon which they are based is terribly flawed...it would require a fundamental paradigm shift...recognition that the climate is due to an observable,  measurable, quantifiable gravito thermal effect...not a fantasy greenhouse effect.


----------



## IanC (Feb 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > This is circular reasoning. If you know the gravity and the density then you know how much energy is stored in the atmosphere. He is simply rearranging the terms.
> ...



How is it a coincidence? The answer is found by simply rearranging the terms. 

Getting the wrong answer would be incompetence.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 7, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I suppose you are unaware that the lapse rate continues below the surface?  

There is no radiative greenhouse effect...and not the first bit of actual evidence that additional CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming.


----------



## IanC (Feb 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Of course I am aware that the lapse rate continues_ under the sea level._ Why do you think I pointed out Death Valley?

There obviously is a radiative greenhouse effect. Your statement is framed as- does increased CO2 cause MORE warming.

That is a trickier question. Not very much additional warming. Why?

The effect is long since totally saturated. The first few parts per million made a huge impact. Now less and less. Doubling the amount of CO2 hardly changes the mean free path, hardly raises the emission height. But it does make a small difference, and it is in the direction of warming.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 8, 2018)

IanC said:


> There obviously is a radiative greenhouse effect. Your statement is framed as- does increased CO2 cause MORE warming.



The only way CO2 could cause warming is if so much of it were put into the atmosphere that it significantly changed the mass of the atmosphere causing greater pressure.



IanC said:


> That is a trickier question. Not very much additional warming. Why?



There is no radiative greenhouse effect...IR does not warm the air....



IanC said:


> The effect is long since totally saturated. The first few parts per million made a huge impact. Now less and less. Doubling the amount of CO2 hardly changes the mean free path, hardly raises the emission height. But it does make a small difference, and it is in the direction of warming.



There is no radiative greenhouse effect...and the saturation is zero because IR does not warm the air.  the first few parts per million have the same effect as the last few parts per million...zero.  But if you like, feel free to show me actual measurements that show how much how much heating or cooling is derived from raising or lowering the concentration of CO2 over a body of water.    Bring it out of the realm of models and demonstrate it in the real world because as of this date, no actual real world measurement or experiment demonstrate a radiative greenhouse effect.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > There obviously is a radiative greenhouse effect. Your statement is framed as- does increased CO2 cause MORE warming.
> ...



*There is no radiative greenhouse effect...IR does not warm the air....
*
Of course not, absorbing IR and conducting energy to O2 and N2 doesn't count, because smart photons.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 8, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




As I have said.....conduction, convection, and pressure rule energy movement in the lower atmosphere...the so called radiative greenhouse effect in the lower atmosphere is simply not real...and none of you wakos can show the first measured evidence of it.  

Lets see some measurements of the warming or cooling of a body of water resulting from changes in the CO2 concentration in the air above it.  Easy enough to set up and test..and would provide conclusive evidence of a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...and yet..not the first measurement of any sort demonstrating such an effect.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



*the so called radiative greenhouse effect in the lower atmosphere is simply not real.
*
Because CO2 and water vapor don't absorb IR. What?


----------



## IanC (Feb 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> As I have said.....conduction, convection, and pressure rule energy movement in the lower atmosphere...the so called radiative greenhouse effect in the lower atmosphere is simply not real...and none of you wakos can show the first measured evidence of it.




How much energy is lost to space by conduction? Zero.

How much energy is lost to space by convection? Zero.

How much energy is lost to space by radiation? All of it.

I think you may have your priorities mixed up.


----------



## IanC (Feb 8, 2018)

Without GHGs all the IR emitted from the surface would simply escape to space. The surface would cool dramatically.

Without GHGs the atmosphere would stop absorbing radiation energy from the surface. The atmosphere would cool dramatically.

There would still be some energy storage in the atmosphere, but all transfers back and forth with the surface would be by conduction. 

The energy budget for the terrestrial system would still balance. Solar input = IR output.

The only difference would be the temperatures at the different points along the path that the energy takes as it enters and exits the system.


On a related topic, the N&Z and Holmes equations would still give the right answer for the surface temperature, even though the non-GHG temperature is much cooler. The surface pressure would be the same but the density would be greater because the atmosphere has less stored energy.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 8, 2018)

IanC said:


> The effect is long since totally saturated. The first few parts per million made a huge impact. Now less and less. Doubling the amount of CO2 hardly changes the mean free path, hardly raises the emission height. But it does make a small difference, and it is in the direction of warming.


Are you sure doubling the amount of CO2 hardly changes the mean free path? This site,
Mean Free Path, Molecular Collisions
Defines the mean free path. The estimated formula is,




Note that if the molecular density (nV) doubles, the MFP drops in half. In any cross-section calculation the probability of collision is proportional to the density of targets along the path.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2018)

IanC said:


> How much energy is lost to space by conduction? Zero.



Are you able to read?  The radiative greenhouse effect is all about the troposphere...and I clearly stated that I was talking about the troposphere.  

I believe you are confused about what we are talking about...and most of the radiation that is emitted to space is either energy emitted via radiation by so called greenhouse gasses from the troposphere, or energy that is moved into the upper atmosphere by water vapor.  Energy actually emitted by CO2 molecules in the troposphere goes on to space...not towards the ground...remember..energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2018)

IanC said:


> Without GHGs all the IR emitted from the surface would simply escape to space. The surface would cool dramatically.
> 
> Without GHGs the atmosphere would stop absorbing radiation energy from the surface. The atmosphere would cool dramatically.



Without water vapor...if you removed water vapor, then all the energy emitted from the surface would still radiate right on out to space.  it may pass through a CO2 molecule but would pass right through and emit on towards cooler pastures.


----------



## IanC (Feb 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I believe you are confused about what we are talking about...and most of the radiation that is emitted to space is either energy emitted via radiation by so called greenhouse gasses from the troposphere,_ *or energy that is moved into the upper atmosphere*_* by water vapor*.



There is no "or".

Moving energy around from one place to another does not cause the terrestrial system to cool. Only radiation loss to space causes cooling.

Moving your cash from one pocket to another doesn't make you poorer.


----------



## IanC (Feb 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Without GHGs all the IR emitted from the surface would simply escape to space. The surface would cool dramatically.
> ...



According to your bizarre version of physics, then yes radiation from the CO2 molecule would only be allowed to radiate to space. But you are forgetting the other part of your theory. The CO2 molecule would cause the surface to radiate less.

Either both the surface and the CO2 radiate freely, or they both are throttled down. Either way you get the same answer.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 9, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I believe you are confused about what we are talking about...and most of the radiation that is emitted to space is either energy emitted via radiation by so called greenhouse gasses from the troposphere,_ *or energy that is moved into the upper atmosphere*_* by water vapor*.
> ...


*
Moving your cash from one pocket to another doesn't make you poorer. 
*
In his case, it would.


----------



## IanC (Feb 9, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Hahahaha. Apparently he would only be able to move enough cash to make the pockets even.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 9, 2018)

IanC said:


> Hahahaha. Apparently he would only be able to move enough cash to make the pockets even.


If he had cold cash in one pocket, all warmer cash would move to that pocket.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I believe you are confused about what we are talking about...and most of the radiation that is emitted to space is either energy emitted via radiation by so called greenhouse gasses from the troposphere,_ *or energy that is moved into the upper atmosphere*_* by water vapor*.
> ...



Geez ian...are you really as stupid as wuwei and toddster?  What do you suppose happens to that energy once it is transported via water vapor to the upper atmosphere?  Do you really need to have it drawn out for you in crayon?  Really?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2018)

IanC said:


> According to your bizarre version of physics, then yes radiation from the CO2 molecule would only be allowed to radiate to space. But you are forgetting the other part of your theory. The CO2 molecule would cause the surface to radiate less.



Not at all ian...energy passing through hardly notices the CO2 molecule...it passes through like it wasn't even there.



IanC said:


> Either both the surface and the CO2 radiate freely, or they both are throttled down. Either way you get the same answer.



It's nice that you have a hobby....believing in magic and all ian, but do you have any actual observations or measurements to back up your bullshit beliefs?  How about showing the measurements that show how much warming or cooling happens in a body of water when the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the air above it are raised or lowered in increments of 0.0001 ppm?  

Got anything like that?  You know...actual evidence that what you claim is happening is actually happening?  Because observation says that you are full of it.


----------



## IanC (Feb 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Yes, I need you to put it down in words.

How does the energy escape to space?

We have already established that radiative gases absorb a greater amount of energy than they eventually release closer to the TOA. That means there is extra energy that needs to find a way out. Energy can only leave by being radiated. 

I say the energy backs up to the surface, allowing the Sun to warm it up to a higher temperature in the daytime, which pushes more radiation through the Atmospheric Window.

So far, you haven't supplied an alternate route. Will you this time? Very doubtful because there isn't one.


----------



## IanC (Feb 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Not at all ian...energy passing through hardly notices the CO2 molecule...it passes through like it wasn't even there.



You are correct that radiation in the Atmospheric Window bands escapes freely to space, almost as if the air was not there. But our topic is the bands where GHGs do absorb radiation. And then what happens to that absorbed energy.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Not at all ian...energy passing through hardly notices the CO2 molecule...it passes through like it wasn't even there.
> ...



Makes no difference...any energy that makes it through a so called greenhouse gas molecule in the form of IR is still moving freely into space...energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area.  

IR does not warm the air...the air is warmed via conduction..therefore, the greenhouse effect, and all that you attribute to it is nothing more than model based fantasy.

And by the way...energy does not move back towards the earth via conduction either.  Energy, in all its forms can only move towards a more disorganized state...never in the other direction...unless, of course, you are providing work to make movement towards a more organized state happen.  No back radiation, no back convection, no back conduction..


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2018)

IanC said:


> Yes, I need you to put it down in words.
> 
> How does the energy escape to space?



So you really do need to have things drawn out for you in crayon?  When that energy is transported to the upper atmosphere via ice crystals, it then radiates into space...radiation only plays a real part in the movement of energy out of the system in the upper atmosphere...convection rules in the troposphere...therefore...no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science....and no magic as you so fervently believe.



IanC said:


> That means there is extra energy that needs to find a way out. Energy can only leave by being radiated.



There is no extra energy ian...if you are unaware of where it comes from, chalk it up to lack of knowledge of how energy moves through the system...it certainly isn't magic energy somehow intertwined with CO2.



IanC said:


> I say the energy backs up to the surface, allowing the Sun to warm it up to a higher temperature in the daytime, which pushes more radiation through the Atmospheric Window.



you say all sorts of stuff...but can't seen to provide any actual evidence of any of it...you believe that energy moves back to the surface from the cooler atmosphere, but can't seem to show any measurement of it with an instrument at ambient temperature...you believe that CO2 impedes energy from moving out to space, but can't seem to find a tropospheric hot spot...and finally, you believe that IR warms the atmosphere...but, alas it doesn't.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Are you able to read? The radiative greenhouse effect is all about the troposphere...and I clearly stated that I was talking about the troposphere.


At that altitude of the atmosphere, no molecule which can radiate LWIR will hit the surface to rewarm it. It one, does not have the energy to do so and two, will be absorbed by other molecules.

The absence of a 'hot spot' proves that no heat retention is occurring and convection downward is not heating anything.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


*
energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area.  
*
Because smart photons!


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area


Not according to all scientists for the last 100 years.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 10, 2018)

Here, I will save us all some time and anticipate the dialogs for the remainder of the year: 

*energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area. *
Because smart photons!
Not according to all scientists for the last 100 years.

*energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area. *
Because smart photons!
Not according to all scientists for the last 100 years.

*energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area. *
Because smart photons!
Not according to all scientists for the last 100 years.

*energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area. *
Because smart photons!
Not according to all scientists for the last 100 years.


*energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area. *
Because smart photons!
Not according to all scientists for the last 100 years.

I hope that covers it, but I kind of doubt it.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area
> ...



Yeah..only according to every observation and measurement ever made.....who needs reality when you have scientists willing to jump on a bandwagon...of course, that explains why post modern science is in such deep trouble.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Here, I will save us all some time and anticipate the dialogs for the remainder of the year:
> 
> *energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area. *
> Because smart photons!
> ...



So now you believe that theoretical particles must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics?  Do you believe everything must be intelligent in order to obey those laws?  Do chemicals have to be smart in order to know what to react to and how much reaction they are allowed?  Does everything that obeys the law of gravity need to be intelligent?  Is there anything that simply obeys the laws of physics because it must, or is everything making decisions on whether to obey or not?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Here, I will save us all some time and anticipate the dialogs for the remainder of the year:
> ...


*
So now you believe that theoretical particles must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics?
*
Intelligent in order to obey your confused version of the laws of physics.
I'm just glad we can all agree that energy can move from the Sun's surface to the hotter corona because.......WORK!


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


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


Well, you certainly need a dose of reality. Yeah, yeah, we heard you say a million times you don't understand or want to believe in modern science. You don't even know what science is.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So now you believe that theoretical particles must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics? Do you believe everything must be intelligent in order to obey those laws? Do chemicals have to be smart in order to know what to react to and how much reaction they are allowed? Does everything that obeys the law of gravity need to be intelligent? Is there anything that simply obeys the laws of physics because it must, or is everything making decisions on whether to obey or not?


So many questions. Here are my answers to your questions in the order they were asked: no, no, no, no, and no. However, in the past you have answered some of them as yes.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



So show me the observation and measurement of energy moving in both directions...show me a measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cool object to a warmer object...if you can't provide evidence, then upon what, exactly, are you basing your belief?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So now you believe that theoretical particles must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics? Do you believe everything must be intelligent in order to obey those laws? Do chemicals have to be smart in order to know what to react to and how much reaction they are allowed? Does everything that obeys the law of gravity need to be intelligent? Is there anything that simply obeys the laws of physics because it must, or is everything making decisions on whether to obey or not?
> ...



Nope...I never did...it is you guys who believe that inanimate objects make decisions and decide whether to obey the laws of physics or not...I have stated that they behave as they do because they must...energy always moves spontaneously from a condition of more order to a condition of less order...never the other way...unless of course you can show me some actual observed, measured evidence of it.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



Science is defined as :  
the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based onobservation, experiment, and measurement, andthe formulation of laws to describe these facts ingeneral terms..

So lets see observation, and measurement, and or experiment that validates your belief that energy moves in two directions at once...from warm to cool and from cool back to warm.  If you can't, and we both know that you can't, then perhaps this definition more closely fits your position.

faith:  strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence.

You have no observations of energy moving from a less ordered state to a more ordered state...you have no measurements of energy moving from a less ordered state to a more ordered state....in short you have nothing other than an unshakeable belief in a thing without proof, or evidence...that is not the definition of science.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So show me the observation and measurement of energy moving in both directions...show me a measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cool object to a warmer object...if you can't provide evidence, then upon what, exactly, are you basing your belief?





SSDD said:


> So show me the observation and measurement of energy moving in both directions...show me a measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cool object to a warmer object...if you can't provide evidence, then upon what, exactly, are you basing your belief?


It's not only my belief, its based on the theory of quantum mechanics.

You sound like this guy. Your argument is no better than his. 
Did SpaceX put a Tesla in orbit? Florida Flat Earthers say space travel doesn’t exist

“I know the Earth is not a ball. ...” said Jeffrey Main, 49, a Flat Earther living in Palm Harbor, Florida. “If it’s not observable, it’s not science. It’s theory.”


----------



## IanC (Feb 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > According to your bizarre version of physics, then yes radiation from the CO2 molecule would only be allowed to radiate to space. But you are forgetting the other part of your theory. The CO2 molecule would cause the surface to radiate less.
> ...



Why are you denying your bizarre interpretation of the S-B equations and the SLoT?

You say the 15 micron surface radiation is controlled by the temperature of the CO2  molecule it is being absorbed by. And that the CO2 molecule is then prohibited from radiating back to the surface. Therefore both the surface and CO2 have been throttled down. 

It's your crazy theory, have I gotten something wrong? The mean free path for 15 micron energy at the surface is about 2 metres, the temperature differential between the surface and the air at 2m is small so most of the surface 15 micron radiation has been throttled down to almost nothing compared to what it would be if it escaped freely to space. 

The surface has been deprived of most of its ability to cool via the 15 micron band.

Like I said, it is your crazy theory. If it's true then much of the radiation never leaves the surface. 

I say all the radiation leaves the surface but some gets rerouted back to the surface.

Either way the surface has shed less energy and cooled less.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Science is defined as :
> the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based onobservation, experiment, and measurement, andthe formulation of laws to describe these facts ingeneral terms..
> 
> So lets see observation, and measurement, and or experiment that validates your belief that energy moves in two directions at once...from warm to cool and from cool back to warm. If you can't, and we both know that you can't, then perhaps this definition more closely fits your position.
> ...


Observable experiments in thermodynamics can only determine *net energy flow* from a cool to warm object. You have to dig deeper into quantum mechanics to understand the details. And the details dictate two way energy flow.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Nope...I never did...it is you guys who believe that inanimate objects make decisions and decide whether to obey the laws of physics or not.


Don't be silly. You are the one who believes cold objects can violate Planck's radiation law when a hotter body is nearby.


----------



## IanC (Feb 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You have no observations of energy moving from a less ordered state to a more ordered state...you have no measurements of energy moving from a less ordered state to a more ordered state....in short you have nothing other than an unshakeable belief in a thing without proof, or evidence...that is not the definition of science.



Every day at dawn we see disordered states becoming more ordered. At dusk that stops until the new day begins.


----------



## IanC (Feb 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So you really do need to have things drawn out for you in crayon? When that energy is transported to the upper atmosphere via ice crystals, it then radiates into




So that is the missing link. Ice crystals. 

Post up a link referencing ice crystals as the major radiative factor in atmospheric radiation.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So show me the observation and measurement of energy moving in both directions...show me a measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cool object to a warmer object...if you can't provide evidence, then upon what, exactly, are you basing your belief?
> ...



Ahhh...so it is theoretical, but you accept it as reality.  Still sounds like faith to me.  Pick any religion you like...their dogma is in large part theoretical as well, but in order to be an accepted member of the religion, you really must accept the theoretical dogma as being real.



Wuwei said:


> You sound like this guy. Your argument is no better than his.



No..I think I sound more like Scott Aronson...and many others who can actually see that QM is in a crisis state.  Here it is 100 years on and there still isn't even an agreement on the interpretation of QM.  Aronson says:

"_As for Copenhagen, I’ve described it as “shut-up and calculate except without ever shutting up about it”! I regard Bohr’s writings on the subject as barely comprehensible, and Copenhagen as less of an interpretation than a self-conscious anti-interpretation: a studied refusal to offer any account of the actual constituents of the world, and—most of all—an insistence that if you insist on such an account, then that just proves that you cling naïvely to a classical worldview, and haven’t grasped the enormity of the quantum revolution."
_
I readily accept actual science...repeatable experiment, observation, measurement, quantification...you know..real science.  I have seen no reason to jump on the QM bandwagon.  You go on about the parts per billion accuracy, but that means nothing...it is a buzzphrase.    Tell me what you believe that means...and how is it determined...and what application does it have in  the actual world?

And if name calling is all you have a this point, then you have indeed lost the argument.  Clearly, you have no actual evidence in support of your beliefs, therefore, they are faith.  The point is mine and has been since the first time I said it.  The best you can do is tell me that some other people who you perceive as smarter than yourself believe it also....I respond...none of you have the first piece of actual evidence in support of your belief.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2018)

IanC said:


> Why are you denying your bizarre interpretation of the S-B equations and the SLoT?
> 
> You say the 15 micron surface radiation is controlled by the temperature of the CO2  molecule it is being absorbed by. And that the CO2 molecule is then prohibited from radiating back to the surface. Therefore both the surface and CO2 have been throttled down.



Since energy only moves spontaneously  from a more ordered state to a less ordered state..in this case from warm to cool, where else do you think it goes?  You think that energy moves from cool to warm?  You think it moves in that direction to such a degree that it alters the climate of the earth?  And yet, it can not be measured without an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere.

And alas ian, it is you who has the crazy theory..you believe that by increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere, you decrease its ability to radiatively cool itself.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Observable experiments in thermodynamics can only determine *net energy flow* from a cool to warm object. You have to dig deeper into quantum mechanics to understand the details. And the details dictate two way energy flow.



So observation and experiment tell us that energy only moves from a cool object to a warm object...if you want it to go the other way, then you must delve into voodoo, reading goat entrails, cutting the heads off chickens, reading tea leaves, divining with forked sticks, or any of a thousand other beliefs...because actual experimental, observational science can't provide it for you.  You must accept the writings of the book of QM and believe that which is unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable is real.  You must have faith.

Yeah....what I said.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Nope...I never did...it is you guys who believe that inanimate objects make decisions and decide whether to obey the laws of physics or not.
> ...



God any observation and measurement of energy moving from cool to warm?  Didn't think so.

And Planck's law and the SB law have been known for a very long time to accurately predict one way emission from a black body in a vacuum.  Neither basic equation requires...or even has an expression by which to determine the temperature of another body receiving the emitted radiation.  When you put the black body in the presence of other matter, then the equations change.

So again..got any actual observation and measurement of energy moving from cool to warm?  Or am I expected, like you, to just take it on faith and quash down my innate skepticism?  Must I be able to speak to the glorious colors and wonderful style of the emperor's new clothes in order to have credibility among the members of your faith?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You have no observations of energy moving from a less ordered state to a more ordered state...you have no measurements of energy moving from a less ordered state to a more ordered state....in short you have nothing other than an unshakeable belief in a thing without proof, or evidence...that is not the definition of science.
> ...



No ian...you see an injection of new energy...which immediately begins to degrade into a more disordered state.  Are you really that intellectually weak?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So you really do need to have things drawn out for you in crayon? When that energy is transported to the upper atmosphere via ice crystals, it then radiates into
> ...



How much CO2 and other so called greenhouse gases are found in the upper reaches of the atmosphere relative to ice crystals?  If conduction rules the troposphere and radiation doesn't really play a major part till the energy reaches the upper atmosphere, what exactly do you think is radiating the energy out to space?


----------



## IanC (Feb 13, 2018)

SSDD said:


> And alas ian, it is you who has the crazy theory..you believe that by increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere, you decrease its ability to radiatively cool itself.



Hahahaha, I have never said that, and you know it.

On the other hand, you have repeatedly stated that increasing the emmisivity of the air does not cause warming by absorption from the nearby heat source.

Same coin, different sides. The absorption is greater than the emission because of the temperature difference between where the absorption takes place and where the emission takes place.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And alas ian, it is you who has the crazy theory..you believe that by increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere, you decrease its ability to radiatively cool itself.
> ...



Can you name a single other instance where you believe increasing the emissivity of a thing causes it to warm...or do you think that it is true in the case of the atmosphere because of the magical properties of CO2 that you so fervently believe in.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 13, 2018)

SSDD said:


> No..I think I sound more like Scott Aronson...and many others who can actually see that QM is in a crisis state. Here it is 100 years on and there still isn't even an agreement on the interpretation of QM. Aronson says:
> 
> "_As for Copenhagen, I’ve described it as “shut-up and calculate except without ever shutting up about it”! I regard Bohr’s writings on the subject as barely comprehensible, and Copenhagen as less of an interpretation than a self-conscious anti-interpretation: a studied refusal to offer any account of the actual constituents of the world, and—most of all—an insistence that if you insist on such an account, then that just proves that you cling naïvely to a classical worldview, and haven’t grasped the enormity of the quantum revolution."_


Your choice of quotes really does not support your viewpoint. You really did not understand your quote. Scott Aronson was deep into the theory of QM, and eschewed the earlier attempts for an intuitive understandings.

He was talking directly to you in his disdain for your type of thinking. 
if you insist on such an account, then that just proves that you cling naïvely to a classical worldview

Yes, you live in the classic worldview of early physics and disparage modern science. 

He was talking to you when he said, you
haven’t grasped the enormity of the quantum revolution

He told you to, "shut-up and calculate."

That is what a theorist in QM is telling you . But you refuse to believe the QM calculations that show that there is a two way radiant energy flow between all objects. 

Don''t tell Scott Aronson, who is in the field of quantum computers, that you think QM is in a crisis state. Don't tell him you think "part's per billion" is just a buzz name.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 13, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Observable experiments in thermodynamics can only determine *net energy flow* from a cool to warm object. You have to dig deeper into quantum mechanics to understand the details. And the details dictate two way energy flow.
> ...


I repeat:
_Observable experiments in thermodynamics can only determine *net energy flow* from a cool to warm object. 
_​You cannot say otherwise. Your only retort is this?


SSDD said:


> if you want it to go the other way, then you must delve into voodoo, reading goat entrails, cutting the heads off chickens, reading tea leaves, divining with forked sticks, or any of a thousand other beliefs.


How do you expect to have any science argument if that's all you can come up with.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Your choice of quotes really does not support your viewpoint. You really did not understand your quote. Scott Aronson was deep into the theory of QM, and eschewed the earlier attempts for an intuitive understandings.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 13, 2018)

SSDD said:


> God any observation and measurement of energy moving from cool to warm? Didn't think so.
> 
> And Planck's law and the SB law have been known for a very long time to accurately predict one way emission from a black body in a vacuum. Neither basic equation requires...or even has an expression by which to determine the temperature of another body receiving the emitted radiation. When you put the black body in the presence of other matter, then the equations change.
> 
> So again..got any actual observation and measurement of energy moving from cool to warm? Or am I expected, like you, to just take it on faith and quash down my innate skepticism? Must I be able to speak to the glorious colors and wonderful style of the emperor's new clothes in order to have credibility among the members of your faith?


Got any measurement that says this is wrong? 
_Observable experiments in thermodynamics can only determine *net energy flow* from a cool to warm object. _


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Yeah....what I said.


I repeat:
_Observable experiments in thermodynamics can only determine *net energy flow* from a cool to warm object. 
_​You cannot say otherwise. Your only retort is this?[/quote]

So the real world tells us that energy only moves from warm to cool...you must have faith in the unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable...that it can move in the other direction...  that's what I said.

Science is observation, measurement, quantification, and experiment...lets see some of that which confirms that energy can move spontaneously from a less ordered state to a more ordered state..  got any?  Of course not.  So what are you left with?...belief in a thing to which there is no proof...ie...faith.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 13, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Your choice of quotes really does not support your viewpoint. You really did not understand your quote. Scott Aronson was deep into the theory of QM, and eschewed the earlier attempts for an intuitive understandings.
> ...


No argument? Just a trollish retort?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > God any observation and measurement of energy moving from cool to warm? Didn't think so.
> ...



As you admit...all experiments show and say that energy moves from a more ordered state to a less ordered state...

Asking for evidence of a negative is idiotic.  Got any evidence that there are no leprechauns, fairies, halflings, minotaurs, etc?  Either you can support your belief with actual observation  or measurement, or it remains a matter of faith.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



the man was thumbing his nose at the lack of interpretation for QM 100 years on and pointing out that to people of faith like you, those of us who remember that science is about experiment, observation, and measurement must be wrong because we don't hold your faith.  You are find with proclamations about reality which have no basis in reality...you are find with accepting faith as if it were derived from observation and measurement....that is what he said...if you read anything else into it, it was of your own making and nothing to do with what he said.  Must we break his statement down sentence by sentence in order to help you comprehend what was said?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 13, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So the real world tells us that energy only moves from warm to cool


All an experiment can do is determine that net energy moves from warmer to colder objects. Do you have an experiment that says otherwise. 

[QUOTE="SSDD, post: 19279251, member: 40906"...lets see some of that which confirms that energy can move spontaneously from a less ordered state to a more ordered state.. got any? Of course not. So what are you left with?...belief in a thing to which there is no proof...ie...faith.[/QUOTE]
A strawman. I never said that. Another trollish diversion.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 13, 2018)

SSDD said:


> As you admit...all experiments show and say that energy moves from a more ordered state to a less ordered state...


I referred to net energy.


SSDD said:


> Asking for evidence of a negative is idiotic. Got any evidence that there are no leprechauns, fairies, halflings, minotaurs, etc? Either you can support your belief with actual observation or measurement, or it remains a matter of faith.


You can't support your belief with another trollish retort.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 13, 2018)

SSDD said:


> the man was thumbing his nose at the lack of interpretation for QM 100 years on and pointing out that to people of faith like you, those of us who remember that science is about experiment, observation, and measurement must be wrong because we don't hold your faith. You are find with proclamations about reality which have no basis in reality...you are find with accepting faith as if it were derived from observation and measurement....that is what he said...if you read anything else into it, it was of your own making and nothing to do with what he said. Must we break his statement down sentence by sentence in order to help you comprehend what was said?


You still don't understand what he said. Go ahead break it down. Maybe you will understand him.


----------



## IanC (Feb 13, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The available source of energy is what does the warming.

Emmisivity is the description of how effective the substance is at using the available energy. Emmisivity describes how a substance either absorbs, transmits or reflects radiation.

Shine a spotlight on a black piece of cardboard, a window pane, or a mirror. Which one will warm up more? Obviously the one which absorbs rather than transmits or reflects.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> [
> All an experiment can do is determine that net energy moves from warmer to colder objects. Do you have an experiment that says otherwise.



Interesting....we can measure discrete wavelengths of energy moving from a warm object to a cold object...and measure those wavelengths being absorbed by the cool object...but we can't measure energy moving in the other direction...we have to just believe that it is happening.  

Why do you find it so hard to admit that your position is one of faith when it is clearly faith...a belief in something with no evidence in support.    My position certainly isn't one of faith....observation and measurement support it...energy moves one way...demonstrable, observable, measurable, quantifiable fact....you believe it moves in two directions but no evidence exists to support that belief......that is called FAITH.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > As you admit...all experiments show and say that energy moves from a more ordered state to a less ordered state...
> ...



Trying to count the number of angels that can stand on the head of a pin now?  You said that experiment can only show gross energy flow...only gross energy flow can be observed and measured...then you claim that actually, something is happening other than what can be observed and measured...you claim that it is something real that is happing but we just can't see it or detect it...it is unobservable, unmeasurable, unprovable..but it is real...we just have to believe it is real even though there is no evidence of it.  We must have faith.




Wuwei said:


> You can't support your belief with another trollish retort.



My position is that energy movement is a gross, one way proposition..you acknowledge that experiment, observation, and measurement support my position...Therefore, my position, by definition is not one of belief....then you go on to say that what is really happening is invisible...undetectable...but real none the less and that I should believe it...I should give up my position which is supported by actual observation and measurement in favor of your position which is supported by nothing..in short, I should share your faith.  Is that about the size of it?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > the man was thumbing his nose at the lack of interpretation for QM 100 years on and pointing out that to people of faith like you, those of us who remember that science is about experiment, observation, and measurement must be wrong because we don't hold your faith. You are find with proclamations about reality which have no basis in reality...you are find with accepting faith as if it were derived from observation and measurement....that is what he said...if you read anything else into it, it was of your own making and nothing to do with what he said. Must we break his statement down sentence by sentence in order to help you comprehend what was said?
> ...



Sure...glad to help the stupid anytime I can.  

*"As for Copenhagen, I’ve described it as “shut-up and calculate except without ever shutting up about it”! 
*
Pretty straight forward statement of contempt...He is stating that it is all models...and no reality...You can't read the distain there?  Interesting.
_
* I regard Bohr’s writings on the subject as barely comprehensible, and Copenhagen as less of an interpretation than a self-conscious anti-interpretation: *
_
Which part of Bohr's writings are barely comprehensible do you find so hard to understand...and are you not able to read that he thinks the Copenhagen interpretation is not an interpretation at all, but a bashful wave at interpretation?  Seems to be pretty plain language to me.

You tell me what you think barely comprehensible means and then tell me what you believe less of an interpretation than a self conscious anti interpretation means in the context of the Copenhagen interpretation.
_
*a studied refusal to offer any account of the actual constituents of the world,— and most of all—an insistence that if you insist on such an account, then that just proves that you cling naïvely to a classical worldview, and haven’t grasped the enormity of the quantum revolution."
*_
And here, he is stating quite clearly, and depreciatingly that the QM adherents can't apply their beliefs to the physical world... and that when those of us who don't operate on faith, but prefer some sort of substance to our science...some evidence out here in the real world actually ask for said substance, you simply tell us that we are to stupid to see how beautiful the emperors clothes are.

Care to tell me what you believe the phrase "account of the actual constituents of the world" means to you.  Maybe you don't know what constituents mean...

So tell me how that statement disagrees with my position...show me how terribly you must mangle his statement in order to make it agree with you.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2018)

IanC said:


> Emmisivity is the description of how effective the substance is at using the available energy. Emmisivity describes how a substance either absorbs, transmits or reflects radiation.



Well, there you go.  You don't know what emissivity means.  Emissivity is nothing more than a statement about an entities ability to radiate energy...it has noting to do with "using" energy.  You increase emissivity, you increase the amount of energy the entity is able to emit.  Period.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 14, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Emmisivity is the description of how effective the substance is at using the available energy. Emmisivity describes how a substance either absorbs, transmits or reflects radiation.
> ...



* You increase emissivity, you increase the amount of energy the entity is able to emit. Period. 
*
You increase emissivity, you increase the amount of energy the entity is able to absorb. Period.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 14, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...





SSDD said:


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



The idea of net energy in thermal energy exchange comes from basic ideas in atomic physics. Vibrating electric charges must radiate EM energy. If you want to believe these objects don't radiate EM toward each other you have to deny all of QM.

You call that process faith because you don't believe in QM. Scientists call it Quantum Mechanics.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 14, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



You answered your own question. Scientists such as Aronson are deep into the mathematical applications of QM such as quantum computing. He recognizes mathematical modeling in QM solves real problems and he has no use for the many philosophical attempts, especially the Copenhagen School, at intuitive understanding.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Still nothing to do with "using" energy.  Using energy implies work and absorption and emission are not work...and absorption and emission does not equal warming.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> The idea of net energy in thermal energy exchange comes from basic ideas in atomic physics. Vibrating electric charges must radiate EM energy. If you want to believe these objects don't radiate EM toward each other you have to deny all of QM.



I know where the idea comes from...and I also know that there are no observed, measured instances of it happening in the real world...if you believe it happens, then it is a matter of faith...not objective science.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



  The more you talk, the more apparent it becomes that you don't have a clue.  You don't have any idea what the Copenhagen interpretation is...do you?  If it weren't so sad, I would be laughing in your face.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 14, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



*Using energy implies work and absorption and emission are not work.
*
Great. So how does the cooler surface of the Sun emit toward the hotter corona?
Sounds like the Sun is violating your "one-way flow" theory.


----------



## IanC (Feb 14, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Emmisivity is the description of how effective the substance is at using the available energy. Emmisivity describes how a substance either absorbs, transmits or reflects radiation.
> ...



Again, you are looking at a coin but only acknowledging one side.

The ability to emit radiation is EXACTLY matched by its ability to absorb that radiation.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 14, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The more you talk, the more apparent it becomes that you don't have a clue. You don't have any idea what the Copenhagen interpretation is...do you? If it weren't so sad, I would be laughing in your face.


My god. Another personal attack. Is that the best you can do?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 14, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I know where the idea comes from...and I also know that there are no observed, measured instances of it happening in the real world...if you believe it happens, then it is a matter of faith...not objective science.



You want to base all your beliefs only on directly observed and measured phenomena. That is the dark ages of science. A deeper understanding comes from inference of many experiments that put together mathematical models that reveal deeper connections. Thermodynamics has melded with QM a hundred years ago, and you don't understand that.


----------



## IanC (Feb 14, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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




This is SSDD's major mistake.

Radiation is produced because of local internal conditions. To stop the production of radiation you have to change the local internal conditions.

SSDD says the distant external conditions expressed as temperature controls the production of radiation, although he has no mechanism for how this is done. And in fact there is no possible mechanism.

All things radiate if they have the necessary local and internal conditions. The net movement of radiation energy in a defined system is the net result of all the radiation going in all directions, all the time.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 14, 2018)

IanC said:


> Again, you are looking at a coin but only acknowledging one side.
> 
> The ability to emit radiation is EXACTLY matched by its ability to absorb that radiation.


Right, and here is a reference for SSDD.

Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation - Wikipedia
Kirchhoff's law states:
_For an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity._​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 14, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Again, you are looking at a coin but only acknowledging one side.
> ...


*
Kirchhoff's law states:
*
Obviously that has never been measured or observed.
Because matter at equilibrium doesn't absorb or emit /idiocy off


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 14, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Kirchhoff's law states:
> *
> Obviously that has never been measured or observed.
> Because matter at equilibrium doesn't absorb or emit /idiocy off


 Oops, I forgot.

 Shame on Kirchhoff for his faith in science.


----------



## IanC (Feb 14, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I know where the idea comes from...and I also know that there are no observed, measured instances of it happening in the real world...if you believe it happens, then it is a matter of faith...not objective science.
> ...



QM was discovered/invented because classical thermodynamics was insufficient to give correct answers that matched the experimental data.

Got that SSDD? Classical thermodynamics gave approximately right answers for some calculations but failed for others.

A better understanding was needed and found, leading to the ever expanding theories of QM. 

Will QM be overthrown like classical thermodynamics? Perhaps. But the new paradigm will include most of QM, just like QM included most of classical thermodynamics.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Got any evidence to indicate that absorption and emission equals warming?  Any at all?

Didn't think so.  Which is precisely why IR does't warm the air.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The more you talk, the more apparent it becomes that you don't have a clue. You don't have any idea what the Copenhagen interpretation is...do you? If it weren't so sad, I would be laughing in your face.
> ...



So you don't know what the Copenhagen interpretation is...or why it is profound that he made such a snide comment about it...no surprise.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You want to base all your beliefs only on directly observed and measured phenomena.



You don't seem to grasp that observed, and measured phenomena is science.  Belief in the unseen and unknowable is faith.



Wuwei said:


> That is the dark ages of science.



Maybe you should do a bit of research into the history of science...particularly the dark ages...during that period, belief in the unseen and unknowable was the norm...then follow on to the enlightenment when science started to actually be about observation, measurement, experiment...and becoming acquainted with the real world....



Wuwei said:


> A deeper understanding comes from inference of many experiments that put together mathematical models that reveal deeper connections. Thermodynamics has melded with QM a hundred years ago, and you don't understand that.



So you want me to share your faith in the unseen and unknowable...the unobservable, the untestable, and the unknowable...  In a word...NO.  Science is about knowledge...not faith.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2018)

IanC said:


> Radiation is produced because of local internal conditions. To stop the production of radiation you have to change the local internal conditions.



And we all know ian...that internal conditions can be changed by altering external conditions.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2018)

IanC said:


> QM was discovered/invented because classical thermodynamics was insufficient to give correct answers that matched the experimental data.



So it is as I have been saying all along...QM is a set of stories that we tell ourselves about things which we lack the technology to understand...and will be subject to revision as we develop that technology.  I won't be around in a hundred years, but if I were, I would willingly bet that if you compared QM then, to QM now, they would bear about as much resemblance to each other as medicine now contrasted with medicine during the Civil War period.

Stories are subject to change...repeatable, observed, measured, quantified data.....not so much.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 15, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So you don't know what the Copenhagen interpretation is...or why it is profound that he made such a snide comment about it...no surprise.


Everyone, including me many decades ago, learns about Bohr's work in their first course of quantum mechanics. Schroedinger's cat is now almost a household word. Entanglement is getting there, etc. That is why the mathematics is more important to people like Aronson than the "mysteries" of QM.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 15, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You don't seem to grasp that observed, and measured phenomena is science. Belief in the unseen and unknowable is faith.



Science is now about mathematical modeling of the observed phenomena. Mathematical models have predicted things that were unknown and lead to new observations and measurements for verification.



SSDD said:


> So you want me to share your faith in the unseen and unknowable...the unobservable, the untestable, and the unknowable... In a word...NO. Science is about knowledge...not faith.



If you want to disparage all science for the last 100 years, so be it.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 15, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So it is as I have been saying all along...QM is a set of stories that we tell ourselves about things which we lack the technology to understand..


Nope. Not stories. QM is about mathematical models.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So you don't know what the Copenhagen interpretation is...or why it is profound that he made such a snide comment about it...no surprise.
> ...



So QM is now a mystery...it gets more religious all the time...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Science is now about mathematical modeling of the observed phenomena. Mathematical models have predicted things that were unknown and lead to new observations and measurements for verification.



So then you are saying that you can show observed, measured instances of two way energy flow?



Wuwei said:


> If you want to disparage all science for the last 100 years, so be it.



Calling faith science doesn't make it science...the word science means something...if an activity does not match the definition of the word being used to describe it, then the activity is being misnamed....

I disparage belief in models over observation, measurement, and repeatable experiment...that is not science...that is belief....in other words...faith.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So it is as I have been saying all along...QM is a set of stories that we tell ourselves about things which we lack the technology to understand..
> ...



Call them whatever you like...they do not reflect any observable reality therefore they are stories....and subject to change as the story is slowly replaced with actual knowledge.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 15, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So QM is now a mystery...it gets more religious all the time...


It is for you.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 15, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Science is now about mathematical modeling of the observed phenomena. Mathematical models have predicted things that were unknown and lead to new observations and measurements for verification.
> ...


Yes, yes, we all know you don't believe QM. You have said that many times.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 15, 2018)

SSDD said:


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


You have illustrated you will never understand QM.


----------



## IanC (Feb 15, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Radiation is produced because of local internal conditions. To stop the production of radiation you have to change the local internal conditions.
> ...



Radiation is created, must be created, by a physical process related to internal conditions and the available energy that can be converted to radiation. Energy is shed by the radiation produced and the object cools.

If there is a nearby warm object, it is also producing radiation in an attempt to cool. 

The radiation from one object is absorbed by the other, adding to the available energy that can be converted to radiation. Both objects are cooling less quickly than they would have if the other was not present.

SSDD has a different theory. He says there is a different physical process that kicks in when two warm objects are in the same vicinity. He says this this unknown mechanism prohibits the original process and stops the production of radiation, except for any inbalance due to a temperature gradient. 

For two objects at the same temperature no radiation is produced. Apparently they both still move but that movement no longer produces radiation. Weird.

And without radiation being produced to pass information along about the objects's temperature, how do they know whether to radiate? Unknowable apparently, all part and parcel of this new mechanism that nobody knows about except SSDD.

And what about the entropy that is no longer increasing? Apparently that doesn't matter to him. He just handwaves that away like he does with so many criticisms and contradictions that arise from his bizarre theories.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 15, 2018)

IanC said:


> Apparently that doesn't matter to him. He just handwaves that away like he does with so many criticisms and contradictions that arise from his bizarre theories.


Has he ever said why he does not believe radiation exchange between objects? It is hard to pin him down because he always digresses, or buries it in cursing, or says that science doesn't understand QM, etc.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently that doesn't matter to him. He just handwaves that away like he does with so many criticisms and contradictions that arise from his bizarre theories.
> ...


*
Has he ever said why he does not believe radiation exchange between objects?
*
Because the S-B equation. And the 2nd Law.

It was the inevitable outgrowth of his claim that there is no back radiation.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 15, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Has he ever said why he does not believe radiation exchange between objects?
> *
> Because the S-B equation. And the 2nd Law.
> 
> It was the inevitable outgrowth of his claim that there is no back radiation.



I understand that, but I was referring to deeper concepts. Has he said why sunlight can get past the hotter corona? or why atomic vibrations do not emit EM waves toward a hotter object? His explanation on the CMB was a totally trollish fantasy. 

He goes bonkers when you mention smart photons, but has no deeper concept. Then he also seemingly says the opposite and tacitly acknowledges dual emission but says that the photons cancel, which as we know is not possible.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Has he ever said why he does not believe radiation exchange between objects?
> ...



* Has he said why sunlight can get past the hotter corona? 
*
He has said because that's not spontaneous, but never explains what that he means by that.

*or why atomic vibrations do not emit EM waves toward a hotter object?
*
Not allowed.....because 2nd Law. But you're right, he never goes deeper.
Or provides links backing his claims. 
I think he finally learned his lesson there....every link disagreed with his claims, at least as much as it agreed.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 15, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...





Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


The fallacy here is the assumption, that because the energy is absorbed, that it is used or warms anything..  In the Case of CO2, it can't retain photon energy and there is a zero physical change in the molecule before that energy is almost instantaneously re-emitted.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So QM is now a mystery...it gets more religious all the time...
> ...



It is for science as well...it is 100 years on since Copenhagen and there is still not an agreement on what the Copenhagen interpretation even means...that is, by definition, a mystery.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



Can't bring yourself to admit to reality...the answer is no...you can not show any actual measured evidence of two way energy flow...is that so difficult?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



And you believe that you do?  

“If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."  * Dr Richard Feynman*

My own conclusion is that today there is no interpretation of quantum mechanics that does not have serious flaws. This view is not universally shared. Indeed, many physicists are satisfied with their own interpretation of quantum mechanics. But different physicists are satisfied with different interpretations. In my view, we ought to take seriously the possibility of finding some more satisfactory other theory, to which quantum mechanics is only a good approximation.   Steven Weinberg,


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> Radiation is created, must be created, by a physical process related to internal conditions and the available energy that can be converted to radiation. Energy is shed by the radiation produced and the object cools.



No ian....radiation is not created...radiation is energy and we all know...or should know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed..

If you are starting with the assumption that some energy is created, then everything that follows is as wrong as the initial assumption.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently that doesn't matter to him. He just handwaves that away like he does with so many criticisms and contradictions that arise from his bizarre theories.
> ...



Of course I have said why...I have stated it over and over and over...you guys are so blatantly dishonest...fabricating things that I have said and then arguing against your fantasy...

My position is that energy movement is a one way, gross movement, because that is what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says....it states quite clearly that energy can only move spontaneously from a state of more order to a state of less order...two way energy movement would have energy moving spontaneously from a state of less order to a state of more order..

Now argue against what I have actually said rather than the straw man you erected.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Has he ever said why he does not believe radiation exchange between objects?
> ...




Science does not know what work is moving energy from the surface to the corona..but they know that it isn't a spontaneous movement of energy from the cooler surface to the corona...and as to CMB...it isn' my fault that you can't grasp the difference between IR which is what CMB is and a resonant radio frequency which correlates to, but is neither CMB, nor IR.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You don't seem to grasp that observed, and measured phenomena is science. Belief in the unseen and unknowable is faith.
> ...



Funny, when you look up the word science..even in the science dictionary, it is still defined as observation, measurement, and experiment....your belief that models are reality is something....but not science.  refer to the word that describes belief in a thing without proof.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


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


Everyone knows that QM evades intuition. Everyone knows that the real importance of QM is that it can mathematically produce results that model all experiments of electromagnitism.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Can't bring yourself to admit to reality...the answer is no...you can not show any actual measured evidence of two way energy flow...is that so difficult?


One way energy flow seriously violates several laws of physics and QM. But you are ignorant of QM so my argument is moot to you.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> And you believe that you do?


I understand the mathematics of QM. That's all that's necessary to understand thermodynamics. The Copenhagen school nor any other intuitive picture does not enlighten thermodynamics. You are running yourself in circles confusing the philosophy with math.



SSDD said:


> “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." * Dr Richard Feynman*
> 
> My own conclusion is that today there is no interpretation of quantum mechanics that does not have serious flaws. This view is not universally shared. Indeed, many physicists are satisfied with their own interpretation of quantum mechanics. But different physicists are satisfied with different interpretations. In my view, we ought to take seriously the possibility of finding some more satisfactory other theory, to which quantum mechanics is only a good approximation. Steven Weinberg,


They are talking about the intuitive picture. I already told you that. Weinburg supports what I said:
_My own conclusion is that today there is no interpretation of quantum mechanics that does not have serious flaws. This view is not universally shared. Indeed, many physicists are satisfied with their own interpretation of quantum mechanics._​
Weinberg and Feynman do not confuse the intuitive picture with the mathematical model like you do.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Science does not know what work is moving energy from the surface to the corona..but they know that it isn't a spontaneous movement of energy from the cooler surface to the corona...and as to CMB...it isn' my fault that you can't grasp the difference between IR which is what CMB is and a resonant radio frequency which correlates to, but is neither CMB, nor IR.


Displaying your ignorance again.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Funny, when you look up the word science..even in the science dictionary, it is still defined as observation, measurement, and experiment....your belief that models are reality is something....but not science. refer to the word that describes belief in a thing without proof.


The observations, measurements, and experiments, have lead to mathematical models. Physics has two major disciplines: Theoretical and experimental. All you have done is focus on the experimental aspect but with disdain the theoretical aspect. Believe me both are equally important in order to have developed the computer you are now playing with.


----------



## IanC (Feb 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Radiation is created, must be created, by a physical process related to internal conditions and the available energy that can be converted to radiation. Energy is shed by the radiation produced and the object cools.
> ...



Now you are just being retarded. Of course radiation is created. A particle takes internal/local energy and converts it into photons which carry the energy away. That is how things cool. The opposite is also happening, photons from different sources are absorbed and annihilated, adding energy. That is how things warm.

Radiation is created by certain specific movements of charged particles. Everytime one of those movements happen a photon must be created. Must be created.

That is why your crackpot idea that internally produced radiation is controlled by external conditions is simply wrong. The only way to stop radiation is to stop movement of charged particles. The only way to stop movement is to cool the particles to absolute zero.

All things radiate according to their temperature and emmisivity, all the time. Just like the S-B law states.


----------



## IanC (Feb 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Funny, when you look up the word science..even in the science dictionary, it is still defined as observation, measurement, and experiment....your belief that models are reality is something....but not science. refer to the word that describes belief in a thing without proof.
> ...



Actually SSDD is adamant that the first, naive and immature, theories from 150 years ago are the only correct ones. Even though it was already known at the time that they were insufficient to explain the experimental data.


----------



## IanC (Feb 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> My own conclusion is that today there is no interpretation of quantum mechanics that does not have serious flaws. This view is not universally shared. Indeed, many physicists are satisfied with their own interpretation of quantum mechanics. But different physicists are satisfied with different interpretations. In my view, we ought to take seriously the possibility of finding some more satisfactory other theory, to which quantum mechanics is only a good approximation. Steven Weinberg,



Exactly.

Classical thermodynamics was flawed. QM was discovered, and answered more questions.

Will QM be replaced? Maybe. But QM is better than classical thermodynamics. Anything that replaces QM will also be better and answer more questions.


----------



## IanC (Feb 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> My position is that energy movement is a one way, gross movement, because that is what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says....it states quite clearly that energy can only move spontaneously from a state of more order to a state of less order...two way energy movement would have energy moving spontaneously from a state of less order to a state of more order..



The SLoT is a statistical description of systems containing large numbers of particles.

According to your interpretation even such mundane things like evaporation could not happen. How does a water molecule attain the threshold energy to break free of the liquid if adding additional energy to an already fast moving molecule is prohibited? The escaping water molecule has more energy than the molecules left behind. How does it get the extra energy?

Radiation has different properties because it is not matter. Once created it exists until it is absorbed by another bit of matter. There is no 'cancelling out'. A warmer object produces more radiation than a cooler one, but they both radiate fully. The net difference between absorbed and emitted radiation is what causes change.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> Actually SSDD is adamant that the first, naive and immature, theories from 150 years ago are the only correct ones. Even though it was already known at the time that they were insufficient to explain the experimental data.


Yes, another thing he is naive about is to focus only on laws. Laws are generally direct mathematical codification of experiments. Theory generally focuses on deeper relationships between the laws and creates a sort of symbiosis of a deeper theory with the laws. For example many of the laws of thermodynamics were discovered before the fact that matter was proved to be composed of particles, such as atoms, nuclei or photons. SSDD's idea of physics predates all that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*
Science does not know what work is moving energy from the surface to the corona.
*
Science doesn't know where work occurs on the Sun? Hmmm.......

*you can't grasp the difference between IR which is what CMB is and a resonant radio frequency which correlates to, 
*
Your resonant invention is silly.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *you can't grasp the difference between IR which is what CMB is and a resonant radio frequency which correlates to,
> *
> Your resonant invention is silly.


Those words in that silly phrase say nothing. If I understand his bizarre thinking, we can't measure heat with a thermistor, because that is just a change in resistance, it's not heat. We can't measure light levels with a photo detector because it just gives a voltage, and a voltage is not light.... etc.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *you can't grasp the difference between IR which is what CMB is and a resonant radio frequency which correlates to,
> ...



*Those words in that silly phrase say nothing.
*
I agree.
It's like the radio wave flew past the planet and winked at the telescope, without hitting the receiver.
Presto, CMB is magically detected, without violating any previous epicycle.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 17, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Can't bring yourself to admit to reality...the answer is no...you can not show any actual measured evidence of two way energy flow...is that so difficult?
> ...



Do tell...which laws of physics does the 2nd law of thermodynamics violate?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 17, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Science does not know what work is moving energy from the surface to the corona..but they know that it isn't a spontaneous movement of energy from the cooler surface to the corona...and as to CMB...it isn' my fault that you can't grasp the difference between IR which is what CMB is and a resonant radio frequency which correlates to, but is neither CMB, nor IR.
> ...




Really?  What work is being performed to move the energy from the cooler surface to the warmer corona?  You seem to know something that science does not....I am all ears...lets hear it?  What work?

Or are you just talking out your ass again?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 17, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Funny, when you look up the word science..even in the science dictionary, it is still defined as observation, measurement, and experiment....your belief that models are reality is something....but not science. refer to the word that describes belief in a thing without proof.
> ...



Look up theory....just an idea till observations bear it out.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 17, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Sorry ian....that is just one form of energy being converted into another form...again...till you get the basics..all you derive from your confusion is going to be wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 17, 2018)

IanC said:


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



So did some measurement or observation of two way energy movement happen while I wasn't looking?...Did they rewrite the 2nd law to state that energy can, in fact, move spontaneously from a less ordered state to a more ordered state?  Can you provide a link to the research?

Didn't think so...imagine being so naïve as to ask for evidence to support the theories?  What was I thinking?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 17, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > My own conclusion is that today there is no interpretation of quantum mechanics that does not have serious flaws. This view is not universally shared. Indeed, many physicists are satisfied with their own interpretation of quantum mechanics. But different physicists are satisfied with different interpretations. In my view, we ought to take seriously the possibility of finding some more satisfactory other theory, to which quantum mechanics is only a good approximation. Steven Weinberg,
> ...



Only if your faith is strong enough to disregard reality in favor of models.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 17, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > My position is that energy movement is a one way, gross movement, because that is what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says....it states quite clearly that energy can only move spontaneously from a state of more order to a state of less order...two way energy movement would have energy moving spontaneously from a state of less order to a state of more order..
> ...



Again...making up arguments and claiming that they are from me when I never made them...then railing against them...weak ian...very weak.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 17, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *you can't grasp the difference between IR which is what CMB is and a resonant radio frequency which correlates to,
> ...



So now you are taking your que from ian and making up arguments for me and then railing against your own fantasy?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


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


No work. Just spontaneous radiant energy exchange.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



Look up theoretical physics.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


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


There are none. But one way energy flow violates the fact that all accelerating charges must radiate.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


No. It's just a simile to illustrate your fantasies.


----------



## IanC (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Hahahaha. How is it weak?

You claim that every spontaneous exchange of energy must go from warm to cool, from order to disorder, even down to the atomic emission of radiation.

If that is true then no water molecule would ever attain the escape velocity necessary to break free from the liquid state.

How does evaporation happen under the rules of your interpretation of the second law?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



Really?   You believe that energy is spontaneously moving from the 6000C surface to the million degree corona...you believe that the 6000C surface is heating the corona to a million degrees.  What happened to your belief that energy could go both ways so long as the net result was that the energy radiating from the radiator was greater than that radiating to the surroundings?

Better think some more...that answer was so wrong that it violates your own beliefs.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



Like I said...just an idea till observations bear it out....funny how that works....you may be just making a lucky guess till such time as you can actually see what is going on....look to the past at the number of times the outcome of the experiment was predictable but they had the actual mechanism completely wrong.


----------



## IanC (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Reality pointed out the insufficiency of classical thermodynamics. That is why QM was discovered. If classical thermodynamics actually worked in all cases we would have stopped looking. But it didn't.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 18, 2018)

IanC said:


> How does evaporation happen under the rules of your interpretation of the second law?



Yes, hot water exposed to still cold air would have to emit energetic hot molecules of H₂O into the colder surrounding air.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



So you just made up an answer.....got it.  And the number of times you have been dead wrong on the basics, it seems that is normal for you.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> .you believe that the 6000C surface is heating the corona to a million degrees.


Nobody believes that. Energy still goes both ways.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



Arguing against your own fantasies has what to do with me?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



No. That answer was discovered over a hundred years ago.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Arguing against your own fantasies has what to do with me?


That is a trollish remark that ignores the point.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > How does evaporation happen under the rules of your interpretation of the second law?
> ...




Yeah...that's how energy movement works...warm to cool.  Evaporation happens when the water molecule has absorbed enough energy for a phase change from water to vapor...then when that vapor is carried high enough in the atmosphere, it freezes into crystals and in doing so releases exactly the same amount of energy that was required to cause it to evaporate...that energy radiates on out into space.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Like I said...just an idea till observations bear it out....funny how that works....you may be just making a lucky guess till such time as you can actually see what is going on....look to the past at the number of times the outcome of the experiment was predictable but they had the actual mechanism completely wrong.


Theoretical physics is based on observation first. If new predictions are made from theory, then new observations must be made to verify it. Amazing things were predicted from theoretical physics and found to be consistent with observation, curvature of light around heavy bodies, antimatter, entanglement, and many fundamental particles in accelerators.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > .you believe that the 6000C surface is heating the corona to a million degrees.
> ...



So in this case, the "net" exchange results in the surroundings being orders of magnitude hotter than the emitter?  Try again.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Arguing against your own fantasies has what to do with me?
> ...



The point is that you are arguing against things I never said.....typical of you guys.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



You claimed that two way energy flow violated more than one law of physics...it doesn't...so again, you just made up something to say.....typical.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Yeah...that's how energy movement works...warm to cool. Evaporation happens when the water molecule has absorbed enough energy for a phase change from water to vapor...then when that vapor is carried high enough in the atmosphere, it freezes into crystals and in doing so releases exactly the same amount of energy that was required to cause it to evaporate...that energy radiates on out into space.


Cold water exposed to still warm air would have to emit molecules of H₂O into the warm surrounding air in order for evaporation to happen.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said...just an idea till observations bear it out....funny how that works....you may be just making a lucky guess till such time as you can actually see what is going on....look to the past at the number of times the outcome of the experiment was predictable but they had the actual mechanism completely wrong.
> ...



Being consistent with observation does not mean that you understand the mechanism which causes it.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The point is that you are arguing against things I never said.....typical of you guys.


You don't understand similes do you.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah...that's how energy movement works...warm to cool. Evaporation happens when the water molecule has absorbed enough energy for a phase change from water to vapor...then when that vapor is carried high enough in the atmosphere, it freezes into crystals and in doing so releases exactly the same amount of energy that was required to cause it to evaporate...that energy radiates on out into space.
> ...



You have missed the absorbing enough energy to facilitate phase change....the phase change doesn't always happen at the same temperature...again...fail on the basics.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Being consistent with observation does not mean that you understand the mechanism which causes it.


We are talking about the prediction power of physical theory.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The point is that you are arguing against things I never said.....typical of you guys.
> ...



You think you being wrong is funny?  I think it is sad.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You have missed the absorbing enough energy to facilitate phase change....the phase change doesn't always happen at the same temperature...again...fail on the basics.


It is still cold moving to warm.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Being consistent with observation does not mean that you understand the mechanism which causes it.
> ...



But the mechanism happens in reality...and being able to predict what will happen does not mean that you understand what is happening in reality...


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You think you being wrong is funny? I think it is sad.


Funny? Look up the word simile. Be sure to get the spelling right.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You have missed the absorbing enough energy to facilitate phase change....the phase change doesn't always happen at the same temperature...again...fail on the basics.
> ...



If it is absorbing and retaining energy it is becoming warm...and it doesn't evaporate till such time as it is warmer than the air....you really don't get any of this do you?  Ever see fog coming off warm water when the air is cool"  You think the evaporated water is colder than the air?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> But the mechanism happens in reality...and being able to predict what will happen does not mean that you understand what is happening in reality.


Reality? Physics models reality. I don't understand your problem with it.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You think you being wrong is funny? I think it is sad.
> ...


So you think some how comparing two entirely different things...what I said vs what you are arguing against somehow will result in you being right"  Never going to happen...


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> If it is absorbing and retaining energy it is becoming warm...and it doesn't evaporate till such time as it is warmer than the air....you really don't get any of this do you? Ever see fog coming off warm water when the air is cool" You think the evaporated water is colder than the air?


? You are the one who has a bizarre idea of what thermodynamics actually is. You don't understand the real science of SLoT.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So you think some how comparing two entirely different things...what I said vs what you are arguing against somehow will result in you being right" Never going to happen...


Similes are never "right" they are just similar examples.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > But the mechanism happens in reality...and being able to predict what will happen does not mean that you understand what is happening in reality.
> ...



What is happening in reality is the result of some mechanism....that is what this is all about...the mechanisms...and again, being able to predict an outcome doesn't mean that you have even the slightest grasp of the mechanism.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> What is happening in reality is the result of some mechanism....that is what this is all about...the mechanisms...and again, being able to predict an outcome doesn't mean that you have even the slightest grasp of the mechanism.


Just because you don't understand the mechanism doesn't mean science doesn't either.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If it is absorbing and retaining energy it is becoming warm...and it doesn't evaporate till such time as it is warmer than the air....you really don't get any of this do you? Ever see fog coming off warm water when the air is cool" You think the evaporated water is colder than the air?
> ...



The second law of thermodynamics says that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm and in your bizarre world you believe that energy is not only moving spontaneously from the cooler surface of the sun to the corona, but is actually warming the corona...with no work being done...  Clearly it is you who has the bizarre ideas and lacks any sort of understanding.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So you think some how comparing two entirely different things...what I said vs what you are arguing against somehow will result in you being right" Never going to happen...
> ...



Guess you have to resort to that since you can't actually argue against my position.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The second law of thermodynamics says that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm and in your bizarre world you believe that energy is not only moving spontaneously from the cooler surface of the sun to the corona, but is actually warming the corona...with no work being done... Clearly it is you who has the bizarre ideas and lacks any sort of understanding.


Physics says there is energy exchange. But with the constraint that the SLoT must be followed.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Guess you have to resort to that since you can't actually argue against my position.


Similes aren't an argument. They are a means of expression.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What is happening in reality is the result of some mechanism....that is what this is all about...the mechanisms...and again, being able to predict an outcome doesn't mean that you have even the slightest grasp of the mechanism.
> ...



Example...we can predict how quickly an object will fall...we can predict in what direction it will fall...we can predict its rate of acceleration...and we can predict its speed at impact...can you or science describe the mechanism by which gravity operates?  Of course not...because we don't know...Can we theorize some mechanism that will mesh with observation?  Of course we can...but is the theoretical mechanism real?  NO...not until such time as we have the means to observe the mechanism itself.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The second law of thermodynamics says that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm and in your bizarre world you believe that energy is not only moving spontaneously from the cooler surface of the sun to the corona, but is actually warming the corona...with no work being done... Clearly it is you who has the bizarre ideas and lacks any sort of understanding.
> ...



So in what bizarro world does a 5000 degree radiator spontaneously  heat its surroundings to over a million degrees and remain within the constraints of the 2nd law which states that energy can't spontaneously move from cool to warm?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


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


You just described what physics is about. Discussions about reality are for theologians or philosophers.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So in what bizarro world does a 5000 degree radiator spontaneously heat its surroundings to over a million degrees and remain within the constraints of the 2nd law which states that energy can't spontaneously move from cool to warm?


None of course. Except you should be talking about net energy.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Guess you have to resort to that since you can't actually argue against my position.
> ...



So now you aren't even trying to argue against my position...you are just expressing something.  Something without the first piece of observed evidence in support?  Great.  Does it make you feel better about holding a position of faith rather than a position of evidence?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So in what bizarro world does a 5000 degree radiator spontaneously heat its surroundings to over a million degrees and remain within the constraints of the 2nd law which states that energy can't spontaneously move from cool to warm?
> ...



So you believe the corona is the radiator?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So now you aren't even trying to argue against my position...you are just expressing something. Something without the first piece of observed evidence in support? Great. Does it make you feel better about holding a position of faith rather than a position of evidence?


Cut the crap. I was using similes when I was talking to IanC. Your digressions are simply not worth pursuing.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 18, 2018)

Maybe we can continue this discussion when you read up on physics and learn what thermodynamics actually is.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Maybe we can continue this discussion when you read up on physics and learn what thermodynamics actually is.



I wondered how long it would take before you ran away....I had little doubt as to the reason you would claim that you were going to stop...

Now go look yourself in the mirror and admit that you hold a positon of faith...not actual evidence.....the honesty will free you and you will feel so much better.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



*If it is absorbing and retaining energy it is becoming warm...and it doesn't evaporate till such time as it is warmer than the air.
*
Cool water absorbing energy from warm air can become warmer than the air?
Wow!!!
Tell me more.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


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


*
The second law of thermodynamics says that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm
*
Great, so how is it moving from the surface to the corona?
*
you believe that energy is not only moving spontaneously from the cooler surface of the sun to the corona, but is actually warming the corona...
*
Who said the surface warmed the corona? Where? Link?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



The surface and the corona both radiate, despite your confusion about the 2nd Law.


----------



## IanC (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



Toddster has made fun of you for years over the Sun's surface and Corona. You say the cooler object stops radiating if it is in the vicinity of a hot one. According to YOU, the Sun's surface should not be radiating, it should be invisible.

Obviously that is not the reality. YOU have not explained why this is an exception although it is simple enough to do so.

If you did try it would end up in another absurdity that proves your interpretation wrong. So you don't answer.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe we can continue this discussion when you read up on physics and learn what thermodynamics actually is.
> ...



Now  that's one of your more trollish remarks. You exhibit a  propensity for those kinds of childish posts.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2018)

IanC said:


> Toddster has made fun of you for years over the Sun's surface and Corona. You say the cooler object stops radiating if it is in the vicinity of a hot one. According to YOU, the Sun's surface should not be radiating, it should be invisible.



Toddster,, is just to stupid to understand the concept of applying spontaneous to energy movement...guess you are too.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



When I am talking to a child, I try to put things on a level they can understand.  Don't want to be talked to like a child..don't act like one.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Toddster has made fun of you for years over the Sun's surface and Corona. You say the cooler object stops radiating if it is in the vicinity of a hot one. According to YOU, the Sun's surface should not be radiating, it should be invisible.
> ...



And you're too stupid to explain why cool matter is prohibited from emitting toward hotter matter, except when the Sun is involved.

Too stupid to find, and share, all those scientists who agree with your misunderstanding, while claiming every measurement and every observation backs your claim. Weird.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> When I am talking to a child, I try to put things on a level they can understand. Don't want to be talked to like a child..don't act like one.


Another troll tactic: "I know you are so what am I," is pretty childish.
Is that the way you talk to children - denying the last 100 years of quantum mechanics.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > When I am talking to a child, I try to put things on a level they can understand. Don't want to be talked to like a child..don't act like one.
> ...



Bottom Line:  Got any actual observed, measured evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow?  Got a rewrite of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that states that energy...in any amount...can move spontaneously from a less ordered state to a more ordered state?  Got any experimental data showing that spontaneous two way energy flow is real?  Got any hard, observed measured, quantified data supporting the claim of spontaneous two way energy flow?

Got anything other than unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models?  

No, of course you don't.  So what am I denying?  That models have replaced reality? That your faith is more powerful than reality and as such, I should discount reality in favor of your models?  

Grow up.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Bottom Line: Got any actual observed, measured evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow? Got a rewrite of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that states that energy...in any amount...can move spontaneously from a less ordered state to a more ordered state? Got any experimental data showing that spontaneous two way energy flow is real? Got any hard, observed measured, quantified data supporting the claim of spontaneous two way energy flow?
> 
> Got anything other than unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models?


That is your continuous mantra without any understanding that all physics research is done with experiments which lead to mathematical models. Any useful applications must be done with mathematical models. Your hypocrisy is that you actually use mathematical models yourself in denying what the SB equation says, and then turn around and deny physics models have any use in explaining nature. You are replete with self contradiction.



SSDD said:


> No, of course you don't. So what am I denying? That models have replaced reality? That your faith is more powerful than reality and as such, I should discount reality in favor of your models?


Models allow us to deal with reality in a practical way. Maybe you should define what you mean by reality and how you can use "reality" to develop modern day technology. Secondly, you keep referring to "your models". They are not my models. And yes I have faith that the models of "reality" of QM are accurate to parts per billion. You don't need any more than that to deal with the technology and phenomena on the earth.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> That is your continuous mantra without any understanding that all physics research is done with experiments which lead to mathematical models.



I am afraid that it is you who has experienced the disconnect...mathematical models are exactly that...models...not real...they only become real when that which they attempt to model is observed, measured, quantified....till then, the model is just a story...just an idea...and even after the model is tested...the underlying mechanism of what it attempts to predict may yet remain unknown.



Wuwei said:


> Any useful applications must be done with mathematical models



And the application only maters if it is observable, testable, and measurable out here in the real world



Wuwei said:


> Your hypocrisy is that you actually use mathematical models yourself in denying what the SB equation says, and then turn around and deny physics models have any use in explaining nature. {/quote]
> 
> The SB model states that energy flows in one direction..and when a radiator is in the presence of other matter, the amount it radiates is determined by its area, its emissivity, and the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings...and every observation and measurement of that prediction bears out what the equation says...adding magic like net flow which would not alter the outcome is akin to adding a touch by a fairy, or a bit of unicorn perspiration which makes some magic thing happen which does not alter the final product...two way energy flow is fantasy..which does not alter the end result and can not be observed or measured.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I am afraid that it is you who has experienced the disconnect...mathematical models are exactly that...models...not real...they only become real when that which they attempt to model is observed, measured, quantified....till then, the model is just a story...just an idea...and even after the model is tested...the underlying mechanism of what it attempts to predict may yet remain unknown.


The models involving radiation physics have been tested against experiment and there is no contradiction. Your model however leads to contradiction in atomic physics. 


SSDD said:


> And the application only maters if it is observable, testable, and measurable out here in the real world


The application matters if it predicts real results. Your model predicts that vibrating atoms don't radiate under certain conditions and that is wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> The models involving radiation physics have been tested against experiment and there is no contradiction. Your model however leads to contradiction in atomic physics.



They result in the same answers predicted by equations that have been around for a very long time....the observations match the predictions made by those equations...throwing in some fairy dust like net energy flow that does not alter the prediction made by the old school equation does not mean that the QM hypothesis is right...

And if you are claiming that reality does not jibe with the models, and are complaining about that, then I am laughing in your face.



Wuwei said:


> The application matters if it predicts real results. Your model predicts that vibrating atoms don't radiate under certain conditions and that is wrong.



Can you prove that it is wrong?  Can you describe the mechanism that translates the vibration into radiative energy?  Can you show a measured example of an object radiating out into surroundings that are warmer than itself?  Answer...no you can't.  All you can do is hold up a model of fairy dust and claim that it is real because you believe it is real.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The models involving radiation physics have been tested against experiment and there is no contradiction. Your model however leads to contradiction in atomic physics.
> ...



That's right the observations meet the predictions of net energy flow. That's right, the quantum hypothesis is not proven by radiation exchange. But my point is that your idea of one-way energy flow violates QM – that vibrating atoms must radiate. So if your one way flow is inconsistent with QM, and two way radiation exchange is consistent, then there really isn't any alternative but radiation exchange.

The fact that vibrating or accelerating charges radiate goes way back to Maxwell's equations in 1865. The QM atomic version came from Einstein a few decades later. The mechanism of atomic vibrations radiating has been shown decisively by theory and observations of black body radiation - a fundamental process. You nor anyone has shown an external process that would inhibit black body radiation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The models involving radiation physics have been tested against experiment and there is no contradiction. Your model however leads to contradiction in atomic physics.
> ...


*
throwing in some fairy dust like net energy flow 
*
Still no links backing your claim that energy strictly flows one way.
Weird. It's almost like you're the only one making that claim.
You're all by yourself.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> That's right the observations meet the predictions of net energy flow.



You acknowledged that observations only detect one way energy flow...net energy flow predicts the same temperature as gross energy flow...net energy flow predictions are the same as unicorn perspiration predictions...they make no difference whatsoever and the bottom line is that all we can observe is one way gross energy movement from a more oredered state to a less ordered state.

You are sill left with nothing but belief...and the only support you have is from others who also have nothing but belief...same as any other religion.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > That's right the observations meet the predictions of net energy flow.
> ...


Observations detect one way *thermal *energy flow, as the SLoT says. If it makes no difference whatsoever, why do you assume the mechanism that is not consistent with QM.


----------



## IanC (Feb 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Evaporation happens when the water molecule has absorbed enough energy for a phase change from water to vapor...then when that vapor is carried high enough in the atmosphere, it freezes into crystals and in doing so releases exactly the same amount of energy that was required to cause it to evaporate...that energy radiates on out into space.



How does the liquid water molecule attain the required threshold energy to escape the liquid bonds? You say energy cannot go uphill.

Once converted to water vapour, the H2O molecule acts like any other three atom double bond molecule. It cannot absorb and hold radiation in a different way than CO2.

When the water vapour condenses back into water droplets or ice crystals, those substances are warm and do radiate in all directions. And more importantly, they have a much greater range of available wavelengths to emit (similar to surface water or ice but with less atmosphere to traverse to escape to space in the outward direction).

Energy carried aloft by the water cycle and convection is similar to surface radiation absorbed by the atmosphere. In both cases the energy is either emitted as radiation in all directions (escape towards space or back towards the surface), or stored in atmosphere as increased temperature. 

Only radiation that actually escapes to space causes cooling. Moving energy around inside the surface/atmosphere system does nothing but change the temperature at the various locations along the energy flow pathways.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> _ou guys are stuck on stupid...I have already provided emails from several top shelf physicists who state pretty clearly that what you are describing is the equation for a black body alone in a vacuum...that's it...include other matter and then T1-T2 matters...sorry again, that this is all so far over your head._



You ever ask these top shelf guys if objects at equilibrium stop emitting completely?
You ever ask them if photons only move from warmer matter to cooler matter or if the formula 
shows net power lost/gained?

Maybe you could go back to your old emails and check?
Maybe follow up with your top shelf physicists?

Maybe post the entire email......so I can ask the follow up questions?


----------



## Crick (Oct 20, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> With the rash of articles that are coming out and the Gavin Schmidt Twitter Trick now clearly evident as a blatant attempt at covering up the total failure of all modeling, I think its time to expose the modeling failure and how bad it really is..
> 
> If we post up the current crop of Global Climate Models that were projections starting back in 1990 and then overlay the reality we find that all the modeling of the day has failed.
> 
> ...





Billy_Bob said:


> With the rash of articles that are coming out and the Gavin Schmidt Twitter Trick now clearly evident as a blatant attempt at covering up the total failure of all modeling, I think its time to expose the modeling failure and how bad it really is..
> 
> If we post up the current crop of Global Climate Models that were projections starting back in 1990 and then overlay the reality we find that all the modeling of the day has failed.
> 
> ...




This, of course, is just another reprint of Roy Spencer's hot whopper - IOW, a huge LIE.  Here is an accurate comparison between CMIP5 models and reality.


----------

