# Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.



## flacaltenn (May 19, 2019)

Too many threads are ending up with the same 20 page discussion between a small fraction of the members that read Enviro topics.. Every rule and design of USMB moderation is there to get UNIQUE TOPICAL discussion of specific events and topics as laid out in the Opening Posts. *No one wants to wade thru the same fillibustering arguments that atmospheric physics and the GHouse effect is all wrong.*.  And they violate the "on-topic" rules at USMB..

That's what this thread is for.. CONTAIN those rodeos in THIS thread or start your own threads on whatever you deny.... *DON'T hijack other specific topics.*.  Members and visitors will appreciate your cooperation...

Go have your sideline debates about this topic HERE.. The topic is clearly spelled out in the title of this thread...


----------



## emilynghiem (May 19, 2019)

Thank you. I would like to see more people reach an agreement
that natural activities such as volcanic eruptions, and even man made
production issues that are necessary such as agricultural for feeding
the world's population, produce more of the emissions affecting the planet.

There's still plenty of room for improvement and for arguing about
the crisis and urgent necessity in stopping pollution and waste.

We don't need to make a "test" or "condition" out of believing certain
arguments, data or proof of what is causing levels of damage.

There is plenty of proof we all benefit from cleaning up pollution and damage
without arguing about "what the science proves or doesn't prove."

We can focus on cleaner energy, healthier food sources and means of production, etc.
without arguing or attacking anyone for what they believe or don't believe is the priority.

I hope we get past this stage of trying to demonize and discredit
one group or approach or another. And just focus on the reforms
we CAN agree on which is plenty to work on for sustainable living!


----------



## petro (May 19, 2019)

To be honest I never considered myself a climate change denier.

More of a climate change encourager. I fully encourage the appearance of Palm Trees in Duluth. Being tommorows forecast calls for snow in the area, I am completely discouraged about the current rate of warming.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 19, 2019)

emilynghiem said:


> Thank you. I would like to see more people reach an agreement
> that natural activities such as volcanic eruptions, and even man made
> production issues that are necessary such as agricultural for feeding
> the world's population, produce more of the emissions affecting the planet.
> ...



There's a sliding scale on what is considered to be "GWarming denial".. It's an abusive, term meant to stoke discord and polarization.. But in reality, "denial" ranges from "I accept GW -- I just don't accept the CATASTROPHIC predictions that have been pounded by media/politicians based on MISREPRESENTATION of the actual science"  -----   to the folks that will be using this thread that fall into to "I not only reject GWarming totally and IN ADDITION I don't believe in the physics and chemistry behind how the basic GreenHouse theory works".... 

I'm a "denier" of the first kind". Relatively not an extremist on the topic.  THIS thread is for the folks in that latter category who are just fillibustering EVERY GW thread with their "alternative science".... *It's OK TO HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS*.. But they have to contained to threads where THAT IS the actual topic...


----------



## Oddball (May 19, 2019)

I'm a "denier" of the 4th kind...The warmers are lying sacks of Malthusian declinist shit.

The doomsayers have always ended up being proven wrong over time.

Get a new hobby.


----------



## petro (May 19, 2019)

The notion that conservatives hate the environment is a bald faced lie. Many of us live rural, have private wells,  hunt and fish producing license fees and revenue directly to benefit natural resources, spend more time in the wild than city dwellers.
What we are against is signing on to aggrements that are punitive to America while giving so called developing nations a free pass to pollute, while all along we are reducing emissions. The Paris Accord was a farce. The hypocrites of the Green movement who live lavishly with the carbon footprint of an elephant lecturing those with a footprint of an ant in comparison make the whole issue a literal joke. They do not help real environmental concerns.

The doom and gloom I have heard all my life. We passed some smart legislation which cleaned up our environment after things looked a little bleak during the 1970's. Now I see more wildlife than ever before, especially raptor species since the ban on DDT.

Now regarding all that trash I see in urban areas along the highway...
I can't believe for one second that all that was generated by conservatives.


----------



## cnm (May 19, 2019)

Now that's the sort of denial this thread was created for. Kudos.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 19, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Too many threads are ending up with the same 20 page discussion between a small fraction of the members that read Enviro topics.. Every rule and design of USMB moderation is there to get UNIQUE TOPICAL discussion of specific events and topics as laid out in the Opening Posts. *No one wants to wade thru the same fillibustering arguments that atmospheric physics and the GHouse effect is all wrong.*.  And they violate the "on-topic" rules at USMB..
> 
> That's what this thread is for.. CONTAIN those rodeos in THIS thread or start your own threads on whatever you deny.... *DON'T hijack other specific topics.*.  Members and visitors will appreciate your cooperation...
> 
> Go have your sideline debates about this topic HERE.. The topic is clearly spelled out in the title of this thread...



Thanks.  Let me express my hope this will be rigorously enforced, and what came rightly to be known as "Same Shit Different Day" will be safely quarantined in here, no longer to infest the reasonable world outside.  Thanks, again.


----------



## sparky (May 19, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> That's what this thread is for.. CONTAIN those rodeos in THIS thread


here we go again.....






flacaltenn said:


> THIS thread is for the folks in that latter category who are just fillibustering EVERY GW thread with their "alternative science"



what do you consider 'alt science'......??

~S~


----------



## Wuwei (May 19, 2019)

sparky said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > That's what this thread is for.. CONTAIN those rodeos in THIS thread
> ...



I'm one of those guilty of carrying on against "alt-science" in the various threads FLACALTENN is referring to. 

There are several posters demanding that some of the laws of physics are not what have been promoted by scientists, textbooks, and lectures for the last 150 years. They have an alternate view of several thermodynamic laws which, to scientists, are dead wrong and lead to self-contradictions.

I wouldn't even call it alt-science. It's simply wrong. It's obvious that alt-science is solely constructed to deny that the greenhouse effect exists. My view is that you don't really have to bastardize science to try to force your viewpoint that you disagree with global warming, or the catastrophic aspect. Those who promote alt-science are actually giving a bad name to others who have more honest questions about global warming.

.


----------



## sparky (May 19, 2019)

So alt science is merely more propagandized science

thanks for clearing that up  Wu

~S~


----------



## SSDD (May 19, 2019)

Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later...even luke warmers prefer to shut down the conversation rather than be continually asked for evidence that doesn't exist.

Whether or not the radiative greenhouse hypothesis is accurate or not is the crux of the discussion...if simply believing were good enough for me, maybe I would want to shut down the conversation as well...


----------



## SSDD (May 19, 2019)

emilynghiem said:


> There is plenty of proof we all benefit from cleaning up pollution and damage
> without arguing about "what the science proves or doesn't prove."



Yes..there are plenty of actual environmental issues that need to be addressed...unfortunately, none are being addressed so long as the AGW scam is sucking all of the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers.

AGW has been the environmental topic of discussion now for a couple of decades at least...which serious environmental issues have been addressed and dealt with in that time?  The AGW issue has only made the problems worse with the environmental disaster that renewables is turning out to be...heavy metals...toxic waste, driving raptors, bats and migratory birds to extinction...

Great work on the part of environmentalists...


----------



## SSDD (May 19, 2019)

petro said:


> The notion that conservatives hate the environment is a bald faced lie. Many of us live rural, have private wells,  hunt and fish producing license fees and revenue directly to benefit natural resources, spend more time in the wild than city dwellers.
> What we are against is signing on to aggrements that are punitive to America while giving so called developing nations a free pass to pollute, while all along we are reducing emissions. The Paris Accord was a farce. The hypocrites of the Green movement who live lavishly with the carbon footprint of an elephant lecturing those with a footprint of an ant in comparison make the whole issue a literal joke. They do not help real environmental concerns.
> 
> The doom and gloom I have heard all my life. We passed some smart legislation which cleaned up our environment after things looked a little bleak during the 1970's. Now I see more wildlife than ever before, especially raptor species since the ban on DDT.
> ...



Conservatives tend to be conservationists which is a philosophy that actually conserves the environment rather than having a hands off attitude which is why california is such a disaster...  Preserving the environment requires that we take action and be involved...environmentalists don't get it and never will...conservation is to much work for a liberal to ever get involved...they just want to feel good...doing good is for someone else.


----------



## SSDD (May 19, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Too many threads are ending up with the same 20 page discussion between a small fraction of the members that read Enviro topics.. Every rule and design of USMB moderation is there to get UNIQUE TOPICAL discussion of specific events and topics as laid out in the Opening Posts. *No one wants to wade thru the same fillibustering arguments that atmospheric physics and the GHouse effect is all wrong.*.  And they violate the "on-topic" rules at USMB..
> ...



Typical warmer...can't defend your belief so naturally you would favor shutting down the conversation...


----------



## SSDD (May 19, 2019)

sparky said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > That's what this thread is for.. CONTAIN those rodeos in THIS thread
> ...



Anything that questions his belief in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...


----------



## SSDD (May 19, 2019)

sparky said:


> So alt science is merely more propagandized science
> 
> thanks for clearing that up  Wu
> 
> ~S~



alt.science is a request for actual observed, measured evidence to support a position...those who believe in models over reality can't provide such evidence and it is a constant irritant...best to shut down the conversation rather than endlessly try to explain why there is no actual evidence to support the position.


----------



## Wuwei (May 19, 2019)

SSDD said:


> ..best to shut down the conversation rather than endlessly try to explain why there is no actual evidence to support the position.



The conversation isn't being shut down. It's simply being moved here.

.


----------



## SSDD (May 19, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ..best to shut down the conversation rather than endlessly try to explain why there is no actual evidence to support the position.
> ...


The topic has been removed from the general discussion and relegated to a place where believers don’t have to experience the discomfort of being asked for evidence that they cannot produce.

It is censorship, it is being done for a specific reason, and it does effectively silence skeptics...


----------



## IanC (May 19, 2019)

SSDD said:


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




Personally I like having you around and I don't think you should be censored. 

That said, you do spam a lot of threads that aren't relevant to your comments.

Also, you demand proof from others but are unwilling to produce any yourself.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2019)

IanC said:


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



He's learned one thing, every time he posted a source, it disproved his claims.
He'll never post another real source again.
That, combined with the fact that he's never had a source confirming his
one-way only flow of photons or his "objects stop radiating at equilibrium" silliness means he'll mostly just 
whine and say, "I already disproved your claim".


----------



## SSDD (May 19, 2019)

IanC said:


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


Your inability to provide observed measured evidence to support your point proves my point


----------



## SSDD (May 19, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



What a dreamer you are...an opinion added by an author after explaining what a physical law says hardly makes your point or disproves mine...but if such imaginings help you get your jollies......


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Cool story bro.

And sources that back up your equilibrium fantasy?


----------



## flacaltenn (May 19, 2019)

sparky said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > That's what this thread is for.. CONTAIN those rodeos in THIS thread
> ...



Obviously for the purposes of this thread -- it would be denial of the 2 items in the title of this thread..  Denial that there even IS a GreenHouse efffect and that CO2 CANNOT be a GHouse gas and --- denial that gases can absorb and re-emit Infra Red photons that travel from a "cooler sky" to the "warmer surface"... 

That last part is the Thermodynamics of Radiative heating that is just glossed over in most Thermo 101 courses, but it's solid theory in support of ALL the other laws of thermodynamics..  There's over 100 pages of repetitive debate on these things at the end of at least 20 threads in this forum -- if you care to sample the "debate"....


----------



## flacaltenn (May 19, 2019)

sparky said:


> So alt science is merely more propagandized science
> 
> thanks for clearing that up  Wu
> 
> ~S~



No not really what the poster said.. It's simply wrong.. But for some folks, it's less work to attack the basics of how this planet isn't a gigantic chillyburger, than it is to read all those papers on GW and DEBATE THAT... AND there's conspiracy quacks in the nether reaches of science that feed this crowd..  

It's really OUTSIDE of just denying GWarming in any shape or fashion, it's more of "everything we know about the atmosphere and surface temperature equilibrium is wrong"...


----------



## flacaltenn (May 19, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



Of course it's NOT censorship.. It's librarian duty.. USMB wants threads be unique. That means discussion has to be "on-topic"... Hijacking threads with the same shotgun assertions is illegal.. 

HOWEVER -- you're TOTALLY FREE to create your OWN threads on these assertions and argue as long as there is anybody to argue with... Or use THIS ONE... 

How can that be censorship?


----------



## flacaltenn (May 19, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



........................  and they''re off !!!!  

To be fair -- these folks who have consumed the bad gas station shushi science are generally more knowledgeable about the details of GW that a large segment of the "warmers"... It's just that they've chosen the harder road to go about it..... Because they have to invent alternate reasons for how atmospheric physics works..


----------



## SSDD (May 20, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Obviously for the purposes of this thread -- it would be denial of the 2 items in the title of this thread..  Denial that there even IS a GreenHouse efffect and that CO2 CANNOT be a GHouse gas and --- denial that gases can absorb and re-emit Infra Red photons that travel from a "cooler sky" to the "warmer surface"...



First, I have never said that there was no greenhouse effect...I have said that there is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...second, I have never said that CO2 is not a so called greenhouse gas and have certainly never said that it doesn't absorb and emit radiation...and all of you warmers like to say that it emits radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth, but don't seem to be able to provide a measurement of a discrete band of radiation moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface unless you use an instrument that is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...



flacaltenn said:


> That last part is the Thermodynamics of Radiative heating that is just glossed over in most Thermo 101 courses, but it's solid theory in support of ALL the other laws of thermodynamics..  There's over 100 pages of repetitive debate on these things at the end of at least 20 threads in this forum -- if you care to sample the "debate"....



That last part isn't a theory...hell it is barely hypothesis and a piss poor one at that...the fact that you warmers don't like to admit is that there has not been a single peer reviewed, published paper in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gases...What sort of "solid" theory can't even point to a single published paper containing empirical data in its support?

And the reason there is 100 pages of debate is that it is the crux of the discussion...if you only allow discussion of models, you have nothing but a preacher spewing dogma to a congregation...when you shut down conversation about the failure of those models and why, you become a censor, a purveyor of dogma, and little more than a cult.


----------



## SSDD (May 20, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > So alt science is merely more propagandized science
> ...



Conspiracy quacks...great name calling...  Can't bring yourself to simply say skeptics can you?  And I note that you suggest that anyone who posts in this thread is a denier...you are going all in on the anti science rhetoric these days, aren't you?


----------



## SSDD (May 20, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Of course it's NOT censorship.. It's librarian duty.. USMB wants threads be unique. That means discussion has to be "on-topic"... Hijacking threads with the same shotgun assertions is illegal..



Of course it is censorship...and it appears that USMB wants its threads to be unique, just like every other warmest site...and for any discussion that involves the AGW hypothesis, the TOPIC is whether the hypothesis is worth its weight in dirt.



flacaltenn said:


> HOWEVER -- you're TOTALLY FREE to create your OWN threads on these assertions and argue as long as there is anybody to argue with... Or use THIS ONE...
> 
> How can that be censorship?



Relegating the books to a locked room where one must accept being identified as a "denier" before entering is as effective as burning the books.  It is a means of silencing critics...congratulations.


----------



## fncceo (May 20, 2019)

I'm more than willing to debate any of the effects of man and nature on the climate.  But, I reject the idea that piling huge mountains of money on politicians and bureaucrats is the solution to anything.


----------



## SSDD (May 20, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> To be fair -- these folks who have consumed the bad gas station shushi science are generally more knowledgeable about the details of GW that a large segment of the "warmers"... It's just that they've chosen the harder road to go about it..... Because they have to invent alternate reasons for how atmospheric physics works..




"these folks who have consumed the bad gas station shushi science"

You really are all in on the anti science denier rhetoric aren't you?  Is one sort of name calling inherently better than another type of name calling?  You want to be the thought police also and comment on the intent behind the name calling?

And since your models don't work...and the models are based on the physics you accept, it is clear that another road is necessary...and if you take some time to look at the history of science...getting science off a failed tangent and back onto the right path has always been a harder road...it isn't a road for sheep...or people who need to be part of a heard...and require that others agree with them....I am a bit surprised that you fall into that category even though you have always been a luke warmer.


----------



## sparky (May 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Can't bring yourself to simply say skeptics can you?



More the_ players_ & their biases SSDD

They, as well as their _influences_ , should be fairly _obvious_ to anyone on top of the issue

~S~


----------



## sparky (May 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> getting science off a failed tangent and back onto the right path has always been a harder road..



Grabted, our scienecs can be imperical ,  but i see little real hard scientific opposition

Only 'alt science' propaganda , which is not science

thx


~S~


----------



## SSDD (May 20, 2019)

sparky said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > getting science off a failed tangent and back onto the right path has always been a harder road..
> ...



Unfortunately, there isn't much money in skepticism...there never has been and even skeptics have to eat.  That is why it often takes a very long time to get science off its flawed tangents....a very long time indeed.


----------



## sparky (May 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Unfortunately, there isn't much money in skepticism...there never has been and even skeptics have to eat





Polluters are the biggest _skeptics_ , who have a *LOT* to loose ......

Trump buildings face millions in climate fines under new New York rules



> According to data shared with the Guardian, eight Trump properties in New York City do not comply with new regulations designed to slash greenhouse gas emissions. *This means the Trump Organization is on track to be hit with fines of $2.1m every year from 2030,* unless its buildings are made more environmentally friendly.
> 
> According to city officials, the president’s eight largest New York properties pump out around *27,000 tons of planet-warming gases every ear, the equivalent of 5,800 cars*







~S~


----------



## sparky (May 20, 2019)

did someone mention _sheepeople_?





~S~


----------



## cnm (May 20, 2019)

fncceo said:


> I'm more than willing to debate any of the effects of man and nature on the climate. But, I reject the idea that piling huge mountains of money on politicians and bureaucrats is the solution to anything.


Top denial. Kudos.


----------



## Wuwei (May 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> ...and all of you warmers like to say that it emits radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth, but don't seem to be able to provide a measurement of a discrete band of radiation moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface unless you use an instrument that is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...



You have stated that back radiation cannot move to warmer earth many times, but it is a circular argument and contradicts other areas of physic.

You assume your radiation restriction and then say you can only measure radiation with a colder instrument because of the very assumption you are making. It's circular. When back radiation is measured from a cooled instrument you simply brush that off and imply it would disappear if the instrument was not cooled for no given reason.

The idea of radiation exchange is perfectly reasonable and accepted by the entire body of science because it does not contradict other areas of physics and physical measurements.


.


----------



## SSDD (May 20, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ...and all of you warmers like to say that it emits radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth, but don't seem to be able to provide a measurement of a discrete band of radiation moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface unless you use an instrument that is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...
> ...



So which law of physics states that energy moves spontaneously from cool to warm?  In order to contradict a law of physics, there must be one that says as much.  We both know that there is no such law stating any such thing...once again...you are quite wrong and lose again.  

One does not need a cooled instrument to measure discrete frequencies of energy moving from warm objects to cooler objects..even if there is a mere fraction of a degree of difference between the temperature of the warmer object and the cooler object..

You can not measure discrete wavelengths of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object..you can, however measure discrete wavelengths of energy moving from a warmer object to a cooler instrument.  That is the simple fact of it.

And while you may believe the idea of spontaneous energy exchange between objects of different temperatures is perfect reasonable...you can provide no observed, measured examples of any such movement.

In the end, as in the beginning, all you have is a belief in unobservable, ummeasureable, untestable models.


----------



## Wuwei (May 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So which law of physics states that energy moves spontaneously from cool to warm? In order to contradict a law of physics, there must be one that says as much. We both know that there is no such law stating any such thing...once again...you are quite wrong and lose again.


No law forbids radiation exchange by black bodies.



SSDD said:


> One does not need a cooled instrument to measure discrete frequencies of energy moving from warm objects to cooler objects..even if there is a mere fraction of a degree of difference between the temperature of the warmer object and the cooler object..
> 
> You can not measure discrete wavelengths of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object..you can, however measure discrete wavelengths of energy moving from a warmer object to a cooler instrument. That is the simple fact of it.



Cooled instruments are used to enhance the SNR.



SSDD said:


> And while you may believe the idea of spontaneous energy exchange between objects of different temperatures is perfect reasonable...you can provide no observed, measured examples of any such movement.
> 
> In the end, as in the beginning, all you have is a belief in unobservable, ummeasureable, untestable models.



If spontaneous energy exchange does not happen you violate Plank's law, and entropy, among other physical laws. Strict one-way radiation is unobservable and unviable.


.


----------



## Muhammed (May 20, 2019)

Sorry dipshits, we do not enrich greenhouses with carbon dioxide to warm it's climate.


----------



## cnm (May 21, 2019)

Muhammed said:


> Sorry dipshits, we do not enrich greenhouses with carbon dioxide to warm it's climate.


That's the spirit. Kudos to you.


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> No law forbids radiation exchange by black bodies.



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

Which part of that do you think does not forbid spontaneous energy exchange between radiators of different temperatures...We have been through it all before in all its tedium...you keep denying reality in favor of your beliefs...

And since this thread is specifically about the greenhouse hypothesis...there is Planck's law.  It simply is not possible for a body to be warmed by its own radiation because its own radiation does not include the higher frequency amplitudes at every frequency required to cause a higher temperature...so says Planck's law.

By that law, it is not possible for gases to act as a blanket warming the earth because it has no mechanism to increase the frequency amplitudes at every frequency required to cause a higher temperature.

Then there is the completely wrong assumption of the greenhouse hypothesis that energy fluxes are additive.  They are not..Heat fluxes are clearly observed and measured in warming and cooling curves to be functions of the average of the present and maximum temperature at any given point in time.  



Wuwei said:


> Cooled instruments are used to enhance the SNR.



No...cooled instruments are the only way to measure energy moving from a warmer body...but feel free to show me a measurement of a discrete frequency of energy moving from a cooler body to a warmer body...even one that is not as clear as with a cooled instrument...show me a degraded measurement of a discrete frequency of energy moving from a cool body to a warmer body...  Of course you won't be able to because energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm...

We have been through it all before..you keep recycling the same old failed arguments...claiming the same old physical impossibilities...and most importantly, failing to show any measurement of the energy movement you claim exists.



Wuwei said:


> If spontaneous energy exchange does not happen you violate Plank's law, and entropy, among other physical laws. Strict one-way radiation is unobservable and unviable.



Show me equations that suggest a two way energy exchange version of Planck's law.  Again...You won't be able to show any such equations because there are none...been through it all before...you lost then and you loose now...you can show no physical law that states that predicts spontaneous two way energy exchange and you can show no measurement of a discrete frequency of radiation moving spontaneously from a cooler body to a warmer body...

In the end, as in the beginning, you have nothing but belief in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...and such models are not a rational argument when the subject of the argument is something as imminently observable, and measurable as the atmosphere and energy movement through it.


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2019)

cnm said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry dipshits, we do not enrich greenhouses with carbon dioxide to warm it's climate.
> ...



Do you ever have a defense of your position, or are indefensible one liners all you are capable of?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > No law forbids radiation exchange by black bodies.
> ...



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

And yet, you still won't post a source that agrees with your one-way only flow of radiation.
Come on Galileo.


----------



## Wuwei (May 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


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


I agree.



SSDD said:


> And since this thread is specifically about the greenhouse hypothesis...there is Planck's law. It simply is not possible for a body to be warmed by its own radiation because its own radiation does not include the higher frequency amplitudes at every frequency required to cause a higher temperature...so says Planck's law.
> 
> By that law, it is not possible for gases to act as a blanket warming the earth because it has no mechanism to increase the frequency amplitudes at every frequency required to cause a higher temperature.


Plank's law doesn't say that.



SSDD said:


> Then there is the completely wrong assumption of the greenhouse hypothesis that energy fluxes are additive. They are not.


The energy from incoherent radiation sources are additive. Look it up.



SSDD said:


> No...cooled instruments are the only way to measure energy moving from a warmer body...but feel free to show me a measurement of a discrete frequency of energy moving from a cooler body to a warmer body...even one that is not as clear as with a cooled instrument...show me a degraded measurement of a discrete frequency of energy moving from a cool body to a warmer body... Of course you won't be able to because energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm...
> 
> We have been through it all before..you keep recycling the same old failed arguments...claiming the same old physical impossibilities...and most importantly, failing to show any measurement of the energy movement you claim exists.


Yes we have been through this before. The 2.7 K microwave background radiation has been observed to penetrate the much warmer atmosphere of earth. That is the claim of science. I'm only reporting it to you. So you are saying science has a failed argument, but you are wrong.



SSDD said:


> Show me equations that suggest a two way energy exchange version of Planck's law. Again...You won't be able to show any such equations because there are none...been through it all before...you lost then and you loose now...you can show no physical law that states that predicts spontaneous two way energy exchange and you can show no measurement of a discrete frequency of radiation moving spontaneously from a cooler body to a warmer body...
> 
> In the end, as in the beginning, you have nothing but belief in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...and such models are not a rational argument when the subject of the argument is something as imminently observable, and measurable as the atmosphere and energy movement through it.


The SB equation is the basis for deriving a form that shows emission and absorption occur concurrently. All of science accepts that. But you don't. You call it opinion.

We all know your opinion, which violates several laws of physics. We went through all that before.


.


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Plank's law doesn't say that.



Of course it does...let me guess...because a grammar school level explanation is not provided in crayon for you, then in your mind, it is not there...  Look for what results in a temperature decrease, then reverse it if you want to see what results in a temperature increase....typical...

*Planck’s radiation law*, a mathematical relationship formulated in 1900 by German physicist Max Planck to explain the spectral-energy distribution of radiation emitted by a blackbody (a hypothetical body that completely absorbs all radiant energy falling upon it, reaches some equilibrium temperature, and then reemits that energy as quickly as it absorbs it). Planck assumed that the sources of radiation are atoms in a state of oscillation and that the vibrational energy of each oscillator may have any of a series of discrete values but never any value between.* Planck further assumed that when an oscillator changes from a state of energy E1 to a state of lower energy E2, the discrete amount of energy E1 − E2, or quantum of radiation, is equal to the product of the frequency of the radiation, symbolized by the Greek letter ν and a constant h, now called Planck’s constant, that he determined from blackbody radiation data; i.e., E1 − E2 = hν.*



Wuwei said:


> The energy from incoherent radiation sources are additive. Look it up.



Only if the incoherent source is in fact an energy source...energy from a single source being absorbed and emitted additive...if you set a piece of paper in a window sill exposed to the sun, and then turn a heat lamp onto the paper as well, the additional energy coming from the lamp would be additive...energy the paper is emitting can never be an additive used to warm it further.....You either don't have a clue, or you are willing to just make up any manner of bullshit in an attempt to justify your position...



Wuwei said:


> Yes we have been through this before. The 2.7 K microwave background radiation has been observed to penetrate the much warmer atmosphere of earth. That is the claim of science. I'm only reporting it to you. So you are saying science has a failed argument, but you are wrong.



Unfortunate that you can't seem to understand what a resonant radio frequency is...of course, you can't grasp what Planck's law is, and think that a radiators own radiation can be added to it in order to warm it up...you clearly just don't have a clue..



Wuwei said:


> The SB equation is the basis for deriving a form that shows emission and absorption occur concurrently. All of science accepts that. But you don't. You call it opinion.



No it isn't and the SB law suggests nothing of the sort...the SB law is speaking to a theoretical perfect black body in a perfect vacuum...exactly what would it be exchanging energy with?  Once more...just making shit up as you go..



Wuwei said:


> We all know your opinion, which violates several laws of physics. We went through all that before.



I keep asking which laws and you don't seem to be able to come up with one...and the ones that you do mention clearly don't support your claims..  Again...just making shit up as you go...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Plank's law doesn't say that.
> ...



Thanks!

* a blackbody (a hypothetical body that completely absorbs all radiant energy falling upon it, reaches some equilibrium temperature, and then reemits that energy as quickly as it absorbs it). *

Reemits as quickly as it absorbs? 

Sounds like we can add Planck's radiation law to the list of modern physics that disagrees with you.


----------



## Wuwei (May 21, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Reemits as quickly as it absorbs?


He shot himself in the foot again.


----------



## Wuwei (May 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Of course it does...let me guess...because a grammar school level explanation is not provided in crayon for you, then in your mind, it is not there... Look for what results in a temperature decrease, then reverse it if you want to see what results in a temperature increase....typical...
> 
> *Planck’s radiation law*, a mathematical relationship formulated in 1900 by German physicist Max Planck to explain the spectral-energy distribution of radiation emitted by a blackbody (a hypothetical body that completely absorbs all radiant energy falling upon it, reaches some equilibrium temperature, and then reemits that energy as quickly as it absorbs it). Planck assumed that the sources of radiation are atoms in a state of oscillation and that the vibrational energy of each oscillator may have any of a series of discrete values but never any value between.* Planck further assumed that when an oscillator changes from a state of energy E1 to a state of lower energy E2, the discrete amount of energy E1 − E2, or quantum of radiation, is equal to the product of the frequency of the radiation, symbolized by the Greek letter ν and a constant h, now called Planck’s constant, that he determined from blackbody radiation data; i.e., E1 − E2 = hν*



Plank is referring to a plethora of atoms with a plethora of discrete energy levels. The sentence you bold faced is saying that the atoms are continually changing energy levels and he derived a relation between a drop in a single molecules energy and the output frequency of the photon. You do not understand what he is saying in the bold face sentence. Look up ultraviolet catastrophe. You cannot get the complete picture of what Planck did from Encyclopedia Britannica!!!



SSDD said:


> Only if the incoherent source is in fact an energy source...energy from a single source being absorbed and emitted additive...if you set a piece of paper in a window sill exposed to the sun, and then turn a heat lamp onto the paper as well, the additional energy coming from the lamp would be additive...energy the paper is emitting can never be an additive used to warm it further.....You either don't have a clue, or you are willing to just make up any manner of bullshit in an attempt to justify your position.


Nobody that understands just a little about science has said that anything can warm itself with its own radiation. Absolutely nobody.



SSDD said:


> Unfortunate that you can't seem to understand what a resonant radio frequency is...of course, you can't grasp what Planck's law is, and think that a radiators own radiation can be added to it in order to warm it up...you clearly just don't have a clue..


You are lying again and you know it.



SSDD said:


> No it isn't and the SB law suggests nothing of the sort...the SB law is speaking to a theoretical perfect black body in a perfect vacuum...exactly what would it be exchanging energy with? Once more...just making shit up as you go..


You are trashing 150 years of science and blaming it on me??!!



SSDD said:


> I keep asking which laws and you don't seem to be able to come up with one...and the ones that you do mention clearly don't support your claims.. Again...just making shit up as you go.


You are lying again. Absolutely lying.


.


----------



## toobfreak (May 21, 2019)

There are changes unquestionably afoot.  Problem is that such changes have always been going on long before man was around!  To what degree man is playing a part can be debated, history shows that 99% of the time, we get it wrong anyway and like Flacc, I'm loathe to think it is the end of the world.  Just change.

When I was a kid they were saying the exact OPPOSITE;  what makes them more right now?  Unquestionably there will be another ice age sometime in the geologic future, maybe a hundred years or 50,000 years we don't know.  Meantime, I'm in the Mid-Atlantic and our winters have been pretty mild for a few years.  Here it is mid-May and all of April and May so far has almost entirely been COOL!  50s and 60s!  Today's high is 64°.  If this is catastrophic runaway global warming, I'll take it.


----------



## cnm (May 21, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> When I was a kid they were saying the exact OPPOSITE;


Yeah yeah. That's good denial too.






The 1970s Global Cooling Zombie Myth and the Tricks Some People Use to Keep it Alive, Part I


----------



## Wuwei (May 21, 2019)

cnm said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > When I was a kid they were saying the exact OPPOSITE;
> ...


Interesting. I traced that back to a government site which gives a larger more readable graph about halfway down the page on the right margin.
National Climate Assessment


.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


The NCA is a Karl Et Al pile of crap. It is based on faulty modeling and wild ass assumptions.


----------



## toobfreak (May 21, 2019)

cnm said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > When I was a kid they were saying the exact OPPOSITE;
> ...



Oddly enough, despite what your hack sites CLAIM, I grew up in the 1960s and 1970s and that is all we heard on magazines like Time, National Geographic, on television, newspapers, etc.  I cannot ONCE remember ever hearing anyone claim that the Earth was going to turn into a hot, barren desert.  But what would I know having LIVED it.  It wasn't until MANY years later that we started hearing of global warming.


----------



## cnm (May 21, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


Excellent denial. Kudos.

Btw, is this from a 'hack site'?

https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/sites/report/files/images/web-small/Figure-18-small.jpg


----------



## toobfreak (May 21, 2019)

cnm said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...




Yep.  No data to say WHO compiled it, HOW they did it, or that there is any credibility to their claims, especially considering their name suggests a bias.  I can create a chart that looks better and say the OPPOSITE.  I lived that period.  No denial possible.  All we heard about was the coming ice age.  Sorry if that FACT doesn't comport with your desires.


----------



## Sunsettommy (May 21, 2019)

cnm said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > When I was a kid they were saying the exact OPPOSITE;
> ...



The same lie you so easily swallowed from SS, since there were plenty of evidence that from the 1940's to the 1970's of a COOLING world, a world that saw increasing snow and ice, a world of declining temperatures.

285 Papers 70s Cooling 1

Examples:

Stewart and Glantz, 1985

“The conclusions of the NDU study might have been predicted from a knowledge of the prevailing ‘spirit of the times’ (i.e., *the prevailing mood in the science community*) when the first part was conducted. This was an interesting time in recent history of climate studies. One could effectively argue that* in the early 1970s the prevailing view was that the earth was moving toward a new ice age. Many articles appeared in the scientific literature as well as in the popular press speculating about the impact on agriculture of a 1-2°C cooling.* By the late 1970s that prevailing view had seemingly shifted 180 degrees to the belief that the earth’s atmosphere was being warmed as a result of an increasing CO2 loading of the atmosphere.  … *The causes of global climate change remain in dispute.  Existing theories of climate, atmospheric models, and actuarial experience are inadequate to meet the needs of policymakers for information about future climate*.”

and,

*Kukla, 1972*     Climatic changes result from variables in planetary orbits which modulate solar energy emission and change seasonal and latitudinal distribution of heat received by the Earth. Small insolation changes are multiplied by the albedo effect of the winter snow fields of the Northern Hemisphere, by ocean-atmosphere feedbacks, and, probably, by the stratospheric ozone layer. The role of volcanic explosions and other aperiodic phenomena is secondary. The immediate climate response to insolation trends permits astronomic dating of Pleistocene events. *A new glacial insolation regime, expected to last 8000 years, began just recently. Mean global temperatures may eventually drop about 1oC in the next hundred years*. A refinement of the Milankovitch theory in terms of the lunar orbit and more data on solar periodicities are needed for reliable long range predictions.

and,

*Ellsaesser , 1974     Has man, through increasing emissions of particulates, changed the climate?    *It is estimated that *man now contributes 13.6% of the 3.5 x 109 tons of primary and secondary particulates presently emitted to the atmosphere annually*. …  [W]hile an anthropogenic upward trend in airborne particulates existed in the past, it was halted and may even have been reversed over the past few decades.  … *The 1968 AAAS Symposium on Global Effects of Environmental Pollution initiated a flood of papers supporting monotonically if not exponentially increasing pollution. The particulate increases were usually cited as at least contributing to the post 1940 cooling and possibly capable of bringing on another ice age*.

and,

*Cimorelli and House, 1974*     Aside from such long-term changes, there is also evidence which indicates climate changes occurring in contemporary history. Mitchell (1971) among others, claims that during the last century a systematic fluctuation of global climate is revealed by meteorological data. He states that *between 1880 and 1940 a net warming of about 0.6°C occurred, and from 1940 to the present our globe experienced a net cooling of 0.3°C*. …

and,

* Agee, 1980     Evidence has been presented and discussed to show a cooling trend over the Northern Hemisphere since around 1940, amounting to over 0.5°C, due primarily to cooling at mid- and high latitudes. Some regions of the middle latitudes have actually warmed while others, such as the central and eastern United States, have experienced sharp cooling. A representative station for this latter region is Lafayette, Ind., which has recorded a drop of 2.2°C in its mean annual temperature from 1940 through 1978. The cooling trend for the Northern Hemisphere has been associated with an increase of both the latitudinal gradient of temperature and the lapse rate, as predicted by climate models with decreased solar input and feedback mechanisms. … Observations and interpretation of sunspot activity have been used to infer a direct thermal response of terrestrial temperature to solar variability on the time scale of the Gleissberg cycle (∼90 years, an amplitude of the 11-year cycles). Measurements at the Greenwich Observatory and the Kitt Peak National Observatory, as well as other supportive information and arguments, are presented to hypothesize a physical link between the sunspot activity and the solar parameter. On the time scale of the Gleissberg cycle when the mean annual sunspot number exceeds 50 it is proposed that global cooling may be initiated due to the decreased insolation. This is also supported by umbral-to-penumbral ratios computed and interpreted by Hoyt (1979a).*





and many more HERE

There was also a lot of Media talking about the well known COOLING of the 1960's and 1970's:

1970s Global Cooling Alarmism 

excerpt:

*"The scientists and computers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration were confidently predicting that the frigid weather would continue. The chilling pronouncement of NOAA's senior climatologist: 'The forecast is for no change.' "*
- Time Magazine, 1977

During the 1970s the media promoted global cooling alarmism with dire threats of a new ice age. Extreme weather events were hyped as signs of the coming apocalypse and man-made pollution was blamed as the cause. Environmental extremists called for everything from outlawing the internal combustion engine to communist style population controls.

e.g. "Pollution Prospect A Chilling One" (_The Argus-Press, January 26, 1970_)

======================================================================================

There were plenty of evidence to show that there was a lot of observation of a real cooling going on in those days,* I personally witnessed it as a Teenager,* read some of the Literature of the day on it.

What you posted was lies and it is so obvious when a simple search finds a lot of contrary evidence.


----------



## cnm (May 21, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Time Magazine, 1977


Yes. A magazine.


----------



## toobfreak (May 21, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...





I knew I wasn't lying or crazy, Tommy.  We used to have freezing cold and snow like all getout.  My father had such big piles of snow along the driveway, they were over his head and we used to dig them out and make igloo clubhouses inside.

And snowmen?  The biggest and best.  In just a few feet we'd have balls of snow too big to lift or push.  And it was snowing almost every day.  It was a great time for a kid.


----------



## cnm (May 21, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Yep. No data to say WHO compiled it, HOW they did it, or that there is any credibility to their claims, especially considering their name suggests a bias.


I guess you didn't go to the source I linked. No worries, that's all part of denial. Kudos.

_Ten years ago, Thomas Peterson, William Connolley and John Fleck published a paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society which looked back at the climate science of the 1970s: "The Myth of the Global Cooling Scientific Consensus" (hereafter called PCF08). The goal of the paper was to look at the peer-reviewed literature of the time to see what scientists were saying about the future projections of climate. In the decades since the 1970s, some "skeptics" of global warming/climate change have made claims that "all the scientists" in the 1970s were predicting "global cooling" or an "imminent ice age". But, the PCF08 survey of papers from 1965 to 1979 showed that while there were some concerns about future "cooling", especially at the beginning of the time period, there were many more concerns about future warming caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide.
The 1970s Global Cooling Zombie Myth and the Tricks Some People Use to Keep it Alive, Part I_​


----------



## toobfreak (May 21, 2019)

cnm said:


> I guess you didn't go to the source I linked. No worries, that's all part of denial. Kudos.


Yes I did.  You linked me to this shitty little picture.
https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/sites/report/files/images/web-small/Figure-18-small.jpg
You are the only one in denial Tard.  I LIVED THEN.  Haven't heard you say you did.  There were ZERO stories of global warming, idiot.  Deny that.
Then deny THIS:
285 Papers 70s Cooling 1

TARDS DIE HARD


----------



## Sunsettommy (May 21, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > I guess you didn't go to the source I linked. No worries, that's all part of denial. Kudos.
> ...



He IS an idiot, who completely ignored a few PUBLISHED papers I posted as examples. He is a warmist cultist who doesn't know when to stop making a fool of himself here.

Here is some more PUBLISHED papers he will ignore:

*Gribbin, 1975     A recent flurry of papers has provided further evidence for the belief that the Earth is cooling*. There now seems to be little doubt that changes over the past few years are more than a minor statistical fluctuation. … On page 45 of this issue of _Nature_, Wahl and Bryson compare recent sea surface temperature patterns with those of cooler regimes in the past, and conclude that* over the period from 1951 to 1972 there was a decline corresponding “to a return of about one-sixth of the way to full ice age.”* … *The observed cooling corresponds to a re-establishment of the ‘Little Ice Age’* which persisted for several hundred years up to the end of the nineteenth century; it may be that all that has happened since 1950 is that the unusually mild spell of the first part of this century has ended.

and,

*NOAA, 1974*     In the Sahelian zone of Africa south of the Sahara, the countries of Chad, The Gambia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, and Upper Volta are enduring a drought that in some areas has been going on for more than six years now, following some 40 previous years of abundant monsoon rainfall. And the drought is spreading—eastward into Ehtiopia and southward into Dahomey, Egypt, Guinea, Kenya, Nigeria, Somalia, Tanzania, and Zaire. … *Many climatologists have associated this drought and other recent weather anomalies with a global cooling trend *and changes in atmospheric circulation which, if prolonged, pose serious threats to major food-producing regions of the world. … *Annual average temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere increased rather dramatically from about 1890 through 1940, but have been falling ever since. The total change has averaged about one-half degree Centigrade, with the greatest cooling in higher latitudes*. A drop of only one or two degrees Centigrade in the annual average temperature at higher latitudes can shorten the growing season so that some crops have to be abandoned. … [T]he average growing season in England is already two weeks shorter than it was before 1950. Since the late 1950’s, Iceland’s hay crop yield has dropped about 25 percent, while pack ice in waters around Iceland and Greenland ports is becoming the hazard to navigation it was during the 17th and 18th centuries. … *Some climatologists think that if the current cooling trend continues, drought will occur more frequently in India—indeed, through much of Asia, the world’s hungriest continent*. … *Some climatologists think that the present cooling trend may be the start of a slide into another period of major glaciation, popularly called an *“*ice age*.”

and,

*Wahl, 1968*     A comparison of climatic data for the eastern United States from the *1830’s and 1840’s* with the currently valid climatic normals indicates a distinctly cooler and, in some areas, wetter climate in the first half of the last century. *The recently appearing trend to cooler conditions noticed here and elsewhere could be indicative of a return to the climatic character of those earlier years* [1830s, 1840s]. … This penultimate climatic episode, called the “Neoboreal” by Baerreis and Bryson (1965) and also* frequently referred to as the “Little Ice Age”* (Brooks, 1951) apparently started during the middle of the 16th century at a time of glacial advances both in Europe and North America. It continued as a distinctly cooler, and, in some regions, wetter period well into the 19th century. Following it was a warming trend that between 1880 and 1940 to 1950 became quite pronounced in very many regions of the Northern Hemisphere. *During the last two decades there appears to be some evidence that this warming trend of the last 100 yr. has changed over recently to a distinct new deterioration of the climate, leading to conditions that in the 1960’s appear to approach those which were generally found around the turn of the century or even earlier, i.e. a return to the climatic character of the 19th century *… A downward trend of the mean temperature, especially in early fall, will tend to *increase the likelihood of early frosts* (such as Wisconsin experienced in 1965 with some killing frost in lowlands on July 6) and thus *may require changes in agricultural practices*. One should not forget that an average decrease in mean monthly averages of about 4° is equivalent to a displacement of the isotherms by about 4° latitude or 250 to 300 mi., or to reaching a certain temperature threshold about 10 days earlier in fall.

Connolly never saw these papers because he is a dishonest jackass!


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Funny the way you guys just make up crap as you go and I suppose, believe it because you said it.

Is the fact that the SB law speaks to a theoretical black body in a theoretically perfect vacuum to difficult for you to grasp?  Apparently it must be.


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Reemits as quickly as it absorbs?
> ...




Guess you don't grasp the significance of the fact that the SB law speaks to a theoretical perfect black body in a theoretically perfect vacuum either...you to were made for each other...you both just make it up as you go then agree with each other...


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Plank is referring to a plethora of atoms with a plethora of discrete energy levels. The sentence you bold faced is saying that the atoms are continually changing energy levels and he derived a relation between a drop in a single molecules energy and the output frequency of the photon. You do not understand what he is saying in the bold face sentence. Look up ultraviolet catastrophe. You cannot get the complete picture of what Planck did from Encyclopedia Britannica!!!



And in order for the temperature to change...all must either increase or decrease frequency amplitudes...sorry guy...



Wuwei said:


> Nobody that understands just a little about science has said that anything can warm itself with its own radiation. Absolutely nobody.



Correct..and yet, that is the basis of the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...

From the IPCC:  
FAQ 1.3 - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science

Clip:   Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, *but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the plane*t.

They couldn't say it any more clearly....the claim is that energy radiating from the surface of the earth is absorbed and re radiated back to the surface of the earth and that energy that originated from the surface of the earth then warms the surface of the earth.  The claim is that the earth is warmed by reabsorbing its own radiation.  Now you may have a different version...since all of you warmers seem to have your own version...but that is the mainstream version endorsed by climate science..and describes the magical process that would be necessary in order for a radiative greenhouse effect to exist..



Wuwei said:


> You are lying again and you know it.



Interesting that you think the truth is a lie...



SSDD said:


> You are trashing 150 years of science and blaming it on me??!!



The SB law says what it says...and no part of what it says supports what you claim it says...and as I said, modern science is in the throes of a reproducibility crisis because of a belief in models over reality.



SSDD said:


> You are lying again. Absolutely lying.



So which physical law(s) predict back radiation?...Which physical law(s) predict that energy can move spontaneously between objects of different temperatures?


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2019)

cnm said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > When I was a kid they were saying the exact OPPOSITE;
> ...



You are very easily fooled...you might start with a temperature reconstruction that has not been tortured into supporting a lie.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*Funny the way you guys just make up crap as you go and I suppose, believe it because you said it.*

That portion of what you posted was made up?

*Is the fact that the SB law speaks to a theoretical black body in a theoretically perfect vacuum to difficult for you to grasp? *

Not at all. Where does it say that bodies at equilibrium stop emitting?
Where does it say bodies dial down their emissions according to the unknowable temperature of nearby bodies? Nowhere? Must be your grasp that's failing.


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2019)

cnm said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...



So easily fooled...are you a dupe or do you just want to be fooled?






https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

Clip:   “[T]he temperature in the* Northern Hemisphere decreased by about 0.5°C between 1940 and 1970*, a time of rapid CO2 buildup.  …  *Northern latitudes warmed ~ 0.8°C between the 1880’s and 1940, then cooled – 0.5°C between 1940 and 1970*.”






Carbon dioxide and its role in climate change

Clip:   “*In the period from 1880 to 1940, the mean temperature of the earth increased about 0.6°C; from 1940 to 1970, it decreased by 0.3-0.4°C*.”


https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750020489.pdf

Clip:    “*etween 1880 and 1940 a net warming of about 0.6°C occurred, and from 1940 to the present our globe experienced a net cooling of 0.3°C.”


From the National Academy of Science....

Full text of "Understanding climatic change"

 “Starr and Oort (1973) have reported that, during the period 1958-1963, the hemisphere’s (mass-weighted) mean temperature decreased by about 0.6 °C. …   Since the 1940’s, mean temperatures have declined and are now nearly halfway back to the 1880 levels. … There seems little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate … [T]here is a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the earth within the next hundred years. …  [A]s each 100 years passes, we have perhaps a 5 percent greater chance of encountering its [the next glacial’s] onset.”


NOAA, 1974

Clip:  “Many climatologists have associated this drought and other recent weather anomalies with a global cooling trend and changes in atmospheric circulation which, if prolonged, pose serious threats to major food-producing regions of the world. … Annual average temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere increased rather dramatically from about 1890 through 1940, but have been falling ever since. The total change has averaged about one-half degree Centigrade, with the greatest cooling in higher latitudes.”
“[T]he average growing season in England is already two weeks shorter than it was before 1950. Since the late 1950’s, Iceland’s hay crop yield has dropped about 25 percent, while pack ice in waters around Iceland and Greenland ports is becoming the hazard to navigation it was during the 17th and 18th centuries. … Some climatologists think that if the current cooling trend continues, drought will occur more frequently in India—indeed, through much of Asia, the world’s hungriest continent. … Some climatologists think that the present cooling trend may be the start of a slide into another period of major glaciation, popularly called an ‘ice age’.”


Here is the degree to which the temperature record has been altered in an attempt to make the ice age scare disappear...






Here are just some of the more than 300 papers that were published that had concerns about the cooling trend...

Kukla, 1972
U.S. Central Intelligence Agency,1974 
Ellsaesser, 1975
Agee, 1980
Benton, 1970
Hare, 1971
Gribbin, 1975
Ellsaesser , 1974
Flohn, 1974
Stewart and Glantz, 1985
Curry, 1969
Denton and Karlén, 1977
Denton and Karlén, 1973
Potter et al., 1981
Brinkmann, 1979
Wright, 1972
Robock, 1978
Magill, 1980
Bryson and Wendland, 1975
Skeeter, 1985 
Hoffert and Flannery, 1985
Schneider, 1974
Bradley and Miller, 1972
Collis, 1975
Haber, 1974
Ghil, 1975
Wahl, 1968
Eichenlaub, 1970
Budyko, 1969
Hughs, 1970
Fletcher, 1970
Thompson, 1975
Fletcher, 1968
Schneider, 1978
Sanchez and Kutzbach, 1974
Hansen et al., 1981
Moran and Morgan, 1977
Gates, 1976
Andrews et al., 1972
Potter et al., 1975
Allen et al., 1976
Ya-feng et al., 1978
Ložek, 1972

And there are plenty more...you can believe your opinion pieces, and all the attempts to make the ice age scare disappear, but the literature is still out there and it tells a very different story than the one you believe...*


----------



## Wuwei (May 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



This is the quote Tod pointed out from your source contradicting what you just said. Read the last line several times. If that isn't shooting yourself in the foot (metaphorically) I don't know what is.

*a blackbody (a hypothetical body that completely absorbs all radiant energy falling upon it, reaches some equilibrium temperature, and then reemits that energy as quickly as it absorbs it). *​


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 21, 2019)

sparky said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately, there isn't much money in skepticism...there never has been and even skeptics have to eat
> ...


Oh look...  Sparkys drinking from the toilet bowl again...

How did the projects your fine  mayor built and manage work out?  rat infested... refused to fix elevators... refuse to fix plumbing and structures...  That's you idiots vision for New York....


----------



## IanC (May 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...




I recommend that everyone reads the second link labeled CIA.

I started a thread about it years ago. It warns against a plethora of ills that could befall the world due to global cooling. I leave it to the reader to decide whether the list is different than the ills that are being blamed on global warming.


----------



## IanC (May 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Clip: Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, *but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the plane*t.
> 
> They couldn't say it any more clearly....the claim is that energy radiating from the surface of the earth is absorbed and re radiated back to the surface of the earth and that energy that originated from the surface of the earth then warms the surface of the earth. The claim is that the earth is warmed by reabsorbing its own radiation. Now you may have a different version...since all of you warmers seem to have your own version...but that is the mainstream version endorsed by climate science..and describes the magical process that would be necessary in order for a radiative greenhouse effect to exist..



I agree that the wording is atrocious. What does the word 'much' apply to?


----------



## Wuwei (May 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> And in order for the temperature to change...all must either increase or decrease frequency amplitudes...sorry guy...


Frequency amplitudes? You have to be more clear than that. 


SSDD said:


> From the IPCC:
> FAQ 1.3 - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
> 
> Clip: Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, *but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the plane*t.
> ...



I agree that wording is very sloppy. It is a preface in italic geared toward high school level. So apparently they dumbed it down. In the diagram at the bottom of that site they were slightly better, but still off.

The rest of your post is the usual profession that you don't believe the physics ofthe last 150 years.


.


----------



## Wuwei (May 21, 2019)

IanC said:


> I recommend that everyone reads the second link labeled CIA.


They were close on the population but they didn't predict big agriculture and better agriculture technology. Sounds like an echo of Malthus from 1798.


----------



## IanC (May 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I recommend that everyone reads the second link labeled CIA.
> ...



Sorry. I made an assumption that it was the same CIA paper. 

You know what they say about when you assume. Hahahahaha


----------



## IanC (May 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I recommend that everyone reads the second link labeled CIA.
> ...




I bumped the original thread for you.


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Clip: Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, *but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the plane*t.
> ...



_" Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed.................."_

The wording describes the hypothesis precisely...it is the hypothesis itself that is atrocious.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 21, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> *No one wants to wade thru the same fillibustering arguments that atmospheric physics and the GHouse effect is all wrong.*.


Unless we comply with "your" position we are now all labeled 'deniers' just by posting in your thread.

It is sad that you took this approach to label those with whom you disagree... This is a step used by people who can not stand to have their positions debated. I have personally done work in atmospheric physics that disproves the current GHG hypothesis. But as with many others here, it has always resulted in name calling when the orthodoxy is questioned.

So.. 

Tell me what the energy transfer rate of the atmosphere is to 100 meters. (In a 10% humidity, incoming SR at 1365w/m^2@TOA, clear sky, from sand and at sea level pressure of 1 atmosphere.) Radiated from sand @12um-16um. Radiated from sand at 10m increments.

Then tell what the energy transfer rate of the atmosphere is to 100 meters.(In a 60% humidity, incoming SR at 1365w/m^2@TOA, clear sky, from sand and at sea level pressure of 1 atmosphere.) Radiated from sand @12um-16um. Radiated from sand at 10m increments.

Run each experiment for 24 hours tracking temperature every 15 min. Then calculate the down-welling rate of incoming radiation and out going LWIR.

A simple experiment in the deserts of the world easily disprove the CO2 monster hypothesis and prove that water vapor is the primary regulator. CO2 is a bit player and nothing more, as its ability to reflect energy or lost to collision is so high that very little is ever re-emitted towards the earth. Even the IPCC, in their latest assessment, agrees that CO2's LOG of expected warming by the gas alone is 2 times higher than what we have seen empirically and they have lowered their 'climate sensitivity' numbers again. 0.0-0.6 Deg C/Doubling

No Atmospheric hot spot is present, so your belief in the hypothesis that requires one is ill advised.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> First, I have never said that there was no greenhouse effect...I have said that there is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...second, I have never said that CO2 is not a so called greenhouse gas and have certainly never said that it doesn't absorb and emit radiation...and all of you warmers like to say that it emits radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth, but don't seem to be able to provide a measurement of a discrete band of radiation moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface unless you use an instrument that is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...



Well as MANY qualified folks have tried to explain to you, the way radiative heat transfer occurs the photons don't get to CHOOSE "a cooler object" to take off after. They radiate as a function of the geometry of the solid or gaseous layer.. Which means -- if you model the atmos as a slab -- about 1/2 will go up and 1/2 will go down.. 

No law of Thermo is broken.. Since the warmer object (like the SURFACE of the Earth) always LOSES more photons to the cooler object (which is the sky).. You just cant' abide that SOME have travel towards the warmer object to equalize this exchange out.. 


SSDD said:


> That last part isn't a theory...hell it is barely hypothesis and a piss poor one at that...the fact that you warmers don't like to admit is that there has not been a single peer reviewed, published paper in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gases...What sort of "solid" theory can't even point to a single published paper containing empirical data in its support?



I've personally cover that base with you about 3 times now.. Citing MULTIPLE studies where INDEED the LW radiation (at night preferably) has been measured from the sky.. Where you squirm after that is INSISTING that NONE of their devices WORK correctly.. And the measurements are just bogus.. 

Same thing when I take my Home Depot laser guided IR photometer in my hot little hands and TELL you I'm reading photons from the window sill leaking cold air at 56DegF... It's an "equipment malfunction" to you.. So this whole affair just keeps getting re-asserted and re-adjucated over and over and over again. 

Needs it's own stage... Cant be doing this in threads about Arctic Sea ice or NOAA cooking the books...


----------



## flacaltenn (May 21, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Unless we comply with "your" position we are now all labeled 'deniers' just by posting in your thread.
> 
> It is sad that you took this approach to label those with whom you disagree... This is a step used by people who can not stand to have their positions debated. I have personally done work in atmospheric physics that disproves the current GHG hypothesis. But as with many others here, it has always resulted in name calling when the orthodoxy is questioned.



You see anyone debating harder on the facts and science in this forum?? Not shying from a damn thing.. I'm called a denier as well.. But at least I'm not misconstruing basic physics to do assert what I do... Or inventing new implementations of the GHouse theory that are yet to be published in any textbook...


----------



## flacaltenn (May 21, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> No Atmospheric hot spot is present, so your belief in the hypothesis that requires one is ill advised.



Have no idea what relevance this has to denying that CO2 plays NO ROLE in GHouse theory.. This is whole separate enchilada...



Billy_Bob said:


> Tell me what the energy transfer rate of the atmosphere is to 100 meters. (In a 10% humidity, incoming SR at 1365w/m^2@TOA, clear sky, from sand and at sea level pressure of 1 atmosphere.) Radiated from sand @12um-16um. Radiated from sand at 10m increments.
> 
> Then tell what the energy transfer rate of the atmosphere is to 100 meters.(In a 60% humidity, incoming SR at 1365w/m^2@TOA, clear sky, from sand and at sea level pressure of 1 atmosphere.) Radiated from sand @12um-16um. Radiated from sand at 10m increments.
> 
> Run each experiment for 24 hours tracking temperature every 15 min. Then calculate the down-welling rate of incoming radiation and out going LWIR.



Why would I have to run those readings every 15 minutes for 24 hours??  Would be BETTER done in a desert AT NIGHT with no down-dwelling solar IR...  And then compared over YEARS to find a signature that changes with changing CO2 concentration.. Which is where you probably GOT all this isn't it??

A New Metric to Detect CO2 Greenhouse Effect  Applied To Some New Mexico Weather Data

Yes.. In a desert, clouds and humidity dominant.. Is that surprising to you? 

And why am I measuring incoming solar radiation to validate the GreenHouse effect again??  The earth has a S-Boltzman temperature and a known LWIRed distribution.. That's good enough for me...


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 22, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > No Atmospheric hot spot is present, so your belief in the hypothesis that requires one is ill advised.
> ...


You are validating the incoming rate of energy. As the sun sets you are validating the energy escape rate. The only difference in the atmosphere is the water vapor content. All other components are the same to include CO2 levels.

Using the incoming energy vs the out going energy you can determine the rate of  energy exchange. In the dry atmosphere the ratio is near 1/1.20.  For each one hour of incoming SR it takes one point two  hours to escape. This means the CO2 back radiation is near zero. Air movement is free flowing in vertical axis and LWIR is unimpeded and energy convected/conducted is moved rapidly, thus cooling is rapid.

In a wet atmosphere the incoming SR ratio is 1-1.8.  For each one hour of incoming SR it takes one point eight hours for that same energy to escape. Again the CO2 back radiation is near zero and the MASS of the atmosphere has changed slowing the incoming as well as the out going energy. You have less energy in and less energy out. The vertical axis is slowed by water vapor absorption (conduction and convection), slowing the cooling process.

This is why in a desert at about 2 hours after sun up the temp can soar to 110 degrees and remain there until sun down, where it will drop rapidly to below freezing within about 2 hours.  Yet when it is moist it will only warm to 90 degrees after three or four hours and remain warmer after sun down for 4-6 hours before fully cooling off. 

This can be wholly attributed to mass of the atmosphere.

Dr David Evans used the ERBE Satellite to measure the rates of warming and cooling. He found that as energy increased hitting the earth the LWIR out bound increase linearly.  The earth sheds energy in direct relation to the incoming energy received. If CO2 were creating a hot spot this would not be linear.

Without knowing how much energy you are receiving you can not know if the energy leaving is linearly coupled.  Dr Evans proved it was.  S-Boltzman has some issues...  Not knowing your input makes your GHG pontifications SWAG.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 22, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Dr David Evans used the ERBE Satellite to measure the rates of warming and cooling. He found that as energy increased hitting the earth the LWIR out bound increase linearly. The earth sheds energy in direct relation to the incoming energy received. If CO2 were creating a hot spot this would not be linear.



This is sheer goobly-gook.... Not the UNsurprising fact that more solar irradiation creates more LWIR outbound from the surface.. Don't know WHY this amazes you... The earth has a mean equilibrium surface temperature.. THAT is what dictates the amount of LWIR just like S-Boltzman...

The GOOK is the part of about the absence of hot spot.. Shows you don't understand the argument about what the Hot Spot should look like IF it were prominent and existing.. Has nothing to DO with the global avg exchange of LWIR between surface and atmosphere PLANET-WIDE....

Here's a CLUE below as to why this hot spot deal doesn't affect the GENERAL discussion of back-rad or GH effect... 

And BTW -- papers published SINCE 2015 claim to find this LIMITED TROPICAL hot spot about once every other year... 




From Dr. Roy Spencer... 

*New Satellite Upper Troposphere Product: Still No Tropical “Hotspot”*
May 21st, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
One of the most vivid predictions of global warming theory is a “hotspot” in the tropical upper troposphere, where increased tropical convection responding to warming sea surface temperatures (SSTs) is supposed to cause enhanced warming in the upper troposphere.

The trouble is that radiosonde (weather ballons) and satellites have failed to show evidence of a hotspot forming in recent decades. Instead, upper tropospheric warming approximately the same as surface warming has been observed.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 22, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Dr David Evans used the ERBE Satellite to measure the rates of warming and cooling. He found that as energy increased hitting the earth the LWIR out bound increase linearly. The earth sheds energy in direct relation to the incoming energy received. If CO2 were creating a hot spot this would not be linear.
> ...



I will leave you to your fantasy...  

The coupled rate of input to output disproves AGW at its heart.  IF CO2 was doing as you suggest and the current GHG hypothesis compels,  a mid tropospheric hotspot must manifest itself and the I/O ratio would not be coupled.  Basic Physics ... And Dr Evans did it planet wide finding the same result.

I refuse to deny science like many of you.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 22, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> The coupled rate of input to output disproves AGW at its heart. IF CO2 was doing as you suggest and the current GHG hypothesis compels, a mid tropospheric hotspot must manifest itself and the I/O ratio would not be coupled. Basic Physics ... And Dr Evans did it planet wide finding the same result.



Did you read my HINT?? before you further dig the hole??  The entire "hot spot" thing is a phenomenon ONLY EXPECTED in a LIMITED AREA of the TROPICS?? 

How does that have ANYTHING TO DO with disproving GHouse theory? 

And WTF is a "coupled I/O ratio"??? 

There's only an OUTBOUND LWIR heat transfer and a layer of atmosphere that RETARDS IT... Works 24 hours a day humidity or not. In places INCLUDING the tropics...


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Well as MANY qualified folks have tried to explain to you, the way radiative heat transfer occurs the photons don't get to CHOOSE "a cooler object" to take off after. They radiate as a function of the geometry of the solid or gaseous layer.. Which means -- if you model the atmos as a slab -- about 1/2 will go up and 1/2 will go down..



Who ever said anything about "choosing" other than you warmers who use that as an argument ad absurdum in an attempt to deflect.  It is you warmers who seem to think that energy must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics...Apparently you think rocks choose to fall down, etc etc etc because they do obey the laws of physics...



flacaltenn said:


> No law of Thermo is broken.. Since the warmer object (like the SURFACE of the Earth) always LOSES more photons to the cooler object (which is the sky).. You just cant' abide that SOME have travel towards the warmer object to equalize this exchange out..



So says the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models and as far as I can tell, no physical law predicts spontaneous energy exchange between objects of different temperatures...and there certainly is no measurement of any such spontaneous energy movement...  You claim that this mysterious, unobservable energy exchange balances out with, and looks identical to the same situation with no magical spontaneous two way energy exchange, but somehow this thing that has the same net effect as no energy exchange drives the climate of the globe...  It is a failure of rational thinking on your part...not mine.



SSDD said:


> I've personally cover that base with you about 3 times now.. Citing MULTIPLE studies where INDEED the LW radiation (at night preferably) has been measured from the sky.. Where you squirm after that is INSISTING that NONE of their devices WORK correctly.. And the measurements are just bogus..



All you have shown, about 3 times now is how easily you are fooled by instrumentation.  You provide measurements that are supposedly of down dwelling radiation made with a f'ing pyrogeometer...the only thing that instrument is measuring is the amount of and rate of temperature change in an internal thermopile...and that measurement is then run through a formula that assumes downward radiation...you could just as easily install software that converts the temperature change within the thermopile to the amount of fairy dust raining down from the sky, or the presence of unicorns....

If you want to claim that downward radiation is being measured, then lets see a measurement of a discrete wavelength moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth with an instrument that is not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...



flacaltenn said:


> Same thing when I take my Home Depot laser guided IR photometer in my hot little hands and TELL you I'm reading photons from the window sill leaking cold air at 56DegF... It's an "equipment malfunction" to you.. So this whole affair just keeps getting re-asserted and re-adjucated over and over and over again.



You are detecting something...and that something is being run through software that assumes photons...  What is funny is that you actually believe, in your heart that a home depot instrument is measuring theoretical particles...you actually believe it...  

Once again, your laser guided IR photometer is doing nothing more than measuring the amount of and rate of change within an internal thermopile...if the thermopile is warming, then it is being pointed at a warmer object and the internal software translates the amount of and rate of change to a temperature and then converts that either into a number, or a color in a synthetic image...and if it is cooling, then that amount and rate of change is converted by the internal software into a number or color.  Your home depot IR photometer is not measuring photons....it is measuring nothing more than an internal temperature change...

You are being fooled by instrumentation and to tell the truth, in you, that is a bit surprising.



flacaltenn said:


> Needs it's own stage... Cant be doing this in threads about Arctic Sea ice or NOAA cooking the books...



Does that stage need to have a big sign hung over it saying come see the deniers sing, dance, and caper about?  Does it need to be labeled as such?  If you don't want your precious hypothesis being questioned, then come up with some actual evidence to support it rather than evidence of how easily you are fooled by instrumentation.


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> But at least I'm not misconstruing basic physics to do assert what I do... Or inventing new implementations of the GHouse theory that are yet to be published in any textbook...



Every one of you have your own personal hypothesis about how the greenhouse hypothesis works...every single one of your explanations of the greenhouse hypothesis is an invented implementation since none of you subscribe to the claim by climate science that back radiation is actually warming the surface of the earth...Each of you make up an explanation that is more plausible in your own mind than that bit of rubbish and then attempt to apply the magical physics by which the earth is warmed by absorbing its own radiation to whatever hypothesis you have made up and called the greenhouse theory..

And if you have any knowledge of the history of science, you should know full well that being published in a textbook means exactly squat....every failed hypothesis in the history of the earth at one time was published in a textbook and accepted as true...till it wasn't...


----------



## cnm (May 22, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Then deny THIS:
> 285 Papers 70s Cooling 1


Pierre Gosselin. I'm not trawling that link to find your argument and make it for you. Excerpt the relevant piece. Then talk some more about closed systems with inputs and outputs.


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > No Atmospheric hot spot is present, so your belief in the hypothesis that requires one is ill advised.
> ...



that would be because your personal hypothesis just doesn't include that embarrassment...the mainstream hypothesis however, said that a pronounced upper tropospheric hot spot would be the smoking gun of AGW...  It didn't happen.

I can't get any of the other warmers to answer and I doubt that you will either, but in real science...that is, science that is actively seeking the truth rather than just the next research grant...how many predictive failures does a hypothesis get before it is either scrapped, or modified in an attempt to have it not experience more predictive failures?

Has any serious modification been made to the greenhouse hypothesis by science other than simply reducing the sensitivity to CO2 which is no real alteration of the mis applied physics that led to the predictive failure in the first place?

Now, in pseudoscience, how many predictive failures are allowed so long as the funding continues?



flacaltenn said:


> Why would I have to run those readings every 15 minutes for 24 hours??  Would be BETTER done in a desert AT NIGHT with no down-dwelling solar IR...  And then compared over YEARS to find a signature that changes with changing CO2 concentration.. Which is where you probably GOT all this isn't it??



According to climate science, the downwelling radiation never stops..


----------



## cnm (May 22, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> 285 Papers 70s Cooling 1


Skimmed it. Incoherent rambling irrelevant to the topic from what I could see, the topic being the proportion of papers predicting cooling as opposed to the proportion predicting warming in the 60s - 70s.


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Dr David Evans used the ERBE Satellite to measure the rates of warming and cooling. He found that as energy increased hitting the earth the LWIR out bound increase linearly. The earth sheds energy in direct relation to the incoming energy received. If CO2 were creating a hot spot this would not be linear.
> ...



So sayeth the man with his own personal greenhouse hypothesis to which he applies the failed physics of an entirely different hypothesis...


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The coupled rate of input to output disproves AGW at its heart. IF CO2 was doing as you suggest and the current GHG hypothesis compels, a mid tropospheric hotspot must manifest itself and the I/O ratio would not be coupled. Basic Physics ... And Dr Evans did it planet wide finding the same result.
> ...



Once again...how many predictive failures does a hypothesis get in real science?  How many are allowed in pseudoscience?


----------



## cnm (May 22, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Here is some more PUBLISHED papers he will ignore:


Has anyone denied papers predicting cooling have been published?


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2019)

cnm said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Then deny THIS:
> ...



I provided plenty...I provided you with just a few of the over 300 papers published during that time period which expressed concerns about the effects of an imminent cooling period...The fact is that there was a real concern about how the earth would be effected by what appeared to be a significant cooling trend...You can deny, and turn to as many opinion pieces as you like, but the fact is that the scientific literature of the period proves you wrong...


----------



## cnm (May 22, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> One could effectively argue that* in the early 1970s the prevailing view was that the earth was moving toward a new ice age. Many articles appeared in the scientific literature as well as in the popular press speculating about the impact on agriculture of a 1-2°C cooling.* By the late 1970s that prevailing view had seemingly shifted 180 degrees to the belief that the earth’s atmosphere was being warmed as a result of an increasing CO2 loading of the atmosphere. …


No numbers, random individual examples. Meh.


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2019)

cnm said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Here is some more PUBLISHED papers he will ignore:
> ...



Maybe you are not old enough to remember a time when there wasn't a 24/7 news cycle...when there were only 3 or 4 channels on TV and when the news only showed  a few hours a day...magazines and newspapers were the only sources, and they actually interviewed scientists to get the story that wasn't available to anyone with access to a PC.  The fact is that there was serious concern about a cooling trend and the real possibility of a shift to a significantly altered climate...  Deny all you like...your denial only demonstrates how easily it has been to fool you.


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2019)

cnm said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > One could effectively argue that* in the early 1970s the prevailing view was that the earth was moving toward a new ice age. Many articles appeared in the scientific literature as well as in the popular press speculating about the impact on agriculture of a 1-2°C cooling.* By the late 1970s that prevailing view had seemingly shifted 180 degrees to the belief that the earth’s atmosphere was being warmed as a result of an increasing CO2 loading of the atmosphere. …
> ...



Deny on Garth....people like you are easy to fool...that is why climate science itself calls you useful idiots.


----------



## cnm (May 22, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> You are the only one in denial Tard. I LIVED THEN. Haven't heard you say you did.


Hey, Closed Systems, I was lab teching in the middle 70s, reading Scientific American.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 22, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The coupled rate of input to output disproves AGW at its heart. IF CO2 was doing as you suggest and the current GHG hypothesis compels, a mid tropospheric hotspot must manifest itself and the I/O ratio would not be coupled. Basic Physics ... And Dr Evans did it planet wide finding the same result.
> ...



You have missed the actual GHG hypothesis, it requires a region above the tropical zone, where CO2 and its radiative properties cause an energy loop where water vapor is warmed and held, causing the tropics to warm and forcing energy pole ward, warming the earth. This is the IPCC's "sensitivity" numbers that started at 6-8 deg C/doubling and have now been revised downward to 0.0-0.6 deg C/ Doubling.

This means there should be a lag between energy input and energy output of the globe.  This does not exist. The Models FAIL!

Dr Evans looked at it this way;




There is no hotspot and no climate sensitivity to CO2. There is more cooling in the troposphere which is an indication of a NEGATIVE FORCING not a net positive one when interacting with water vapor.

Below is the ERBE data followed by the top models in use today. You will note their slopes are inconsistent with observed data.




The models do not reflect reality and according to them should show a hot spot in our troposphere.

Dr. Evans places the GHG hypothesis in a more layman's terms here:-> https://mises.org/library/skeptics-case


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*This means there should be a lag between energy input and energy output of the globe. This does not exist. The Models FAIL!*

That's awful! So does that mean GHGs in the atmosphere don't absorb IR?
Does that mean GHGs in the atmosphere are prevented, in any way, from emitting photons in all
directions, including toward a warmer surface?


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2019)

cnm said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > You are the only one in denial Tard. I LIVED THEN. Haven't heard you say you did.
> ...



Rather than reading magazines which are just a step above popular mechanics, you should have been reading the scientific literature of the time...then you wouldn't have been so easy to dupe 50 years later when you are supposed to be wiser.....

Here...from NOAA

*NOAA, 1974

Clip: “Many climatologists have associated this drought and other recent weather anomalies with a global cooling trend and changes in atmospheric circulation which, if prolonged, pose serious threats to major food-producing regions of the world. … Annual average temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere increased rather dramatically from about 1890 through 1940, but have been falling ever since. The total change has averaged about one-half degree Centigrade, with the greatest cooling in higher latitudes.”
“[T]he average growing season in England is already two weeks shorter than it was before 1950. Since the late 1950’s, Iceland’s hay crop yield has dropped about 25 percent, while pack ice in waters around Iceland and Greenland ports is becoming the hazard to navigation it was during the 17th and 18th centuries. … Some climatologists think that if the current cooling trend continues, drought will occur more frequently in India—indeed, through much of Asia, the world’s hungriest continent. … Some climatologists think thatthe present cooling trend may be the start of a slide into another period of major glaciation, popularly called an ‘ice age’.”

And here...from the National Academy of Sciences

Full text of "Understanding climatic change"

“Starr and Oort (1973) have reported that, during the period 1958-1963, the hemisphere’s (mass-weighted) mean temperature decreased by about 0.6 °C. …  Since the 1940’s, mean temperatures have declined and are now nearly halfway back to the 1880 levels. … There seems little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate … [T]here is a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the earth within the next hundred years. …  [A]s each 100 years passes, we have perhaps a 5 percent greater chance of encountering its [the next glacial’s] onset.”*


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Like I said..they all have their own made up greenhouse effect hypothesis and few of them bear much resemblance to the greenhouse hypothesis that climate science puts forward...they attempt to use the same broken physics climate science puts forward to support their made up hypotheses...


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 22, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


All Matter radiates at its temperature above 0Kelvin.

Your question is one of semantics.  As the properties of LWIR are still in question (wave energy or particle energy) the definition of what it is matters.  In a wave it can radiate in all directions but it has no effect on the warmer object due to its wave length rejection/reflection by the warmer object.  As a particle it can radiate in all directions but when it collides with warmer matter requires energy from the warmer object to bring it up to its vibration (temperature) level before it can re-emit it, using up energy and cooling the object.

In either case the net result is a cooling object not a warming one.


----------



## Wuwei (May 22, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Dr. Evans places the GHG hypothesis in a more layman's terms here:-> The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans



The site you referenced says the following:
_The serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2. The argument is entirely about the feedbacks._​
That is what this thread is about the direct effect of CO2, not the feedbacks. Many here disagree with that statement concerning the physics of the CO2 (and other GHGs) aspect of GW so that is the focus, not CAGW. 


.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Dr. Evans places the GHG hypothesis in a more layman's terms here:-> The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans
> ...


Your 'direct effect' *is* zero or near zero.

CO2 emissions, as a particle, require a cooler object in order to have any positive affect.

CO2 emissions, as a wave, again require a cooler object to have any positive affect.

In our atmosphere the CO2 molecule collides with all other molecules over 30,000 times during the residency time that it can hold a photon. thus its ability to re-radiate this energy is very near zero as its energy is lost, most certainly, to collisions. This means that Convection and Conduction are its primary mode of travel in the troposphere. Once water vapor captures the energy it is lost to the upward convection column and never see's the earths surface again.

I am waiting for even one of you to produce empirical evidence suggesting otherwise. All of your IR thermometers will tell you what the temp of the atmosphere is but it can not discern the origin of the IR (water vapor, N2, O2, or CO2) making any proclamation of it being only CO2 a pipe dream.


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Dr. Evans places the GHG hypothesis in a more layman's terms here:-> The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans
> ...



the "effects" of CO2 are trending ever closer to zero as time passes...zero or less is where the sensitivity to CO2 will end up.


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



They all...to an individual believe that the temperature change within the internal thermopile of their instrument is telling them something specific about what caused the temperature of the thermopile to change...It is sad to see people who believe themselves to be scientifically literate be so easily fooled by an instrument which is so easy to understand...


----------



## Wuwei (May 22, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Your 'direct effect' *is* zero or near zero.


That is not what the is said in the reference you gave.

.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


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


Until they can discern what they are taking the temperature of its about as useless as screaming at the sky.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Your 'direct effect' *is* zero or near zero.
> ...


I know.  He used the 0-1.1 deg C/doubling. However, since the writing of the paper, this too has has been revised downward. The Amplification Factor (aka: Climate Sensitivity) is almost assuredly closer to a negative forcing, by empirical review and experiment. (anything below 1.0 is a negative forcing number- when multiplied against the LOG value of CO2 direct warming expected).


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 22, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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


More to Wuwei's point..

The base LOG expected value is unchanged at 1.1 Deg C/Doubling.  However, the multiplier is 0.6 making the expected warming just 0.66 deg C, which is what we have seen to date.The problem is we do not know how much of that total warming is actually Natural Variation. It could very likely make the amount of warming zero, that can be attributed to CO2. If we applied the percentage of mans input of CO2 vs. natural sources, only 0.004 deg C can be attributed to mans CO2 input.

The facts are killing the CAGW meme and the GHG pontifications are failing without exception.


----------



## IanC (May 22, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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




Why do you write LOG? The equation  uses natural logarithm not base 10. And log (10) doesnt use capitals either. 

Is it a holdover from some coding program?


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 22, 2019)

IanC said:


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


"LOG" is the acronym for Logarithmic Equation Applied.  It was the way I was taught to identify the mathematical construct vs. a tree..... As well as the command for some programs.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*All Matter radiates at its temperature above 0Kelvin.*

Even at equilibrium?

* when it collides with warmer matter requires energy from the warmer object to bring it up to its vibration (temperature) level before it can re-emit it, using up energy and cooling the object.*

A photon from cooler matter absorbs energy from the warmer matter and after the warmer matter emits a photon it is cooler than it was before the "cooler photon" originally was absorbed?


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 22, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Tell me Todd, If the photon is actually a particle of matter, then the laws governing matter apply, do they not?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*If the photon is actually a particle of matter*

I don't think it is. Do you?


----------



## IanC (May 22, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Tell me Todd, If the photon is actually a particle of matter, then the laws governing matter apply, do they not?




What a friggin' idiot you are. Did you ever look up fermions and bosons?


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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





IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me Todd, If the photon is actually a particle of matter, then the laws governing matter apply, do they not?
> ...



This question has not been answered and the papers you two quote do not make valid assertions by empirical evidence... This is an area that is uncertain and unanswered as there are actions we observe that indicate they are both. IE; a particle within a wave.


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



These guys have no room for uncertainty in their universe..if it can't be demonstrated in reality, then they are perfectly willing to accept a computer model as reality even if the model is based on a whole platform of uncertainties.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*All Matter radiates at its temperature above 0Kelvin.*

Even at equilibrium?

* when it collides with warmer matter requires energy from the warmer object to bring it up to its vibration (temperature) level before it can re-emit it, using up energy and cooling the object.*

A photon from cooler matter absorbs energy from the warmer matter and after the warmer matter emits a photon it is cooler than it was before the "cooler photon" originally was absorbed?


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> This is an area that is uncertain and unanswered as there are actions we observe that indicate they are both. IE; a particle within a wave



Over a hundred years of studying light in the quantum era and you still think light can be defined as a wave or a particle? 

Did you go to the same school as tubefreek to become a 'trained physicist '?


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



If a photon is a piece of matter, then all rules to matter apply (conduction).

Photon emitted @ -80 deg C. -->  strikes a black body that is 40 Deg C and is absorbed. --> that MATTER then must warm to 40 Deg C *consuming energy* = cooling of the warmer object.  

Sorry Charlie, but your tuna boat doesn't float. The matter will then emit according to its cooler temperature.

As for energy of equal value striking each other, no change is seen. The mass will dictate rate of energy loss, just like our atmosphere.  When it is dry the mass is low, heating and cooling are rapid. When it is wet, the mass is high, warming is slowed as is cooling.

Observed Empirical  Evidence just kills those failing models.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > This is an area that is uncertain and unanswered as there are actions we observe that indicate they are both. IE; a particle within a wave
> ...


All you have is ahdom's...  

Please disprove the science presented...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*If a photon is a piece of matter, then all rules to matter apply (conduction).*

Cool story. Any link that backs up your feeling?

_Photon emitted @ -80 deg C. -->  strikes a black body that is 40 Deg C and is absorbed. --> that MATTER then must warm to 40 Deg C *consuming energy* = cooling of the warmer object.  _

Sounds ridiculous.

*As for energy of equal value striking each other, no change is seen. *

Did you ever tell SSDD that matter at equilibrium still emits?


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *If a photon is a piece of matter, then all rules to matter apply (conduction).*
> 
> Cool story. Any link that backs up your feeling?
> 
> ...


Actually its not ridicules... We observed this when we bombarded an object with LWIR at a cooler emission temperature as the rate of cooling increased when we did so.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *If a photon is a piece of matter, then all rules to matter apply (conduction).*
> ...



*Actually its not ridicules...*

Yes, the claim that a photon has a temperature is ridiculous.

*We observed this when we bombarded an object with LWIR at a cooler emission temperature as the rate of cooling increased when we did so.*

Is this real research, or your "energy destroying tube" research?


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> If a photon is a piece of matter, then all rules to matter apply (conduction



You havent been taught that luminal entities like photons or neutrinos cannot go slower than the speed of light? Or that particles of matter can never attain the speed of light no matter how much energy you give them?


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> When it is dry the mass is low, heating and cooling are rapid. When it is wet, the mass is high, warming is slowed as is cooling.




Hahahahaha.  He just never stops being stupid. Surely he must be pulling our leg. No one could say such asinine things by accident.  But he has kept up the act for years now. You would think he would slip out of character once in a while.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Its basic physics of particle matter.

Enjoy your ignorance on this. You will never see what is being presented because you "believe". I refuse to go round and round in circles because of your inability to think critically.

Tell Me Todd, Every photon has a temperature (energy level given at time it is emitted).  How do they all magically become all powerful and gain energy so they have the ability to warm a colder object than the one that emitted it?


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > When it is dry the mass is low, heating and cooling are rapid. When it is wet, the mass is high, warming is slowed as is cooling.
> ...


Cool Story Bro... I suppose you can tell me how a photon emitted from a mass at -80 deg C can warm a warmer object.  where does the extra energy come from to do this?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*Its basic physics of particle matter.*

Excellent. Then you'll have no problem quickly posting 6 reputable sources that agree with your claim.

Tick-tock.

* I refuse to go round and round in circles because of your inability to think critically.*​
Conveniently also refusing to post any backup.​​*Tell Me Todd, Every photon has a temperature*​
I disagree. Change my mind.​​*(energy level given at time it is emitted)*​
Not the same thing as temperature.
​* How do they all magically become all powerful and gain energy so they have the ability to warm a colder object than the one that emitted it?*​
Any links that agree with your claim that, "photons from cooler matter don't add energy to cooler matter when absorbed"?​


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



What is the range of possible photons emitted ftom a blackbody at -80C? 10 microns and higher? How about 0C? 4 microns and higher? The range is almost identical. Can ypu tell the difference between a 15 micron photon emitted  from a -80C object to one emitted from a 0C object? No you cannot.


----------



## IanC (May 25, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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









sorry the temperature is not-80C but the relationshipholds. both temperatures can emit photons from any part of the almost exactly similar ranges. how can you differentiate a 600nm photon as coming from one or the other? obviously you cannot.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 26, 2019)

IanC said:


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


DO the MATH Ian....  The power contained in the particle is defined by the emitting body. 






A Photons Temperature is determined by its emitted wavelength. The power contained is defined by the waves length in nm.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 26, 2019)

IanC said:


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


With a cooled IR detector you can isolate the exact ranges.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 26, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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








Its a very simple concept.  LWIR from a black body contains very little energy.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 26, 2019)

IF you take a look at black body emissions they are very weak in energy and they warm very little. (12-16um)

If you look at the element  on an IR heater, it emits in a much higher wave length (1.9-3.2um) and it contains roughly 1,500 times the heat and energy of the earths BB emission. it will not directly warm the air as it passes. Once an object is warmed the conduction and convection of the atmosphere will warm the room.


----------



## IanC (May 26, 2019)

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

That there are infrared photodetectors available? 

That the energy in EMR goes up as the wavelength decreases?

You seem to be confusing blackbody radiation as only IR.



One of the biggest problems in getting people to understand atmospheric radiative physics is that a joule of solar shortwave is very different from a joule of terrestrial longwave. The Earth eats sunlight and shits out IR. Sunlight is very capable of causing change and doing work. IR is much less useful. Entropy is the key concept here.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 26, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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




Thanks for the picture and for ignoring all my questions.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 26, 2019)

IanC said:


> I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
> 
> That there are infrared photodetectors available?
> 
> ...


You are the one confusing the actual effect as you can not define the wavelength you want claim is causing warming.


----------



## IanC (May 26, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> You are the one confusing the actual effect as you can not define the wavelength you want claim is causing warming.



I cannot be sure what youre saying because your comment is garbled.

I am saying that an object radiates at all times according to its temperature and emissivity. 

I am saying that radiation falls into a wide range if the emissivity is anywhere close to unity. I also say that the range is almost identical for temperatures within say 15% of each other.

I am saying that a 15 micron photon emitted by an object at 100K is exactly the same as on emitted by a 1000K object.

An object can only be warmed by a different object's blackbody radiation if that second object is warmer than the first. Why? Because warmer objects produce more radiation,  at a slightly higher average energy.

The colder object can slow the cooling of the warmer object if it is replacing an even cooler object.

If the warn object has a power supply, it will warm faster and reach a higher equilibrium temperature if the cool object is replacing an even colder object.

Those are my statements.  Which ones do you disagree with? Stay on topic.


----------



## toobfreak (May 26, 2019)

IanC said:


> One of the biggest problems in getting people to understand atmospheric radiative physics


Oddly, I looked into universities that teach that specialized branch of physics known as Atmospheric Physics, and they regard Atmospheric Radiative Physics as THEORETICAL.



> is that a joule of (blahblahblah wavelength) is very different from a joule of (blahblahblah wavelength).


  Not qualified.
My professors would be interested to know how that is possible.  The Joule is a common UNIT OF WORK.  A joule can be measured in different ways or TYPES of work, but a joule is always still equal to a joule.





where kg is the kilogram, m is the meter, s is the second, N is the newton, Pa is the pascal, W is the watt, C is the coulomb, and V is the volt.
One joule can also be defined as work to:

move or accelerate an object.
kinetic energy released.
raise or release a temperature.
While the Joule can be expressed in many different UNITS of work (erg, calorie, foot-pound, atm, kilowatt/hour, etc.), I think you need to qualify how one joule can be "different" from another simply based on the frequency of the energy or its source if both accomplish the same amount of work, then go on to say that it is a "big problem" getting people to understand it when you don't even bother to specify what "difference" you are referring to.  Either you can qualify that statement to some degree of specificity or not;  if you can't, then obviously you don't understand what you're talking about either.



> The Earth eats sunlight and shits out IR.


But sunlight contains prodigious amounts of IR in it as well as UV.  The Earth also reflects a lot of visible light, so again, rather vague and meaningless statement without your qualifying it contextually what you mean by "eats" and "shits out."







> Sunlight is very capable of causing change and doing work.


OBVIOUSLY.  Essentially, ALL WORK done on the Earth is driven directly or indirectly from energy of the Sun!  Your point?



> IR is much less useful.


HOW SO?  IR is a component of sunlight!  Again, you need to qualify what you mean in these snippets of half sentences rather than just throwing them out as if they are self-contained axiomatic truths!



> Entropy is the key concept here.


Again, How so???  If it is so key a concept here, why do you not embellish on the dynamics to which you refer?  Not sure how far you got through any sort of higher education without the ability to embellish by example and give work to show the proofs of your claims?


----------



## IanC (May 26, 2019)

People like tubesucker just like to argue. 

It is obvious that sunlight has way more uumph than IR. That they are treated equally is one of the reasons why climate models dont work right.

A useful example of how entropy can be used is focusing sunlight with a magnifying glass.

A while back someone claimed that you could use mirrors and lenses to heat a surface with sunlight so that it is hotter than the Sun. Did anyone spot the obvious fallacy?


----------



## toobfreak (May 26, 2019)

IanC said:


> People like tubesucker just like to argue.


No, just like to ask the needed obvious questions that need to be asked by any reasonable person.  But nice of you to deflect again from ever answering any of them by always turning the discussion around to a personal ad hominem attack to try to evade the subject which tells me you don't have the answers.



> It is obvious that sunlight has way more uumph than IR.


What is "uumph?"  Is that a unit of energy?  You mean because of frequency?  Quantity?  Percentage?  Wouldn't that depend on what was receiving the energy and what it was sensitive to?  What warms the oceans more, sunlight or heat?



> That they are treated equally is one of the reasons why climate models dont work right.


But some models come within 8% of predicting observed events.  How would treating them differently improve things, and why don't they model that way if you know this?



> A useful example of how entropy can be used is focusing sunlight with a magnifying glass.


That is a fine abstract, but it bears explanation.  HOW can entropy be used by focusing sunlight, WHERE does that occur in nature and WHAT is the useful relationship between that and climate change or global warming?



> A while back someone claimed that you could use mirrors and lenses to heat a surface with sunlight so that it is hotter than the Sun. Did anyone spot the obvious fallacy?


The surface of the Sun is about 10,000°F.  I didn't read that earlier but do please tell us what the obvious fallacy is?


----------



## IanC (May 26, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> The surface of the Sun is about 10,000°F. I didn't read that earlier but do please tell us what the obvious fallacy is?



If the sun can see the surface, then the surface can see the sun. If the surface was warmer than the sun then radiation energy would be moving towards the sun, not the other way around.


----------



## toobfreak (May 27, 2019)

IanC said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > The surface of the Sun is about 10,000°F. I didn't read that earlier but do please tell us what the obvious fallacy is?
> ...



So you are saying energy cannot move towards the Sun?  What about when we set off a nuclear bomb?  The Hiroshima bomb explosion was estimated to be well over 500,000°F.  Certainly heat there moved towards the Sun?  But if sunlight is concentrated by a magnifying glass as heat the Second Law of Thermodynamics puts the maximum temperature that can be achieved by concentrating sunlight as the temperature of the Sun's photosphere, about 9,980°F.   Put simply, a magnifying glass cannot produce a heat energy through concentration greater than the source that drives it.

For a lens that takes an object at position p and focuses it to an image at position f, the magnification is supposed to be M=f/p. So, just get a shorter focal length lens and the spot size will get arbitrarily smaller, right?  But this approximation for the magnification comes from the conservation of entendue.   So if the lens has a radius r, then we can define an angle theta as p=arcsin(r/p) and an angle theta as f=arcsin(r/f) on each side of the lens. The conservation of etendue tells us the magnification will be:  M=theta p/theta f.  When you try to really focus the image down to a smaller spot size to create more heat, you won't be able to use the small angle approximation on the image side because the image sits very close to the lens now. And theta f can't get any bigger than π/2. So we get:  M=2*theta p/π.

Right?


----------



## IanC (May 27, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...



Etendue.

Thank you! It is always nice to have a name for a concept, if for no other reason  than to know it actually exists.

If you were already familiar with the concept,  why did you scoff when I described the sunlight reaching earth as highly ordered terrestrial radiation as slightly ordered and atmospheric radiation as totally diffuse?


----------



## Wuwei (May 27, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> So you are saying energy cannot move towards the Sun? What about when we set off a nuclear bomb? The Hiroshima bomb explosion was estimated to be well over 500,000°F. Certainly heat there moved towards the Sun? But if sunlight is concentrated by a magnifying glass as heat the Second Law of Thermodynamics puts the maximum temperature that can be achieved by concentrating sunlight as the temperature of the Sun's photosphere, about 9,980°F. Put simply, a magnifying glass cannot produce a heat energy through concentration greater than the source that drives it.


Isn't that pretty much what IanC said?



toobfreak said:


> For a lens that takes an object at position p and focuses it to an image at position f, the magnification is supposed to be M=f/p. So, just get a shorter focal length lens and the spot size will get arbitrarily smaller, right? But this approximation for the magnification comes from the conservation of entendue. So if the lens has a radius r, then we can define an angle theta as p=arcsin(r/p) and an angle theta as f=arcsin(r/f) on each side of the lens. The conservation of etendue tells us the magnification will be: M=theta p/theta f. When you try to really focus the image down to a smaller spot size to create more heat, you won't be able to use the small angle approximation on the image side because the image sits very close to the lens now. And theta f can't get any bigger than π/2. So we get: M=2*theta p/π.
> 
> Right?


Entendue is a new one for me. I heard the proof resulted using Liouville's theorem which is more general version. IanC is right that the limits of lens concentration of energy can also be shown by considering entropy which has similar foundations as Lioville's theorem. 

.


----------



## IanC (May 27, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> HOW SO? IR is a component of sunlight! Again, you need to qualify what you mean in these snippets of half sentences rather than just throwing them out as if they are self-contained axiomatic truths!




This is in response to me saying the earth eats sunshine and shits out IR, and that sunlight is capable of causing change and doing work while IR isnt. 

Do you actually disagree with my sentiments or are you just looking to find fault in how I expressed them?

Do you feel that turnabout is fairplay because I pointed out that the terrestrial system is not closed and that the atmosphere is not the principal location of sunlight to IR? Did it make you feel stupid? Did you feel like you lost face?

Only you and BillyBob have claimed to be 'trained physicists'. You have claimed that your opinion is worth much more than the rest of us rubes, that we should hold you in esteem and defer to your authority. I, for one, am not buying it.

If you made a dozen insightful and useful comments for every one that contains a howler of a mistake then I would be far more gentle in my disagreement. But you are acting like an asshole, especially towards me.

Anyways, back to your point. You say IR is a component of sunlight. I agree that that is trivially true. What percentage of the power being received by the earth from the sun falls in the same IR range as is produced by the surface or atmosphere? 

If you are claiming any amount over <1% then I think you should put up some evidence.  If you agree that it is <1% why did you bring it up? Do you always go chasing after red herrings that are insignificant?


----------



## SSDD (May 28, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Isn't that pretty much what IanC said?



What a concept...forming an argument based on what was actually said rather than butchering what was actually said, reinterpreting it and then arguing against that rather than what was actually said.


----------



## toobfreak (May 29, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't that pretty much what IanC said?
> ...



I've only come back here SSDD to say that if anyone is coming to any of these "environmental" threads for science and facts on the dynamics of climate, you are going to be sorely disappointed.  Threads here are just more *POLITICS IN A DIFFERENT FORM:*

Wildly unproven and unsubstantiated or grossly inaccurate claims followed by personal attacks if you disagree rather than any verifiable data.
Believers who claim they are deniers then argue with the deniers and agree with the believers.
Vague statements and terminology that when you try to pin it down, ends up meaning whatever is needed at the moment rather than what is said.
First cry that deniers are disrupting your thread when they offer hard scientific data, then rather than respond to it on topic, disrupt the thread with more personal blather.

Same as with political threads, if you disagree, you're simply dismissed as a wildly uneducated oaf.
Same as with political threads, when you try to pin anything down with hard data, the topic is merely deflected to something else.  Usually strawman arguments.
No better than the professional arena, MMCC and the entire radiative theory survives only by shouting down and excluding those who would argue with conflicting and contradictory data not in whole agreement.  Trying to find scientific consensus with any of the believers, you might as well chase a chicken in a circular coop.  It's all just an adolescent game learned in grade school to protect a personal pet theory they have too much invested in to admit it's full of holes.  If need be, "misinterpret" what was stated, put words in the other's mouth, then draw absurd conclusions about THEIR veracity attacking their credibility instead.  Keep changing the subject.

NEVER directly answer any direct question and back it up with hard concise data.  These are not the actions of science or scientists but politicians.

Life is too good to waste here.  Professor Carlin said it best when he stated the universal axiomatic truth:


----------



## IanC (May 29, 2019)

toobfreak said:


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



Crybaby.

Hypocrite. 

Hypocritical crybaby.

Go on. Beat it.


----------



## Wuwei (May 29, 2019)

toobfreak said:


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



Are you accusing IanC, SSDD, or both?

Your second point obviously refers only to "believers".  Many of the "believers" even deniers here have argued with SSDD, BillyBob, JC not because their rejection of AGW, but because they are rejecting it for the wrong reasons - They are bastardizing science and doing exactly what you posted (except for your second item).



.


----------



## SSDD (May 29, 2019)

IanC said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You didn't do much to defend your position there ian...shucking and jiving, dodging and weaving, ducking and covering are generally tactics used by the likes of wuwei, the skid mark, and the hairball...you usually don't resort to such tactics.  Toobfreak had some pretty straight forward questions about your belief of how the greenhouse effect works...questions that your mathematical models should have been able to answer.

Why did you pretend that you didn't have any idea of what he was getting at?


----------



## IanC (May 29, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You didn't do much to defend your position there ian...shucking and jiving, dodging and weaving, ducking and covering are generally tactics used by the likes of wuwei, the skid mark, and the hairball...you usually don't resort to such tactics. Toobfreak had some pretty straight forward questions about your belief of how the greenhouse effect works...questions that your mathematical models should have been able to answer.
> 
> Why did you pretend that you didn't have any idea of what he was getting at




Tubesucker is an asshole. I responded to most of his criticisms, he made no attempt to respond to my criticisms of his posts. 

You are actually a lot like him. The difference is that I am accustomed to you.

So carry on. I won't bother asking anything from you because I know you dont respond to pointed questions that require on-topic concise answers.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 29, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You didn't do much to defend your position there ian...shucking and jiving, dodging and weaving, ducking and covering are generally tactics used by the likes of wuwei, the skid mark, and the hairball...you usually don't resort to such tactics. Toobfreak had some pretty straight forward questions about your belief of how the greenhouse effect works...questions that your mathematical models should have been able to answer.
> ...


I tried to show you correlation of wave to particle energy in a chart. Toobfreak tried to go into greater depth than I am willing to go with these matters in an attempt to show you that the measurement in Joules are quantified so that the particles can be compared. You ignored that.  

Your modeling fails in every aspect. You claim LWIR at 2.9um will carry the same energy as LWIR at 16um.  It does not and is why your energy budgets fail.


----------



## SSDD (May 29, 2019)

IanC said:


> Tubesucker is an asshole. I responded to most of his criticisms, he made no attempt to respond to my criticisms of his posts.



I didn't see any valid criticism of his posts...All I saw was you pretending that you didn't have any idea what he was asking.

I believe that you just realized that if you pursued his line of questioning, you were going to come face to face with the failure of your models and you just couldn't do it.


----------



## SSDD (May 29, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



They also believe that raising the emissivity of a thing does not result in cooling it down faster...they jump up and say that raising the emissivity allows a thing to absorb more energy.  I suppose they think that every thing cools down and warms up at the same rate and emissivity has nothing to do with either the rate at which a thing warms or cools..

The things they have to believe in order to believe in AGW simply staggers the mind.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 29, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*They also believe that raising the emissivity of a thing *[the atmosphere]* does not result in cooling it down faster...*

Why would it? Be specific.


----------



## SSDD (May 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Name anything at all that warms, or cools down more slowly as a result of having its emissivity increased....and do show your work.

Do you even know what the word emissivity means?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 29, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*Name anything at all that warms, or cools down more slowly as a result of having its emissivity increased..*

The Earth's atmosphere.

*Do you even know what the word emissivity means?*

Do you?


----------



## IanC (May 29, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Name anything at all that warms, or cools down more slowly as a result of having its emissivity increased....and do show your work.
> 
> Do you even know what the word emissivity means



Here we go again. 

CO2 is what adds 15 micron radiation to the emissivity of air. The emissivity is one, unity. It cannot be higher. All that more CO2 can do is reduce the mean free path. All 15 micron radiation produced by the surface is absorbed to extinction. That amount is dependent on the temperature of the surface.

15 micron radiation can only escape from the atmosphere when the concentration of CO2 is low enough that it does not just get reabsorbed again. The amount of this escaping 15 micron radiation is dependent on the temperature of the emission height.

There is less escaping 15 micron radiation than absorbed from the surface because temperature is higher at the surface.


But you are interested in increased emissivity. I have asked you repeatedly for the wavelengths of this 'increased emissivity' but you always duck the question. Do you even know?

I could make a guess but then you would complain that I was putting words in your mouth, making a strawman of your position. So why don't you explain yourself for a change?


----------



## IanC (May 29, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Your modeling fails in every aspect. You claim LWIR at 2.9um will carry the same energy as LWIR at 16um. It does not and is why your energy budgets fail.




What on earth are you talking about???

Quote my comment where I said that. I dont remember mentioning 2.9 microns, ever. And although I talk about 15 micron radiation a lot I seldom make note of 16 micron except perhaps as the wings of 15 micron radiation,  as in 14-16 microns.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 30, 2019)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Your modeling fails in every aspect. You claim LWIR at 2.9um will carry the same energy as LWIR at 16um. It does not and is why your energy budgets fail.
> ...


And.... WOSH......

You still don't have a clue..


----------



## xband (May 30, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Too many threads are ending up with the same 20 page discussion between a small fraction of the members that read Enviro topics.. Every rule and design of USMB moderation is there to get UNIQUE TOPICAL discussion of specific events and topics as laid out in the Opening Posts. *No one wants to wade thru the same fillibustering arguments that atmospheric physics and the GHouse effect is all wrong.*.  And they violate the "on-topic" rules at USMB..
> 
> That's what this thread is for.. CONTAIN those rodeos in THIS thread or start your own threads on whatever you deny.... *DON'T hijack other specific topics.*.  Members and visitors will appreciate your cooperation...
> 
> Go have your sideline debates about this topic HERE.. The topic is clearly spelled out in the title of this thread...


 
I will debate Nuclear Physics with anyone on board.


----------



## SSDD (May 30, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



So you have nothing.....that...or you think that the earth's atmosphere by some magic is the only thing that warms, or cools more slowly as a result of having its emissivity raised...You sure do believe in magic...don't you?

Yes, I do....clearly you do not.


----------



## SSDD (May 30, 2019)

IanC said:


> CO2 is what adds 15 micron radiation to the emissivity of air. The emissivity is one, unity. It cannot be higher. All that more CO2 can do is reduce the mean free path. All 15 micron radiation produced by the surface is absorbed to extinction. That amount is dependent on the temperature of the surface.



Which might actually mean something if radiation were more than a very minor bit player in the movement of energy to the top of the troposphere...you just don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that the gasses that are actually warming in the troposphere are water vapor, N2 and O2...CO2 provides a cooling mechanism...

If a gas can emit radiation, and if a function of a gas such as so called greenhouse gases is to emit radiation, and that more so called greenhouse gases emit more radiation, then such a gas provides a mechanism for cooling...not warming.  The ability to emit radiation is given by a factor called emissivity.  If a surface or substance has low emissivity, then it has to attain a higher temperature to emit a given quantity of energy.  by the same token, something with high emissivity will conversely have a lower temperature needed to emit a given quantity of energy.  The relation between a surface's or substance's temperature is inversely proportional to its ability to radiatively emit energy i.e. its emissivity.



IanC said:


> 15 micron radiation can only escape from the atmosphere when the concentration of CO2 is low enough that it does not just get reabsorbed again. The amount of this escaping 15 micron radiation is dependent on the temperature of the emission height.



Tell me ian...what percentage of the IR that the surface of the earth emits is 15 micron radiation?  And who ever said that 15 micron energy must remain 15 micron energy? 



IanC said:


> There is less escaping 15 micron radiation than absorbed from the surface because temperature is higher at the surface.



That would be because it is being lost by CO2 molecules via collision and conducted and convected to the top of the troposphere...when it is lost to space, it will not be lost in the form of 15 micron radiation because it is not being lost by a CO2 molecule.

There is a reason climate models fail so miserably...they are based on a terribly flawed set of physics...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 30, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*or you think that the earth's atmosphere by some magic is the only thing that warms, or cools more slowly as a result of having its emissivity raised.*

Magic? Hardly. How much energy is emitted by the atmosphere in the non-GHG wavelengths?


----------



## Wuwei (May 30, 2019)

SSDD said:


> ...shucking and jiving, dodging and weaving, ducking and covering are generally tactics used by the likes of wuwei...


That is your tactic. It is also the tactic of a troll to accuse someone of the very faults they have. I have always stood up for basic proven science and you know it.  You have dodged and weaved in almost every post and your "alternate" science is full of contradictions and self contradictions.


.


----------



## IanC (May 30, 2019)

SSDD said:


> If a gas can emit radiation, and if a function of a gas such as so called greenhouse gases is to emit radiation, and that more so called greenhouse gases emit more radiation, then such a gas provides a mechanism for cooling...not warming. The ability to emit radiation is given by a factor called emissivity. If a surface or substance has low emissivity, then it has to attain a higher temperature to emit a given quantity of energy. by the same token, something with high emissivity will conversely have a lower temperature needed to emit a given quantity of energy. The relation between a surface's or substance's temperature is inversely proportional to its ability to radiatively emit energy i.e. its emissivity.



Thanks for actually making an attempt at explaining your position. It helps me see where you are coming from.

Emissivity is the ability of a substance to absorb/emit specific wavelengths of EMR. You cannot have the ability for one without the ability for the other. Obviously. 

You mentioned that temperature has a relationship with emissivity.  Indeed it does, while a substance can always absorb favoured bands of radiation it can only produce that radiation if there is enough available energy. And the higher the amount of available energy  (AKA temperature), the larger the amount of radiation  (_j=ea_T^4).

Let's use CO2 as an example. The amount of radiation energy it absorbs and adds to the atmosphere is only limited by the amount of 15 micron radiation the surface produces. The cooling it is responsible for is limited by the amount of 15 micron radiation produced by the cold atmosphere at the emission height. 

Ordinarily I would  mention that some radiation energy would reurn to the surface but I don't want to leave the topic of emissivity. 

CO2 has three bands in IR where the emissivity is one, unity. 15, 4, 3 microns. Why do we not talk about the bands at 4 and 3? Because the Sun sends very little of those to the Earth, and the Earth's surface is not warm enough to produce it. 

Are there bands that CO2 has an emissivity of 0<x <1 ?  Yes of course. Near the surface there are pressure effects that widen the 15 micron band to a 14-16 micron band. Like a badly fitting key, it only works if you hold it just right. That is why the CO2 notch gets wider at higher concentration but any escaping radition comes from a high temperature low altitude emission height. 

All GHGs produce the same type of result. They absorb more surface emitted radiation than they eventually emit to space from a cold high altitude. 

Increasing the amount of a specific GHG will increase the radiation absorbed near the surface and decrease the amount released to space.

Personally I think that the miniscule amount of increased emissivity near the surface (via widening the wings by pressure) should be ignored here as unnecessary complexity. It does not reduce the GreenhouseEffect,  it adds to it.

So SSDD. I will ask you again, why do you think adding more GHGs will cool the atmosphere?  What energy reservoir will it be depleting, and by which wavelengths?


----------



## IanC (May 30, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Magic? Hardly. How much energy is emitted by the atmosphere in the non-GHG wavelengths?




About 40w from the surface bypasses the atmosphere and GHGs. Another 30w from the secondary surface, also known as cloudtops. 70 w out of 235. The rest comes from GHG wavelengths escaping from various different emission heights.


(Edit- I suppose it is incorrect to say that surface produced radiation exiting through the Atmospheric Window comes from the atmosphere. It only transits the atmosphere).


----------



## toobfreak (May 30, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You didn't do much to defend your position there ian...shucking and jiving, dodging and weaving, ducking and covering are generally tactics used by the likes of wuwei, the skid mark, and the hairball...you usually don't resort to such tactics. Toobfreak had some pretty straight forward questions about your belief of how the greenhouse effect works...questions that your mathematical models should have been able to answer.
> ...



Hey SHIT FOR BRAINS DIARRHEA MOUTH,

YOU are the one who attacked me right from the git-go and have been doing it ever since, and over nothing.  Anyone can read these threads to see.

THEN  you said:  I can't imagine what in the world he doesn't like me for!

Obviously, if you actually had any formal education and degrees in anything remotely approaching science and physics, you'd just SAY SO.

2).  Questions about light, heat, Sun and energy are not "criticisms."  These forums are FOR debate and discussion.  The fact that you took them as such and never answered any of my questions withing anything short of HORSESHIT PSEUDOSCIENCE MUMBOJUMBO, attacks and deflections speaks volumes about you.  Unfortunately, assholes like you always turn them into spamming trolling threads to protect your personal pet garbage theories by trying to drown out dissent with noise..

There is no rational response to someone who refuses proof, refuses evidence and steadfastly changes the subject over and over, and turns everything into a deflection about personal attacks.  You are one dumb, fucked up lying, arrogant, shit-brained motherfucker.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 30, 2019)

IanC said:


> All GHGs produce the same type of result. *They absorb more surface emitted radiation than they eventually emit to space from a cold high altitude*.
> 
> Increasing the amount of a specific GHG will increase the radiation absorbed near the surface and decrease the amount released to space.





Please show me where this is happening in our atmosphere.  There is no mid-troposphere hot spot and ERBE satellite  measurements show linear parallel of input to output showing that your statement is false by empirical observation.

Try Again...  Epic Failure..



 

You keep citing these crap models as if they were gospel.. They FAIL EMPIRICAL REVIEW!


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 30, 2019)

IanC said:


> So SSDD. I will ask you again, why do you think adding more GHGs will cool the atmosphere? What energy reservoir will it be depleting, and by which wavelengths?


Again, Convection and Conduction remove all energy from the surface to cloud top where it is released. There is NO RESERVOIR and the heat is lost.

This is why Trenbreth's cartoon is patently false and a hope-n-poke. The 40-131w/m^2 that is supposed to be retained is not being retained by the atmosphere. You people are missing the forest because of the trees..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 30, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > So SSDD. I will ask you again, why do you think adding more GHGs will cool the atmosphere? What energy reservoir will it be depleting, and by which wavelengths?
> ...



*Again, Convection and Conduction remove all energy from the surface to cloud top where it is released.*

No radiation above the first few meters? None at all until above the clouds?


----------



## Wuwei (May 30, 2019)

IanC said:


> All GHGs produce the same type of result. They absorb more surface emitted radiation than they eventually emit to space from a cold high altitude.
> 
> Increasing the amount of a specific GHG will increase the radiation absorbed near the surface and decrease the amount released to space.



Do you have any idea what that high altitude is? I know it would span over a range. Is it in the troposphere or stratosphere or what? 

.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 30, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Tell me Todd, if a molecule is collided with 30,000 times during the time it can hold energy what are the probabilities it will be radiated vs kinetically transferred to water vapor or another high quantity molecule in our atmosphere?

The answer is slightly above 0 (maybe 1 in 1,000,000,000,000). given factors of 400 parts per million and the residency time.


----------



## IanC (May 30, 2019)

toobfreak said:


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




hahahahaha! quite the rant. do you feel better?

you're still just an incompetent blowhard.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 30, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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


*The answer is slightly above 0 (maybe 1 in 1,000,000,000,000). given factors of 400 parts per million and the residency time. *

Wow! Your very precise calculation would mean that a downward pointing IR detector would detect 
almost nothing at those wavelengths higher than a few meters above the ground.

Any backup for your theory?


----------



## IanC (May 30, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > All GHGs produce the same type of result. They absorb more surface emitted radiation than they eventually emit to space from a cold high altitude.
> ...









That gives you the temperature. Just match it up to an atmospheric profile. All in the toposphere I think


----------



## Wuwei (May 30, 2019)

IanC said:


> That gives you the temperature. Just match it up to an atmospheric profile. All in the toposphere I think


Ah, Thank you. I have seen that before, but didn't catch the fact that it answers my question. It also answers questions I didn't ask such as the altitude of ozone and methane, etc.

.


----------



## IanC (May 30, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > That gives you the temperature. Just match it up to an atmospheric profile. All in the toposphere I think
> ...




you made a good observation years ago that a lot of radiation escapes at the freezing temperature of water.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 30, 2019)

xband said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Too many threads are ending up with the same 20 page discussion between a small fraction of the members that read Enviro topics.. Every rule and design of USMB moderation is there to get UNIQUE TOPICAL discussion of specific events and topics as laid out in the Opening Posts. *No one wants to wade thru the same fillibustering arguments that atmospheric physics and the GHouse effect is all wrong.*.  And they violate the "on-topic" rules at USMB..
> ...



If you a nuclear physics ace, you should already KNOW that misunderstands and "alt science" of thermodynamics and atmospheric physics has little or nothing to do with nuclear anything...


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 30, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Not from CO2...  other gases and vapors yes... My recent experiment with atmospheric gases in a tube only resulted in 1.2% reflection/re-emission towards the source of energy was pretty conclusive of this.


----------



## SSDD (May 31, 2019)

IanC said:


> Emissivity is the ability of a substance to absorb/emit specific wavelengths of EMR. You cannot have the ability for one without the ability for the other. Obviously.



No ian...emissivity is about the ability of a substance to emit energy...period.

Let's use CO2 as an example. The amount of radiation energy it absorbs and adds to the atmosphere is only limited by the amount of 15 micron radiation the surface produces. The cooling it is responsible for is limited by the amount of 15 micron radiation produced by the cold atmosphere at the emission height.



IanC said:


> All GHGs produce the same type of result. They absorb more surface emitted radiation than they eventually emit to space from a cold high altitude.



They absorb more than they emit because the vast bulk of what they absorb is lost via collisions with other molecules before they ever get the chance to emit said radiation and there is no requirement that it be emitted at the TOA at the same frequency at which it was absorbed in the lower troposphere. 

You have this terribly skewed image in your head of how energy is moved through the troposphere...your belief that radiation is a major player in the movement of energy through the troposphere is simply wrong...and no amount of appeal to complexity will ever make it right.


----------



## SSDD (May 31, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > All GHGs produce the same type of result. *They absorb more surface emitted radiation than they eventually emit to space from a cold high altitude*.
> ...



It is his belief and his faith is strong...I doubt that anything could ever prompt him to change his mind...I suppose that even after the GH hypothesis finally goes down in flames, assuming he is still alive, he will maintain his insistence that he has been right all these years...and is still right.


----------



## SSDD (May 31, 2019)

IanC said:


> So SSDD. I will ask you again, why do you think adding more GHGs will cool the atmosphere?  What energy reservoir will it be depleting, and by which wavelengths?



There is no energy reservoir.....what bit of energy that so called greenhouse gasses actually emit in the form of IR moves on to space at the speed of light rather than by the cumbersome process of conduction/convection...add more so called greenhouse gas molecules to the atmosphere and you have a greater number of them managing to emit a photon which skips the conduction/convection elevator to the top of the troposphere and moves directly to space....there is no back radiation, and "scattering" is so negligible as to be irrelevant...

The process that you imagine energy moving through the troposphere is simply, and completely wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*Not from CO2... other gases and vapors yes... *

Other gases and vapors are allowed to radiate more than a few meters above the surface?
More frequently than "maybe 1 in 1,000,000,000,000"?
Why?


----------



## Wuwei (May 31, 2019)

SSDD said:


> No ian...emissivity is about the ability of a substance to emit energy...period.


That's not true,
From UCSD: Black Body Radiation *
_ A black body is one that absorbs all the EM radiation (light...) that strikes it. To stay in thermal equilibrium, it must emit radiation at the same rate as it absorbs it so a black body also radiates well. _​


SSDD said:


> Let's use CO2 as an example. The amount of radiation energy it absorbs and adds to the atmosphere is only limited by the amount of 15 micron radiation the surface produces.



The equipartition principle requires that 2/9 of the CO2 energy is in a vibration mode.
There are *1.012 x10^22* CO2 molecules per cubic meter in air at 400ppm.
Number in excitation state 1.01 10^22 x 2/9 = *0.244 10^22*
Even if a million collide and don't radiate, there would still be *0.24410^16* CO2 molecules radiating per cubic meter.
So, the radiation is not limited to the surface. In fact the surface radiation adds to the above radiation that naturally occurs.


.


----------



## miketx (May 31, 2019)

sig line


----------



## IanC (May 31, 2019)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > So SSDD. I will ask you again, why do you think adding more GHGs will cool the atmosphere?  What energy reservoir will it be depleting, and by which wavelengths?
> ...




All of the atmosphere is an energy reserve. Kinetic energy stored as temperature, potential energy stored as height in the gravity field,  latent energy stored by phase change. 

You made the casual unsupported statement that more molecules of a GHG means more opportunity to radiate a photon to space. I say that GHGs only radiate to space once their density is low enought that a photonescapes rather than gets reabsorbed.


If the emission concentration is xx per cubic centimetre then you have to go up in the amosphere until that concentratin is reached, the emission height. If you double the GHG concentration, the emission concentration is still the same but you have to go farther up into the atmosphere where the overall density of air is 1/2 of what it was. There will only be the same amout of the GHG capable of radiating to space but it will be at a colder height.

Adding more of a GHG does not increase escaping radiation. It decreases it because the new height has less energy to convert into radiation.

So, where is the energy coming from for your claim of extra cooling and which wavelengths account for it?


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 31, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Even if a million collide and don't radiate, there would still be *0.24410^16* CO2 molecules radiating per cubic meter.


SO we add 16 zeros to your decimal...  0.000000000000000024410  Tell me again how this very small amount of 'back radiation' from CO2 can do anything?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Even if a million collide and don't radiate, there would still be *0.24410^16* CO2 molecules radiating per cubic meter.
> ...



*SO we add 16 zeros to your decimal...  0.000000000000000024410  *

You have your decimal going the wrong way.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 31, 2019)

SSDD said:


> They absorb more than they emit because the vast bulk of what they absorb is lost via collisions with other molecules before they ever get the chance to emit said radiation and there is no requirement that it be emitted at the TOA at the same frequency at which it was absorbed in the lower troposphere.



Correct;

This is why when you look at the radiative properties of water vapor it begins at 12um and ends above 130um due to cooling as it rises above cloud boundary and re-nucleates into water droplets emitting its radiation at a much lower temperature .


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 31, 2019)

IanC said:


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


And water vapor blows a huge hole in your hypothesis...  Water vapor in the atmosphere is the reason we have never gone outside the 14 deg C average temperature range for over 4.5 billion years. Even at concentrations above 7000ppm.


----------



## IanC (May 31, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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




My hypoothesis is that adding more of an existing GHG reduces escaping radiation in the wavelengths affected by the increased GHG. I explained my reasoning.

You say water vapour blows a hole in that statement. Where is the hole, what energy are you talking about and which wavelengths.


----------



## IanC (May 31, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > They absorb more than they emit because the vast bulk of what they absorb is lost via collisions with other molecules before they ever get the chance to emit said radiation and there is no requirement that it be emitted at the TOA at the same frequency at which it was absorbed in the lower troposphere.
> ...




Why do you say that water vapour starts reacting with radiation at 12 microns? Did you not look at your own diagram? There are lots of reactive bands in the mid and near IR. And water reacts very poorly with 12 micron radiation which is actually considered part of the Atmospheric Window.

I really dont know why I respond to your nonsense. Why dont you and tubesucker get together and tell each other your make believe qualifications?


----------



## IanC (May 31, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Even if a million collide and don't radiate, there would still be *0.24410^16* CO2 molecules radiating per cubic meter.
> ...




What a fucking retard you are. Wu had thee numbers, all with 4 sig figs, and descending powers of ten. The last number was missing a space so you decided it was a 6 sig fig number raised to the 16th power. When that was too difficult to calculate you mashed things up and multiplied by 10^-16 instead.

Nobody with scientific training would have been confused with Wu's line of calculation. That you went totally out to lunch because of a missing space just shows how stupid you are.


----------



## Wuwei (May 31, 2019)

IanC said:


> What a fucking retard you are. Wu had thee numbers, all with 4 sig figs, and descending powers of ten. The last number was missing a space so you decided it was a 6 sig fig number raised to the 16th power. When that was too difficult to calculate you mashed things up and multiplied by 10^-16 instead.
> 
> Nobody with scientific training would have been confused with Wu's line of calculation. That you went totally out to lunch because of a missing space just shows how stupid you are.


Thank you. I had no idea what he was talking about. I generally ignore him when he says something screwy.

.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 1, 2019)

IanC said:


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


The correct calculation is 10^-16, which is what I posted even though he missed the proper form. Speaking of stupid...  LOL  you idiots never cease to amaze me..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 1, 2019)

IanC said:


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



Water Vapor emits LWIR as it rises in the atmospheric column, when it cools enough to re-nucleate into a water droplet. This phase change happens at various altitudes and starts at 12um  and elongates out to over 130um..  Water vapor at just 36% relative humidity, at ground level, is capable of absorbing all the LWIR energy CO2 can absorb and loses by collision. Once captured by water vapor, the cooling of the air mass, as it rises will place the resulting release of LWIR out of reach of any further interaction with CO2 in our atmosphere simply because its wavelength will be bigger than 16um. At just 150 meters, the air has cooled by 30 degrees from the surface temperature, which will place its emission out side of the range (>16um) that CO2 can interfere with.

GHG game over...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 1, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*The correct calculation is 10^-16, *

10^-16 for the number of molecules?


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 1, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The correct calculation is 10^-16, *
> 
> 10^-16 for the number of molecules?


Those guys often make a fool of themselves when trying to make a fool of others.

.


----------



## IanC (Jun 1, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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




Your five sentence explanation has so many errors and inconsistencies that I cannot spare the time and effort to go over all of them.

Your last sentence says that the atmospheric temperature drops 30 (undefined) degrees in 150 meters. That works out to a 200 (undefined) degrees per kilometer lapse rate. Have the moist and dry lapse rates of 6.5 and 9.8 degrees Celcius per kilometer been overturned? What happened to the hudreds of millions of temperature readings by weather balloons? Are you just talking out of your ass again? Making shit up?

Seriously, your biggest mistake that hinders you from understanding this stuff is your mistaken belief that a substance at a specific temperature can only radiate one specific wavelength. Not true. It radiates according to its temperature and emissivity, resulting in a range of possible wavelengths, with different amounts for each wavelength. Until you understand the basic idea behind a Planck Curve you will be lost and just babble the gobbledygook that you have been spewing for the last 10 years.


----------



## IanC (Jun 1, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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




Wouldnt 10^-16 th of any characteristic for a molecule put it past the quantum limit for size? I tnink Billy Boob should just own up to his mistake and try to learn from this encounter.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 2, 2019)

IanC said:


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


The amount of re-radiated LWIR, by CO2, is so small that  it is negligible.  I'm sorry that this conflicts with your religious beleif's but it is what it is..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 2, 2019)

IanC said:


> It radiates according to its temperature and emissivity, resulting in a range of possible wavelengths, with different amounts for each wavelength. Until you understand the basic idea behind a Planck Curve you will be lost


I understand Planks Curve very well.  It is you who is having a problem with understanding the emissions side of the equation.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 2, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> The amount of re-radiated LWIR, by CO2, is so small that it is negligible. I'm sorry that this conflicts with your religious beleif's but it is what it is..


Here it is again with my typos corrected. It is not negligible.

The equipartition principle requires that 2/9 of the CO2 energy is in a vibration mode.
At STP there are *1.012 x 10^22* CO2 molecules per cubic meter in air at 400ppm.

Number in excitation state 1.01 10^22 x 2/9 = *0.244 x 10^22
*
Even if a million collide and don't radiate, there would still be *0.244 x 10^16* CO2 molecules radiating per cubic meter.

The radiation is not limited to the surface. In fact the surface radiation adds to the above radiation that naturally occurs. If you do the math you will find that at 15 microns the radiation density of a cubic meter is over 100 Watts.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Jun 2, 2019)

REPORT: Earth Has Not Warmed For Past 19 Years
we might be going into a deep cooling period


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The amount of re-radiated LWIR, by CO2, is so small that it is negligible. I'm sorry that this conflicts with your religious beleif's but it is what it is..
> ...



The problem is that all of those molecules are COLLIDING with other atmospheric molecules 30,000 times during the potential time the energy can reside before the dipole moment occurs and the photon is re-emitted.  The odds are 30,000 to 1 that the energy will be lost kinetically to other molecules in our atmosphere. Water vapor alone, of just 36% relative humidity, will absorb all the energy, near surface, that CO2 can absorb and lose by collision at 1 atmosphere pressure.  This leaves very little energy (less than 0.01%) that can be re-radiated by the CO2 molecule. This does not stop other molecules from emitting LWIR. Your potential of 100 watts, according to recent studies, is lost to convention and conduction in most of our atmosphere (roughly 86%).

Once that energy is carried away in water vapor, it will cool by 30 deg F in the first 150 meters, lowering its temperature and elongating the wave length of IR (greater than 16um) to the point that CO2 can do nothing to stop its loss to space. Water vapor is kicking CO2's ass and you folks cant see the forest due to the trees.

An experiment I ask you folks to do in a desert and again in a high water vapor region proves this out.

In a desert, the temp can start below freezing and sore to over 100 degrees by 10am. In four hours we can blow by the range of temperature a high water vapor region gets in a whole day.  By 4pm it will be near 120 degrees. Once the sun sets, the cooling is rapid and we can be near freezing again in less than 4 hours as there is no atmospheric MASS (water vapor) to slow the energy release.  The CO2 levels are nearly the same in both regions so it is ruled out by empirical experiment. The dry atmosphere can swing 90-110 degrees and the the water vapor laden atmosphere can only swing 70-80 degrees due to the weight/mass in that region, slowing both incoming and outgoing radiation.

This is basic atmospheric physics.. You folks have your noses so buried into complex computer models and calculations that your missing the very basic concepts that disprove your hypothesis.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 3, 2019)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> REPORT: Earth Has Not Warmed For Past 19 Years
> we might be going into a deep cooling period


Its worse than that report... They don't even touch on the spectral shift of incoming radiation that changes where energy is absorbed on earths surface. The Oceans have lost about 12% of the radiation that is passed through our atmosphere where water vapor can not impede it. The shift in energy from 0.6um to 1.9um allows the atmosphere to reflect most of it that was once unimpeded from hitting earths oceans and warming them to 700 meters. That loss is very well recorded in the last 12 months.






The heat/energy loss is massive... As our oceans go so do the land temperatures..


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 3, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> The problem is that all of those molecules are COLLIDING with other atmospheric molecules 30,000 times during the potential time the energy can reside before the dipole moment occurs and the photon is re-emitted.


This is a back-of-the-envelope calculation I posted somewhere before. It shows that the energy of CO2 15 micron radiation per cubic meter is around 175 Joules.

Probability of CO2 emission from excited state (with no collision) = 1 / 30,000

Number of air molecules per m^3 = 2.53 10^25 (Use Avogadro's number)
CO2 density: 400 ppm
Number of *CO2 molecules per m^3* @ 400ppm = *1.01 10^22*

Number in excitation state *1.01 10^22* x 2/9 = *0.244 10^22* (From Equipartition Principle)

Relaxation time for CO2 vibration 6 microSec.
There will be roughly *0.244 10^22* molecules emitting 15 micron radiation every 6 microSec
Number of photons per second from CO2 = number x probability / 6.0 10^-6
= *0.244* *10^22 */ ( 30,000 x 6.0 10^-6 ) = *1.35 10^22* emissions / sec

Energy of 15 micron photon = 1.3 10^-20 J
Joules per second of 15 micron photons = *1.35 10^22* x 1.3 10-20 J/s = *1.75 x 10^2* W

*Conclusion:*
So even though the collision probability is very high and there are only 400 ppm of CO2, the radiation density is around *175 Watts *radiating within a cubic meter at STP. That doesn't count what CO2 absorbs from the earth's total *396 W/ m^2* radiation.



Billy_Bob said:


> Water vapor alone, of just 36% relative humidity, will absorb all the energy, near surface, that CO2 can absorb and lose by collision at 1 atmosphere pressure.



CO2 absorbs and radiates in a different band. Water absorption is negligible at 15 microns.







.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 3, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*The odds are 30,000 to 1 that the energy will be lost kinetically to other molecules in our atmosphere. Water vapor alone, of just 36% relative humidity, will absorb all the energy, near surface, that CO2 can absorb and lose by collision at 1 atmosphere pressure. This leaves very little energy (less than 0.01%) that can be re-radiated by the CO2 molecule. *

I have this sneaking suspicion that you don't realize that as quickly as CO2 can lose energy by collision, it can also absorb energy by collision. Energy which is again available to emit as a photon.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 3, 2019)

You two are like talking to a brick....

The energy absorbed by CO2 is LOST BY COLLISION, NOT RADIATION, in over 86% of our atmosphere.  In regions that are dry (ie: little atmospheric mass and the only region CO2 re-emits LWIR of any consequence) the energy is lost to space at a 1.47 times faster rate than an atmosphere of 36% relative humidity.

Its the simple things you people are totally ignorant of and that is why your models FAIL without exception.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> CO2 absorbs and radiates in a different band. Water absorption is negligible at 15 microns



Incorrect:

Water Vapor is an incredible absorber at 15um..  Once the number of molecules is greater than about 5 times that of CO2, Collision with and energy loss to them is almost totally assured.


----------



## IanC (Jun 4, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> You two are like talking to a brick....
> 
> The energy absorbed by CO2 is LOST BY COLLISION, NOT RADIATION, in over 86% of our atmosphere.  In regions that are dry (ie: little atmospheric mass and the only region CO2 re-emits LWIR of any consequence) the energy is lost to space at a 1.47 times faster rate than an atmosphere of 36% relative humidity.
> 
> Its the simple things you people are totally ignorant of and that is why your models FAIL without exception.




More bullshit false precision. you dont have a source for any of those numbers, you just pull them out of your ass.

My 'model' says roughly a degree of warming influence per doubling of CO2. There Has been  about 1C warming in 150 years and it is possible that CO2 has caused some of it, although it would be nearly impossible to prove.

What is easier to dispute is the 3+C waarming that the climate concensus claims for 2xCO2. Water feedbacks are simply not happening in the fashion that they predicted.


----------



## IanC (Jun 4, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 absorbs and radiates in a different band. Water absorption is negligible at 15 microns
> ...




When are you going to learn how to read your own graph? Water would be able to absorb roughly half of 15 micron radiation IF it wasnt already absorbed in the first few metres by CO2. Anything less than 100% absorbance mean a weak reaction either because of molecular activity or small fraction in the atmosphere.

The blue hump is the amount of Surface Radiation that transits the atmosphere and escapes to space directly. This is called the Atmospheric Window and it spans 8-12 microns roughly.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 4, 2019)

IanC said:


> My 'model' says roughly a degree of warming influence per doubling of CO2. There Has been  about 1C warming in 150 years and it is possible that CO2 has caused some of it, although it would be nearly impossible to prove.
> 
> .



That would be the same model that used to say 6 degrees of warming influence per doubling of CO2...it is the same model...it has just been tweaked and tweaked to produce a number that is closer to observations...the grossly misunderstood physics which predicted 6 degrees of warming have not been changed a bit...your model sucks and it always will because it is describing an effect that simply is not happening.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 4, 2019)

IanC said:


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



When are you going to grasp that water and oxygen and nitrogen end up with that radiation anyway because damned near every CO2 molecule that absorbs a photon loses that energy via a collision with another molecule?  The energy is then conducted and convected to the top of the troposphere...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 5, 2019)

IanC said:


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


Your the one having issues in reading the graph. Are you trying to insinuate water does not absorb in this region?  Really?  

Once again you miss the forest due to the trees...


----------



## gtopa1 (Jun 5, 2019)

Dunno 'bout the Science stuff 'cause all I seen is tham thar "models" what's all wrong in their predictions...which means they're worth nutthin!! Now is the earth warming? If 1770 was unusually cold then yes 'cause it's hotter than then. Is the earth going to heat sterilise itself?? Dunno. I suppose there could be a nuke war one day.

Greg


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> When are you going to grasp that water and oxygen and nitrogen end up with that radiation anyway


In other words O2 and N2 and the rest of the atmosphere warm up.


SSDD said:


> because damned near every CO2 molecule that absorbs a photon loses that energy via a collision with another molecule?


Except for the *1.35 10^22 *molecules per cubic meter which re-radiate.



SSDD said:


> The energy is then conducted and convected to the top of the troposphere...


Convected not conducted.

.


----------



## IanC (Jun 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


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




You are either dishonest, or stupid, in two ways with that comment.

You say that the surface radiation is absorbed and passed along to the rest of the molecules of air but you also claim that no energy is added to the air. That is not possible. Where did the energy go?

You say that the energy CO2 gains from absorbing a photon is thermalized by molecular collision. True. But then you deny that the energy in the atmosphere turns thermal energy into excited CO2 molecules by the opposite reaction in other collisions.

You only see one side of the coin. You cannot have one side without the other. Where do you think the CO2 at the emission height gets the energy to expel photons to space? Radiation comes in near the surface, bounces around by many means and in many forms for a while, then leaves as radiation further up. But because there is a difference in temperature between the surface and the emission height there is less leaving to space than entering at the surface. The excess returns to the surface by various pathways.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> In other words O2 and N2 and the rest of the atmosphere warm up.



You don't seem to grasp the fact that O2 and N2 are the warming gasses, along with water vapor...CO2 is a cooling gas.  And you don't seem to grasp the ramifications of that fact to the radiative greenhouse hypothesis.



Wuwei said:


> Except for the *1.35 10^22 *molecules per cubic meter which re-radiate.



Got any actual evidence of that or is it just a back of the envelope wild assed guess because Dr Will Happer says something quite different and his reputation outshines yours somewhat.



Wuwei said:


> Convected not conducted.



Both...The energy continues to conduct from molecule to molecule even as the mass of air is moved...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2019)

IanC said:


> You say that the surface radiation is absorbed and passed along to the rest of the molecules of air but you also claim that no energy is added to the air. That is not possible. Where did the energy go?



Your own interpretation since I never said any such thing.



IanC said:


> You say that the energy CO2 gains from absorbing a photon is thermalized by molecular collision. True. But then you deny that the energy in the atmosphere turns thermal energy into excited CO2 molecules by the opposite reaction in other collisions.{/quote]
> 
> I never said that either...although because of the sheer scarcity of CO2 molecules, the number that collect energy via a collision would be vanishingly small and of those that did collect some energy via collision, the vast majority would then lose the energy via another collision.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You don't seem to grasp the fact that O2 and N2 are the warming gasses, along with water vapor...CO2 is a cooling gas. And you don't seem to grasp the ramifications of that fact to the radiative greenhouse hypothesis.



"Warming gases" and "cooling gases." That makes no sense as it is stated. Please elaborate on what you think the processes are.


SSDD said:


> Got any actual evidence of that or is it just a back of the envelope wild assed guess because Dr Will Happer says something quite different and his reputation outshines yours somewhat.


I gave rational. Happer did not. Find a source that gives a rational to Happer's number. Otherwise it's a wild guess on his part.



SSDD said:


> Both...The energy continues to conduct from molecule to molecule even as the mass of air is moved...


Yes conduction happens, but it's minuscule compared to convection. You can see it for yourself. Try multiplying the thermal conductivity of air with the lapse rate for one meter and you will find it is minuscule. 


.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You don't seem to grasp the fact that O2 and N2 are the warming gasses, along with water vapor...CO2 is a cooling gas. And you don't seem to grasp the ramifications of that fact to the radiative greenhouse hypothesis.
> ...




Been through it all before...if you don't grasp the difference between warming and cooling, you are even further behind the curve than I thought...and I am not going to subject others to the tedium of going over it all again...if you must relive your defeats, do it from the privacy of your own computer by reviewing any previous incarnation of this discussion.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Been through it all before...if you don't grasp the difference between warming and cooling, you are even further behind the curve than I thought...and I am not going to subject others to the tedium of going over it all again...if you must relive your defeats, do it from the privacy of your own computer by reviewing any previous incarnation of this discussion.


That's what I thought. You have no argument. I have stuck to the physical sciences. If you disagree with me you disagree with science. If you disagree with science you have no argument.

.


----------



## IanC (Jun 5, 2019)

SSDD said-

"
↑
You only see one side of the coin. You cannot have one side without the other. Where do you think the CO2 at the emission height gets the energy to expel photons to space?
SSDD-I think that most energy emitted into space is not 15 micron radiation...you seem to be under the impression that energy doesn't get out of the atmosphere unless CO2 emits it. The fact is that CO2 is a bit player and has zero or less impact on the temperature of the planet. The fact is that N2 and O2, along with water vapor are the primary warming gasses in the atmosphere...The only effect CO2 has is a very slight cooling effect."

I dont think most of the radiation escaping to space is 15 micron. It is a combination of reflected shortwave, IR that transits the atmosphere at Atmospheric Window wavelengths, and greenhouse gas emissions that are smaller amounts than the was originally absorbed.

Water vapour is a greenhouse gas. It absorbs a lot of radiation near the surface and it radiates less than that at the emission height where it is cooler.

How does the extra energy leave? What molecules? What wavelengths? Why do you never explain yourself?


----------



## IanC (Jun 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You don't seem to grasp the fact that O2 and N2 are the warming gasses, along with water vapor...CO2 is a cooling gas. And you don't seem to grasp the ramifications of that fact to the radiative greenhouse hypothesis.



Define the difference between a warming gas and a cooling gas.

I know the difference between a greenhouse gas and a non greenhouse gas.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2019)

N2, O2 and water vapor are the gasses in the atmosphere that are actually holding energy...The so called greenhouse gasses have no capacity to hold energy at atmospheric temperatures and no mechanism by which to delay energy from escaping to space...they are merely a conduit...a bypass from the cumbersome conduction / convection highway to the top of the troposphere


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> N2, O2 and water vapor are the gasses in the atmosphere that are actually holding energy...The so called greenhouse gasses have no capacity to hold energy at atmospheric temperatures and no mechanism by which to delay energy from escaping to space...they are merely a conduit...a bypass from the cumbersome conduction / convection highway to the top of the troposphere



*The so called greenhouse gasses have no capacity to hold energy at atmospheric temperatures *

Wow! What a nonsensical claim.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> N2, O2 and water vapor are the gasses in the atmosphere that are actually holding energy...The so called greenhouse gasses have no capacity to hold energy at atmospheric temperatures and no mechanism by which to delay energy from escaping to space...they are merely a conduit...a bypass from the cumbersome conduction / convection highway to the top of the troposphere


Those are really bizarre statements with no explanation or link. We asked for detail. Do you have any? 


.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > N2, O2 and water vapor are the gasses in the atmosphere that are actually holding energy...The so called greenhouse gasses have no capacity to hold energy at atmospheric temperatures and no mechanism by which to delay energy from escaping to space...they are merely a conduit...a bypass from the cumbersome conduction / convection highway to the top of the troposphere
> ...



Are you going to deny now that N2 and O2 gain energy via collisions with CO2 and other so called greenhouse gas molecules?


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Are you going to deny now that N2 and O2 gain energy via collisions with CO2 and other so called greenhouse gas molecules?



All molecules including CO2, water, and other GHGs gain and lose energy by collisions. GHGs are the only ones which also gain energy from earth surface long wave IR radiation. 

So what. You are still avoiding an explanation of your statement,
_N2, O2 and water vapor are the gasses in the atmosphere that are actually holding energy...The so called greenhouse gasses have no capacity to hold energy at atmospheric temperatures _​
It is only something you simply made up, and it's bizarre with no basis in physics. 


.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Are you going to deny now that N2 and O2 gain energy via collisions with CO2 and other so called greenhouse gas molecules?
> ...




Do feel free to show some observed, measured evidence that supports your claim that so called greenhouse gasses other than water vapor are able to "hold" or retain the energy they absorb...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*Do feel free to show some observed, measured evidence that supports your claim that so called greenhouse gasses other than water vapor are able to "hold" or retain the energy they absorb...*

Are these greenhouse gasses all solids at absolute zero wherever they're observed?

Are these greenhouse gasses all gasses at various temperatures and altitudes?​


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Do feel free to show some observed, measured evidence that supports your claim that so called greenhouse gasses other than water vapor are able to "hold" or retain the energy they absorb...



If you are only talking about latent heat, of course water vapor is unique in the atmosphere when it comes to phase changes. 

But if you are talking about the vapor phase. Water vapor, CO2, O2 and N2, etc are no different from each other in being able to absorb or transfer energy via collisions. 

Your habit of terse pronouncements with no context shows you are only interested in playing games with words while displaying no interest in the science involved. 

.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 6, 2019)

Nothing.....precisely what I expected.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Nothing.....precisely what I expected.


Well that's a coward's way of evading a cogent reply when you gave no context to your statement. Just what do you disagree with? Are you simply talking about latent heat or collisions?


.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 6, 2019)

and still nothing...how unsurprising is that?


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> and still nothing...how unsurprising is that?


Sill nothing from you. I understand. You can't answer the question. Your comment meant nothing in the first place.


.


----------



## IanC (Jun 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> N2, O2 and water vapor are the gasses in the atmosphere that are actually holding energy...The so called greenhouse gasses have no capacity to hold energy at atmospheric temperatures and no mechanism by which to delay energy from escaping to space...they are merely a conduit...a bypass from the cumbersome conduction / convection highway to the top of the troposphere



How do nitrogen and oxygen hold energy in a way that CO2 doesnt? 

All of the atmospheric gases store energy by kinetic speed (temperature) and potentiall energy as hieght in the gravity field. Is there some other parameter that I am missing?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 7, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > N2, O2 and water vapor are the gasses in the atmosphere that are actually holding energy...The so called greenhouse gasses have no capacity to hold energy at atmospheric temperatures and no mechanism by which to delay energy from escaping to space...they are merely a conduit...a bypass from the cumbersome conduction / convection highway to the top of the troposphere
> ...



You're missing the epicycles that disallow back radiation.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 7, 2019)

IanC said:


> How do nitrogen and oxygen hold energy in a way that CO2 doesnt?



He already "answered" the question: "_Nothing.....precisely what I expected."_
I think his brain is worn out. 

.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 8, 2019)

BWhaaaaaaaaaaaa

You idiots have missed the forest due to the trees....

Each molecule in the atmosphere has its own emissions band(s).  As collisions move energy in the troposphere they will all emit in their own bands relative to their temperatures.

I am in awe that such a simple concept is beyond the reach of a whole bunch of people who claim to be scientists. You people are so fixated on CO2 that you miss what is going on right in front of you that lays waste to the CO2 fantasy.


----------



## WheelieAddict (Jun 8, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> BWhaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> You idiots have missed the forest due to the trees....
> 
> ...


Aren't you the stubborn idiot that kept saying an el nino wasn't happening back in the day, posting propaganda bs blogs to make your point, then were totally obliterated by reality? Yeah that was you. Don't mind me if I laugh at any "analysis" you post.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 8, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> BWhaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> You idiots have missed the forest due to the trees....
> 
> ...



BillyBob stop acting like a troll. You say something obvious, but irrelevant, and accuse others of not seeing it. You are being just plain stupid or a troll.

.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 8, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > N2, O2 and water vapor are the gasses in the atmosphere that are actually holding energy...The so called greenhouse gasses have no capacity to hold energy at atmospheric temperatures and no mechanism by which to delay energy from escaping to space...they are merely a conduit...a bypass from the cumbersome conduction / convection highway to the top of the troposphere
> ...


  Sorry...I didn’t think i needed to draw a picture in crayon...by holding, i mean passing the energy from molecule to molecule via conduction as opposed to radiating the energy out to space at the speed of light.

Your obsession with the mythical alchemical magic of CO2 has blinded you to the obvious and left you dull and stupid.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Sorry...I didn’t think i needed to draw a picture in crayon...by *holding, i mean passing the energy* from molecule to molecule via conduction as opposed to radiating the energy out to space at the speed of light.



Yes you do need to draw a picture in crayons when you butcher the meaning of words. What you are now saying is obvious, but you said the opposite. Holding does not mean passing!!!
*Holding the energy is the opposite of passing the energy*.

Definitions of holding:

To have and keep
To keep from departing or getting away
To have and maintain in one's possession
Definitions of passing:

To transfer or exchange
To hand over
To be conveyed



SSDD said:


> Your obsession with the mythical alchemical magic of CO2 has blinded you to the obvious and left you dull and stupid.



You do this many times. You say something that is obviously not true and call others stupid for questioning it. You and Billy both do that when you are trolling.

.


----------



## IanC (Jun 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


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




Are you admitting that O2 and N2 can only store energy until it is passed along to GHGs to create radiation, or sent back to the surface? About time.


----------



## IanC (Jun 8, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> BWhaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> You idiots have missed the forest due to the trees....
> 
> ...




What bands do O2 and N2 emit in? How much of the total outgoing radiation are they responsible for?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 9, 2019)

IanC said:


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


Still making up arguments for your opponents...some things never change.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 9, 2019)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > BWhaaaaaaaaaaaa
> ...


 Are you saying that O2 and N2 don't emit energy?


----------



## IanC (Jun 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


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




Are you saying they do? What wavelengths and how much? 

I ask you straight forward questions and you refuse to answer with specifics. Then you get mad when I infer your position from the few cryptic clues that you do write.

Things emit according to their temperature and emissivity. What is the emissivity of gaseous oxygen and nitrogen for the infrared capable of being generated by terrestrial temperatures?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 9, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > BWhaaaaaaaaaaaa
> ...


The facts are what they are and you refuse to see them as they do not fit into your belief structure. Its amazing how narrow minded you folks are.  Enjoy your circle jerk.  Only accepting a biased point of view that fits your own point of view is what put climate science in the place it is today, the trash!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 9, 2019)

IanC said:


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



*Are you saying they do? What wavelengths and how much?
*
Why yes they do and in regions CO2 also emits. In order to define how much you need to know the parts per million of our atmosphere to see how it relates to other gases.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 9, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> The facts are what they are and you refuse to see them as they do not fit into your belief structure. Its amazing how narrow minded you folks are. Enjoy your circle jerk. Only accepting a biased point of view that fits your own point of view is what put climate science in the place it is today, the trash!


My belief structure is physics. Yours is a troll structure.

.


----------



## IanC (Jun 9, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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




I really dont know why I bother but....

Nitrous oxide is not atmospheric nitrogen. Ozone is not atmospheric oxygen. Why do you think they are? There are pages of links describing N2 and O2 as unreactive with infrared. Where is your information that claims the opposite?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 9, 2019)

IanC said:


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


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



LOL...

First they beat you over the head about every molecule radiating above 0K and now they deny that it can radiate....  I guess its what is convenient for them at the time....


----------



## IanC (Jun 10, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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




Thanks for fixing SSDDs quote.

Solar shortwave can be reflected out of the atmosphere. IR emission is the only other way to lose energy to space. That leaves lots of other stored atmospheric energy returning to the surface by various pathways.

BillyBoob-  you do understand that emissivity is an interegral condition of producing radiation, Right? solid or liquid nitrogen would have emissivity in the IR bands, the gaseous form does not.

I thought you were another of these self proclaimed physicists? Shouldnt you know this stuff?


----------



## IanC (Jun 10, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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




You do realize that a molecule does not have a temperature? Right?


----------



## IanC (Jun 11, 2019)

I quite like this diagram. It emphasizes the recycling nature of the GHE.

Any comments before I go on?


----------



## IanC (Jun 11, 2019)

First thing to notice is that there is an extra 100w going up from the surface. Why?

Thermals and the water cycle have been added to form a total, rather than just radiation energy.


----------



## IanC (Jun 11, 2019)

Is it a 'perpetual motion machine'? 

Of course not!

But what powers the cycle and where did the energy come from to raise the temperature? Any ideas?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 12, 2019)

IanC said:


> I quite like this diagram. It emphasizes the recycling nature of the GHE.
> 
> Any comments before I go on?



Just one...  BBBBBWWWHHHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAASNORBBBBWWHAAAAAHAAAAHAAA

Full on magic fairy dust....I knew it would eventually come to this...


----------



## IanC (Jun 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I quite like this diagram. It emphasizes the recycling nature of the GHE.
> ...




Really? I set the ball up on a tee for you and that's the best you can do?

I left for a while because the debate stagnated and became unbearably dull. If that is how you want to 'win', then go for it.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 13, 2019)

All you need to know....


----------



## toobfreak (Jun 14, 2019)

IanC said:


> I quite like this diagram. It emphasizes the recycling nature of the GHE.
> 
> Any comments before I go on?




Yeah.  *You're a science fraud and an idiot. * I came back here after weeks away curious to see if any of you geniuses have solved the world's climate problems yet and in 10 seconds I find this CRAP?    You LIKE this diagram, IanC?  All it requires is a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy

Law of conservation of energy

Conservation of energy - Wikipedia

It's the most basic tenet of the physical universe, a law that cannot either be violated nor changed for the laws of our universe to work, required by your GHT in order for your climate models to work.

I don't know what's worse, that you are given a voice here as "Professor Climate" or that others keep responding to your rubbish thereby legitimatizing it.  Your chart contains one HUGE GLARING OBVIOUS FLAW among others:  the claim that the GHE does not alter the output when that is EXACTLY where it steals all its energy from!  Idiot!


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 14, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Your chart contains one HUGE GLARING OBVIOUS FLAW among others: the claim that the GHE does not alter the output when that is EXACTLY where it steals all its energy from! Idiot!



I would agree that the wording to the right of the figure is poorly written and ambiguous. It's unfortunate that IanC didn't cite where the image came from. 

IanC should have given the link. I found it at a blog:
The Tragic Tautology of the Greenhouse Gas Effect
_...all outward longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is equal to, and in balance with, all the absorbed sunlight..._​
I believe the phrase "... yet does not alter the input and output of energy" written at the left of the diagram is referring to the above quotation. To understand what the author is saying, you have to read the blog, but it's not worth it, really

The author denies the greenhouse effect and is using reducto ad absurdium in his diagram. 

I really don't think IanC believes the diagram. I think he was egging SSDD on. But I think SSDD thought IanC was referring to Trenberths diagram which SSDD abhors and ridicules. 

It seems misunderstanding abounds here.

.


----------



## toobfreak (Jun 15, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> _...all outward longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is equal to, and in balance with, all the absorbed sunlight..._



Well Wu, that is certainly true.  It HAS to be obviously, as the output from the system will be exactly a function of the inward pressure from the Sun times the coefficient or factor of whatever the GHE is at that time (the balance), since the Sun is the source, the Earth is the load, and the atmosphere and all its related parts act as a buffering zone storage battery or energy capacitor (the "circuit") effecting the quality and latency of the storage.

And of course, there is no perpetual motion, as this once again implies the creation of energy more so than put into the system which again violates the Conservation Law.  All one need do is turn off the Sun for 8 minutes and 41 seconds to prove the flaw in that idea.



> The author denies the greenhouse effect and is using reducto ad absurdium in his diagram.


It's a common diagram, I've seen it before, I like it in that it gives a simple and easily and immediately understandable picture of the basic concepts generally accepted, but I would redraw parts of it somewhat different.  How the author can deny the GHE (I'll take your word for it), is hard to understand though when it is not up for debate.  No one can deny the GHE, it is an undeniable common physical process essential to the planet, what can be debated is how or to what degree it is operating or WILL operate, which is made all the harder to pin down since the Earth itself, a major part of the equation is neither fully understood and is always changing itself.

But then, last week here, I got into an argument with someone here who INSISTED that the Moon is artificial, a hollow metal ball placed at just the right orbit in space by God to cue man in to the secrets of the universe.

And could not be dissuaded.

This makes arguing with people over the internet beyond a certain point about as useful as banging your head against the wall.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 15, 2019)

IanC said:


> I quite like this diagram. It emphasizes the recycling nature of the GHE.
> 
> Any comments before I go on?


This model fails as it precludes a "Tropospheric Hot Spot" which empirical evidence shows is not present. While some of the 452 is moved up and down by convection this number is grossly exaggerated and the functions of the atmosphere misstated.

This to, just like Trenbreth's cartoon, is incorrect.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 15, 2019)

IanC said:


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


WRONG!

All matter has a temperature. Now were into fairy land things changing basic physics and turning it upside down...


----------



## Crick (Jun 26, 2019)

Wake up.  The statement was that a single molecule does not have a temperature.  That is perfectly correct.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 26, 2019)

What is the temperature of a molecule going 713.6 meters / second?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> What is the temperature of a molecule going 713.6 meters / second?



How many smart photons did it absorb?


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 26, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > What is the temperature of a molecule going 713.6 meters / second?
> ...



5.42 ± 0.61 photons.

As long as the photons came from a hotter source, otherwise 0.0  ±  0.0 photons.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 26, 2019)

This post was transfered from the “Proof of AGW fraud” because it belongs to this special thread created by flacaltenn and is focused on science deniers such as SSDD



SSDD said:


> Sorry doofus...the second law doesn't distinguish between kinds of energy...and of course you claimed that cold air striking a warm wall was evidence of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...you spout so much bullshit that you just can't keep up with it all.
> 
> Here is the post where you first made that stupid claim...
> Grand Solar Minimum.... And Cooling....
> ...



The only response that is possible to your total misunderstanding is that you disagree with science. You have not ever proved any of your fake science of radiation exchange, spontaneous processes, or the second law of thermodynamics etc.

In short you disagree with countless experiments, observations, and measurements of the accepted science versions of:
quantum mechanics
spontaneous processes
radiation exchange between any two objects
black body radiation
the Stefan Boltzmann equation
and most of all the second law of thermodynamics.​I'm not interested in your denial tedium again, but your caustic bluster simply is not science. Not science at all. You are insulting scientists as idiotic, doofuses, spouting bullshit. That is a reflection on your “flat earth” type of unsupportable devotion to fake science, not real science.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 27, 2019)

This post was transfered from the “Proof of AGW fraud” because it belongs to this special thread created by flacaltenn and is focused on science deniers such as 

SSDD





SSDD said:


> You stand by your heavily manipulated, translated, altered version of science..anyone who must interpret the f'ing second law of thermodynamics in order to have "science" jibe with what he believes is OD...."out dere"


The science I use is taught at universities and is at many web sites. I gave you countless references. It is easily searched. 

If you think it is manipulated or altered no need to argue the same tedium over again  *simply give me science references that jibe with your version of science*. Otherwise you are being a troll, a liar, or both.

The various categories are listed in the prior post #282. Have at it.

.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 28, 2019)

Oh the tedium...refer to any of your previous losses in the multiple incarnations of this same discussion..

covering the same ground ad nauseum will never make a non spontaneous process into a spontaneous one...

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

Unfortunate that your views on science are so twisted that you find that you must interpret even the f'ing second law of thermodynamics in an effort to rationalize your beliefs....the f'ing second law of thermodynamics for pete's sake...


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 28, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Oh the tedium...refer to any of your previous losses in the multiple incarnations of this same discussion..
> 
> covering the same ground ad nauseum will never make a non spontaneous process into a spontaneous one...
> 
> ...



Yes, we went over this ad nausium and you disagreed with science every time. I didn't lose anything. I simply reported what the science actually is. You have to answer to the science. You have not given any references at all to "prove" your misinterpretation that:

spontaneous processes occur only without prior work
radiation exchange between any two objects is one way
black body radiation stops near a warmer object
the Stefan Boltzmann equation allows a + or - net
the CMB does not strikes the earth.

If you think I manipulated or misrepresented the above list no need to argue the same tedium over again *simply give me science references that jibe with your version of science*. Otherwise you are being a troll, a liar, or both.

More specifically give a reference that says there is no IR radiation between objects at the same temperature, or that a colder object won't radiate IR to warmer objects

Also give a reference that says prior illumination on a phosphorescent material means it is not spontaneous even though the object is moved to the dark.

Also we need a reference that says that man-made objects preclude spontaneous processes. 

Remember, forget any repetition of tedium. This is a new area:
*You need scientific references to the above list* that agree with you, otherwise it is fake physics.

.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 30, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Too many threads are ending up with the same 20 page discussion between a small fraction of the members that read Enviro topics.. Every rule and design of USMB moderation is there to get UNIQUE TOPICAL discussion of specific events and topics as laid out in the Opening Posts. *No one wants to wade thru the same fillibustering arguments that atmospheric physics and the GHouse effect is all wrong.*.  And they violate the "on-topic" rules at USMB..
> 
> That's what this thread is for.. CONTAIN those rodeos in THIS thread or start your own threads on whatever you deny.... *DON'T hijack other specific topics.*.  Members and visitors will appreciate your cooperation...
> 
> Go have your sideline debates about this topic HERE.. The topic is clearly spelled out in the title of this thread...



You can’t talk rationally with conservatives on this subject. They’ve been brainwashed by politicians to disagree with scientific consensus.

I found a website yesterday that shows every bad argument the gop makes and to the right it had the scientific reply.

They think the scientists lie because global warming is how they make their money. They think every country in the world is lying because there are corporations who will get rich on global warming. Basically republicans are conspiracy theorists. But they can’t admit that it’s the corporations who pollute the most and republicans who are the liars even though it’s obvious. They don’t want to pay to go green


----------



## SSDD (Jun 30, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Too many threads are ending up with the same 20 page discussion between a small fraction of the members that read Enviro topics.. Every rule and design of USMB moderation is there to get UNIQUE TOPICAL discussion of specific events and topics as laid out in the Opening Posts. *No one wants to wade thru the same fillibustering arguments that atmospheric physics and the GHouse effect is all wrong.*.  And they violate the "on-topic" rules at USMB..
> ...



Actually, we know enough about science to know that consensus is not a part of science...can you name another branch of science in which "consensus" is held up as if that were evidence that the mainstream hypothesis is correct?  Probably not, as there are none.  If you challenge the mainstream hypothesis in any other branch of science, you get bombarded with more actual evidence than you probably ever want to try to digest....challenge the AGW hypothesis and you won't see even a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports AGW over natural variability but you will hear all about consensus as if that had anything whatsoever to do with whether the AGW hypothesis is correct or not.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 30, 2019)

SSDD said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Bla bla bla. My buddy at lunch proved there is no talking to you deniers with clear motives and your flawed right wing knowledge and spin.

What is settled is the fact that your arguments are flawed and we know your sinisterly reasons


----------



## SSDD (Jun 30, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Sorry guy....the only thing flawed is the pseudoscience that is AGW....There isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and even more telling is the fact that to date, there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses...the fact is that you have all been duped by talk of consensus when in reality, there is no evidence that supports your beliefs...

Prove me wrong...post up one single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...or don't and prove me right...

While you are at it, make some mewling, pewling, piss poor excuse for not being able to provide any such evidence..show us all just how weak your position is.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 30, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> You can’t talk rationally with conservatives on this subject. They’ve been brainwashed by politicians to disagree with scientific consensus.



Then you haven't talked with me about it.. I'm not a conservative, I'm a Libertarian, but I've followed this science for two decades and it's more complex that MOST USMB members appreciate.... And it's NOT "settled" and there IS no consensus because GWarming/ClimateChange/NOW -- Climate Chaos is NOT a SINGLE QUESTION with a yes or no answer.. In science, each question and assertion needs a consensus and there are MANY questions with regard to GW assertions and projections..

You do NOT have a consensus on MANY important parts of GW science. Like if the world is gonna end in 12 years or what the temperature will BE in 2100... Or if there exists a "trigger temperature" beyond which the planet is a goner...

If you don't invest the time YOURSELF -- you'll never know what to believe on this.. And listening to POLITICIANS of ANY STRIPE -- is the WORST possible way to believe you know it all...


----------



## Crick (Jul 9, 2019)

There IS a clear consensus on several key points:

1)  The planet is getting warmer
2)  The primary cause of that warming is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions
3}  That warming is a threat to humanity in several regards: food, water, disease, flooding, coastal infrastructure etc.

Your nitpicking does nothing to throw those problem into any better light.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> There IS a clear consensus on several key points:
> 
> 1)  The planet is getting warmer



So it goes when the planet is exiting from an ice age...even a little ice age.



Crick said:


> 2)  The primary cause of that warming is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions



And the physical evidence to support that contention is where exactly?  Beyond that, where is the evidence that the human contribution to the atmospheric CO2 is anything more than trivial?  I can provide a slew of published papers which find that our contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 is vanishingly small...got any published work stating that we are not only the drivers of the climate, but are the drivers of atmospheric CO2 content as well?.....or are you just making it up as you go?



Crick said:


> 3}  That warming is a threat to humanity in several regards: food, water, disease, flooding, coastal infrastructure etc.



Since the earth hasn't even warmed to the point it was prior to the onset of the little ice age, and the present is cooler than most of the past 10,000 years,  exactly what "danger" are you hyperventilating over?



Crick said:


> Your nitpicking does nothing to throw those problem into any better light.



You call it nitpicking for obvious reasons...I call it pointing out glaring flaws in a political narrative masquerading as science.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> 2) The primary cause of that warming is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions


You have yet to provide any proof of this contention.  There is clear evidence of natural process and we have yet to see any proof of mans contribution of CO2 causing anything nor have we seen empirical evidence and the causal linkages.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > 2) The primary cause of that warming is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions
> ...




Forget proof...I would be happy with some plain old observed measured evidence to support the claim...that would at least be something other than the drivel about the consensus.  Did you see that the CEI is challenging NASA on their use of that lie?  Looks like they have a pretty good case.  If the wackos don't have the consensus to claim what will they have left?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


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


CEI is making them play their cards in the open.  About damn time! Their consensus claim is about to die a sorted death.


----------



## Crick (Jul 14, 2019)

I think you meant "sordid" and no they will not.



Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > 2) The primary cause of that warming is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions
> ...



There is no requirement to provide "proof", only evidence.  The evidence is absolutely overwhelming and convinces almost every scientist in every field on the planet.

There is no evidence of any individual or collection of natural (ie, non-synthetic) processes with anywhere near the forcing required to cause the observed warming.  There is indisputable observation that almost every molecule of CO2 in our current atmosphere above the pre-industrial 280 ppm is the result of fossil fuel combustion.  The calculated warming closely matches the required forcing to produce the observed warming.  

Of course, you reject the greenhouse effect because it is the only way you can continue to pretend you actually have a viable argument - NOT because any valid science throws the least bit of doubt on it.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Crick said:


> There is no requirement to provide "proof", only evidence.  The evidence is absolutely overwhelming and convinces almost every scientist in every field on the planet.



And yet, you can't provide a single piece of observed, measured, physical evidence to support the claim that our CO2 is to blame for warming...hell, you can't even provide any actual evidence that our CO2 is more than a trivial part of the total CO2 din the atmosphere.



Crick said:


> There is no evidence of any individual or collection of natural (ie, non-synthetic) processes with anywhere near the forcing required to cause the observed warming.  There is indisputable observation that almost every molecule of CO2 in our current atmosphere above the pre-industrial 280 ppm is the result of fossil fuel combustion.  The calculated warming closely matches the required forcing to produce the observed warming.



Except perhaps for the fact that the present is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years....Increased CO2 is the result of warming...not the cause.  And lets see this 'evidence" that almost every CO2 molecule in our current atmosphere above 280ppm is the result of fossil fuel combustion...you talk a lot of shit skid mark, but are always..Always....ALWAYS damned short on evidence.

I can provide plenty of published papers saying and demonstrating that our effect on the total CO2 in the atmosphere is trivial at best..lets see what sort of published material you can provide...or are you once again, just making it up as you go?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 15, 2019)

Crick said:


> I think you meant "sordid" and no they will not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*Sorting* fact from fiction will cause its death...  Once it is fleshed out and on the table, it will die a sordid death... not surprised you missed the pun... It was intended.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I think you meant "sordid" and no they will not.
> ...



Humorless bitter lot aren't they??


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 22, 2019)

This post is in response to a post in "Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW...." It is moved here as per flacaltenn's edict about SSDD's interminable repetitions.



SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Those references are very unreliable. They are known for publishing fake science.
> ...



Time and time again you have brought up articles from dubious sources which I analyzed to find they were crap. One article even said the temperature of planets was "baked in". LOL. If you can come up with an article that is from a legitimate journal, I will look at it.

You have said many times that you disagree with physics view of black body radiation, the Stefan Boltzmann equation, spontaneous processes, and many other physics phenomena. It is not fake science. I have posted science from text books, courses or journals. Your science is fake.

Verily, you are the king of fake science.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 22, 2019)

Wuwei:
_Radiation can move both ways between cool and warm objects. That was covered many times before._​


			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> That's not what the second law of thermodynamics says..you have a made up version of the greenhouse effect to go with your made up interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics...which apparently allows energy and heat to move spontaneously from cool to warm...same old tedious bullshit...



The entropy expression allows two way radiation. This is from a source that you quoted:
http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol9-issue4/Version-3/O0904038289.pdf
_When a radiation field is also present, we need to consider that there is a radiative entropy flow in the radiative field, and a radiative entropy flow associated with the absorption-emission of radiation heat by matter [9, 10]. _​
You often quote sources that disagree with your fake physics.

Nobody has ever said that heat can move spontaneously from cool to warm. Radiation can. I know you understand what science says about radiation exchange, but you choose to be a troll about it.

.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 23, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Wuwei:
> _Radiation can move both ways between cool and warm objects. That was covered many times before._​
> 
> 
> ...


and yet, you can't produce one example of your nonsense.  You most likely posted this same shit 100 times or more, and still haven't complied to the ask of providing observed empirical evidence.  Why?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 23, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Time and time again you have brought up articles from dubious sources which I analyzed to find they were crap. One article even said the temperature of planets was "baked in". LOL. If you can come up with an article that is from a legitimate journal, I will look at it.



As if your analysis means jack...you subscribe to current dogma not supported by observation...hell, I bet that you believe that the observer makes the reality, and clearly you believe that the things you view as really small operate under different laws of physics because they don't jibe with the dogma you believe...better to adjust the laws of physics than to acknowledge that you might be wrong...



Wuwei said:


> You have said many times that you disagree with physics view of black body radiation, the Stefan Boltzmann equation, spontaneous processes, and many other physics phenomena. It is not fake science. I have posted science from text books, courses or journals. Your science is fake.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 23, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> The entropy expression allows two way radiation. This is from a source that you quoted:
> http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol9-issue4/Version-3/O0904038289.pdf
> _When a radiation field is also present, we need to consider that there is a radiative entropy flow in the radiative field, and a radiative entropy flow associated with the absorption-emission of radiation heat by matter [9, 10]._​


_

_​Unfortunately, entropy is all about energy moving in one direction...more modification of the physical laws in order to attempt to make them agree with your dogma...endlessly tedious...




Wuwei said:


> You often quote sources that disagree with your fake physics.



Sorry...you physics, and much of modern physics is fake...not supported by anything more than unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...an endless array of ad hoc sub atomic particles, and physical properties invented for no other reason than to try and fill in holes in theory..



Wuwei said:


> Nobody has ever said that heat can move spontaneously from cool to warm. Radiation can.



Heat is radiation...and radiation can not move spontaneously from cool too warm...you can alter the law all you want, and claim that it says anything...it will never alter the reality however...and no amount of idiot mistaken scenarios in which energy supposedly moves spontaneously from cool to warm will ever make it real...

Endlessly tedious is what you are...and you show no signs of ever changing...you simply don't believe in the physical laws...you only believe in your post modern bastardized versions of them...Sorry, but I am not gullible enough to buy in to bullshit just because someone who claims to be an "expert" says so...That sort of gullibility is for weak minds...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



It is his religion...faith requires no evidence....but he has shown that he is perfectly willing to make shit up and call it evidence...it is all he has...  like calling a flashlight a spontaneous release of energy for example..as if the word spontaneous doesn't really have a meaning...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The entropy expression allows two way radiation. This is from a source that you quoted:
> ...



*Unfortunately, entropy is all about energy moving in one direction...*

Hilarious!

You should ask Dr Raeder about this claim. LOL!


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 23, 2019)

SSDD said:


> As if your analysis means jack...you subscribe to current dogma not supported by observation...hell, I bet that you believe that the observer makes the reality, and clearly you believe that the things you view as really small operate under different laws of physics because they don't jibe with the dogma you believe...better to adjust the laws of physics than to acknowledge that you might be wrong...



Your usual gibberish. Your reality is temperatures "baked in" planetary atmospheres. That is hardly physics. 



SSDD said:


> Alas, you are the one who modifies, and interprets physical laws so that they agree with your beliefs...that is fakery...I don't need to modify any of them to support my position...



Nope I go by the book. Your physical laws on spontaneous processes and the second law are totally self contradictory. That means you make up your own physics.

.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 23, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > As if your analysis means jack...you subscribe to current dogma not supported by observation...hell, I bet that you believe that the observer makes the reality, and clearly you believe that the things you view as really small operate under different laws of physics because they don't jibe with the dogma you believe...better to adjust the laws of physics than to acknowledge that you might be wrong...
> ...


and still no observed empirical evidence from you!!! why?


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 23, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Unfortunately, entropy is all about energy moving in one direction...more modification of the physical laws in order to attempt to make them agree with your dogma...endlessly tedious...


Hilarious. Fortunately entropy is all about *entropy *moving in one direction. *Not energy*. The increasing entropy law in a lot of books.



SSDD said:


> much of modern physics is fake...not supported by anything more than unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...an endless array of ad hoc sub atomic particles, and physical properties invented for no other reason than to try and fill in holes in theory..


Nope with many experiments confirming quantum theory is accurate to parts per billion, it is on solid ground. On the other hand your "theories" are self-contradictory. Totally fake and self-contradictory.


SSDD said:


> Heat is radiation...and radiation can not move spontaneously from cool too warm.


But you said anything (ie everything) that has prior energy input is not spontaneous. So you are contradicting yourself. 
The real physics says heat can only spontaneously move one way but radiation exchange always moves between objects. Otherwise you violate the law of black body radiation among other violations.


SSDD said:


> Endlessly tedious is what you are...and you show no signs of ever changing...you simply don't believe in the physical laws...you only believe in your post modern bastardized versions of them...Sorry, but I am not gullible enough to buy in to bullshit just because someone who claims to be an "expert" says so...That sort of gullibility is for weak minds...



This is the official site for the denial of radiation physics created just for you so you can continue to cross-post your tedium that modern physics is bullshit. If you don't like the tedium why do you constantly cross-post it. 


.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 23, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately, entropy is all about energy moving in one direction...more modification of the physical laws in order to attempt to make them agree with your dogma...endlessly tedious...
> ...


you really hate the 2nd Law of Physics eh?  I continue to laugh at you. I'm still waiting on a spoon to get hot sitting next to an ice cube.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



* I'm still waiting on a spoon to get hot sitting next to an ice cube. *

That's because you can't do the Stefan-Boltzmann math.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I took it's temperature and would you fking know, the spoon never got warmer.  not once.  over and over and over and never once.  so now, you show how it will get warmer.  go.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*I took it's temperature and would you fking know, the spoon never got warmer.*

Are you shocked?
If you did the math, you'd understand why......


----------



## jillian (Jul 23, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Too many threads are ending up with the same 20 page discussion between a small fraction of the members that read Enviro topics.. Every rule and design of USMB moderation is there to get UNIQUE TOPICAL discussion of specific events and topics as laid out in the Opening Posts. *No one wants to wade thru the same fillibustering arguments that atmospheric physics and the GHouse effect is all wrong.*.  And they violate the "on-topic" rules at USMB..
> 
> That's what this thread is for.. CONTAIN those rodeos in THIS thread or start your own threads on whatever you deny.... *DON'T hijack other specific topics.*.  Members and visitors will appreciate your cooperation...
> 
> Go have your sideline debates about this topic HERE.. The topic is clearly spelled out in the title of this thread...


Why would you have a thread for ignorant science deniers?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I don't have to do the math, I did an experiment and fk, the spoon didn't get warmer.  so, spanky, you're wrong.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 23, 2019)

jillian said:


> Why would you have a thread for ignorant science deniers?


This isn't a thread simply for science deniers. It is for those specific deniers of well established basic physics who hijack threads to bring up the same denial tedium and cross-posting over and over. Flacaltenn explained this in the post you cited.

.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 23, 2019)

jillian said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Too many threads are ending up with the same 20 page discussion between a small fraction of the members that read Enviro topics.. Every rule and design of USMB moderation is there to get UNIQUE TOPICAL discussion of specific events and topics as laid out in the Opening Posts. *No one wants to wade thru the same fillibustering arguments that atmospheric physics and the GHouse effect is all wrong.*.  And they violate the "on-topic" rules at USMB..
> ...



Why would you CARE? It's to keep this recurring repetitive debate OUT of every other thread in the forum.. That's why...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


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


The math didn't show the spoon would get warmer. The spoon didn't get warmer. Sounds like I'm right. Again.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I don't believe you, post your math.  you said everything radiates, if it radiates it must heat it.  isn't that what radiate means?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*I don't believe you*

I don't have anything to do with it. You've got the data, you did the experiment. 
Your results should have followed the math. If you can't do the math, that's your fault.

*you said everything radiates, *

Only if it's above absolute zero.

*if it radiates it must heat it.*

It? You said they.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


so no math problem eh?  you said you did the math. so show me your math.  come on big guy step up

*Only if it's above absolute zero*

if they are both next to one another, they would qualify to the absolute zero spec. so I'm still looking for your radiation off the ice.  let's see it. And I don't really need your made up math. you can't show it.  measure it, none of it.  you lose derp!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



I said, "If you did the math, you'd understand why...…"

You didn't do the math, obviously.

*if they are both next to one another, they would qualify to the absolute zero spec.*

Try that again, in English.....

*And I don't really need your made up math.*

I'm not Stefan or Boltzmann, I didn't make up anything.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


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




*so I'm still looking for your radiation off the ice. let's see it. *





Do the math, post your answer.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


_nope you said the math didn't show, _implies you did the math.  your words not mine. So let's see this magic math problem that produced the spoon not getting warmer.



Toddsterpatriot said:


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


----------



## jc456 (Jul 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


nope you do the math your claim.  so provide the numbers fool.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



So you did the math and it showed the spoon would warm? I don't believe you.

*I don't have to do the math, I did an experiment and fk, the spoon didn't get warmer. *

If you did the math, you'd see the spoon wasn't supposed to get warmer.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I see your issue, you think you're posting as me.  I guess, cause dude, you're in way out their land.  You been looking at shrooms or something?  wow,  You are Todd, I am JC456.  go practice in front of mirror.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 23, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Hilarious. Fortunately entropy is all about *entropy *moving in one direction. *Not energy*. The increasing entropy law in a lot of books.



You can't even get the basics right...which is why you are wrong on everything else...you base everything you think you know on very fundamental misunderstandings...the sort of flawed thinking that leads you to believe a flashlight represents spontaneous movement of energy..

Entropy is concerned with the dispersal of energy...and energy only moves spontaneously in one direction...and all spontaneous processes are irreversible...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



You think discovering a room temperature spoon isn't getting warmer sitting next to an ice cube proves something new? You're funny.

Sorry you dropped out of 7th grade math.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Hilarious. Fortunately entropy is all about *entropy *moving in one direction. *Not energy*. The increasing entropy law in a lot of books.
> ...



* energy only moves spontaneously in one direction..*

Still no luck finding a list of spontaneous emitters in the solar system? Durr.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 23, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You can't even get the basics right...which is why you are wrong on everything else...you base everything you think you know on very fundamental misunderstandings...the sort of flawed thinking that leads you to believe a flashlight represents spontaneous movement of energy..


More feigned bluster. 
A battery discharging through a conductor is spontaneous. Try  Googling _is a voltaic cell spontaneous_. Yes I know you think nothing on earth is spontaneous but look it up anyway so you know what scientists think.



SSDD said:


> Entropy is concerned with the dispersal of energy...and energy only moves spontaneously in one direction.



Your first sentence is true, but your second sentence is ambiguous.. 


.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Not new, fk no, merely pointing out the obvious to stupid shits who think ice radiates heat!


----------



## jc456 (Jul 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


So you still think the ice radiates heat?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Ice above absolute zero doesn't radiate? Why not?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Yes, all matter above absolute zero radiates.






You can use this ^ formula to calculate how much.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 24, 2019)

You can use that formula for theoretical perfect black bodies in theoretically perfect vacuums...use it for anything else anywhere else and you get false data because you used the wrong formula.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


prove the ice is radiating. No math, show with a measurement device this radiation.  you know, observed empirical evidence.  just that.  why do you avoid that?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You can use that formula for theoretical perfect black bodies in theoretically perfect vacuums...use it for anything else anywhere else and you get false data because you used the wrong formula.


he won't provide the observable evidence that an ice cube radiates.  It seems rather simple to me.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You can use that formula for theoretical perfect black bodies in theoretically perfect vacuums.


It doesn't have to be a perfect black body since emissivity is in the formula. 



SSDD said:


> .use it for anything else anywhere else and you get false data because you used the wrong formula.


That's not what science says. The formula works anywhere. But if you want to know the net radiation you have to subtract out what it is absorbing. Look it up.

.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You can use that formula for theoretical perfect black bodies in theoretically perfect vacuums.
> ...


it says black body.  why are you lying?

Stefan-Boltzmann Law

"The energy radiated by a blackbody radiator per second per unit area is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature and is given by






"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You can use that formula for theoretical perfect black bodies in theoretically perfect vacuums...use it for anything else anywhere else and you get false data because you used the wrong formula.



You can also use it for "other than ideal radiators" Durr


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*prove the ice is radiating. *

If it's above absolute zero, it's radiating.

You prove it doesn't radiate.

You'll be famous!!!


----------



## jc456 (Jul 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You can use that formula for theoretical perfect black bodies in theoretically perfect vacuums...use it for anything else anywhere else and you get false data because you used the wrong formula.
> ...


why doesn't it state that then?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


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








DURR


----------



## jc456 (Jul 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


it says Ideal radiators.  so it seems you're the durr


----------



## jc456 (Jul 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


that doesn't prove a thing, durr, you can make that statement until you die and I don't really care.  the fact is you can't prove it does.  so you fail science 101.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


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







DERP


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



* the fact is you can't prove it does.*

Are you famous yet?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


yep, ideal radiator is a blackbody.  durr  maybe you should actually learn what an ideal radiator is. durr


----------



## jc456 (Jul 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I don't need to be.  you just need to prove that an ice cube will warm a spoon sitting next to it cause you say it's radiating heat.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


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




*yep, ideal radiator is a blackbody.*

Yep. And a non-ideal radiator is a grey body.

That's why this 

 comes into play.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*I don't need to be.  *

You don't need to be, but if you can prove your ice cube doesn't (or can't) radiate, you would be.

*you just need to prove that an ice cube will warm a spoon sitting next to it*

I never claimed a room temperature spoon would be warmed by a cold ice cube.
Why would I bother to try to prove your stupid strawman?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


the statement says for an ideal radiator. it doesn't say otherwise.  durr


----------



## jc456 (Jul 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


well if the ice cube is radiating, it must therefore hit the spoon, so that would be added heat and would warm it.  so, i'm waiting for your observed radiation off the ice.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


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


What an idiot.

Carefully look at the P/A = ... formula in post #344.

Carefully compare it to P/A = ... a similar formula you posted in #340.

You will find a difference. What does that difference mean? It will answer your misunderstanding of what "perfect" means in BB radiation. If you still don't understand it, ask Todd. He has more patience with idiots than I do. 

.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


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


dude, ideal radiator is a blackbody!!! it's in every post of Todd's durring moments.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


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







I hope you're getting treatment for your brain injury.
Thoughts and prayers.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Ok, my error on the terminology miss on my part.  but it does state hot objects.    Last I knew, ice is not a hot object.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



* but it does state hot objects.*

Any object over absolute zero.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Fine, show me the ice cube radiating heat!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


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









Plug all the specifics of your ice cube into the formula.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I asked for the observance of it, that's a math problem.  so please, stop deflecting away from observance.  let's see it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Well, if you don't know the variables for the formula, how are you going to measure the accuracy of your experimental results?

Why don't you just post your data and I'll try to dumb it down for you......


----------



## jc456 (Jul 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I want you to prove the math


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*I want you to prove the math*

You want me to prove the Stefan-Boltzmann math?

It's been out there for 140 years. Check it out...….

Stefan-Boltzmann law | Definition & Facts

If you've discovered some flaw, you should publish.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Sure, post evidence that ice radiates! I know you can’t! I accept your surrender


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*Sure, post evidence that ice radiates! *





If you have proof that ice doesn't radiate "proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature" you should post that proof.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 25, 2019)

The math idea for the SB law is very simple. It's based on the curve of the black  body radiation law (Plank's law) as a function of wavelength. Boltzmann summed up the radiation energy of all wavelengths to come up with the total energy radiated.

Since the Stefan-Boltzmann law comes directly from Planck's law, if you don't believe the SB law, then you don't believe in black body radiation. (Smart photons, anyone?)

.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I observed the ice didn't radiate, the spoon didn't get warmer.  therefore radiation wasn't present from the ice. A math problem is a problem based on observance.  so show me the observed ice cube radiating.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*I observed the ice didn't radiate*

Observed with what instruments?

*the spoon didn't get warmer. *

As measured by what instruments?
Post some pictures of your experimental set up.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


thermometers, the spoon never got warmer.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Was it a mercury thermometer?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


nope, was yours?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Post some pictures, I'll point out your mistakes.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


once you post yours!


----------



## westwall (Jul 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


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







Ice does radiate though.  That's the whole point.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 25, 2019)

westwall said:


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


it will when around a colder object.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



I've never attempted such a silly experiment.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



How does the ice know if a colder object is nearby?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


well you said the ice radiates around a warmer object, so you must have observed it correct?  a math problem is but a problem until validated.  so post that validation.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


the 2nd law of physics explains that.

And it's been observed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*well you said the ice radiates around a warmer object*

Ice radiates all day every day.
It doesn't give a shit what objects are nearby.

*a math problem is but a problem until validated.  so post that validation.*

You need me to validate the Stefan-Boltzmann math?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*It doesn't give a shit what objects are nearby.*

Then you must have an observance of that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*the 2nd law of physics explains that.*

The 2nd law of physics explains that objects can detect the temperature of nearby objects? Prove it.

*And it's been observed.*

You're lying.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Yes, matter has been observed radiating.

You need me to validate the Stefan-Boltzmann math?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



I accept your surrender.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


yes it has, when that matter is around colder matter.  I completely agree.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


too late, I got yours first.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*yes it has, when that matter is around warmer matter.*

Ice radiates around warmer matter. Yes. 
Don't tell SSDD that you disagree with his silly claim.
Thanks.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Nothing there about objects detecting the temperature of nearby objects.

If you ever get your facts together....that prove SB was wrong, 
contact SSDD's buddy, he'll be happy to listen to your proof.


j.raeder@unh.edu

That's Dr Raeder.
Be sure to post his reply.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 25, 2019)

I won't name names, but somebody here doesn't understand that they recently posted a diagram of thermal conduction, not thermal radiation.

.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


made an error in my post, I meant colder.  then I agree.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



The 2nd law of physics explains that objects can detect the temperature of nearby objects? Prove it.

Still waiting.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


the experiments within the formation of the 2nd law states that heat flows to cold.  here, simple experiment.






By the way, throw ice in a glass of water, the water gets colder, not warmer, therefore the liquid loses heat to the ice, the ice then melts.


----------



## westwall (Jul 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...







Everything is ALWAYS radiating.  The only question is to what extent.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 25, 2019)

In fact the diagram is an example conduction in *water *and came from Wikipedia under "Second law of thermodynamics"

Since the topic here is radiation it would have been more instructive to look at Wikipedia under "Thermal radiation". An excerpt about halfway down says this:

_*a human*, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously *radiates *approximately 1*000 watts*. 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*_​
Radiation flows two ways. Heat flows one way.

.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 25, 2019)

westwall said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


well that's what I am asking evidence of.  Why can't anyone just post the evidence, not a math problem the evidence.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*the experiments within the formation of the 2nd law states that heat flows to cold.  *

Ummm...thanks.

Now are you going to post your proof that objects can detect the temperature of nearby objects or not?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


why would I do that when experiments already show cold things get warm when around warm, and the warm doesn't increase?  I'm asking you for the evidence the warm thing gets warmer when near a cold object!  go!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


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


*
why would I do that*

Why would you post proof for your silly claim? Good question. DURR.

* I'm asking you for the evidence the warm thing gets warmer when near a cold object!  *

Since I've never made that strawman claim, why would I be interested in posting evidence?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


sure you did, you said all things radiate all the time.  therefore, if a cold object radiates to a warm object, the warm object should get warmer.  your statement, not mine.

i said all things radiate, but dependent on it's surrounding as per all physics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*sure you did, you said all things radiate all the time.*

That's what Stefan-Boltzmann says. Post your proof otherwise.

* therefore, if a cold object radiates to a warm object, the warm object should get warmer. *

Why do you feel that? Is it because you don't understand the math?

*i said all things radiate, but dependent on it's surrounding *





Your claim conflicts with the clear statement that energy emitted is only proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.

If you have proof that emissions are changed by the surroundings, you should publish.

Maybe run it by Dr. Raeder first?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I have, you ignored it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Wow. If you've found a flaw in Stefan-Boltzmann, you're a sure Nobel winner.


----------



## Crick (Jul 25, 2019)

\





jc456 said:


> * therefore, if a cold object radiates to a warm object, the warm object should get warmer. *



You missed a crucial point JC.  ALL matter radiates dependent on its temperature.  The warm object IS receiving energy from the colder object.  But it is also radiating and, due to its higher temperature, doing so at a higher rate than the cooler mass and therefore is giving up energy faster than it is receiving it.  It does NOT get warmer.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 26, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia

"The *second law of thermodynamics* states that the total entropy of an isolated systemcan never decrease over time. The total entropy of a system and its surroundings can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in thermodynamic equilibrium, or is undergoing a (fictive) reversible process. In all processes that occur, including spontaneous processes,[1] the total entropy of the system and its surroundings increases and the process is irreversible in the thermodynamic sense. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past.[2]"

_irreversible in the thermodynamic sense._


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 26, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The 2nd law of physics explains that objects can detect the temperature of nearby objects? Prove it.


Ok Toad;

Tell us how less energetic particles affect a more energetic mass.   I'll wait...

Its not detection you moron, its how the mass reacts to cooler particles hitting it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



If you've found a conflict between the 2nd Law and Stefan-Boltzmann, you should definitely publish!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The 2nd law of physics explains that objects can detect the temperature of nearby objects? Prove it.
> ...



*Tell us how less energetic particles affect a more energetic mass.   I'll wait...*

Sure. First I need to know the mass of a mole of cooler photons. I'll wait...

*Its not detection *

SSDD "knows" that emitters "dial down" their emissions, based on the temperature of nearby, cooler matter.
Cooler matter that he "knows" can't emit toward the warmer matter.
So, how do you detect the temperature of matter that doesn't emit toward your sensor?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 26, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I didn’t add a word, seems it’s you with the conflict


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



You also didn't explain why you think the 2nd Law conflicts with Stefan-Boltzmann.

So be specific....spell it out. And if you're the only person who noticed, get ready to be famous!!!!

If everybody knew about the conflict, post some examples.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Done! I posted the 2nd law. I’m waiting on your counterpoint you keep avoiding


----------



## Crick (Jul 27, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The 2nd law of physics explains that objects can detect the temperature of nearby objects? Prove it.
> ...




Please explain to us the mechanism by which the temperature of a receiving mass prevents the absorption of lower 'temperature' photons.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*I posted the 2nd law.*

I don't see a conflict between the 2nd Law and Stefan-Boltzmann.

If you do, spell it out in detail.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Look up the word irreversible


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2019)

jc456 said:


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


----------



## jc456 (Jul 28, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


No irreversible


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



If you think irreversible means the 2nd Law conflicts with Stefan-Boltzmann.....explain why.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 28, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


So you don’t do definitions? The word is irreversible, it will answer your question


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



If you think the word irreversible refutes Stefan-Boltzmann, you'll have to explain your "logic".


----------



## SSDD (Jul 29, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You can't even get the basics right...which is why you are wrong on everything else...you base everything you think you know on very fundamental misunderstandings...the sort of flawed thinking that leads you to believe a flashlight represents spontaneous movement of energy..
> ...



Sorry goob.....there is nothing spontaneous about a battery..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 29, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You can use that formula for theoretical perfect black bodies in theoretically perfect vacuums.
> ...


And there is where your flawed thinking begins...at the most basic level...everything you build on that is flawed because you are wrong at the foundation..  There is no "net" radiation...net energy transfer only exists in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models....the tedium never ends...peddle your religious dogma somewhere else...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 29, 2019)

jc456 said:


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


He lies because lies is all he has...if he had evidence, he wouldn't have to lie.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 29, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Because it doesn't explicitly say "theoretical perfect black bodies"  in large crayon letters, he thinks that it doesn't mean that...somehow in his mind, an "ideal radiator" is somehow different from a theoretical perfect black body..  

He doesn't realize that by definition the word ideal means  "a conception of something in its perfection."   He lives and dies by weasel words...in his mind, somehow, theoretical perfect black body and conception of something in its perfection mean different things...they have to otherwise he would have to admit that he is wrong and then what would he have to believe in?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 29, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> The math idea for the SB law is very simple. It's based on the curve of the black  body radiation law (Plank's law) as a function of wavelength. Boltzmann summed up the radiation energy of all wavelengths to come up with the total energy radiated.
> 
> Since the Stefan-Boltzmann law comes directly from Planck's law, if you don't believe the SB law, then you don't believe in black body radiation. (Smart photons, anyone?)
> 
> .



So lets see the two way version of Planck's law.  Lets see where Planck provided expressions for "net" energy flow..  Planck's law describes the flow of energy into a lower (0k) background and not the other way around...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 29, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I won't name names, but somebody here doesn't understand that they recently posted a diagram of thermal conduction, not thermal radiation.
> 
> .



Like thermal conduction and thermal radiation obey different laws of physics?  Which one do you believe gets a special dispensation from the second law of thermodynamics...  Let me guess..whichever one you need to have a special dispensation at any given time.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 29, 2019)

westwall said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



According to an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.....according to a misuse of Planck's law and of the SB law...Care to provide a measurement of a discrete wavelength of radiation moving from an ice cube to an object at a warmer temperature not made with an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the ice cube?  

Didn't think so.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I never said it did.  I suggested you look and post the definition of irreversible.  And you have failed now three times.  taking direction isn't a strong suit for you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 29, 2019)

SSDD said:


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




*there is nothing spontaneous about a battery..*

Or the Sun. Or the Earth's atmosphere.
That's why back radiation is a thing, because it's not spontaneous. Right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 29, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*There is no "net" radiation...net energy transfer only exists in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...*

You're the only one who thinks that.

It's why you never post any backup to this claim.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 29, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*I never said it did.  *

So you posted the 2nd Law to refute my comments about Stefan-Boltzmann....because they agree.

*I suggested you look and post the definition of irreversible.  *





You're right, this does confirm Stefan-Boltzmann, Thanks!
Don't tell SSDD that this refuted his claims.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Irreversible, still waiting on that definition from you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 29, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



ESL?


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 29, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Sorry goob.....there is nothing spontaneous about a battery..


You are denying the entire body of observed, measured, repeatable experiments in physics that were printed in countless lectures, journals, books, and websites.

You have provided absolutely no support from published observed, measured, repeatable experiments that agree with your fake physics.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 29, 2019)

SSDD said:


> And there is where your flawed thinking begins...at the most basic level...everything you build on that is flawed because you are wrong at the foundation.. There is no "net" radiation...net energy transfer only exists in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models....the tedium never ends...peddle your religious dogma somewhere else.


Your religious dogma:
You are denying the entire body of observed, measured, repeatable experiments in physics that were printed in countless lectures, journals, books, and websites.

You have provided absolutely no support from published observed, measured, repeatable experiments that agree with your fake physics.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 29, 2019)

SSDD said:


> He lies because lies is all he has...if he had evidence, he wouldn't have to lie.


You are essentially saying science is lying.
You are denying the entire body of observed, measured, repeatable experiments in physics that were printed in countless lectures, journals, books, and websites.

You have provided absolutely no support from published observed, measured, repeatable experiments that agree with your fake physics. 

.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 29, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Because it doesn't explicitly say "theoretical perfect black bodies" in large crayon letters, he thinks that it doesn't mean that...somehow in his mind, an "ideal radiator" is somehow different from a theoretical perfect black body..
> 
> He doesn't realize that by definition the word ideal means "a conception of something in its perfection." He lives and dies by weasel words...in his mind, somehow, theoretical perfect black body and conception of something in its perfection mean different things...they have to otherwise he would have to admit that he is wrong and then what would he have to believe in?


You are lying. You didn't carefully look at the P/A = ... formula in post #344.
and carefully compare it to P/A = ... a similar formula in #340.

You will find an omitted emissivity in one. Also the text that goes with formula with emissivity says it's for radiators which aren't ideal. You are not reading for comprehension.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 29, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So lets see the two way version of Planck's law. Lets see where Planck provided expressions for "net" energy flow.. Planck's law describes the flow of energy into a lower (0k) background and not the other way around...


Planck's law says nothing about net energy. It is about any object emitting radiation with a black body spectrum in any environment. You are confusing Planck's law with your misunderstanding of the SB law. Try to think a bit more before you post.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 29, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Like thermal conduction and thermal radiation obey different laws of physics?



Of course they do. Thermal conduction involves contact at the atomic level and kinetic transfer of energy. Radiation involves non-contact radiative transfer.


SSDD said:


> Which one do you believe gets a special dispensation from the second law of thermodynamics.



You are confusing the fact that any thermal flow obeys the overarching principle of the second law. Neither gets dispensation. My God you are confused.

.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


LBJ


----------



## jc456 (Jul 29, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Like thermal conduction and thermal radiation obey different laws of physics?
> ...


What we’re saying is you have no observed empirical data to say that


----------



## SSDD (Jul 31, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So lets see the two way version of Planck's law. Lets see where Planck provided expressions for "net" energy flow.. Planck's law describes the flow of energy into a lower (0k) background and not the other way around...
> ...




You admit yourself that the SB law comes directly from Planck's law...Planck doesn't deal with 2 way energy movement and neither does SB...

Weasel on Garth.....


----------



## SSDD (Jul 31, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Like thermal conduction and thermal radiation obey different laws of physics?
> ...



They all obey the second law which says that energy only moves spontaneously in one direction..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 31, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



Admit it, there are no spontaneous emitters you can list, so energy is allowed to move in any and all directions with no restrictions.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 31, 2019)

Irre


Toddsterpatriot said:


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


c, got that definition yet?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 31, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Irre
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The definition I posted must not have helped your silly misunderstanding.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 31, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Irre
> ...


Which post #?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 31, 2019)

jc456 said:


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


----------



## jc456 (Jul 31, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Then yes didn’t see that. So if energy is irreversible how does cold  flow to warm?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 31, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



You'll have to post the definition that says, "energy is irreversible".


----------



## jc456 (Jul 31, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


2nd law is about energy, you should read it


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 31, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Reading it doesn't help your claim.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 31, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You admit yourself that the SB law comes directly from Planck's law...Planck doesn't deal with 2 way energy movement and neither does SB...



Yes they do. You haven't been doing your required reading. Planck's law is about an ideal black body which is *both* an ideal absorber and .and ideal emitter.

If the body is not ideal, then an emissivity is in the formula which relates how it is diminished as both an absorber and emitter.

The SB law shows that. We already gave you the derivation from Dartmouth University.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 31, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



Yes physicists believe that both conduction and radiation obey the second law. But they do involve different aspects of physics in how the energy flow is manifested, but you indicated that you thought they were the same.

.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 31, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I claimed nothing


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 31, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



You never claimed the 2nd Law conflicts with Stefan-Boltzmann?

You never claimed that irreversible means Stefan-Boltzmann is wrong about emissions?

That's a relief.​


----------



## jc456 (Jul 31, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Not at all, the 2nd law says energy flow is to cold and irreversible!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 31, 2019)

jc456 said:


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




*Not at all, the 2nd law says energy flow is to cold and irreversible!*

Why do you feel that conficts at all with Stefan-Boltzmann?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 31, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Never said it did


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 31, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Great. All those posts, and you never disagreed with anything I said.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 1, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


sure I did.  Cold objects do not radiate at warm objects and the 2nd law states that.  Irreversible.  Says it right in the explanation.  Again, your free to post an observed incident that shows a cold object radiating at a warm object.  i have checked the internet for years now, and nope, not one observation has been posted.  So feel free to post it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 1, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*sure I did. Cold objects do not radiate at warm objects and the 2nd law states that.  *

You'll have to post the version of the 2nd Law you're referring to, the one that says cold objects can't radiate at warmer objects and the one that mentions "irreversible radiating", whatever that means. The one that says SB (total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature) is wrong.

*i have checked the internet for years now, and nope, not one observation has been posted.  *

Yes, your ignorance is well documented.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 1, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


_You'll have to post the version of the 2nd Law you're referring to, the one that says cold objects can't radiate at warmer objects and the one that mentions "irreversible radiating", whatever that means. The one that says SB (total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature) is wrong._

I did, irreversible.  that definition that you provided.  as I said, I'm still waiting on your observed evidence.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 1, 2019)

jc456 said:


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




* I did, irreversible. that definition that you provided.  *

Which version said irreversible means SB is wrong?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 1, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I'm still waiting on the observed evidence, you keep deflecting away from the ask.  shit dude, we're like hundreds of posts with this.  just post your observed evidence, I ain't going anywhere else but there.  IRREVERSIBLE!!!! hahahahaahahaha


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 1, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



You still haven't shown that irreversible means anything to Stefan-Boltzmann. Weird.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 1, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


its' the 2nd law and it is included in there.  now show the observed cold object radiating to the warm object.  I'll wait for your post.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 1, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Repeating your confused fantasy doesn't make it true.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


it's true until you disprove it with observed empirical data of cold objects heating warm objects.  go for it any day.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*it's true until you disprove it with observed empirical data of cold objects heating warm objects*

Link to me ever claiming that.......

In the meantime.....





If you have any evidence that refutes the Stefan-Boltzmann law, I'd love to see it.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I'm looking for the experiment that shows that cold objects radiate to a warm one.  It's now obvious you don't have any.  you have SB and that's it.  I got it.  so, you can't prove the action of the cold object radiating.  I can say with certainty that an ice cube next to a warm object will not make the warm object warmer.  funny, you don't dispute it either.  and yet you say the cold object will radiate.  radiation is heat,


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*I'm looking for the experiment that shows that cold objects radiate to a warm one. It's now obvious you don't have any. you have SB and that's it.  *

Still waiting for you to refute Stefan-Boltzmann.

Would you like Dr. Raeder's email?

*I can say with certainty that an ice cube next to a warm object will not make the warm object warmer.  *

Congrats on your short visit to reality.

*funny, you don't dispute it either.  *

Why would I dispute reality? Reality is, as quantified in SB, warmer objects radiate more/faster than cooler objects. The net flow of energy in your moronic example is from the warm spoon to the cool ice.

*and yet you say the cold object will radiate.*





What can I say, I agree with Stefan-Boltzmann.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


_Would you like Dr. Raeder's email?_

sure! send it to me.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


why wouldn't I?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Make sure you post his response.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I will, I'll be the first one to pound my chest, LOL.  you think I think that email address is good.  hahahahahahaha, the thing is, you still have zippolla!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*I will, I'll be the first one to pound my chest,*

I wonder if he'll laugh at you more than he laughed at SSDD?

* you think I think that email address is good. * 

Nah, you don't think.




Joachim Raeder


----------



## jc456 (Aug 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


_I wonder if he'll laugh at you more than he laughed at SSDD_

Let’s see it, or are you a liar?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Still waiting for you to refute Stefan-Boltzmann.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Funny, I’m still waiting for your observation of cold objects radiating towards hot object!


----------



## jc456 (Aug 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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


Toddsterpatriot wheres’s that email liar?


----------



## MindWars (Aug 3, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Too many threads are ending up with the same 20 page discussion between a small fraction of the members that read Enviro topics.. Every rule and design of USMB moderation is there to get UNIQUE TOPICAL discussion of specific events and topics as laid out in the Opening Posts. *No one wants to wade thru the same fillibustering arguments that atmospheric physics and the GHouse effect is all wrong.*.  And they violate the "on-topic" rules at USMB..
> 
> That's what this thread is for.. CONTAIN those rodeos in THIS thread or start your own threads on whatever you deny.... *DON'T hijack other specific topics.*.  Members and visitors will appreciate your cooperation...
> 
> Go have your sideline debates about this topic HERE.. The topic is clearly spelled out in the title of this thread...



well I can;t post here everything i post you all move it to conspiracy anyway.  even when it's not infowars.   lol


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



It's funny that you have an issue with Stefan-Boltzmann.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


It’s funny you don’t have observed data and rely on math


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



If you have any math or observed data that refute Stefan-Boltzmann in any way, 
stop whining for a minute and post it.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I’m waiting on your observation that shows cold objects radiate to warm objects, it’s your claim, prove it! I say it doesn’t, your lack of any observation is my proof


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*I’m waiting on your observation that shows cold objects radiate to warm objects, it’s your claim,*

It's Stefan-Boltzmann. Sorry if that equation makes you sad.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


It doesn’t prove it, I’m waiting for you? Btw, where’s that email about ssdd? Or are you admitting you lied?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*It doesn’t prove it, *

Post your evidence disproving it. If you can stop whining long enough.

*Btw, where’s that email about ssdd?*

The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

DURR.....


----------



## jc456 (Aug 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Disprove something I don’t believe exists! Outstanding . You prove it exists

Again, my proof is your silence on proving your claim


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*Disprove something I don’t believe exists! *

You don't believe the Stefan-Boltzmann equation exists?

You're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists, aren't you?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Projecting your sessions! I don’t believe cold objects radiate to warmer objects like the 2nd law states, and if you feel they do post the radiating cold object at the warmer object, it must be simple to prove since you’re adamant about it


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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




Well wait no more JC, you're about to get straighten out about "IR heat" and radiative physics... DO ASK FOR HELP if you need it, but quite simply --- The amount of IR energy passed between any two bodies will exchange in BOTH directions, depending on the geometry of the surfaces and the temperatures of the objects..  A cold and hot body will BOTH "radiate" each other.. The hot one always wins the TOTAL transfer.. Here's you proof..


----------



## SSDD (Aug 4, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


>


Caviat:  According to an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model....all hail the dogma...all bow before the dogma...the dogma is infallible...the dogma known all..

Not “proof” flacalten...nothing like proof and you sholld be ashamed and embarrassed for suggesting that it was...such is the power of dogma...it makes proof out of thin air...and people are expected to simply accept and believe..


----------



## jc456 (Aug 4, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


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


Post #495. Thanks for the try, but that’s not observation and I asked for observed. Just in case you missed that part. And, i never said that the cold object doesn’t radiate, just not with a warmer object next to it.  In your own post it states ‘depending’.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*I don’t believe cold objects radiate to warmer objects*

I know, you think Stefan-Boltzmann is wrong. Good for you!!


----------



## SSDD (Aug 4, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



The fundamental assumption of the SB law is that the radiator is radiating into a cooler background...anyone who believes that the SB law deals with two way energy transfer is kidding themselves...the equations simply do not say any such thing.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



As I've explained to you before -- the burden on TEXTBOOK is many times higher than the burden on any papers or theories or opinion that appear in Journals.. This explanation of radiative physics is in 5 textbooks on my shelf.. All the way from the 60s to the 2000s... And no group of bright physicists have challenged the math or the theory.... 

It's NOT abstract...  While at Kennedy Space Center, I worked on modeling for skin heat distribution for SkyLab, the Space station and the Shuttle.. Helped develop the "vehicle rotation" regimes to avoid hot spots on the sun side and distribution of internal heat along the body of the craft.. 

It's also the same math and physics that applies to ANY electromagnetic heating. And it's USED in a wide variety of actual systems and projects... 

You go with dogma... I'll wait for the textbook revisions and a REASON to doubt it...


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



That science FACT in that textbook simply says that EVERYTHING is capable of radiating IR.. Even clouds and snow and ice.. And it actually SOLVES your complaint if you understood it.. A cold object facing a warm object is in a photon gunfight.. And the WARM object always wins.. Because it's the bigger IR photon flux... So NO LAW OF BASIC THERMODYNAMICS IS VIOLATED...

HOWEVER -- if you're talking about a massively distributed atmospheric shield of green house gases, that WEAK "back radiation" which is only maybe a fiftieth  the earth's heat shedding, DOES happen to get reduce by a few WATTS out of HUNDREDS of watts.. Those gases act like a electromagnetic "blanket" to retard the loss to space and slow the heat loss.

The earth still LOSES HEAT every hour of the night and day to the cooler sky and space.. It just loses it at a rate reduced by the THERMAL DIFFERENCE between the atmosphere and the absolute cold of space...

NO SECOND LAW VIOLATION...  Don't be a dummy.... Especially, if you don't understand the standard textbooks on the subject....


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 4, 2019)

*THERE IS NO HEATING OF SURFACE DIRECTLY --- by the GreenHouse.. (in an equilibrium state) .  

The NET heat flux is ALWAYS to the sky... The GreenHouse simply retards the RATE of loss to space....*


----------



## SSDD (Aug 4, 2019)

So all textbooks are always right...and the length of tome a thing is accepted has “something” to do with whether it is correct or not...

And the answers to those equations are the same whether net energy transfer exists or not...net transfer only happens in the models...it is never observed in the real world...

But...All hail the dogma....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



Still no backup for your "objects at equilibrium cease all radiating"?
Or for your dimmer switch theory?
Weird.

Maybe you should contact Dr. Raeder again?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 4, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Still no evidence they emit, funny, you keep striking out


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Still no evidence disproving Stefan-Boltzmann? DURR......


----------



## jc456 (Aug 4, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


You didn’t read my whole post, why? I never said any such thing.  

by the way, if they are in text books, they could say how they observed cold radiating with a warm object next to it. Just saying!


----------



## jc456 (Aug 4, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I’m waiting loser you’re still posting nothing


----------



## jc456 (Aug 4, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Just show how they observed it, cold radiating at warmer. Why isn’t in there? All those books and what no observation?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I do that experiment every time I point my Home Depot IR thermometer at my windows looking for leaks.. Can read window sills at 40DegF or so even tho the IR thermometer is at room temperature dude... Straighten up and fly right.. There are HUNDREDS of opportunities to hit on "climate science".. THIS --- aint one of them..

And if you did not deny that everything can radiate in the electromagnetic spectrum even IF its colder --- WTF was your issue??


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Can't remember my many examples? Is it dementia? Sorry.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 4, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



JC is dumber than SSDD so finds it more difficult to defend the epicycles.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 4, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Yep nothing observed, still waiting


----------



## jc456 (Aug 4, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Yep, when it is pointed at cold, it loses energy to the cold object, it is the thermo coupler reading a loss of energy. What is the make, I’ll be happy to pull the explanation from their web site for you!


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



It's not a "thermocouple" dolt.. It's OPTICAL.. And it's reading specifically IR PHOTONS directed at it.. The optics are very narrow to allow you to descriminate the target area... 

And there'd be NO POINT in you reading me the manual.. I've designed equipment to read IR photons....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



The Sun shining through the corona, the Earth radiating through the thermosphere, the atmosphere radiating toward the surface. All examples of cooler matter radiating at warmer matter.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


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




I always liked this one.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



How does "COOL" flow away from anything?  You have a transfer mechanism that science doesn't know about? You're really confused. Confused about the difference between heat and light. And confused about how a simple IR thermometer works.

LIGHT (like IR radiation) is a different animal than heat.. It travels differently. It has an actual electromagnetic structure.. It is NOT heat.. UNTIL it is absorbed by an object. It's like other form of light.. That's why there is a separate physics for it's ability to propagate and convert to heat energy..
 It transfers NOTHING to the object being scanned.. I counts IR light photons EMITTED by objects as way to determine their temperature....


----------



## SSDD (Aug 5, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> *THERE IS NO HEATING OF SURFACE DIRECTLY --- by the GreenHouse.. (in an equilibrium state) .
> *


*
*
So you have your own personal greenhouse hypothesis as well?  One that doesn't claim that there is direct heating of the surface.  Interesting, because the IPCC, the mouthpiece of climate science says otherwise...

IPCC FAQ  1.3  What is a greenhouse effect?

_"Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, pri- marily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and *reradiated back to Earth*. This is called the greenhouse effect."_


*


flacaltenn said:



			The NET heat flux is ALWAYS to the sky... The GreenHouse simply retards the RATE of loss to space....
		
Click to expand...

*
Oh...so that explains why there is no upper tropospheric hot spot...the fingerprint of man made climate change and the inescapable, inevitable result of ANYTHING that claims to retard the rate of loss of energy to space...and I suppose it explains why there is no decrease in the amount of outgoing LW to space at the TOA as well...all that "retardation"

There is retardation present in this discussion, but it has nothing to do with the movement of energy.  Interesting how you luke warmers tend to all have your own personal versions of the greenhouse hypothesis...none of which seem to work the same way as the greenhouse hypothesis that climate science describes...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Yep...they will show you book after book after book and model after model and tell you what "everyone" believes...what they won't show you is actual evidence...that used to be what physics was all about...before the post modern age that is...now it is about protecting the dogma, and inventing particles and mechanics to explain away everything that contradicts the dogma..


----------



## SSDD (Aug 5, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> I do that experiment every time I point my Home Depot IR thermometer at my windows looking for leaks.. Can read window sills at 40DegF or so even tho the IR thermometer is at room temperature dude... Straighten up and fly right.. There are HUNDREDS of opportunities to hit on "climate science".. THIS --- aint one of them..



What you do every time you point your Home Depot IR thermometer is get fooled by instrumentation.  That lens in the front of your thermometer focuses whatever you point it at at an internal thermopile...if you are pointing it at a warmer object, the thermopile begins to warm and the amount and rate of warming is converted to an electrical signal and plugged into an equation and it tells you the temperature...if what you are pointing it at is a cooler object, the internal thermopile starts cooling down and again, the rate and amount of cooling is converted into an electrical signal and plugged into an equation and it tells you the temperature.

I hate to burst your bubble, but your thermometer is not measuring cold radiation moving from your leaky window to your warmer thermometer.  You should be embarrassed that you don't know how such a simple instrument works, but clearly you aren't.....behold, the power of dogma.....you apparently are perfectly fine with being fooled by your instrument every time you use it....ALL HAIL THE DOGMA....

I see why you would want to keep this sort of conversation away from the general population...if I didn't know how my Home Depot IR thermometer worked, I might not want everyone in creation to know about it either...especially if I was passing myself off as some sort of expert in energy transfer..


----------



## SSDD (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



He thinks his Home Depot IR thermometer is measuring cold radiation coming in from his leaky windows...He has no idea that all his thermometer is doing is recording and interpreting temperature changes of an internal thermopile...if he points it at a warmer object, it warms up because it is receiving energy from the warmer object and the rate and amount of warming is converted to a temperature...if he points it at a cooler object, the thermopile cools down because it is loosing energy to the cooler object and the amount and rate of cooling is converted into a temperature.

It is sad that someone who appears to be as bright as flacalten would be so blinded by dogma, that he would be fooled by such a simple instrument and have no idea what it it is actually measuring...he also thinks he has an instrument at work that counts theoretical particles...namely photons...I am sure that his instrument is measuring something...but not theoretical particles.

Being fooled by instrumentation should be embarrassing, but to these guys, apparently it is a badge of honor...it is as close to "evidence" as they are likely to get.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Dead on...what does it feel like to be the smartest guy in the room?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 5, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Sorry guy...but your blind belief in dogma has made you selectively stupid...while it may not be a thermocouple..it is a thermopile...and the lens in the front of your thermometer focuses the object you point it at on said thermopile, and by the same token, focuses the thermopile on the object..

And I am embarrassed for you...claiming to design instruments when you have no idea how your simple Home Depot IR thermometer works...

You are right that it is probably useless for him to provide you with the information on how the instrument works...you are so blinded by dogma that you probably could't even see it...and as to a machine that counts theoretical particles?....could you possibly be more blinded by dogma and fooled by instrumentation?  I am sure that you are measuring something..but it isn't theoretical particles that you are counting..it it were, then they wouldn't be theoretical any more...would they?

Yep...it becomes more and more clear why you would want to keep this discussion off the main boards...and give it a derogatory name...If I didn't know how a simple IR thermometer worked..I would not want everyone in creation to know about it either..


----------



## SSDD (Aug 5, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> How does "COOL" flow away from anything?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


thermopile, I'm used to thermocouplers from my past experiences.  same difference, and you should be ashamed you don't know how the device actually converts for temperature readings.  

And, Ouch, you designed this type of equipment and don't know how it actually works, I'd be embarrassed.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


as you should, because you have no fking clue as to what it is showing you.  It's been explained to you adnaussea too.

BTW, Why is it shown as blue if it's heat?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


no scientist on this planet knows what is happening on the sun, are you saying you know more than any other scientist?  wow!!! so you should write that text book


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


you think cold objects heat up warmer objects, I'd say you have the lead on stupid.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*Yep...they will show you book after book after book and model after model and tell you what "everyone" believes...*

And then there is you, telling us what no one believes.

*what they won't show you is actual evidence...*

Did you ever find that evidence for "objects at equilibrium cease emissions"? No? Weird.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*no scientist on this planet knows what is happening on the sun, *

Link?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



*you think cold objects heat up warmer objects,*

I do? Nah. You're lying.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


I'm letting everyone know that you have no observed evidence to support your dogma.  Just so we're clear.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


nope, I am a very honest person.  I admit my mistakes when I make one.  So far I've been waiting for you to post the observation that proves me wrong.  Until then it is what it is., you should learn how that's done.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Why is the sun's corona the hottest layer when it is farther from the sun's core than other layers are?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Right. Stefan-Boltzmann was derived with no observed evidence...…..durr


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


post it!!! the evidence.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*nope, I am a very honest person.*

Excellent. Then you can link to the post where I said, "*cold* *objects heat up warmer objects*".


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



The corona is hotter than the surface?
That's weird, according to SSDD, that would prevent the surface from emitting.
Was he correct? Or does the surface emit?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


do you say that cold objects radiate when next to warmer objects?  if so, there you go!!!


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


let me know when the scientist understand what is happening and I will respond afterward.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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








Here's the important part......

The law was almost immediately experimentally verified. 

Good luck with your research. And post Dr. Raeder's response.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*do you say that cold objects radiate when next to warmer objects?*

Only if they're above absolute zero. Because....Stefan-Boltzmann.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


still waiting for that email you had from SSDD, where is it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*let me know when the scientist understand what is happening*

The Sun radiates through the hotter corona. Obviously. 

Because......wait for it......Stefan-Boltzmann.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Yep I completely agree with that, except when surrounded by warmer objects.  so the question was does the cold object still radiate around warmer objects?  you ricocheted away from my question.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*still waiting for that email you had from SSDD*

He posted his own moronic email.
I posted Dr. Raeder explaining why SSDD was wrong.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


there you go, see you say cold objects radiate toward warmer objects, that says that heat should warm the warmer object.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


post that link that says that about the suns surface.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


nope, that wasn't what you said.  so let's see his email that was directed to SSDD.  otherwise you're a liar.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*Yep I completely agree with that, except when surrounded by warmer objects.  *

I've said, you should definitely publish your proof that SB is wrong.

* so the question was does the cold object still radiate around warmer objects?*

Only if they're above absolute zero.

Do I need to explain what absolute zero means? Besides your IQ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



* that says that heat should warm the warmer object. *

Why would fewer photons from the colder object outnumber the larger number of photons from the warmer object?

Is it because you failed math?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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


*nope, that wasn't what you said.*

Post what I said.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



If you can see a photon from the Sun's surface, that's my proof.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*I've said, you should definitely publish your proof that SB is wrong.*
Sure, once you show me the observation that created the report.  I've been waiting a long time for you to post that evidence.  hmmmmm seems strange, you sure like to use the name.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


except you have no idea how it was created.  so once you got that, comeback and we'll discuss further.  until science knows, you've got nothing.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


you post it, you're the one refuting my statement.
#478


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*Sure, once you show me the observation that created the report.*

You don't know how SB was derived? Why am I not surprised?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



I know how photons from the Sun are created. Do you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



It's true, he laughed at SSDD.
Because it was funny. 
He posted Dr. Raeder as an expert backing up his claims.

Dr. Raeder disagreed with SSDD's silly claims.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


How?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Post the email


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



LMGTFY


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Find it yourself.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


you mentioned it, post it.  otherwise you are a liar.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


What is Fusion?
 so the sun is the actual source based on fusion.  so why is the corona hotter?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



You're the only one who gets to lie in this thread? What are you, a liberal?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*so the sun is the actual source based on fusion*

Yes, the source of the photons from the surface that radiate toward the hotter corona is fusion.

*so why is the corona hotter?*

Don't care. Why doesn't the hotter corona prevent the surface from radiating?

Could it be that SSDD's idiotic claim is wrong? LOL!


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Don't care?  hmmmm did the Corona put the fusion reactor out?  isn't fusion work energy?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*Don't care?*

Couldn't care less.

*hmmmm did the Corona put the fusion reactor out? *

Nope.

*isn't fusion work energy?*

There is zero fusion going on at the surface.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


then where's the fusion energy originating at?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Where do you think?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


you said there was zero fusion at the surface, then where is it happening?  cause you must have some really good magic that is happening at the sun that there isn't fusion at the surface.

or do you think the sun's surface is like earth's surface?  hahaahahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*you said there was zero fusion at the surface*

Because there is zero fusion at the surface.

*then where is it happening? *

Where do you think it is happening?

*cause you must have some really good magic that is happening at the sun that there isn't fusion at the surface.*​
Your scientific ignorance is both wide I deep. I can understand why you fall for SSDD's idiocy.
​


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


and you think the corona can stop the sun's fusion.  wow.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


then why did you make this comment if fusion doesn't happen at the surface?

*Yes, the source of the photons from the surface that radiate toward the hotter corona is fusion. post #567*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*and you think the corona can stop the sun's fusion. *

Nope. Not even a little bit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*then why did you make this comment if fusion doesn't happen at the surface?
*
Because it's true.

Fusion doesn't happen at the surface. Not even a little.

Where do you think it occurs?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


so you agree  The fusion engine isn't stopped just because the corona is hotter than it?  why would you think anyone would think that?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


but you said it in post #567.  are you lying again?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



* The fusion engine isn't stopped just because the corona is hotter than it?  *

Fusion doesn't occur at the surface.
The fusion that doesn't occur at the surface isn't stopped by the temperature of the corona.

*why would you think anyone would think that?*

SSDD's epicycles are very complex.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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








This post doesn't say fusion occurs at the surface.

Did you figure out where fusion occurs?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


then why did you say fusion was at the surface in post #567?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


dude, it says in post #567;

_the source of the photons from the surface that radiate to the hotter corona is fusion.
_
your words dude.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



That's not what I said.
Is English your second language?

Find out where fusion occurs, your idiocy will be slightly reduced.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Yup. Photons that come from the Sun are the result of fusion.
There is no fusion at the surface.

There is no conflict between these statements.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


that's not what you said,  not at all.
_Photons that come from the Sun are the result of fusion._
 you wrote:
_the source of the photons from the surface that radiate to the hotter corona is fusion.

_
you wrote it, english isn't your first language?  is that what you're telling us? you wrote it, right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*Photons that come from the Sun are the result of fusion.*

Absolutely!

_*the source of the photons from the surface that radiate to the hotter corona is fusion.*_

You bet your ass.

*is that what you're telling us? *

That's what I'm telling you.

*you wrote it, right?*

Sure did.

Did you find out where fusion occurs?

Or will your ignorance on this topic remain unreduced?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I'm still wondering if you do?  you don't think fusion is done at the sun, and think the sun's surface is like the earth's surface.  

you said the photon comes from fusion, and the photon comes from the surface


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Well, good luck with your fusion research.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


well you're obviously confused, cause you think SSDD thinks the sun doesn't produce the photons that warm the earth.  I've never seen that statement from him.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



You're lying....again.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



The SB equation describes one way energy flow from a radiator to a cooler background...it says nothing about two way energy flow....the onus is upon you guys to prove it wrong...Set T to the same temperature as TC and P=zero...I have no problem with that...you on the other hand believe that it is wrong...so prove it with some actual evidence.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



The sensor array in the camera is made of multiple thermopiles...some are warming...some are cooling..the amount and rate of warming is indicated by warm colors...the amount and rate of cooling is indicated by cool colors...cold radiation is not being beamed into the camera from the ice cream...


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So you have your own personal greenhouse hypothesis as well? One that doesn't claim that there is direct heating of the surface. Interesting, because the IPCC, the mouthpiece of climate science says otherwise...
> 
> IPCC FAQ 1.3 What is a greenhouse effect?
> 
> _"Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, pri- marily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and *reradiated back to Earth*. This is called the greenhouse effect."_



Can't help it if you're so confused that when you see "reradiated back to Earth" you think that NET HEAT went to surface.. It never does.. It's a photon (light) gunfight and the surface always loses heat.. It just LOSES IT a very slightly slower rate... Photons themselves are not heat. Don't behave like heat. And they don't CHOOSE their paths.. 

Just like when a cloud deck comes over during the evening.. The surface loses heat at a slightly lower rate, but it's STILL "losing heat"... NOT heating up... 

If you don't get this -- it's because you've brainwashed yourself to the point where not only do reject textbooks as "dogma" -- but you're rejecting spending any calories on critical thinking about what folks are trying to tell you...


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


> thermopile, I'm used to thermocouplers from my past experiences. same difference, and you should be ashamed you don't know how the device actually converts for temperature readings.



Nope... Thermopiles are ancient, inefficient and noisy... And since the electronics revolution, there are cheaper better ways to collect IR photons... 

I do know what I'm doing. Or I wouldnt have been on the "go-to" team for photon counting applications and products...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Sure...there is all sorts of evidence...the fact that you can't measure energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object...or even energy moving spontaneously between two objects at equilibrium is evidence...if the energy were moving, then you could measuring it happening...it isn't, and you can't....that is evidence..


----------



## SSDD (Aug 5, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> _ Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and *reradiated back to Earth*. This is called the greenhouse effect."_
> 
> Can't help it if you're so confused that when you see "reradiated back to Earth" you think that NET HEAT went to surface.. It never does.. It's a photon (light) gunfight and the surface always loses heat.. It just LOSES IT a very slightly slower rate... Photons themselves are not heat. Don't behave like heat. And they don't CHOOSE their paths..



That is a pretty straight forward statement...reradiated back to the surface...no ambiguity there...does your belief in dogma keep you from being able to understand unambiguous statements as well?

Here is more from the IPCC regarding what climate science says is happening..from the same link as above...

_Clip:  (although locally one can feel the warming effect: cloudy nights tend to remain warmer than clear nights because the clouds radiate longwave energy back down to the surface)._

Radiate long wave energy back down to the surface...not much wiggle room there and not what you claim at all...again..your own version which is different from that of climate science...

_Clip:  Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet.
_
Warms the surface of the planet...again...no wiggle room there and entirely different from what your version of the greenhouse effect claims...

And again....if energy is escaping more slowly...where is the upper tropospheric hot spot...which would be the inevitable result of the greenhouse effect slowing the escape of energy?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 5, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > thermopile, I'm used to thermocouplers from my past experiences. same difference, and you should be ashamed you don't know how the device actually converts for temperature readings.
> ...




You don't even know how a home depot IR thermometer works..whether you "know what you are doing" is called into question by that fact...even my grandkids know how a home depot IR thermometer works...and they know cold energy isn't beaming into it...

And it never stops being funny that you believe you are counting theoretical particles....if you were actually counting them, they wouldn't still be theoretical now...would they?

No doubt you are counting something...and also no doubt that you are being fooled by your instruments if you believe you are counting theoretical particles...


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> That is a pretty straight forward statement...reradiated back to the surface...no ambiguity there...does your belief in dogma keep you from being able to understand unambiguous statements as well?



If I'm standing a couple feet from a SNOW DRIFT -- that is "reradiating" some of my body heat back to me.

Who wins that exchange? Do I GET WARMED by the snow drift you freaking moron??


----------



## SSDD (Aug 5, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > That is a pretty straight forward statement...reradiated back to the surface...no ambiguity there...does your belief in dogma keep you from being able to understand unambiguous statements as well?
> ...



In a model perhaps...not in the real world...but feel free to show me a measurement of a discrete wavelength of radiation with an instrument that isn't cooled to a temperature lower than that of the snow drift...



flacaltenn said:


> Who wins that exchange? Do I GET WARMED by the snow drift you freaking moron??



Funny..you calling me a moron when you don't even know how your Home Depot IR thermometer works...


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> In a model perhaps...not in the real world...but feel free to show me a measurement of a discrete wavelength of radiation with an instrument that isn't cooled to a temperature lower than that of the snow drift...



The Home Depot IR thermometer is not cooled to a temperature lower than the snow pile -- YET -- it will read the surface temp of the snow pile fairly accurately... 

You just REPEAT things and never learn anything.. That's why we NEED special threads for your disabilities...

I've COOLED IR detectors many times.. But NEVER to read a colder object.. *They are COOLED to reduce their internal THERMAL NOISE and get better dynamic range on the the measurements..* We've been HERE twice before and you just huff it off just like all those "dogma" textbooks....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*The SB equation describes one way energy flow from a radiator to a cooler background..*

Two way flow. Or between 2 objects.

*it says nothing about two way energy flow...*

Nothing in the equation says one way.

*Set T to the same temperature as TC and P=zero...*

Yes, net power loss is zero.

*I have no problem with that...you on the other hand believe that it is wrong...*

I have no problem with a net loss of zero.

Any backup for your "no radiating in either direction" theory?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


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







.*the amount and rate of cooling is indicated by cool colors...*

Really? The image of the colder ice cream is because photons are moving from the camera to the ice cream, but none are moving from the ice cream to the camera?

*cold radiation is not being beamed into the camera from the ice cream..*

Because there is no such thing as cold radiation. Just radiation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*the fact that you can't measure energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object...or even energy moving spontaneously between two objects at equilibrium is evidence...*

If you have any evidence that no energy moves between objects at equilibrium, post it.

Or if you have any real scientists saying no energy moves between objects at equilibrium, post them.

What? Nothing? Still? LOL!


----------



## SSDD (Aug 5, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> The Home Depot IR thermometer is not cooled to a temperature lower than the snow pile -- YET -- it will read the surface temp of the snow pile fairly accurately...



And your Home Depot thermometer isn't telling you anything about discrete wavelengths of energy is it?  Or do you believe that it is?

The only thing your Home Depot thermometer is telling you is how much and how fast the internal thermopile is losing energy to the snow pile...it isn't receiving jack from the snow pile...it is measuring how much and how quickly the internal thermopile is cooling off...and nothing else...Go learn something...



flacaltenn said:


> You just REPEAT things and never learn anything.. That's why we NEED special threads for your disabilities...



Funny coming from a guy who claims to be an expert who doesn't even know how a simple IR thermometer works...even my grandkids can tell you how that simple instrument works...  At this point it is more than clear that it is you who has the disability .....extreme arrogance brought on by belief in magical dogma...



flacaltenn said:


> I've COOLED IR detectors many times.. But NEVER to read a colder object.. *They are COOLED to reduce their internal THERMAL NOISE and get better dynamic range on the the measurements..* We've been HERE twice before and you just huff it off just like all those "dogma" textbooks....



You have only been fooled by instrumentation...typical among warmers and luke warmers...you see what you want to see and never bother to try and find out what you are actually measuring...like the IR thermometer...you think you are measuring anything from the snow pile but you aren't.. you are only measuring how much and how fast the internal thermopile is losing energy to the snow..

You cool instruments that are capable of measuring discrete wavelengths of energy because if you don't and the object you point the instrument at is cooler than the instrument, no energy will move from the object to the instrument...even if the object is a fraction of a degree warmer than the instrument, you can measure discrete wavelengths of energy coming form the object...let the object get even a fraction of a degree cooler than the instrument and you get nothing...you can call the nothing you measure noise all you like if that sort of mental masturbation is your thing...but you are not measuring anything because there is nothing to measure...

You can call the snow on a TV screen that is receiving no signal noise if you like...but it isn't noise...it is lack of signal because there is nothing there...

Yes...we have been here before and you lost then as well because when the rubber meets the road and it is time to produce evidence to support your beliefs, you have none...all you have is evidnece that you are easily fooled by instruments as evidenced by your complete ignorance of what your IR thermometer is actually measuring. 

The more you talk, the more I see why you would want to censor this sort of argument...I mean, geez...how much more simple could an instrument be than an IR thermometer and you don't even know what that is measuring...you have all the dogma, but dogma is all it is...no actual evidence to support anything other than the obvious fact that instruments fool you...


----------



## abu afak (Aug 5, 2019)

Exchange from my "How do we know it's human caused" below that I think is relevant here. Only read the first few pages though.



			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> We know that the total solar output doesn't change by much..and hasn't changed much over the past few decades...we also know that the amount of energy that the sun puts out in various wavelengths varies wildly from day to day, year to year, decade to decade..*.can you tell me how changes in any of these particular wavelengths might affect the climate? Of course you can't..because we don't know...*we are just beginning to scratch the surface of what actually effects the climate...and the very idea that we have it nailed down and can say what causes what is patently ridiculous...
> Now I believe that you believe that constitutes evidence..but all it does is shows that you wouldn't know what evidence was if it bit you on the ass.. EPIC FAIL rolling thunder...EPIC FAIL...


And you're Wrong on that too....
Can be found Hundreds places.
Have one!

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=35

*"....What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation is consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data.*
The 1970 and 1997 spectra were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003 (Griggs 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen 2007). Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matching the expected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is causing an enhanced greenhouse effect."..."​
See Link for many more Precise Charts.

`


----------



## SSDD (Aug 5, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Exchange from my "How do we know it's human caused" below that I think is relevant here. Only read the first few pages though.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry guy...but that simply is not true...you will believe anything won't you...and apparently from anybody  (skeptical science...what a joke) so long as they are a warmer...


Here are the graphs from that study...feel free to print them out and overlay them...you will see that they are identical...the claimed difference was all in models...not in the actual observations.


----------



## abu afak (Aug 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy...but that simply is not true...you will believe anything won't you...and apparently from anybody  (skeptical science...what a joke) so long as they are a warmer...
> 
> Here are the graphs from that study...feel free to print them out and overlay them...you will see that they are identical...the claimed difference was all in models...not in the actual observations.


Thanks.
That's why it shut you up in my thread below.
We do know radiative heat escape is being blocked and by what GH gas at what Wavelength.

The charts are just your extraordinarily Disingenuous attempt to say the opposite of what is said in much more detail than what you Spammed up.

Again. We know heat escape is blocked by GH gases and at their precise wavelengths.
This can be found on Many websites. Many studies.
Gameover again, but you will keep posting as always.

In fact, my above info puts you pretty much out of this whole thread. 60 pages refuted in one simple excerpt.
You HAVE to just do post-overs to obscure the facts.
`


----------



## SSDD (Aug 5, 2019)

the charts are what they are...they show no decrease in outgoing LW radiation in the CO2 emission bands...the only difference was in the models...not in observation.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> And your Home Depot thermometer isn't telling you anything about discrete wavelengths of energy is it? Or do you believe that it is?



Oh holy shit man.. I just can't get past the idiocy in the 1st line of every post you make.. The ENTIRE INSTRUMENT is tuned to reading ONLY Deep Infra Red wavelengths. The OPTICS is special glass that filters EVERY OTHER wavelength out so that it is not measured...



SSDD said:


> You have only been fooled by instrumentation...typical among warmers and luke warmers...you see what you want to see and never bother to try and find out what you are actually measuring...like the IR thermometer...you think you are measuring anything from the snow pile but you aren't.. you are only measuring how much and how fast the internal thermopile is losing energy to the snow..



Damn this is pretty dense denial.. You've totally lost the ability to think clearly.... Don't even CARE to reinspect these brain farts after being corrected a dozen times.. For the FINAL time...

The INSTRUMENT is not losing heat to the snow pile.. HERE"S WHY...

1) The optics is a highly magnified field of view.. The inclusion angle is about 12Deg and is "cut off" for operation at about distances longer than 10 feet.. Which MEANS the actual AMOUNT of snow pile being viewed at say 4 feet is about a 3 inch diameter of snow... So if you think 3" of snow in the FOView -- *demagnified onto about a 10mm sensor* at four feet away is gonna COOL the sensor MORE than the AMBIENT BELOW FREEZING temperature -- your brain is in idle...

2) You can make that measurement at 1 foot to 10 feet and get the SAME RESULT... If the snow pile was COOLING the sensor -- there would LESS cooling the farther away you went...

3) How does the snow pile "cool" the sensor anyways?? The air is not a great thermal conductor.. And in fact, if anything was cooling the sensor it would be the ambient air -- not the snow pile.. There is NO DIRECT HEAT TRANSFER path from the sensor to the snow pile with any amount of real efficient CONDUCTIVE heat transfer... It's all a machine gun battle of photons..

You're on your own with the rest of that post.. I'm in shock and awe....


----------



## SSDD (Aug 6, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Oh holy shit man.. I just can't get past the idiocy in the 1st line of every post you make.. The ENTIRE INSTRUMENT is tuned to reading ONLY Deep Infra Red wavelengths. The OPTICS is special glass that filters EVERY OTHER wavelength out so that it is not measured...



No...it isn't...you might be able to get past your idiocy if you actually tried to learn a bit about the instrument...It is not "tuned" to only read deep IR wavelengths...and the optics are nothing but a lens that focuses light (IR) onto a thermopile behind it.

Once again, although you apparently are too dense to understand, your IR thermometer is measuring nothing...NOTHING...but the amount and rate of temperature change of an internal thermopile...The lens in the front focuses light (IR) onto the thermopile which then either warms up, or cools down due to absorbing energy from the object you are pointing at, or loses energy to the object you are pointing at...the temperature change is converted to an electrical signal which is measured, put through a formula and converted to a temperature...  It has a maximum and minimum range but that is due to the thermopile itself, not the magical glass...or any other hocus pocus you believe to be going on. 

The fact that you call me an idiot when you don't even know how this simple instrument works is both funny, and sad...

And back to the point....does an instrument that measures the rate of change of an internal thermopile and converts it to a temperature tell you anything about discrete wavelengths of energy?

Do you know what the word discrete might mean with regard to wavelengths of energy?  Discreet, from the latin discretus....separate...distinct.

You are the source of the idiocy here...not me...you and your belief in magic...



flacaltenn said:


> Damn this is pretty dense denial.. You've totally lost the ability to think clearly.... Don't even CARE to reinspect these brain farts after being corrected a dozen times.. For the FINAL time...



Yep....you are chin deep in denial...so far in that you don't even realize it...you have gone off the deep end and surrendered to magical thinking...and no matter how many times you repeat your total misunderstanding...you will still be wrong.



flacaltenn said:


> The INSTRUMENT is not losing heat to the snow pile.. HERE"S WHY...



Of course it is...



flacaltenn said:


> 1) The optics is a highly magnified field of view.. The inclusion angle is about 12Deg and is "cut off" for operation at about distances longer than 10 feet.. Which MEANS the actual AMOUNT of snow pile being viewed at say 4 feet is about a 3 inch diameter of snow... So if you think 3" of snow in the FOView -- *demagnified onto about a 10mm sensor* at four feet away is gonna COOL the sensor MORE than the AMBIENT BELOW FREEZING temperature -- your brain is in idle...



That is precisely why the light from the object is "FOCUSED" onto the thermopile...



flacaltenn said:


> 2) You can make that measurement at 1 foot to 10 feet and get the SAME RESULT... If the snow pile was COOLING the sensor -- there would LESS cooling the farther away you went...



Read the info on your thermometer..it states pretty clearly that the further away you are from the object, the less accurate the reading will be...because the light from the object is FOCUSED" on the thermopile...



flacaltenn said:


> 3) How does the snow pile "cool" the sensor anyways??



Refer to Pictet's experiment...he was operating under the mistaken belief that cold objects emitted cold radiation as well...and his experiment describes a rudimentary IR thermometer...

http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Pictet-Apparent_Radiation_and_Reflection_of_Cold.pdf

Pictet unintentionally provided a fine demonstration of the fact that a cold body can not make a warm body warmer...and some 50 years later Lord Kelvin and Clausius provided second law of thermodynamics and its one way energy movement to explain what was happening in Pictet's experiment...  Your IR thermometer works just like that only considerably more complicated and accurate...





flacaltenn said:


> The air is not a great thermal conductor.. And in fact, if anything was cooling the sensor it would be the ambient air -- not the snow pile..



Again...the snow pile is FOCUSED on the internal thermopile...it is the thermopile, and its amount and rate of cooling or warming that is converted to an electrical signal, run through a formula and then provides a temperature..  The only thing being measured is how much and how quickly the thermopile is warming or cooling...it isn't a difficult concept to grasp if you could drop the belief in magic just for a minute...



flacaltenn said:


> There is NO DIRECT HEAT TRANSFER path from the sensor to the snow pile with any amount of real efficient CONDUCTIVE heat transfer... It's all a machine gun battle of photons..



Sorry guy...your IR thermometer is not magic...it is a simple machine that measures how much and how fast an internal thermopile is warming or cooling...nothing more...if you point it at a cool object, then it loses heat to the cooler object...

Here....from  The Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications:    page 307, section 7.8

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

Now you can go on with your magical thinking all you like...but the fact is that the thermopile in your IR thermometer is losing energy to the cooler object...you are not measuring magical cold radiation coming from a snow pile or any damned thing else that is cooler than your thermometer...



flacaltenn said:


> You're on your own with the rest of that post.. I'm in shock and awe....



Convenient dodge...It is apparent why you wanted to make a "safe zone" of the entire board except for this thread which you gave a derogatory name...you have made an abysmal showing here and you should be embarrassed for yourself...  Dogma and magical thinking is not a good substitute for actually knowing a thing or two...

You may have a career in instrumentation, but it is clear that you don't know what they are measuring or how they are doing it...you are immersed in the dogma to the point that you aren't even able to get a clue...because like all consumers of dogma...you believe you already have all the answers....


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

I


flacaltenn said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > thermopile, I'm used to thermocouplers from my past experiences. same difference, and you should be ashamed you don't know how the device actually converts for temperature readings.
> ...


 I disagree, I am in the business of electronics, and there’s no reverse energy. Just isn’t and the device you claim to have calculates the temperature based on receiving IR from warmer objects or losing energy to show cold objects. You won’t even give the brand so I can pull their specs on what it does .


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


_Really? The image of the colder ice cream is because photons are moving from the camera to the ice cream, but none are moving from the ice cream to the camera?_
nope, none.
*cold radiation is not being beamed into the camera from the ice cream..*

_Because there is no such thing as cold radiation. Just radiation._

And something that radiates is emitting heat energy


----------



## SSDD (Aug 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


> I
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> ...



He is so blinded by his arrogance and dogma that even if the man who designed the instrument told him how it worked, he would deny it in favor of what he believes...he has become the worst sort of fundamentalist zealot...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*nope, none.*

SB disagrees.

*And something that radiates is emitting heat energy *

Everything emits photons.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


_SB disagrees._

how so?

post the completed equation that shows that.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


yep, I don't disagree.  when they emit them is the issue.  you seem lost as normal.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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







Stefan-Boltzmann law | Definition & Facts


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


fill it out, enter the temperatures and show me.  no, no, come on big man step up and show the calculation. cold object warm object fill it in.  let's see your answer.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



-10C


----------



## SSDD (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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









If you can manage some basic math set T to the same number as Tc...how much energy (P) does the equation say is being emitted?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


is -10C.

  now fill in the formula and show me the calculation.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


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


has this douche ever filled out the formula and provided an actual completed problem?  nope!!

Wuwei as well, never actually completed the formula with values.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



I doubt that he can handle even math that basic...and even if he could do it, he couldn't bring himself to admit that P=0 when T and Tc are set to the same number..wuwei avoided answering that question for pages and pages and pages..simply couldn't admit that the actual equations from the SB law say that he is wrong...it was simply beyond is ability to accept so he dodged and weaved and weaseled rather than simply state that P = 0...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*how much energy (P) does the equation say is being emitted?*

It says the same amount is being emitted as absorbed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



I already agree with SB.
Feel free to prove it wrong.
Or not.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Funny....the clip you show refers to a theoretical perfect black body radiating into a theoretical perfect vacuum...there are equations to use when the radiator is less than perfect, and when it is not radiating into a perfect vacuum...you know the one...the one where when you set T and Tc to the same number, they indicate that the amount of energy (P) being radiated by the radiator is zero...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



That isn't what it says at all...none of you guys seem to be able to read a simple equation...guess that is why you are dupes...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*Funny....the clip you show refers to a theoretical perfect black body radiating into a theoretical perfect vacuum..*

Yes, that's hilarious....that you think it mentions a vacuum.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*That isn't what it says at all..*

That formula shows net power.
Because the object and the background both radiate.

Still no backup for your magical "zero radiating at equilibrium"? Weird.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



Planck disagrees.

_A similar relation may be obtained for the separate parts of the spectrum. For the energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation. This is readily seen from the following. The magnitudes of ν, αν, and Kν are independent of position. 

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4003...n_id=2400685b18312bc92a086b0715b6d345a64a87b1

Page 31_


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


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


_ Since a quantity of energy emitted causes a decrease of the heat of the body, and a quantity of energy absorbed an increase of the heat of the body, it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other. Here, of course, care must be taken to distinguish between the radiation emitted and the total radiation which reaches one body from the other._

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4003...n_id=2400685b18312bc92a086b0715b6d345a64a87b1

Page 50.

Planck again.

Where's your source correcting him?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Where?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Prove it!
SB is about power radiated where does it state ‘net’?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*SB is about power radiated*

Yup. That's why your claim about ice not radiating is so silly.

*where does it state ‘net’?*






^
Here


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Where your moron buddy said P = zero.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Where? I see nothing that says net.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Zero radiated yep again it’s radiating nothing yep. What we both say


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Because you're stupid.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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







Where did you see zero radiated in SB?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


how so? you said it says net, I don't see the word anywhere near that equation.  And if SB then the P = emissions of an object

"Stefan–Boltzmann law
*Description*
The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the *power radiated from a black body* in terms of its temperature. Wikipedia"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



_the *power radiated from a black body* in terms of its temperature_

Exactly! No mention of a dimmer switch.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*you said it says net, I don't see the word anywhere near that equation.*





^
This equation isn't in your link.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Nothing about net


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Right? I gave you the definition

BTW, I’m still waiting on that observed heat off an ice cube near a hot object? Another thing when an object radiates it gets colder right? Why does the ice melt when near a hot object if it’s releasing heat as you say?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Because it's only talking about radiating, silly.

So you'll be posting your evidence that SB is flawed any time now?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*Right? I gave you the definition*

Right, I saw your confusion.

*BTW, I’m still waiting on that observed heat off an ice cube near a hot object?*

You could use one of these cameras. FLIR T660...….





* Another thing when an object radiates it gets colder right? *

Depends.

*Why does the ice melt when near a hot object if it’s releasing heat as you say?*

Why wouldn't it?

Is your confusion caused by your weak math skills?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


How did I say it was wrong?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



None of your whining on this thread was you claiming the SB was flawed?

That's a relief.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


So you’re saying that when an object radiates it' gets warmer? Hmm you got a new one to get your Nobel prize with. Magic photons dimmer switches? Hahaha hahaha


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*So you’re saying that when an object radiates it' gets warmer? *

Does it?

* Hmm you got a new one to get your Nobel prize with.*

You first with your "The 2nd Law conflicts with SB" Nobel.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I said cold objects don’t radiate when next to warmer objects. You said they do. I said nothing more. You think SB shows otherwise, fill in the formula and prove the equation will show the cold object radiates. Go!


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


BTW, I see zero when T = Tc.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


still waiting for your explanation, does an object cool or warm up as it radiates? you now have dodged yet another question.  you're the dodge ball king I see.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*I said cold objects don’t radiate when next to warmer objects.*

So you are disagreeing with SB. You should post your data. Maybe some sources that agree with you?

Unless you're out there all alone with your buddy?

*You said they do. *

Obviously, SB.

*You think SB shows otherwise, fill in the formula and prove the equation will show the cold object radiates.*



E=_e_A(5.670374419 × 10−8 watt per metre^2/K^4) * (273.15)^4


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Great, where did you see that in SB?


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Photons that come from the Sun are the result of fusion.*
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> ...



The plethora of posts about fusion on the surface of the sun was a hilarious dialog. Too bad it ended. Teasing the hapless idiot like that was better than the famous Abbot and Costello, "Who's on first".

Also the ice cream "tutorial video" was hilarious. And SSDD coming back with his fake physics is hilarious. He never learns from the fact that he disagrees with himself in the most fundamental aspects of thermodynamics.This thread should be moved to the Humor forum. 

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*does an object cool or warm up as it radiates?*

Did you miss my answer? Or did you forget already?

It depends.

*you now have dodged yet another question. *

I keep answering, your Alzheimer's keeps getting in your way.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Photons that come from the Sun are the result of fusion.*
> ...



He's not very bright.
Perfect sycophant.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The SB equation describes one way energy flow from a radiator to a cooler background.


No it doesn't.


SSDD said:


> it says nothing about two way energy flow.


Yes it does.


SSDD said:


> .the onus is upon you guys to prove it wrong.


Already did.


SSDD said:


> .Set T to the same temperature as TC and P=zero...I have no problem with that.


Of course it's zero.


SSDD said:


> you on the other hand believe that it is wrong.


Nobody here does except JC


SSDD said:


> so prove it with some actual evidence.


Stefan already did.

.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


if T = Tc.  the answer will be zero.  no matter how many times you do the math.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


still waiting on you to complete the formula for P, when T = Tc


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


says the guy that thinks cold objects warm up warm objects.  I'd say the sycophant is you.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


'depends' isn't an answer so I'm still asking.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Unless A=0 or T=0, it emits.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Net is zero, durr.

Email Dr. Raeder yet? LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Since you haven't posted your data, depends is all you'll get.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



You're lying. And stupid.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


0 times anything is zero.  sorry.  seems you got another one you should right an article on.  no zero times a number isn't zero for you.  Wow.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


naw, never lie, but smarter than you.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


why? he's your friend, you should talk


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I doubt that he can handle even math that basic...and even if he could do it, he couldn't bring himself to admit that P=0 when T and Tc are set to the same number..wuwei avoided answering that question for pages and pages and pages..simply couldn't admit that the actual equations from the SB law say that he is wrong...it was simply beyond is ability to accept so he dodged and weaved and weaseled rather than simply state that P = 0...



Total liar. You had pages and pages of lies.

Read the last paragraph 10 times or until it sinks in.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


radiates zero!!! thanks,  P = zero.  that is the answer right?  P=0.  unless of course your math zero times something is not zero.  go for it Power =0.  Say it with me, P=Zero!!!!

BTW, that answer means that SB backs the cold object radiates nothing,  zero = nadda in the event you didn't know.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt that he can handle even math that basic...and even if he could do it, he couldn't bring himself to admit that P=0 when T and Tc are set to the same number..wuwei avoided answering that question for pages and pages and pages..simply couldn't admit that the actual equations from the SB law say that he is wrong...it was simply beyond is ability to accept so he dodged and weaved and weaseled rather than simply state that P = 0...
> ...


t=tc means there is zero radiated in equilibrium.  you just can't make yourself say it even though what you just posted does.  too fking funny.

I quote "the body is absorbing and emitting at the same rate and it is in equilibrium with the enclosure"  t=tc P therefore =zero.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*0 times anything is zero.*

Who is this and how did you hack JC's account?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Then you should be about to show the post where I said what you claimed. Liar.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



My friend? Is that why SSDD used him as a source? LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*radiates zero!!!*

No!!!

*that is the answer right?  P=0.*

Net equals zero.

*BTW, that answer means that SB backs the cold object radiates nothing,*

SB says matter above 0K radiates. No matter the surrounding conditions.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*t=tc means there is zero radiated in equilibrium.*

Between you and SSDD, still no backup for that claim? Weird.

Maybe you should check out the definition of a blackbody?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*I quote "the body is absorbing and emitting at the same rate and it is in equilibrium with the enclosure"*

DURR>>>>>>>>>*t=tc means there is zero radiated in equilibrium. *

I wish I could make money off your stupidity.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The SB equation describes one way energy flow from a radiator to a cooler background.
> ...




Bullshit...If you think your fake SB equation proves anything other than what a wanker you are, you are sadly mistaken.

by the way...did you ever look at what that equation actually says?  Of course not...look at the equation after it is reduced...does the final form of that equation look familiar?  No expression from which net can be derived there..net is an opinion derived from an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model...nothing more...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt that he can handle even math that basic...and even if he could do it, he couldn't bring himself to admit that P=0 when T and Tc are set to the same number..wuwei avoided answering that question for pages and pages and pages..simply couldn't admit that the actual equations from the SB law say that he is wrong...it was simply beyond is ability to accept so he dodged and weaved and weaseled rather than simply state that P = 0...
> ...



You keep posting that bullshit as if it actually meant something...what you never post is the source...


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You keep posting that bullshit as if it actually meant something...what you never post is the source...


Dartmouth University lecture notes.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~physics/l...oltzmann.law/stefan.boltzmann.law.writeup.pdf


----------



## SSDD (Aug 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You keep posting that bullshit as if it actually meant something...what you never post is the source...
> ...



So this is the end of the equation...eσ(T14-T24)


You apparently can't read well enough to realize that the mid point....where they have multiple instances of the SB constant etc is only a mid point in reducing the equation..in the end, they have 




An equation with no expression from which to derive net...because the SB equation describes one way energy flow...it is derived from Planck which also describes one way energy flow..  sorry guy.....you lose yet again...the tedium is unbearable...


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Bullshit...If you think your fake SB equation proves anything other than what a wanker you are, you are sadly mistaken.
> 
> by the way...did you ever look at what that equation actually says? Of course not...look at the equation after it is reduced...does the final form of that equation look familiar? No expression from which net can be derived there..net is an opinion derived from an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model...nothing more...



Here is another source the original Stefan paper.
http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/strahlung/Original/Stefan1879.pdf

Look at the top of page 411 of Stefan's paper just under the title, "_II. Uber die Bestimmung ......._"
_Die absolute Grosse der von einem korper ausgestrahlten warmenenge kann durch Versuche nicht bestimmt werden. Versuche konnen nur den uberschuss der von dem korper ausgestrahlten uber die von ihm gleichzeitig absorbirte warmemge geben welch letztere von der ihm aus der umgebung zugestrahlten warme abhangig ist._

This is the translation of the first two sentences

The absolute magnitude of the heat emitted by a body can not be determined by experiment. Experiments can only give the excess of heat radiated by the body over the warmth simultaneously absorbed by it, which latter is dependent on the heat radiated from the environment.

His paper was 1879. You are behind the times.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So this is the end of the equation...eσ(T14-T24)
> 
> 
> You apparently can't read well enough to realize that the mid point....where they have multiple instances of the SB constant etc is only a mid point in reducing the equation..in the end, they have
> ...


I didn't fabricate the science. It's in all the text books if you don't believe it you don't believe science. Which step in the well known derivation do you disagree?

Pₑ = AƐ*ơ* T₁⁴ . . . . . Black body radiation to surround
Pₐ = AƐ*ơ* T₂⁴ . . . . . Black body absorption from surround

The net flow is the difference:
Pnet = Pₑ – Pₐ
= AƐ*ơ* T₁⁴ - AƐ*ơ* T₂⁴
= AƐ*ơ* (T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*An equation with no expression from which to derive net...because the SB equation describes one way energy flow..*

No links to anyone else with your "one way only flow" misinterpretation? Weird.

Maybe you should email Dr. Raeder again?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Bullshit...If you think your fake SB equation proves anything other than what a wanker you are, you are sadly mistaken.
> ...



Quaint...and years later we are still waiting for an actual observed measurement of this spontaneous two way energy flow...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...nothing more, nothing less


----------



## SSDD (Aug 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So this is the end of the equation...eσ(T14-T24)
> ...



there is no net flow...it only exists in models...only idiots believe otherwise


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Quaint...and years later we are still waiting for an actual observed measurement of this spontaneous two way energy flow...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...nothing more, nothing less





SSDD said:


> there is no net flow...it only exists in models...only idiots believe otherwise


So, you are calling Stefan and every scientist after him an idiot. Why don't you email Dr Raeder and call him an idiot.

.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


You’re pushing him. Go for it


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Zero is zero, the SB is radiates and it’s zero! I don’t care what else you claim. You sir can’t prove it


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I’m sure you would since you make nothing off yours. Zero is zero


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*Zero is zero,*

Yes, net power radiated is zero.

* the SB is radiates and it’s zero! *

Only if T is zero.

* I don’t care what else you claim. *

SB claims.

*You sir can’t prove it*

I have to prove SB? LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2019)

jc456 said:


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







_ "the body is absorbing and emitting at the same rate and it is in equilibrium_

PRICELESS!!!


----------



## SSDD (Aug 7, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Quaint...and years later we are still waiting for an actual observed measurement of this spontaneous two way energy flow...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...nothing more, nothing less
> ...


I am asking for published, observed, measured examples of spontaneous energy exchange between objects of different temperatures....and don't hand me examples of piss poor scientists being fooled by instrumentation like flacalten who is fooled daily by his home depot IR thermometer, or ian who believes that the thermopiles inside a pyrogeometer know whether the energy causing them to warm is coming from up or down...

Show me published, observed, measured examples of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object...even if the warmer object is the instrument itself...that constitutes an observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm.

The fact that you have to make up bullshit examples hoping to fool someone rather than provide actual examples derived under laboratory conditions speaks volumes...either you can provide actual examples to support your beliefs or you can't...and we both know full well that you can't...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 7, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, net power radiated is zero.



Sorry guy...net zero and zero are not the same thing...net zero indicates exchanges with an end result that is the same as zero....

Zero indicates no change whatsoever....

P=0 describes a gross change and does not describe the same physical process as P=(X+Y)-(X+Y) which describes a net change

In physics, mathematical equations are describing a physical process.....


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



You call every scientist an idiot for accepting proven consistent science; and this is your response? Then you promote a self-contradictory substitute for thermodynamics. We have shown your "flat-earth" ideas wrong in every way, but you continually whine about it being so tedious. 

Since you asked for the tedium again, I will oblige using the "thermodynamics" you promote.

Your premise: the emission of energy that previously absorbed work is never spontaneous.
Heat a rock to a warm temperature. It will not radiate spontaneously.
Heat a rock to a hotter temperature. It will not radiate spontaneously.
Both rocks can radiate to each other because neither is spontaneous. 
This statement is satisfied: _Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object_. 
Therein lies the self contradiction. No process on earth you can name spontaneously emits energy because prior work was done. Yet you keep tediously harping on the statement, "_Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object,_" when in your world nothing is spontaneous anyway. 

Observed, measured examples were given to you but your deny them because of your fake physics, which lacks self-consistency.

. 



.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy...net zero and zero are not the same thing...net zero indicates exchanges with an end result that is the same as zero....
> 
> Zero indicates no change whatsoever....
> 
> P=0 describes a gross change and does not describe the same physical process as P=(X+Y)-(X+Y) which describes a net change


That is total garbage.

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, net power radiated is zero.
> ...



*Sorry guy...net zero and zero are not the same thing..*

No kidding.

Still no backup for your claim of zero.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 7, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> You call every scientist an idiot for accepting proven consistent science; and this is your response? Then you promote a self-contradictory substitute for thermodynamics. We have shown your "flat-earth" ideas wrong in every way, but you continually whine about it being so tedious.



If it is proven, you should have no problem providing observed, measured examples of discrete wavelengths of energy moving spontaneously between objects of different temperatures...we both know that you don't...therefore you are telling me what scientists believe...not what is proven....were it proven, you could provide the evidence...

And no observed, measured examples were provided..as no observed, measured examples exist...since it isn't possible to measure something that doesn't exist...

You have nothing but your belief...belief doesn't cut it for me no matter who believes it...the most brilliant minds in the world have been wrong over and over and over over the course of history...the 21st century is no different..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You call every scientist an idiot for accepting proven consistent science; and this is your response? Then you promote a self-contradictory substitute for thermodynamics. We have shown your "flat-earth" ideas wrong in every way, but you continually whine about it being so tedious.
> ...



Planck and Einstein were wrong about equilibrium.....but you're right. And alone.

Sure thing.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 7, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy...net zero and zero are not the same thing...net zero indicates exchanges with an end result that is the same as zero....
> ...



Of course it isn't...sorry that you don't grasp the difference...this isn't about the answer on the other side of the equals sign..it is about the process that it describes...the SB equation essentially describes a process of P=sigma (T^4 -Tc^4)   not P=sigma T^4 - sigma Tc^4


----------



## SSDD (Aug 7, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Instead of telling me who is right and who is wrong...lets see the actual observed measured evidence...if you have none..you have nothing...I, on the other hand am still waiting.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



Do you feel that Einstein and Planck came to their understanding of equilibrium with zero actual observed evidence?

Seriously?

Are you the only person who has noticed, in the history of physics,  that there is no actual observed evidence?

Seriously?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 7, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


then why don't you post it?  your hilarious.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Quicker if you post your evidence against it.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 7, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


why?  I claimed nothing, you're the ones claiming something happens, again, you wish me to prove something doesn't exist rather than back up your claim it does.  You sound more left in every post.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> If it is proven, you should have no problem providing observed, measured examples of discrete wavelengths of energy moving spontaneously between objects of different temperatures...we both know that you don't...therefore you are telling me what scientists believe...not what is proven....were it proven, you could provide the evidence...
> 
> And no observed, measured examples were provided..as no observed, measured examples exist...since it isn't possible to measure something that doesn't exist...
> 
> You have nothing but your belief...belief doesn't cut it for me no matter who believes it...the most brilliant minds in the world have been wrong over and over and over over the course of history...the 21st century is no different..



Why didn't you answer the question I posed?? You have been hiding from this point many times.

Your premise: the emission of energy that previously absorbed work is never spontaneous.
Heat a rock to a warm temperature. It will not radiate spontaneously.
Heat a rock to a hotter temperature. It will not radiate spontaneously.
Both rocks can radiate to each other because neither is spontaneous.
This statement is satisfied: _Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object_.
Therein lies the self contradiction. No process on earth you can name spontaneously emits energy because prior work was done. Yet you keep tediously harping on the statement, "_Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object,_" when in your world nothing is spontaneous anyway. 

Observed, measured examples were given to you but your deny them because of your fake physics, which lacks self-consistency.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 7, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If it is proven, you should have no problem providing observed, measured examples of discrete wavelengths of energy moving spontaneously between objects of different temperatures...we both know that you don't...therefore you are telling me what scientists believe...not what is proven....were it proven, you could provide the evidence...
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*why? I claimed nothing,*

You keep claiming objects don't emit when near warmer objects.
Despite SB saying they do.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 7, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


correct, you wish me to prove something doesn't do something you said it does without showing us that it actually does what you say it does.  whew, that was a lot.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



You are still playing meaningless games with simple arithmetic and still evading the simple well known well accepted derivation. The two middle terms are the essence of the derivation, but you have absolutely no understanding of the science and prefer self-contradiction instead. Which step of the derivation do you disagree with?

Pₑ = AƐ*ơ* T₁⁴ . . . . . Black body radiation to surround
Pₐ = AƐ*ơ* T₂⁴ . . . . . Black body absorption from surround

The net flow is the difference:
Pnet = Pₑ – Pₐ
= AƐ*ơ* T₁⁴ - AƐ*ơ* T₂⁴
= AƐ*ơ* (T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*correct, you wish me to prove something doesn't do something*

No, I don't want you to prove your silly claim.

*something you said it does *

To be precise, something Stefan and Boltzmann said it does.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 7, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Where? T=Tc = zero, the equation proves that. You’re confused


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*Where? *

Everywhere. No dimmer switch anywhere.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 7, 2019)

Wuwei said:


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



Funny that you think that the simple act of reducing an equation to its lowest terms equals an equation from which you can derive net.....there is no net...but again...feel free to provide an observed, measured example of a discrete wavelength of energy spontaneously moving between objects of different temperatures...

We both know that you can't because there is no such observation...it only happens in models...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



Any observations of your magic dimmer switch?


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Funny that you think that the simple act of reducing an equation to its lowest terms equals an equation from which you can derive net.....there is no net...but again...feel free to provide an observed, measured example of a discrete wavelength of energy spontaneously moving between objects of different temperatures...



Pₑ = AƐ*ơ* T₁⁴ . . . . . Black body radiation to surround
Pₐ = AƐ*ơ* T₂⁴ . . . . . Black body absorption from surround

If you don't understand the simple arithmetic reduction this is all you need to define the net.
The net flow is the difference:
Pnet = Pₑ – Pₐ

That form makes it easy to understand the net.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> We both know that you can't because there is no such observation...it only happens in models...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...


We showed you observable and measured examples many times from Stefan on out. Your problem is that you don't understand the physics behind the observations and measurements. You don't understand black body radiation nor the physics concept of spontaneity. You should read more about physics first. It's fun, and you will be surprised. Maybe you should take some community college classes.

.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 8, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > We both know that you can't because there is no such observation...it only happens in models...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...
> ...


Sorry, but you didn't...all you managed to do was to show how easily you are fooled...but since your tedium knows no bounds...feel free to post your MEASURED examples...I am not interested in your made up spontaneous processes, or your goofy mind experiments....but if you want to show an actual measured example or two, by all means...or don't and prove that you never provided them in the first place and are just lying again in an effort to avoid the embarrassment of not having any evidence to support your beliefs...


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



As requested we showed you many observable and measured examples involving the corona, the CMB, luminescence, downward atmospheric radiation, and Stefan's original paper. It all involves PHYSICS. But you deny the fundamental tenets of physics and call the scientists idiots. You don't believe thermodynamics. You don't believe quantum mechanics. You don't believe the mathematics. You even violate logic with the lack of self-consistency of your own flat-earth science dogma. 

Just what do you expect from this thread? Interminable tedious arguments with the people here showing you science and you calling them idiots? That is just being a troll. People here have held you to the same standards as you hold science.  But you have shown no "observed, measured, tested" examples of your "physics", and you never will.

.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


and there it is, still no observable evidence.  way to go Mr. Ricochet!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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




Durr….SB is wrong.....DERP!


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


t=tc is zero.  nothing wrong with SB!!! durr


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*t=tc is zero.*

Net is zero. And?

*nothing wrong with SB!!!*

When you claim objects don't emit when near warmer objects, you're saying SB is wrong.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


how is it net, there is but one calculation.  t= tc = zero is the output of the object t.  I gave you the definition of SB is radiation, durr


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*how is it net,*

In the real world, both objects radiate all the time. 
Only in SSDD's fantasy do the objects somehow, magically, determine the other's temperature for purposes
of dialing down their radiation.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


no they don't, not all the time, been through that already.  the warm object radiates to the cold object t to tc when they're equal nothing radiates, zero. SB law, it isn't net,  you can't prove it's net, the definition doesn't say it's net.  Just you on a message board says that.  So it's you who believes the SB is wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 8, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> As requested we showed you many observable and measured examples involving the corona, the CMB, luminescence, downward atmospheric radiation, and Stefan's original paper. It all involves PHYSICS. But you deny the fundamental tenets of physics and call the scientists idiots. You don't believe thermodynamics. You don't believe quantum mechanics. You don't believe the mathematics. You even violate logic with the lack of self-consistency of your own flat-earth science dogma.



Like I said...all you managed was to show how easily you are fooled by instrumentation..  The original discovery of CMB was due to a resonant radio signal..and even that instrument was cooled...Luminescence...been though it..just another of your goofy misunderstandings...downward radiation?  Really?  That is a big example of being fooled by instrumentation..

Pyrogeometers which are the only instrument recognized by the meteorological society to measure downward radiation don't measure downward radiation...their programming simply assumes downward radiation to exist and that it is equal to surface radiation..  Not that I would ever expect you to actually check, since making it up is more your style, but if you look at the manual for the pyrogeometers being used, (Eppley and Kipp & Zonen type) regarding the energy balance...it doesn't account for radiation from the surroundings to the internal thermopile...by the time you go through the whole formula you end up with something like backradiation =f x voltage where f is a calibration factor.  When the sun goes down, the voltage is negative as the thermopile cools down and back radiation ceases to be measured....  The 340w/m2 simply does not exist.  It is simply assumed in the instrument's programming.  No one ever measured back radiation...

I asked you for a measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy spontaneously from a cool object to a warmer object made with an instrument that is not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the object being measured...we both know that no such measurements exist...one of us knows that no measurements exist because energy simply does not move in that direction..

Why not just admit that you have no such measurements rather than the incessant weaseling?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



The dogma assumes net...and only heretics dare question the dogma


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


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


Agree, it doesn't say net in the definition.  just doesn't.  Some schmuck said net and they all ran with it.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



They have to run with it...to question would make them outcast....such is the power of groupthink...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*no they don't, not all the time, been through that already.  *

Post your proof that SB is wrong...…….anytime.

*the warm object radiates to the cold object t to tc when they're equal nothing radiates, zero. *

Funny.

*SB law, it isn't net, *

because the equation is single-body.

* you can't prove it's net, the definition doesn't say it's net. *






No matter how many times you contradict yourself......still funny.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > As requested we showed you many observable and measured examples involving the corona, the CMB, luminescence, downward atmospheric radiation, and Stefan's original paper. It all involves PHYSICS. But you deny the fundamental tenets of physics and call the scientists idiots. You don't believe thermodynamics. You don't believe quantum mechanics. You don't believe the mathematics. You even violate logic with the lack of self-consistency of your own flat-earth science dogma.
> ...



* The original discovery of CMB was due to a resonant radio signal..*

The old "we detected a signal that didn't hit the antenna" trick.

I love that one!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*The dogma assumes net...and only heretics dare question the dogma *

Well, when Einstein, Planck, really everyone is the dogma and you're the lone, evidence-free heretic, who are we gonna believe?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


you have quotes from the two?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


_Funny._

And yet you can't post observed radiation off of two objects at the same temperature.  it's fking hilarious.

just so I understand you correctly, if I were wearing night vision goggles and everything was the same temperature, I'd see unique images?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



The "body is absorbing and emitting at the same rate"

Your own quote isn't good enough for you? Hilarious indeed.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


if it isn't absorbing it isn't emitting it is zero.  you've got a screw loose.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



The "body is absorbing and emitting at the same rate"


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


if the rate is zero then they are still at the same rate, right?

isn't zero in and zero out zero?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



If your source meant "neither the body nor surroundings are emitting", 
they wouldn't have mentioned the rate. Or absorbing. Or emitting. 

I love it when you and SSDD post "proof" that disagrees with your claim.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


zero is a rate correct?  it is a number within our system?  you're starting to flail bigly!

And oh mr. ricochet, still nothing observed.  why?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Absorbing and emitting.....LOL!


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


absorbing nothing and emitting nothing it's all it says.

you Still haven't posted anything observed mr. ricochet.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


when there is no absorbing and no emitting there is zero, still you're having problems with that digit zero.

so again, night vision goggles, everything the same temperature, do you see images? or do you see nadda/ zero? DOH!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



That's weird, your source didn't say absorbing nothing and emitting nothing .


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



This camera shows images of colder matter, warmer matter.....even matter of the same temperature.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


why would it?  it was a general statement for all probabilities.  big word for you there.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


nope, it doesn't.  you're blind also.  wow.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



If it backed up your moronic claim, it would. DURR.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



You can't read the temperature scale.....I'm not surprised.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


it does, I'm not concerned at all.  so far you have not posted one observed piece of data.  not one, hmmm mr. ricochet, you keep bouncing.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


so you think the clothes,, the hair the skin the eyes, are all the same temperature,  go fking figure.  shit even the ice cream is the same temperature in your world.  only in your world.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*it does, I'm not concerned at all*

It says no emitting? LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2019)

.





jc456 said:


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



*so you think the clothes,, the hair the skin the eyes, are all the same temperature,*

They aren't.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Sure, it covers all scenarios


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Then your post wasn’t in response to my post, got it. So wearing night goggles what will you see at night if all objects were the same temperature of the air?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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








Emitting AND absorbing...….Still funny!


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


So now you don’t think objects emit and absorb? Mr. ricochet you’re sure pinging now


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*So wearing night goggles what will you see at night if all objects were the same temperature of the air? *

Are you conflating night vision goggles with thermal imaging because you're ignorant?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



When you conflict with your own posts, it's almost as funny as when SSDD does.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



It says no emitting? LOL!

*Sure, it covers all scenarios*




​




Emitting AND absorbing at the same time...….Still funny!


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


You’ve changed your position then?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Still no observed data mr. ricochet, why?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



You've always been confused.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



The IR camera was too much evidence for you to absorb?


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Like I said...all you managed was to show how easily you are fooled by instrumentation.. The original discovery of CMB was due to a resonant radio signal..and even that instrument was cooled...Luminescence...been though it..just another of your goofy misunderstandings...downward radiation? Really? That is a big example of being fooled by instrumentation..
> 
> Pyrogeometers which are the only instrument recognized by the .. blah blah blah


That is the same old tedious crap. Science says you are dead wrong.



SSDD said:


> I asked you for a measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy spontaneously from a cool object to a warmer object made with an instrument that is not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the object being measured...we both know that no such measurements exist...one of us knows that no measurements exist because energy simply does not move in that direction..


I did exactly that many times. But as you admitted above and many times previously, you don't believe science. You believe crap. It's a circular argument: you can use your theory of crap to prove other crap.


SSDD said:


> Why not just admit that you have no such measurements rather than the incessant weaseling?


You are the one weaseling with your fake crap and bald faced lies.
*Once again, I gave you several measurements but you won't admit it because you don't believe science and substitute flat-earth crap.*

I would suggest you discuss science with Grumblenuts who believes that aether can explain everything or james bond who says science proves evolution is false and the earth is 6000 years old. Both are in your league.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 8, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> That is the same old tedious crap. Science says you are dead wrong.



No..you say I am wrong as if that matters a whit...Science hasn't provided you with anything more than dogma to repeat over and over...They certainly haven't provided you with any actual evidence to support your belief.




Wuwei said:


> I did exactly that many times. But as you admitted above and many times previously, you don't believe science.



No....you only provide evidence of how easily you are fooled by instrumentation...that and nothing more since there is nothing more..



Wuwei said:


> You are the one weaseling with your fake crap and bald faced lies.
> *Once again, I gave you several measurements but you won't admit it because you don't believe science and substitute flat-earth crap.*


*
*
You gave me evidence of a resonant radio signal being received by a radio telescope and believe that is evidence that energy moves spontaneously from cool to warm...

You made claims about phosphorescence, but never provided any sort of measurements which indicated anything like what you claimed...

And once again...with the pyrogeometers, you are just being fooled by instrumentation...so badly fooled, apparently that you believe you have supported your beliefs...sad...but there it is.

You have nothing except your dogma...which is the case with all the believers..


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > That is the same old tedious crap. Science says you are dead wrong.
> ...



You keep saying you don't believe science and scientists are fooled and idiots. Yes, you want to believe in your self-contradictory crap. I get it. You don't have to keep repeating yourself.

Edit: With any IR instrumentation all IR photons flow both ways especially in Tod's ice cream video since the camera was man made and ice cream was man made, and the girl's mouth involved prior energy.

.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I’m talking with you ricochet rabbit


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2019)

N


Toddsterpatriot said:


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


aw I emitted My laughter at your nonsense


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Figure out what emitting AND absorbing means? LOL!


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Have you? Zero is zero


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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


*Have you?*

It means your no emitting, no absorbing claim is wrong....the opposite of right.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 9, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> You keep saying you don't believe science and scientists are fooled and idiots. Yes, you want to believe in your self-contradictory crap. I get it. You don't have to keep repeating yourself.



Science has been wrong on so many topics so many times that to simply believe them because they are "scientists" is the act of a rube...I keep asking for observed, measured evidence and you keep not providing it...and what you do provide tends to be nothing more than examples of being fooled by instrumentation...another thing that happens all to often in certain branches of science..



Wuwei said:


> Edit: With any IR instrumentation all IR photons flow both ways especially in Tod's ice cream video since the camera was man made and ice cream was man made, and the girl's mouth involved prior energy.




The ice cream showed up on the image because that particular section of the sensor array was losing energy to the ice cream and cooling as a result..Showing me your mistaken understanding is not evidence of anything more than your lack of understanding...do you even understand what the terms observed, measured examples means?  Show me a controlled experiment in which the scientist is stating that the purpose of the experiment is to show, and measure spontaneous two way energy flow between objects of different temperatures...if it happens, and is measurable, it would be very important indeed...and certainly worth of experiments to show that it happens...Lets see that...got it?  Of course you don't because it can't be measured....and scientists know that there is no point in trying to set up any such experiment because it  would fail..


----------



## Crixus (Aug 9, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Too many threads are ending up with the same 20 page discussion between a small fraction of the members that read Enviro topics.. Every rule and design of USMB moderation is there to get UNIQUE TOPICAL discussion of specific events and topics as laid out in the Opening Posts. *No one wants to wade thru the same fillibustering arguments that atmospheric physics and the GHouse effect is all wrong.*.  And they violate the "on-topic" rules at USMB..
> 
> That's what this thread is for.. CONTAIN those rodeos in THIS thread or start your own threads on whatever you deny.... *DON'T hijack other specific topics.*.  Members and visitors will appreciate your cooperation...
> 
> Go have your sideline debates about this topic HERE.. The topic is clearly spelled out in the title of this thread...




I would try and care, but I need to find my baby harp seal head smacking stick. I lose that damn thing once a year and it really pisses me off.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Science has been wrong on so many topics so many times that to simply believe them because they are "scientists" is the act of a rube...I keep asking for observed, measured evidence and you keep not providing it...and what you do provide tends to be nothing more than examples of being fooled by instrumentation...another thing that happens all to often in certain branches of science..


Your smart photon hypothesis violates quantum mechanics and thermodynamics. You keep asking for something that I kept giving you time and again. You don't believe thermodynamics. Your smart photon hypothesis is circular and inconsistent. Radiation exchange between all objects is consistent with all physics. Your smart photon hypothesis is not. The idea that man made objects are never spontaneous emitters of radiation is totally ludicrous.



SSDD said:


> The ice cream showed up on the image because that particular section of the sensor array was losing energy to the ice cream and cooling as a result..Showing me your mistaken understanding is not evidence of anything more than your lack of understanding...do you even understand what the terms observed, measured examples means? Show me a controlled experiment in which the scientist is stating that the purpose of the experiment is to show, and measure spontaneous two way energy flow between objects of different temperatures...if it happens, and is measurable, it would be very important indeed...and certainly worth of experiments to show that it happens...Lets see that...got it? Of course you don't because it can't be measured....and scientists know that there is no point in trying to set up any such experiment because it would fail..



The ice cream video is totally consistent with two way radiation exchange and all the laws of thermodynamics. You have yet to give an experiment that shows black body radiation between objects fails with a colder object.

.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 9, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Science has been wrong on so many topics so many times that to simply believe them because they are "scientists" is the act of a rube...I keep asking for observed, measured evidence and you keep not providing it...and what you do provide tends to be nothing more than examples of being fooled by instrumentation...another thing that happens all to often in certain branches of science..
> ...


Nope


----------



## abu afak (Aug 9, 2019)

Based on Science...Climate Change Humans are Causing Global Warming

[...............]

*Today’s climate change is driven by human activities.*

Scientists know that the warming climate is caused by human activities because:

They understand how heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide work in the atmosphere
They know why those gases are increasing in the atmosphere
They have ruled out other possible explanations
Human activities have increased the abundance of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. This increase is mostly due to burning fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas. Carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million to more than 410 parts per million today. Most of the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has occurred since the late 1950s. In Earth’s distant past, it would take between 5,000 to 20,000 years to see the amount of change in carbon dioxide levels that humans have caused in just the last 60 years.

*Natural changes cannot explain today’s global warming.*
It is true that Earth has cycled through many ice ages and warm periods in the past. Those past events have been driven by natural changes such as:


Variations in Earth’s orbit around the Sun
Solar activity cycles that produce regular shifts in the amount of energy the Sun releases
Volcanic eruptions that eject dust and gas into the atmosphere, which shade the planet from the Sun’s rays
Variations in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere
Scientists can measure these natural changes. *The warm periods that regularly occurred between the ice ages of the past million years or so can be explained by natural changes, but measurements of those changes today cannot explain the current levels of warming that we are experiencing.

The rapid warming we are experiencing today can only be explained by increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.* The link between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and rising global temperatures has been clear to scientists since the 1850s. Measurements show that there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today than at any other time in the past 1 million years—that is, since the dawn of humankind.
[........]


`


----------



## SSDD (Aug 11, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Based on Science...Climate Change Humans are Causing Global Warming
> 
> [...............]
> 
> ...



You "believers" are nothing short of pathetic.  Do you think for a minute that because the National Academy of Sciences says that mankind is causing climate change that it must be true?  

Here is a very short list consisting of a few things from a very long list that the National Academy of Sciences has been wrong on before...

The National Academy of Sciences, was on board with the hypothesis that it was volcanoes that killed off the dinosaurs.  Till science progressed and the hypothesis moved on to a meteor impact...and they will stick with that till such time as something else comes along with supporting evidence.

The National Academy was onboard with the belief that there was a great deal of genetic differences between the various races...We know today that that is nonsense, but the National Academy believed it to be true...Today we know that there are larger genetic differences among the various Africans than there are between Africans and Eurasians

The National Academy was onboard with the idea that dinosaurs looked like the classic T-Rex and Velociraptors that we see in the movies...today, it is believed that many of them had very colorful feathers...

The National Academy was onboard with the idea that "modern" humans didn't evolve in Africa....they believed that some human ancestor migrated out of Africa and then evolution moved them on to becoming modern humans...we know today that isn't true...but it doesn't change the fact that the National Academy was on board with the old hypothesis.

The National Academy was also on board with the belief that Neanderthals weren't very bright.  New research suggests that we didn't win out because we were that much brighter..

The National Academy also believed that Humans and Neanderthals didn't exist on the earth at the same time as modern humans..once again...wrong...and once they got on board with the fact that humans and neanderthals lived on the planet at the same time, they believed that there was no interbreeding...again...wrong..

Prior to the 21st century, the National Academy believed that Earth might be the only place where water exists...We know different now.

The National Academy once believed that "complex" organisms like humans have more genes than "simple" organisms like amoebas...They thought that humans had about 100,000 genes...We know now that humans have about 19,000 genes and that some simple moss type plants have more than 30,000 genes...

The National Academy once believed that the universe was slowing down..they believed that it must be slowing down due to gravity...We know now that the movement of the universe is actually accelerating...

The National Academy used to believe that stress caused ulcers...wrong...

I could go on practically indefinitely on what the National Academy, and every other scientific organization has been wrong on in the past, before science moved on....

And as to climate change.. and what they believe they know... it is bullshit.

They claim to know how "heat trapping" gasses like CO2 work in the atmosphere..but the failure of a tropospheric hot spot..and the fact that outgoing long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere continues to increase demonstrates that CO2 isn't "trapping anything.  Further...there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...

They claim to know why the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are increasing...which is irrelevant since there is no actual evidence that they cause warming...but newly published science strongly suggests that we aren't the ones causing the increase of greenhouse gasses and that our contribution to the total greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is so small as to be the next thing to undetectable..

And they claim to have eliminated all other causes?  Really?  How about you step on up and tell me what ALL the factors are that might cause climate change...and while you are at it, you might tell me what effect each of all those factors has on all the other factors..  The fact is that we are just beginning to scratch the surface on what causes climate change...and barely know a few factors...much less all the factors.

You are easily fooled...and I can only suppose, so poorly educated that you feel like you have to believe someone, so why not government science which is done by the lowest bidder.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 11, 2019)

Typical abu fak....no actual answer...no defense of your position...nothing but a parrot posting the bullshit he was told to post...if you weren't so pathetic..you would be laughable..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 12, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Based on Science...Climate Change Humans are Causing Global Warming
> 
> [...............]
> 
> ...


I dare you to post up the error bars in their model.... You will not so I will...

It's +/- 7w/m^2 (range of 14w/m^2 at earths surface).  They say that only CO2 can do anything yet the sun has increased solar output by 0.9w/m^2 (measured at surface of the earth). We know that this increase is capable of about 1 deg C warming all by itself over the last 150 years and empirical evidence shows just 0.68 deg C warming in that period.

You and your article say our warming is all man caused but I just showed you that the solar increase, all by itself, is capable of the warming. you want us to believe your model but all of the warming falls inside your error range (which means its relevance is zero).  Your model is AFU and your conclusions fail the smell test....

NAS has just screwed the pooch.  Their credibility is gone... No ethical scientist would make these elementary errors nor would they publish such garbage.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 12, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Based on Science...Climate Change Humans are Causing Global Warming
> ...



Billy, you ever find the mass of a mole of photons?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 13, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...



Go learn something...the term "massless" in relation to photons is a figure of speech.... Zero mass for photons is an ad hoc solution by physicists to make photons comparable with special relativity....all models all the way down...

by the way...if you want to calculate the mass of a photon the formula is 
m = hf/c^2

What is the mass of a photon?

Gravity Probe B - Special & General Relativity Questions and Answers


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



So help your buddy out, post their mass.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 13, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Ive already posted the mass you moron..  Its based in eV which was part of this graphing:





Its been in front of your face since day one and is calculated for all mater in most tables of the elements at the molecular level.  I am amazed that it took some one else to find it for you..

As SSDD's links point out, this is still a very open ended question. As a known mass it must act as all mass does IE: upon collision, a cooler mass will cool a warmer one.  This is precisely why our atmosphere can not warm, when its energy is being emitted from a cooler mass.

"if you prefer the particle description of physics over the wave description, you can approximate all photons as 'bullets' each carrying a mass of m = hf/c^2 and traveling at the speed of light."


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


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


I was hoping he would take some initiative and look for himself..  Thank You!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*Ive already posted the mass you moron.. Its based in eV which was part of this graphing:*

You haven't. Not even once.
Here's your chance.

*Its been in front of your face since day one and is calculated for all mater in most tables of the elements at the molecular level. *

Great. Post a link to this calculation.

*As SSDD's links point out, this is still a very open ended question.*

You didn't say it was an open ended question. You said it was a fact. You lied.

* As a known mass it must act as all mass does*

Post the known mass.

*IE: upon collision, a cooler mass will cool a warmer one.  *

A "cooler photon" traveling at the speed of light will cool warmer matter? Hilarious!!!

If I fire a bullet at 0C into a sheet of steel at 20C, how much cooler will the steel get?

*This is precisely why our atmosphere can not warm, when its energy is being emitted from a cooler mass.*

What cooler mass is radiating into the atmosphere?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 13, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


 You cant figure it out...  You know the frequency of the photon. 14.9um (10^13.27) You know the power of the photon (.002eV ) and you know the speed of the photon (186,000,000/sec)..  Place them in  the equation you have been given and do the damn math.

And now you say this mass must not act like all other mass in our universe? BWHAAAAaaaaaaaaaaa What magical powers does it posses to not act within the natural laws?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*You cant figure it out... * 

You made the claim, you post the proof.

*And now you say this mass must not act like all other mass in our universe?* 

Post a list of other masses in the universe that move at the speed of light.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


the guy that can't post one observed piece of evidence of a cooler object warming a warm object.  still waiting bubba, shouldn't be asking if you can't provide your own shit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Do you know the mass of a photon?

LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*the guy that can't post one observed piece of evidence of a cooler object warming a warm object. * 

Colder objects can't warm warmer objects.
If you understood the SB equation you'd know why.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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





Toddsterpatriot said:


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


you can't post an observed cooler object warming a warmer object?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


hey, you're the one saying the cool object radiates while next to warm objects, radiate implies heat.  so I'm waiting.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Yup, objects radiate.
If you could do math, you'd sound a lot less stupid.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


so no observed cool object radiating toward the warm object I see.  I thought not.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2019)

jc456 said:


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


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 13, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


The mass changes with the power it contains so there is no one "mass" as calculation of the mass is directly related to the power it contains.  GO pander you BS somewhere else. I have given you the tools, now do the damn math..


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


how is that observed exactly?  i'm waiting on the cool object radiating, show me that radiation big guy, stop with the math problems and post the observed, it was the ask, stop ricocheting rabbit.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 13, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Ah Yes... The attempt to make one number fit all perimeters of the equations..  How is that working out for your modeling of our atmosphere?  They all still fail, without exception..


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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


it's not observed, and was  our ask.  he's failed every time he's posted that equation.  he thinks it's observed, yet can't post the experiment showing it.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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


ahh the math he pushes out at us all.  funny, I don't think he actually knows math.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Take the power at a moment in time, and tell me the mass.

With links. 

Unless you were lying again?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


so no mass,  he gave you the equation for your stupid question.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Plug in the details of the cooler object. The result is the power it radiates.

If you have observations that SB is wrong, post 'em up.

If you have observations that it doesn't radiate at all, post them to help your buddy SSDD.
He's been claiming that for years with no proof ever...….


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 13, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


You refuse to apply the math and in your stupor you call me a liar when you refuse to do the simplified equation given you...  I cant fix your kind of stupidity.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Right, SB was derived with no observations.....ever.

You really don't know anything.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



You're free to post the mass of a photon if you can find it...….


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Yes, you're a liar.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


no no, post the observation that proves SB right.  it's your claim bubba.  you keep failing!!! why?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


well post it then.  why are you avoiding it then?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


you asked and received, and come in here and act like you didn't, dishonest too you are.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


so you can't do the math


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



You need me to prove SB?

You're funny.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Silly Billy posted the mass of a photon? Which post?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 13, 2019)

jc456 said:


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


The S/B equation is an approximation so that they can use it in modeling.  It is a static number used because the real calculations of the process will kill all modeling due to their complexity. I really dont think it qualifies as a law.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Don't tell SSDD that everything radiates.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 13, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


As I told you before the mass changes with the power it contains..  Do the damn math....

Its like a damn water balloon... The more energy it contains the heavier it is.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Post your proof already.
A couple of links that say, "This is how to calculate the mass of a photon" would be nice.

Liar.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 13, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


WOW... You refuse to do the math... The equations were from NASA and Prominent Colleges... yet you refuse to do the math..  Like I said before, I can't and won't fix your kind of stupid,,,


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


he did, why did you ignore it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



* You refuse to do the math... *

Did you find a site that says, "This is the math you need to calculate the mass of a photon"?

Because doing math because you said it would work is slightly funnier than if SSDD said it.

*The equations were from NASA and Prominent Colleges...*

That is very impressive!!! I mean, wow!!

You must have a NASA link that mentions the mass of a photon. Right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Yes, I ignored the link he didn't post that didn't give the calculation for mass of a photon.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 13, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


What a dishonest piece of crap... I posted;

"if you prefer the particle description of physics over the wave description, you can approximate all photons as 'bullets' each carrying a mass of *m = hf/c^2* and traveling at the speed of light."

Link

Derived from the NASA, Stanford University, and others.. links here and here

I also gave you the numbers to put in the equation here.

Do the damn math moron..


----------



## SSDD (Aug 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Those guys can't have their faith questioned...they believe what the believe due to a tragic misunderstanding of some pretty simple laws of physics..when you find that you must modify the statement of physical law, or claim that a simple equation says something other than what it says, you are going to be wrong..


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> The mass changes with the *power *it contains so there is no one "mass" as calculation of the mass is directly related to the *power* it contains. GO pander you BS somewhere else. I have given you the tools, now do the damn math..





Billy_Bob said:


> As I told you before the mass changes with the *power *it contains.. Do the damn math....



Your question makes no sense. You make the same confusion three times, that a mass can contain power. A *mass does not contain power*. Power has units of *energy per second*. A particle can contain *energy *via it's inertial mass. It also contains a variable _relativistic mass_ which which is different for observers that have a relative velocity. But it cannot contain power.

None of that has much to do with the SB law, which seems to be the prevailing topic.

.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 14, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The mass changes with the *power *it contains so there is no one "mass" as calculation of the mass is directly related to the power it contains. GO pander you BS somewhere else. I have given you the tools, now do the damn math..
> ...


where was a question in the quoted material in your post?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Link​
Your link doesn't link to your quote.

From your math.ucr link...…_"Photons are traditionally said to be massless"_

Do you have any links that actually back your claims?

From your Stanford link..... "_This equation says that the energy carried by a photon which has NO REST MASS, is equivalent to an amount of ordinary mass in grams, and that this 'effective mass' varies with the frequency of the photon."_

Effective mass is not mass. Energy equivalent to mass is not mass either.
​*I also gave you the numbers to put in the equation here.*

This doesn't link to your claim either.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 14, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The mass changes with the *power *it contains so there is no one "mass" as calculation of the mass is directly related to the *power* it contains. GO pander you BS somewhere else. I have given you the tools, now do the damn math..
> ...


Again, is a photon a particle or a wave?  Or is it a combination of a Particle within a wave?  Until that question is answered definitively all I can go by is the OBSERVED effect of bombarding a warmer mass with photons from a cooler mass which results in cooling of the warmer mass.  And yes the constant from S/B is required to determine the mass. I assumed since Toad was posting it up he would have that number...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 14, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> "_This equation says that the energy carried by a photon which has NO REST MASS, is equivalent to an amount of ordinary mass in grams, and that this *'effective mass' varies with the frequency of the photon."*_


Again, you cant read and comprehend can you... Photons are always moving...always! And the power contained in the photon, derived by it's frequency or state of excitement, determines its overall mass.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > "_This equation says that the energy carried by a photon which has NO REST MASS, is equivalent to an amount of ordinary mass in grams, and that this *'effective mass' varies with the frequency of the photon."*_
> ...



*Photons are always moving...always!*

Yup. And massless.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 14, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


And you didn't learn a damn thing...  keep that head firmly implanted toad....

Ignorant fool....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



I learned that you said photons have mass, but are still unable to provide a link proving they have mass.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 14, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


you should have opened the link he provided.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 14, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



None of the links he provided gave the mass of a photon.

Thanks for chiming in.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 14, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


said mass right in there, you even used the word quite often in your rant.  why was that?


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> And the power contained in the photon, derived by it's frequency or state of excitement, determines its overall mass


This is the fourth time you said that. Again photons *contain energy not power*.



Billy_Bob said:


> Again, is a photon a particle or a wave? Or is it a combination of a Particle within a wave?


If you took QM 101 you would know that a photon in transit acts like a wave with diffraction properties, etc.
And a photon interaction with matter results in a discrete transfer of energy where the photon disappears. It is that interaction that is quantized and thus has a particle nature.

Simple statement: moving photon is wave. Photon hitting something is particle. 

The math: The formula for a specific configuration is set up in the Hamiltonian operator. The eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian gives the discrete set of energy levels.

.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 14, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > And the power contained in the photon, derived by it's frequency or state of excitement, determines its overall mass
> ...


 *power* is *energy* per unit of time.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 14, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Post the entire passage...…..


----------



## jc456 (Aug 14, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


QUOTE="Toddsterpatriot, post: 22919328, member: 29707"]





Billy_Bob said:


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



Link​
Your link doesn't link to your quote.

From your math.ucr link...…_"Photons are traditionally said to be massless"_

Do you have any links that actually back your claims?

From your Stanford link..... "_This equation says that the energy carried by a photon which has NO REST MASS, is equivalent to an amount of ordinary mass in grams, and that this 'effective mass' varies with the frequency of the photon."_

Effective mass is not mass. Energy equivalent to mass is not mass either.
*I also gave you the numbers to put in the equation here.*

This doesn't link to your claim either.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 14, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



So.....massless, NO REST MASS and effective mass.

Nothing that says, "a photon has mass"


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 14, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Clueless to the last...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Liar.


----------



## the other mike (Aug 15, 2019)

Greenland lost 11 billion tons of ice in one day. How does that melt compare to the past?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 15, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Greenland lost 11 billion tons of ice in one day. How does that melt compare to the past?




When you compare the ice in Greenland today to the amount of ice that has been in the past, it is clear that today, there is far more ice than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years.  The only time in the past 10,000 years that there has been more ice in greenland than the present was during the little ice age which the earth is still warming out of...  Note that on the graph below, the present is at the left side of the graph..

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379119302021


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Yes, you sure are...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Still nothing that gives the mass of a photon?

Durr.

How's your "Magic energy destroying tube" Nobel Prize winning paper coming along?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Aug 15, 2019)

*What is the mass of a photon?*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> *What is the mass of a photon?*



_Photons are traditionally said to be massless. _


----------



## Sunsettommy (Aug 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > *What is the mass of a photon?*
> ...



TRADITIONALLY is not science data or evidence..........


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



Maybe you can help old Billy?

What is the mass of a photon? Link?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Aug 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The answer was in the link, why not read it with glasses?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



Maybe you could post the portion that gives the mass?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


The mass is dependent on the power it contains... thus the mass changes and is not constant.

You are a dishonest piece of crap... And lazy to boot....  I posted;

"if you prefer the particle description of physics over the wave description, you can approximate all photons as 'bullets' each carrying a mass of *m = hf/c^2* and traveling at the speed of light."

Link

Derived from the NASA, Stanford University, and others.. links here and here

I also gave you the numbers to put in the equation here.

Do the damn math moron..


----------



## SSDD (Aug 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > *What is the mass of a photon?*
> ...



Said to be massless...it is a FIGURE OF SPEECH....and they are SAID to be masses at rest.  When might a photon be at rest?  They are said to be massless so that they jibe with special relativity...massless at rest is an ad hoc "fix" for a mathematical problem...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 16, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



Massless AT REST....wonder when he thinks photons might ever be AT REST?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



*The mass is dependent on the power it contains... thus the mass changes and is not constant.*

So post the link that gives the mass at different power levels.

*you can approximate all photons *

Approximate? How about something more precise?

*Derived from the NASA, Stanford University, and others.*

Derived? Not measured?

Let me know when you find real proof.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



*Said to be massless...it is a FIGURE OF SPEECH...*

Where is the figure of speech where they give the mass while moving?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I wonder how you weighed them while they're moving? Link?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



They give you a mathematical formula to calculate the mass when moving...sorry this goes against the dogma you believe...but just chalk it up to one more thing you thought you knew that turns out to be wrong...expect much more of it in the future as the belief in mathametial models over reality falls out of vogue.  Sooner or later science will get back to doing science..


----------



## SSDD (Aug 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



Already been provided...

I don't know if you have ever operated a laser.  I have an orion LZR 60 that I purchased when a firm I worked with upgraded to a larger machine...It is a table top laser welder that has a maximum power of 5 watts....

When you hold a working piece under the lens and fire the laser to create a weld...you feel an impact through the piece into your fingers every time the laser fires.  Massless particles would not be able to create an impact when they hit the working piece...clearly when the laser beam hits the working piece, it is being hit by something with momentum and mass...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*They give you a mathematical formula to calculate the mass when moving...*

A mass can move at the speed of light? Link?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*When you hold a working piece under the lens and fire the laser to create a weld...you feel an impact through the piece into your fingers every time the laser fires.  *

Any mass moving away from the impact site?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


If it made a hole it would right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Even if it didn't, right?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Sure, deflection


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



It doesn't have to burn through to have mass spraying away from the impact site.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I’m just explaining what would occur. You can read the site information for your mass concern


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



You have a site that measures their mass yet?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


You got it did you fall on your head again?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Saw lots of equivalence, no actual mass.

You ever post your proof that SB is flawed?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Sure, the day you show cold objects radiating at warmer objects! That’s your claim, without that observation, my statement stands. You can prove me wrong anytime


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*Sure, the day you show cold objects radiating at warmer objects!*

SB says it all radiates.
Why (and how) would warmer matter stop that radiating?
Spell out your theory.
Post links that back it up...…..


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> you feel an impact through the piece into your fingers every time the laser fires. Massless particles would not be able to create an impact when they hit the working piece...clearly when the laser beam hits the working piece, it is being hit by something with momentum and mass...


You are feeling momentum, not mass. Careful you don't burn your fingers.

.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Go for it post that observation then, why do you avoid it? Prove me wrong


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > you feel an impact through the piece into your fingers every time the laser fires. Massless particles would not be able to create an impact when they hit the working piece...clearly when the laser beam hits the working piece, it is being hit by something with momentum and mass...
> ...


If there’s no mass, why would he burn his fingers?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



You don't believe SB? Ok.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 16, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > you feel an impact through the piece into your fingers every time the laser fires. Massless particles would not be able to create an impact when they hit the working piece...clearly when the laser beam hits the working piece, it is being hit by something with momentum and mass...
> ...


Mass must be present in order to feel momentum.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


You keep asking this question but refuse to use the information provided you. Your a useless troll..


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


You don’t that’s obvious, you can’t post the observation that you claim it supports. I say it doesn’t, support your position. And, now years later, you still haven’t proved your position , and that supports my position. Now you can post that observation piece and prove me wrong, go


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



You provide information with actual measured mass? Not "derived mass"?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*You don’t*

I do.
SB is groovy!!! Still waiting for your evidence of the "dimmer switch" portion of SB.

Can matter absorb and emit radiation simultaneously?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


no you don't, you can't post it showed cold objects radiating toward warmer objects.  why is that?  if you can't post it, then you don't believe in it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



No dimmer switch link?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


still no observation,eh?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



If you have proof of this magic "dimmer switch", I'm all ears.

*still no observation,eh?*

Here is colder ice cream, room (same) temperature surroundings and warmer skin all emitting at the FLIR camera at the same time.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Nope, the device loses energy toward the ice cream, it’s how the device works. The energy flows to the ice cream. So you failed .


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*Nope, the device loses energy toward the ice cream, it’s how the device works. *

So you've got some links that agree, no ice cream photons hitting the room temperature camera...…?
The camera emits fewer photons toward the ice cream and none toward skin because "dimmer switch"?


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 16, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Mass must be present in order to feel momentum.



You are thinking of Newtonian mechanics. Relativity is different. 
.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You provide information with actual measured mass? Not "derived mass"?


My gosh you have been leading the 4 stooges in epicycles for many pages. It's hilarious. 

.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


_no ice cream photons hitting the room temperature camera...…?_
Not from your picture nope. All energy flowing to the ice cream from the device!

Sure, give me the make and model of the device and I will get you the info


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You provide information with actual measured mass? Not "derived mass"?
> ...



Billy might have more idiotic claims than SSDD.
I remember, before he decided "cold photons absorb energy from matter they hit" that "covailent [sic] bonds" repelled photons from cooler matter.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



* All energy flowing to the ice cream from the device!*

That would disagree with SB.

*Sure, give me the make and model of the device and I will get you the info*

 FLIR T660 thermal camera 

Good luck.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


follows the 2nd law


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



There is no conflict between the 2nd Law and SB.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Of course...the chamber where the weld happens has debris all over.  So much in fact, that you have to vacuum the chamber out every 1000 welds or so.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 16, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > you feel an impact through the piece into your fingers every time the laser fires. Massless particles would not be able to create an impact when they hit the working piece...clearly when the laser beam hits the working piece, it is being hit by something with momentum and mass...
> ...


Momentum requires mass and velocity...


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I emailed a rep from the company to get specs, the specs aren’t available unless you buy the camera. It does state the FPA is uncooled


----------



## SSDD (Aug 16, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



In his fantasy world I suppose that you can have momentum without mass...he lives in a world where he just makes it up as he goes...if momentum without mass is necessary to support his beliefs....poof...you have momentum without mass.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 16, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



He is a very special kind of stupid...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 16, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Mass must be present in order to feel momentum.
> ...



According to the model...quantum angular momentum requires mass...live by the model...die by the model..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*Of course...the chamber where the weld happens has debris all over.*

I guess the debris flying off the target would exert a downward force on the target. 
You know, equal and opposite......


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



So much for the claim that you need to cool the instrument to see photons from cooler matter.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Momentum requires mass and velocity...


You are thinking of Newtonian mechanics which only covers objects with non-zero mass. 

.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> According to the model...quantum angular momentum requires mass...live by the model...die by the model..


Particles with mass can have spin. The photon has spin but no mass. The photon spin has two intrinsic values, plus and minus h (Plank's constant). 

If the photon has a variable spinning mass as you think, then the angular momentum would be a function of the photon energy and would no longer be h. Countless measurements say the spin only has two constant values: +/- h. 

You have now provided experimental proof that the photon has no change in mass as a function of wavelength.

.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


2nd law says one way flow warm to cold. And if there’s no conflicts you’re wrong


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Waiting on his response, the cameras uncooled therefore, hmmm can’t read cold ir.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*2nd law says one way flow warm to cold.*

You're confused.

* And if there’s no conflicts you’re wrong*

Feel free to post the conflicts.
I won't laugh at your idiocy, promise.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2019)

jc456 said:


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




*the cameras uncooled therefore, hmmm can’t read cold ir.*

You saw the cold ice cream. Why couldn't it read the ice cream?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Not at all


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Yep, the camera FPA was losing energy toward the missing IR since it wasn’t cooled


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*Yep, the camera FPA was losing energy toward the missing IR since it wasn’t cooled *

Let's follow your "logic".

The sensor knows to receive from, and not emit toward, the warmer skin of the girl.
Because of your confusion about the 2nd Law.
She opens her mouth to expose the ice cream, and without receiving a photon, the sensor knows it can suddenly emit.

That sensor has ESP or something.

No luck finding the dimmer switch sub clause of the SB?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


No confusion at all. All working like 2nd law says


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*SB says photons can go both ways between objects.*

That doesn't conflict with the 2nd Law in the slightest.

If you feel it does, post your proof.

And a link to the dimmer switch exception. LOL!


----------



## sparky (Aug 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And a link to the dimmer switch exception.



404.2(C) Switches Controlling Lighting Loads.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I’m waiting on your observation, where is that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



I posted the video.

So, still no list of the conflicts between the 2nd Law and SB? 
No dimmer switch backup?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 17, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



You are wasting your time...His special brand of stupid simply can't be fixed.  

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


He believes that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to radiation...he thinks that radiation is something other than energy...even though, by definition, radiation is energy moving through some medium in the form of a waver particles if you believe in theoretical particles...

Further, he believes that the sensor in the camera must "know" something in order to obey the laws of thermodynamics...He believes that photons must know something in order to obey the laws of thermodynamics.  He can never accept that the sensor in that camera nothing more than an array of sensors  that does nothing more than measure whether they are heating up...or cooling down and then turn that temperature increase or decrease into an electrical signal which is then processed through a mathematical formula which assigns a color to a pixel on a screen.  If the sensor in the array is warming, it assigns a warm color to a pixel on a screen based on how much and how fast it is warming...if it is cooling, then it assigns a cool color to a pixel on a screen based on how much and how fast it is cooling.

I doubt that anything, including an explanation by a manufacturer or a designer would convince him of how the device works...he is convinced that cold objects are beaming energy to warm objects...it is his belief and belief isn't subject to being swayed by trivial things like fact.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 17, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > According to the model...quantum angular momentum requires mass...live by the model...die by the model..
> ...



So safety the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model.



Wuwei said:


> You have now provided experimental proof that the photon has no change in mass as a function of wavelength.
> 
> .



Experimental proof huh?  So I just proved the existence of photons and they are no longer theoretical particles?  Where do I sign up for my Nobel...

All you have demonstrated is how easily you are fooled...and what a low bar you have for things that amount to experimental proof..or even evidence...  Little wonder you are a dupe.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 17, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



* It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. *

Still confused? Work was done to make the ice cream. 
IR from the ice cream can now flow toward the room temperature camera. LOL!

*Further, he believes that the sensor in the camera must "know" something in order to obey the laws of thermodynamics...*

Nah, that's you, imagining matter dials up and dials down its emissions, based on nearby (or really far away) matter. Which violates the Stefan–Boltzmann law.

*I doubt that anything, including an explanation by a manufacturer or a designer would convince him of how the device works...*

Not even the Handbook of Modern Sensors, eh? DURR


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 17, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > According to the model...quantum angular momentum requires mass...live by the model...die by the model..
> ...


I have given you the equation that proves the photon has mass and that mass increases with the power it contains. We dont know if it "spins" but given that all matter does spin it is assumed.

Are photons affected by gravity?  YES! This means they have mass and spin..


----------



## SSDD (Aug 17, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Still confused? Work was done to make the ice cream.
> IR from the ice cream can now flow toward the room temperature camera. LOL!



Work = Force x distance...describe the work being done to move the IR from the ice cream to the sensor in the camera...and do describe where the heat resulting from this work goes



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Not even the Handbook of Modern Sensors, eh? DURR



The Handbook of Modern Sensors stated in plain language that the energy was moving from the camera to the cooler object...then he showed a drawing of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model...the book clearly stated that the sensor was cooling down...

But do describe the nature of the work being done to move the energy from the cooler ice cream to the warmer camera..


----------



## SSDD (Aug 17, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



You are arguing with a religious zealot...nothing can sway him...if it looks to him like you are going to win...he will just make something up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 17, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Still confused? Work was done to make the ice cream.
> ...



*Work = Force x distance...describe the work being done to move the IR from the ice cream to the sensor in the camera...and do describe where the heat resulting from this work goes*

This is this first time I've seen you limit your definition of work like this.
Does this conflict with your previous claims about work?

*The Handbook of Modern Sensors stated in plain language that the energy was moving from the camera to the cooler object...*

It stated that energy was moving both ways. Despite your claim that it only moves one way.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 17, 2019)

No 


Toddsterpatriot said:


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


observed cold objects radiating at warmer objects, any day hmm must be made up. No conflict one way flow is one way flow


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 17, 2019)

jc456 said:


> No
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



If the IR camera in particular, and the SB law in general, isn't enough for you to believe cold objects can radiate in any direction, with no restriction whatsoever.....you're on your own.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 17, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > No
> ...


I explained, I don’t believe SB used that camera, so I’m still waiting for the observation go


----------



## jc456 (Aug 17, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


The energy is moving two directions, the heat from the sensor to the ice cream and the heat of the skin on the human flowing to the camera. It’s simple, you’re still very confused for sure


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 17, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*the heat from the sensor to the ice cream*

And the heat from the ice cream to the sensor.

*the heat of the skin on the human flowing to the camera. *

And the heat of the camera flowing to the skin on the human.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 17, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So safety the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model.



That doesn't make sense.  But of course nothing you say makes sense.


SSDD said:


> Experimental proof huh? So I just proved the existence of photons and they are no longer theoretical particles? Where do I sign up for my Nobel...


You didn't read for comprehension. Let me try again. If you think the photon has mass related to wavelength then the measured spin should depend on wavelength because spin angular momentum is related to mass. But the spin is quantized to two explicit values independent of wavelength. Therefore the photon does not have mass. Otherwise the observed measured spin would be a continuous variable. That is experimental proof that the mass of the photon is constant, namely zero.



SSDD said:


> All you have demonstrated is how easily you are fooled...and what a low bar you have for things that amount to experimental proof..or even evidence... Little wonder you are a dupe.


And you have demonstrated once more that you don't understand anything about electromagnetism.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 17, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Work = Force x distance...describe the work being done to move the IR from the ice cream to the sensor in the camera...and do describe where the heat resulting from this work goes....
> .....
> But do describe the nature of the work being done to move the energy from the cooler ice cream to the warmer camera..


*Prior work* has gone into making the ice cream. You very clearly said anything with *prior work* involved is never spontaneous. Didn't you ever home make ice cream? You have to do a lot of churning. Lots of work. In the factory of course they have machines do the work.

Of course nobody believes that spontaneity is denied with prior work, but of course no scientist believes your ridiculous fake thermodynamics either.

.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 17, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Nope no heat coming off ice, until you prove it 

And sensor in camera detecting heat from skin


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 17, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



You're free to deny how the sensors work.
I can't force you to understand.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I understand how they work, your explanation is hilarious


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2019)

jc456 said:


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








If you understood, you wouldn't disagree with the Handbook of Modern Sensors.
You'd know what the word "exchange" means.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 18, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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




Still waiting...describe the work...you claimed that work was being done to move the energy from the cold ice cream to the warmer camera....what work?  Or were you just making it up as you go...

And the drawing of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model hardly makes your case...the book clearly stated that the energy was moving out of the camera towards the cooler object...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 18, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Work = Force x distance...describe the work being done to move the IR from the ice cream to the sensor in the camera...and do describe where the heat resulting from this work goes....
> ...



You are a top shelf idiot...congratulations..  but do describe what sort of prior work went into the manufacture of the ice cream that would lead to it moving energy from cool to warm like a refrigeration unit...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*describe the work...you claimed that work was being done to move the energy from the cold ice cream to the warmer camera.*

No. You said energy can't move spontaneously from cold to warm without previous work.
Work was done to manufacture the ice cream.

Is that your final answer?

*And the drawing of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model hardly makes your case...the book clearly stated that the energy was moving out of the camera towards the cooler object...*





The drawing shows thermal energy moving from the object to the sensor AND from the sensor to the object.

If the drawing supported your claim, it would show arrows moving ONLY from the sensor to the cooler object.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 18, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> No. You said energy can't move spontaneously from cold to warm without previous work.
> Work was done to manufacture the ice cream.



Describe the work done to move cold to warm...you made the claim...lets hear specifically what work was done to move the energy..or just admit that you made the whole work being done up because you figured no one would ask you to describe the work.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > No. You said energy can't move spontaneously from cold to warm without previous work.
> ...



*Describe the work done to move cold to warm...you made the claim..*

Work can make photons move from colder matter to warmer matter? Excellent!


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 18, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You are a top shelf idiot...congratulations.. but do describe what sort of prior work went into the manufacture of the ice cream that would lead to it moving energy from cool to warm like a refrigeration unit...


You are the one who said that any prior work involved in an object, or a man-made object cannot radiate spontaneously. Period. Ice cream is both man-made and has work done. Therefore according to your own theory ice cream can radiate anywhere because it is not spontaneous radiation. 

Yes, it is top shelf idiocy, but it is your own thoughts and words.

.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Sure, why not, now describe the work from the ice cream to any warmer object! That isn’t happening , LOL


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*Sure, why not, now describe the work from the ice cream to any warmer object!*

That's SSDD's theory.
Stefan-Boltzmann says no work is needed for objects above 0K to emit.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 19, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You are a top shelf idiot...congratulations.. but do describe what sort of prior work went into the manufacture of the ice cream that would lead to it moving energy from cool to warm like a refrigeration unit...
> ...



Feel free to bring any quote from me where I said that "any" prior work involved in making an object could cause energy to move from cool too warm...yet another example of you simply lying and fabricating arguments from nothing in an effort to support your position.  You are as predictable as old faithful...


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 19, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



Are you saying that if prior work was done on an object, the object can still radiate spontaneously anywhere if absolutely no external work is being done on the object while it radiates?

Are you saying that man-made objects can radiate spontaneously if no external work is done on it while it radiates?

.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 19, 2019)

Wuwei said:


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


No such quote from me...how unsurprising is that....


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 19, 2019)

SSDD said:


> No such quote from me...how unsurprising is that....



Why do you want a quote on your self-inconsistent thermodynamics theory from me? Have you already forgotten what your fake theory of thermodynamics is? Here it is .....

*Grand Solar Minimum.... And Cooling....*


SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > No work is happening when the light stick is glowing. If you think work prior to the event is a criteria for spontaneity, then there is no possible experiment or event by man on earth that is spontaneous.
> ...



Also see post #453 in the same thread.
_Man made...work went into production...not spontaneous....same old thing..

Living creature...body is doing work to produce luminescence...luminescence stops shortly after death...not spontaneous.

Multiple theories on what sort of work is being done to move the energy from the surface to the corona...only you and toddster seem to think it is spontaneous._​


SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The ground being unstable both rocks rolled down the hill.... You are saying #1 was spontaneous, # 2 was not spontaneous.
> ...



At the end of that thread you simply disappeared. Ran away. Hid under the bed. Are you going to man up this time?

.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 19, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


hey yo, the dude from the camera company called me this morning.  guess what he said,  he said that the sensor will detect current flow in the direction _from the camera to the cold object _and this reverse flow is recognized and temperature calculated.  The warmer objects are detected with the flow from the warm object through the sensor to the camera and the temperature is calculated.  two way flow, but not in the manner you thought.  The sensor controls the flow. BTW, the same as SSDD explained as well.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 19, 2019)

SSDD said:


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


now they're making up more shit.  amazing,  liars each of them.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 19, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*he said that the sensor will detect current flow*

Current flow? We're talking about photons, not current.

* two way flow, *

Yup

*The sensor controls the flow. *

ESP?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 19, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


it's an electronic device.  electronic devices run on batteries,  means there's current.  How do you suppose they light up those LEDs?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 19, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Why do I ever bother responding if you don't know the difference between photons and current?

There is no current flow from any object to the sensor. Durr.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 19, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Ask the guy the correct question, how does the sensor detect photons from a cooler object......


----------



## jc456 (Aug 19, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


what difference does it make current or photon, the sensor detects the way SSDD and I stated.  From the mouth of the man who works with the camera.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 19, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I did, he said the flow through the sensor is from camera to cold object.  Reverse flow.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 19, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*what difference does it make current or photon,*

Because they're completely different things.

* From the mouth of the man who works with the camera.*

Unless you taped it to write a transcript, I'm going to assume you completely misinterpreted what he said.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 19, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



He said no photons moved from the cold object to the camera?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No such quote from me...how unsurprising is that....
> ...



So now you are confusing energy input with work?  No quote from me claiming what you claimed...again...how unsurprising is that? You are either a bald faced liar or have a terrible reading comprehension problem...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Like I said...the sensors in the array only know whether they are warming up or cooling down...they calculate how much and how fast the change is happening in either direction and convert it to a color pixel on a screen..

You will never convince them though...they are sure that cold energy is beaming from ice to warmer objects...it is the foundation of their faith and noting will change their minds.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So now you are confusing energy input with work? No quote from me claiming what you claimed...again...how unsurprising is that? You are either a bald faced liar or have a terrible reading comprehension problem...



That is a really trite troll trick. How surprising is that? You are the one who defined energy input as work. You said the sun energy was work. You are the one who said anything man-made can not be spontaneous.

Are you now saying that if energy was input to an object, the object can still radiate spontaneously even though no external energy is being input to the object while it radiates? You dodged a similar question once are you going to dodge it again?

Are you now saying that man-made objects can radiate spontaneously if no external energy is input to it while it radiates? You also dodged that question once are you going to dodge it again?

Give an example of a process that you think is spontaneous. You failed once before. Are you going to dodge it?

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*So now you are confusing energy input with work?*

You never did explain why the cooler surface of the Sun is allowed to radiate toward the hotter corona.
What are you afraid of......besides exposing your own idiocy?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


can't make up your kind of stupid.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Says the guy who claimed "current flows from the camera to the cold object".


----------



## jc456 (Aug 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


it does, the sensor reacts opposite for cold objects than hot objects.  It's that simple.  The sensor cools down due to the reverse flow of PHOTONs and the rate of change.  warm flows to cold, always.  ALWAYs and now you still don't have evidence of a cold object emitting.  The company says otherwise.  you can go ask them yourself.  Ask them how the sensor reacts to cold vs warm objects.  They have a chat room.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So now you are confusing energy input with work? No quote from me claiming what you claimed...again...how unsurprising is that? You are either a bald faced liar or have a terrible reading comprehension problem...
> ...



Of course you can't provide a quote from me saying that energy input is work either....guess you really can't read...you have become so accustomed to simply interpreting everything so that it agrees with your beliefs that you can no longer simply comprehend what is being said to you.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Of course you can't provide a quote from me saying that energy input is work either....guess you really can't read...you have become so accustomed to simply interpreting everything so that it agrees with your beliefs that you can no longer simply comprehend what is being said to you.


Still a tedious ill-tempered troll I see. You said the energy from the sun surface is work. I quoted the post where you said that. 

You have an obsession to deny the science definition of spontaneous processes. You have become so accustomed to simply interpreting everything so that it agrees with your beliefs that you can no longer simply comprehend what is being said to you.

.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you can't provide a quote from me saying that energy input is work either....guess you really can't read...you have become so accustomed to simply interpreting everything so that it agrees with your beliefs that you can no longer simply comprehend what is being said to you.
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*Lets see the quote from me stating that energy from the sun is work.*

Light from the Sun's surface cannot spontaneously move toward the hotter corona, eh?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



I see you can't read either...it is a special kind of stupid that you have there..


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I see you can't read either...it is a special kind of stupid that you have there.


Calling everyone stupid is not an argument. You were given the thread where you said the surface of the sun does work. Live with it.

.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 20, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you can't provide a quote from me saying that energy input is work either....guess you really can't read...you have become so accustomed to simply interpreting everything so that it agrees with your beliefs that you can no longer simply comprehend what is being said to you.
> ...


you quoted the post that said what?  I looked up your posts in here and no where did you post a quote from SSDD that said anything regarding the sun.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



But enough about your silly claims.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I see you can't read either...it is a special kind of stupid that you have there.
> ...




All you provided was yet another example of your tedious habit of interpreting everything rather than simply reading what was written.

I said that it is theorized that alfven waves move energy from the sun's surface...clearly you are either a liar or stupid...or perhaps a stupid liar...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



He is just a liar...or he can't read... he has already demonstrated that he is perfectly willing to simply make shit up if he thinks it will help him support his position.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*Lets see the quote from me stating that energy from the sun is work.*

You can do better than that.

Photons from the Sun's surface can't spontaneously move toward the hotter corona<<<your claim.

So what is the work done that allows them to move toward the corona?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*I said that it is theorized that alfven waves move energy from the sun's surface..*

Nice try. We're not discussing why the corona gets hot.
We're discussing why the surface can radiate toward the hotter corona without violating the 2nd Law.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 21, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I already told you why,  it is the source of heat for the universe, fusion from within!!

Are you now going to say fusion isn't work?

Oh, and you already stated you don't give two shits about why the corona is hotter.  so why discuss it?  Fusion is what generates the heat that actually fuels the corona.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 21, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*I already told you why, it is the source of heat for the universe, fusion from within!!*

Fusion at the core allows the surface to radiate toward the hotter corona?
Explain that to SSDD.

​*Are you now going to say fusion isn't work?*​
It's work?
Explain that to SSDD.
​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 21, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*Oh, and you already stated you don't give two shits about why the corona is hotter. so why discuss it?  *

Because it illustrates SSDD's confusion.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 21, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


nope, the sun is a source.  Not an absorb from the corona and reradiate.  Nope, it gets its fuel from within.  Home grown fusion.  When did you get to go there and examine the activity on the surface BTW?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 21, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*nope, the sun is a source.  *

Source of what?

*Not an absorb from the corona and reradiate.*

Where does it absorb from? Where does it reradiate from?

*When did you get to go there and examine the activity on the surface *

We have telescopes here. We can examine, from here.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 21, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Source of what?



Wait, wait, so without the sun we survive? 



Dude, you should try out for AGT.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 21, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


_We have telescopes here. We can examine, from here._

what's ten foot beneath the surface?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 21, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Source of what?

You laugh, but you won't answer...…..

Do you still think fusion takes place on the surface?

That was one of the dumbest claims I've ever seen here.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 21, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


you need to try out for AGT, your stupid will kill the audience.  for sure.

And nothing about what is ten foot below the surface, why?

When will you be getting those soil samples?

What is the Sun made of? | Cool Cosmos


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 21, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



So you're not going to explain your previous statements?

Are you drunk already?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 21, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I'm not ready to be your drinking buddy, I'll pass.

When you got nothing eh?

got those soil samples from the sun yet?


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> All you provided was yet another example of your tedious habit of interpreting everything rather than simply reading what was written.
> 
> I said that it is theorized that alfven waves move energy from the sun's surface...clearly you are either a liar or stupid...or perhaps a stupid liar...


Ah, insults and more insults in place of logic. I gave you a quote where you said the sun was doing work. Do you want me to find your quote you again?

.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> He is just a liar...or he can't read... he has already demonstrated that he is perfectly willing to simply make shit up if he thinks it will help him support his position.


Seriously do you want me to find your quote again where you said the sun was doing work.

.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > All you provided was yet another example of your tedious habit of interpreting everything rather than simply reading what was written.
> ...




Of course the sun does work...alfen waves certainly fit w=fxd..  again...all bullshit all the time from you...you are a liar...  no quote from me ever saying that simple emission from the sun is work.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > He is just a liar...or he can't read... he has already demonstrated that he is perfectly willing to simply make shit up if he thinks it will help him support his position.
> ...



Refer to the above post you tedious imbecile....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*Of course the sun does work..*

Work that allows photons to move from the cooler surface through the hotter corona to the Earth.

*no quote from me ever saying that simple emission from the sun is work.*

Non-spontaneous is the only explanation for energy moving from cooler toward hotter.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Of course the sun does work...alfen waves certainly fit w=fxd.. again...all bullshit all the time from you...you are a liar... no quote from me ever saying that simple emission from the sun is work.





SSDD said:


> Refer to the above post you tedious imbecile..


My gosh you are ill-tempered when you shoot yourself in the foot. 

Well if you think the sun does work then any earth atmospheric physics involving the sun is not spontaneous. Therefore back radiation can be observed and detected by instruments that don't have to be cooled. 

.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Of course the sun does work...alfen waves certainly fit w=fxd.. again...all bullshit all the time from you...you are a liar... no quote from me ever saying that simple emission from the sun is work.
> ...




No..I have simply lost patience with you and your stupid, constant lying revisions of practically everything I have said.  It ranks as the number one tedious aspect of trying to talk to you.  I have never said anything like you claim as evidenced by your lack of any quote by me saying such a thing....

It is all bullshit all the time from you...


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > All you provided was yet another example of your tedious habit of interpreting everything rather than simply reading what was written.
> ...


liar


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> No..I have simply lost patience with you and your stupid, constant lying revisions of practically everything I have said. It ranks as the number one tedious aspect of trying to talk to you. I have never said anything like you claim as evidenced by your lack of any quote by me saying such a thing....
> 
> It is all bullshit all the time from you...


Calm down and stop sounding like a bitter old man. You cannot name any process that is spontaneous. Please tell me what revisions or misquotes or misinterpretations I have made. You have made many revisions of science yourself.

.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No..I have simply lost patience with you and your stupid, constant lying revisions of practically everything I have said. It ranks as the number one tedious aspect of trying to talk to you. I have never said anything like you claim as evidenced by your lack of any quote by me saying such a thing....
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No..I have simply lost patience with you and your stupid, constant lying revisions of practically everything I have said. It ranks as the number one tedious aspect of trying to talk to you. I have never said anything like you claim as evidenced by your lack of any quote by me saying such a thing....
> ...




Again with the lies...I have given you, over the months numerous spontaneous processes...you know full well I have and yet you lie about it...Is simply telling the truth so foreign to you that you simply can't bring yourself to do it?

Examples of spontaneous processes are ice melting to water....the decay of radioisotopes...iron rusting...a solute dissolving into solution..the expansion of gasses....the movement of energy from warm to cool..and on and on and on...it isn't my fault that you can't grasp the difference between a process that requires outside intervention and one that doesn't....

And as to what you have reinterpreted, practically every physical law that has come up..

You claimed that this equation described a two way energy exchange.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





You claimed that this describes net energy flow

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any workhaving been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object

and again...on and on and on tedium ad nauseam...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


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


*Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow.*

Sun's surface.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Hot


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Because.....fire? Still funny.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


It’s not? What is it ice?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



It burns? LOL!


----------



## jc456 (Aug 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


How?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



It was your claim. I laughed at you.

Changed your mind?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I asked you what it was


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



You don't know what fire is?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



You are a very special kind of stupid...I can't imagine what you think the sun's corona is actually like.....but clearly it isn't.

Temperature of the Sun's Corona - The Physics Factbook

Clip:    "Though the corona's temperature is high it's molecules are so far apart that the gases release little heat. If a person were to stand on the sun's corona they wouldn't burn, they would freeze in the near vacuum of the corona."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



Are you changing your claim?

Are photons from the Sun's surface spontaneous?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



Love your source, by the way.

You finally found one at your intellectual level, eh?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Of course not...the predominant hypothesis is still that alfen waves are the reason the sun's corona is so hot...alfen waves fit within the equation w=fXd and are therefor work.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Trying to find something that isn't so far over your head that you have no chance of understanding it...which you have shown is a pretty low bar....are you saying that it is not true?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*Of course not...the predominant hypothesis is still that alfen waves are the reason the sun's corona is so hot...*

Photons from the surface. Not the corona. Not Alfvén waves.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



Big words from the guy with no backup for "one way only photons"
and "matter at equilibrium ceases all radiating".

Any backup for these claims from high school kids?

Let me know.


----------



## Third Party (Aug 24, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Too many threads are ending up with the same 20 page discussion between a small fraction of the members that read Enviro topics.. Every rule and design of USMB moderation is there to get UNIQUE TOPICAL discussion of specific events and topics as laid out in the Opening Posts. *No one wants to wade thru the same fillibustering arguments that atmospheric physics and the GHouse effect is all wrong.*.  And they violate the "on-topic" rules at USMB..
> 
> That's what this thread is for.. CONTAIN those rodeos in THIS thread or start your own threads on whatever you deny.... *DON'T hijack other specific topics.*.  Members and visitors will appreciate your cooperation...
> 
> Go have your sideline debates about this topic HERE.. The topic is clearly spelled out in the title of this thread...


Sorry, I tend to wander. What was the topic again?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Big words from the guy with no backup for "one way only photons"
> and "matter at equilibrium ceases all radiating".
> 
> Any backup for these claims from high school kids?
> ...



Just the second law of thermodynamics...

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is *not possible *for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any workhaving been done to accomplish this flow. Energy *will not flow spontaneously* from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Big words from the guy with no backup for "one way only photons"
> ...



*Just the second law of thermodynamics...*

When you find a version of the 2nd Law that says photons will not move spontaneously from a cooler object to a warmer object, post it up.

That reminds me, are photons emitted from the surface of the Sun spontaneous?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



The better question is when did you find a version of the second law that says that photons will move spontaneously from a cooler object to a warmer object.  The second law doesn't exempt any form of energy and photons are nothing more than the smallest bit of energy possible in an EM field.  Now if you care to find some source that says that photons are not energy and therefore exempt from the second law, buy all means buck weet....step on up to the plate and produce it.

And it is unfortunate that you have such a poor understanding of the sun....you sound like wuwei trying to claim that phosphorescence is a spontaneous process...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*The better question is when did you find a version of the second law that says that photons will move spontaneously from a cooler object to a warmer object.  *

Stefan-Boltzmann says they do.

*And it is unfortunate that you have such a poor understanding of the sun..*

Don't be a pussy, answer.

Are photons from the Sun's surface spontaneous?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Sorry...but it doesn't...but I understand that you can't read a simple equation and know what it is describing...

So you have no version of the second law which says that energy can move spontaneously from cool too warm..and no source that says that photons are not energy and are exempt from the second law...not surprising in the least...let me know when you find one..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*Sorry...but it doesn't...but I understand that you can't read a simple equation and know what it is describing...*

It does, that's why it says, "total energy radiated is directly proportional the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature"

Nothing about, "the energy is less if matter a billion light years away is in the line of sight"

No dimmer switch mentioned anywhere.

Maybe you could ask one of the high schoolers to help you out?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Sure..if it is a theoretical perfect black body in a theoretically perfect vacuum...there are other equations for when it is not a perfect black body and in a perfect vacuum...you have seen the primary one.....it looks like this even though you can't read it..







No version of the second law that says that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm....again...not surprised...nothing but your juvenile mumblings...sorry.

Let me know when they change the physical laws to support your beliefs.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



Are photons from the Sun's surface spontaneous? 

Is my question too tough for you to answer?

Or will your answer conflict with your previous claims?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I know that you want the suns corona to be a solid layer rather than a scattering of molecules that are so widely spaced that it is practically a vacuum but alas it isn’t...the corona doesn’t help you...it only brings your ignorance into high relief..

Let me know when they change the physical laws to agree with you.....or don’t bother...it will be big news...I’ll see it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



Well, if photons from the Sun's surface are not spontaneous, the corona wouldn't matter...…..right?

That's okay, you don't have to answer. Pussy.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 24, 2019)

You really are a very special kind of stupid...guess that is why you are restricted to one liners...

Keep an eye out for those changes in the wording of the physical laws...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You really are a very special kind of stupid...guess that is why you are restricted to one liners...
> 
> Keep an eye out for those changes in the wording of the physical laws...



Who knew you'd be scared to talk about the Sun? LOL!

Tell me some more about an antenna detecting a signal that never hits the antenna.

Wow! Talk about violating physical laws.


----------



## Toro (Aug 24, 2019)

The glacier near my parents’ house is melting into oblivion.

It’s been there for 10,000+ years.

Now it’s disappearing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2019)

Toro said:


> The glacier near my parents’ house is melting into oblivion.
> 
> It’s been there for 10,000+ years.
> 
> Now it’s disappearing.



Let's not talk about the mile of ice on top of my property in Chicago.


----------



## Toro (Aug 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > The glacier near my parents’ house is melting into oblivion.
> ...



Why do you think the glacier is disappearing?  

I’ve been going there for over 20 years, and you can see it going away. 

Is it because of Hillary?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2019)

Toro said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



*Why do you think the glacier is disappearing? *

Probably for the same reason there is a huge lake near my house where a mile thick sheet of ice once was.....


----------



## Toro (Aug 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Global warming?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2019)

Toro said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Yes, the globe warmed which caused the ice sheet to melt and the Great Lakes to form.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Who knew you'd be scared to talk about the Sun? LOL!



Scared?  Of you?  Hardly.  I just enjoy watching you twist, turn and gnash your teeth because you have no actual argument to make beyond your one liners.

Most of the photons that emit from the surface of the sun do so spontaneously...of course, the corona means nothing to them...as has been pointed out, the corona, like our thermosphere contains some very hot molecules, they are so widely dispersed that it is practically a vacuum..the corona is about as effective at blocking cooler photons from emitting from the surface of the sun as chicken wire would be at blocking an airborne viral infection...

Alfen waves are an entirely different matter...they are thought to move very hot photons from deep within the sun out to the corona...the sun isn't your friend in this discussion...there is no rational argument to be made that the sun violates the statement of the second law of thermodynamics in any way unless you can provide some support for your apparent belief that photons are something other than energy and are exempt from the second law....good luck with that.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Tell me some more about an antenna detecting a signal that never hits the antenna.



Go learn something about resonant radio signals...and amplifying them and then I won't have to tell you about the whole topic again, or *AGAIN*, or *AGAIN,* or AGAIN


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Who knew you'd be scared to talk about the Sun? LOL!
> ...



*Most of the photons that emit from the surface of the sun do so spontaneously...of course, the corona means nothing to them...*

So they can be blocked by the hotter matter in the corona.

*Go learn something about resonant radio signals...and amplifying them *

Signals that don't hit an antenna can be amplified by the antenna?

Wow! 

You must have some good backup for this claim.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Again with the lies...I have given you, over the months numerous spontaneous processes...you know full well I have and yet you lie about it...Is simply telling the truth so foreign to you that you simply can't bring yourself to do it?


Nope. I haven't lied.

You are now contradicting yourself. I refer you to your previous statements from the thread, Grand Solar Minimum.... And Cooling.... which are in disagreement with your current statements.
*****


SSDD said:


> Examples of spontaneous processes are ice melting to water....



If if the ice cube came from the refrigerator then
_Post 453: Man made...work went into production...not spontaneous._​That is a contradiction.
*****


SSDD said:


> ....the decay of radioisotopes..


_Radium is manufactured commercially by the electrolysis of their molten salts...what exactly do you think is spontaneous about that?_​That is a contradiction.
*****


SSDD said:


> ...iron rusting...


But iron is refined from ore. Lots of work.
_Post 453: Man made...work went into production...not spontaneous._​That is a contradiction.
*****


SSDD said:


> ...the movement of energy from warm to cool.


Suppose the heat came from friction. That's work.
Post 453: _...work went into production...not spontaneous._​That is a contradiction.
*****

I agree your examples are spontaneous processes, but you both do and don't. Quite self contradictory, don't you think? That's what you get when you deny the science definition of spontaneous.


SSDD said:


> You claimed that this equation described a two way energy exchange.


Here is what *all scientists* understand the SB equation to be since 1879. It is the standard derivation in textbooks and lectures for an object at temperature T₁ and a surround at temperature T₂.

Pₑ = Aɛ*ơ *T₁⁴ . . . . . Black body radiation to surround
Pₐ = Aɛ*ơ *T₂⁴ . . . . . Black body absorption from surround

The net flow is the difference radiation and absorption:
Pnet = Pₑ – Pₐ
= Aɛ*ơ *T₁⁴ – Aɛ*ơ *T₂⁴
= AƐ*ơ* (T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)​
If the net is positive heat is flowing away from the object.
If the net is negative heat is flowing toward the object.

*Summary you don't believe 150 years of science and you replace it with self contradiction.*

And to boot you call all scientists and others who know and understand the science stupid, idiots, etc. what a bitter, strange flat-earther you are.

.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 26, 2019)

Been through it all before..you are as wrong now as you were on any of the numerous times we covered this ground before...If you must relive your defeat, revisit any of the previous incarnations of that discussion...

oh the tedium...


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 26, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Been through it all before..you are as wrong now as you were on any of the numerous times we covered this ground before...If you must relive your defeat, revisit any of the previous incarnations of that discussion...
> 
> oh the tedium...



My first comments are that you deny the laws of thermodynamics to the extent that you contradict yourself in many areas. Yes, I have said that many times but you ignore your own self contradictions. Embarrassing?

You call me wrong? You are aiming your wrath at the wrong person. You are aiming your wrath at 150 years of measured, observed, and replicated science. But I guess that is the prerogative of flat-earther types. 

Your tedium is in the special denial thread made just for you. So tediate away. (I just invented a new verb!)

.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 26, 2019)

Revisit any of your past defeats on this topic if you must..


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 26, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Revisit any of your past defeats on this topic if you must..


You didn't defeat science. Not with your fake thermodynamics. 

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Revisit any of your past defeats on this topic if you must..
> ...



Speaking of defeat, remember all the sources he used to post that disproved his claims?

That was awesome!!


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 26, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Speaking of defeat, remember all the sources he used to post that disproved his claims?
> 
> That was awesome!!



Yes, an awesome flat-earther. He seemed to continually attempt to prove himself wrong. 

.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 27, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Revisit any of your past defeats on this topic if you must..
> ...



You aren't speaking science...you are rewriting science into dogma supported only by unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*dogma supported only by unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models.. *

But enough about your "matter stops emitting at equilibrium" and "dimmer switch" claims.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 27, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You aren't speaking science...you are rewriting science into dogma supported only by unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models..



Nope. I have never rewritten observed, quantified, reproducible thermodynamics. I stuck to the laws as given in textbooks and university lectures. Show me an incidence where I strayed from that. You on the other hand have invented your own laws of thermodynamics which are not self consistent. And you have never quoted a reliable source that agrees with your version of thermodynamics. There are none.

In short, you are antiscience and have revealed that many times.

.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I asked you what it was, you avoided the answer yet again.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 27, 2019)

Toro said:


> The glacier near my parents’ house is melting into oblivion.
> 
> It’s been there for 10,000+ years.
> 
> Now it’s disappearing.


S U R E


----------



## jc456 (Aug 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


you have that second version of the 2nd law yet?  SSDD asked you for it, you haven't posted it yet. hmmmmmm how come?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



You said the Sun was hot because.....fire.

Now I need to explain what you meant?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*you have that second version of the 2nd law yet?  *

You mean the one that says photons can't be emitted toward warmer matter?

No. That one doesn't exist.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


It's basically what it is minus oxygen.  What do you call it? and again you avoided the answer.

If the Sun Is on Fire, How Does It Get Oxygen?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


yep that one, so you have no evidence of two way flow?  hmmm


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Hydrogen is on fire, without oxygen, on the surface of the Sun?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Yeah, I don't have SSDD's imaginary version of the 2nd Law.
No one else does either.

Weird.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


i asked you what it was, and there's the avoidance again,  dodgeball todd still dodging balls.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*i asked you what it was*

You asked me what fire was. You don't know?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


except you can't provide observable cold radiating to warm.  hmmmm why is that?  oh yeah, 2nd law thingy.  That you can't produce another version to counter point it's one way flow.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*except you can't provide observable cold going to warm.*

I showed you images from an IR camera. It was too complicated for you. Sorry.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


what is it?  dodgeball todd?


----------



## Marion Morrison (Aug 27, 2019)

Global warming crap is Watermelon! 

Green on the outside and Red on the inside.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


nope, didn't prove cold flow to warm, you still lose. fk dude, I even contacted the manufacturer.  I knew you'd never take his word, you should go chat on the website.  I told you you could.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



LMGTFY


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*nope, didn't prove cold flow to warm, *

Photons from the cold ice cream were clearly captured by the camera.

*I even contacted the manufacturer. *

Yeah, your misinterpretation was hilarious!!!

Try getting an email from them.....I'll be happy to show where you went wrong.

* I knew you'd never take his word, you should go chat on the website.*

Great idea!!
Post the link.....and put your question out there.
Then we can all watch when they answer.

Can't wait!!!


----------



## jc456 (Aug 27, 2019)

_Photons from the cold ice cream were clearly captured by the camera._
nope, the camera calculated there was something there based on a change of temperature in the sensor as photons flowed out of the camera's sensor toward the ice cream. again, I told you you could contact the company as I did.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


_Great idea!!
Post the link.....and put your question out there.
Then we can all watch when they answer._
I already contacted the company, I got my answer.  you don't believe the contact, so you can just contact them yourself.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*I already contacted the company, I got my answer. * 

Yes, your misinterpretation of his verbal answer was funny,

*you don't believe the contact, so you can just contact them yourself.*

You said there is a website you can chat on.
So post the question, "Do photons from colder matter hit the warmer sensor in the camera?"
Post the link to the chat......we'll see what the company says.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 28, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Go do that,  post it,  take your own advice and play your own game!  I did already


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Why don't you post the link and the name of the guy you talked with? I'll ask him to repeat what he said to you.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 4, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



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

Nothing imaginary about the second law...I agree with every word....it is you who thinks that photons have some magical exemption from obeying the laws of physics as if they weren't energy..  You are the one who seems to think that unless everything in the universe which is effected by the second law is named explicitly, that it gets a pass.

As to photons...what are they if they aren't energy?

Photon - 
The subatomic particle that carries the electromagnetic force and is the *quantum* of electromagnetic radiation. The photon has a *rest mass of zero*, but has measurable momentum, exhibits deflection by a gravitational field, and can exert a force. It has no electric charge, has an indefinitely long lifetime, and is its own antiparticle.

and since you probably don't know what a quantum is:

Quantum - The smallest amount of a physical quantity that can exist independently, especially a discrete quantity of electromagnetic radiation.
This amount of energy regarded as a unit.

So again....what are photons if they aren't energy?

By the way...did you note that the very definition of a photon says that they have a rest mass of zero?  Meaning that they have mass when they are moving....and when might a photon ever be at rest?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



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

Which doesn't stop photons from moving from the Sun's surface toward and through the corona.

Which doesn't stop photons from moving from the 70 F walls of my home in December toward my 98 F skin.​
*By the way...did you note that the very definition of a photon says that they have a rest mass of zero?  Meaning that they have mass when they are moving*

Excellent! What is the mass of a mole of photons?


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Nothing imaginary about the second law...I agree with every word.


No you don't.
From the hyperphysics site. Here is a PhD who strongly disagrees with your opinion. 

_It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, *that statement is referring to net transfer* of energy. *Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object *either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object._​
He is the one who wrote the wording of the Clausius form of the second law, and qualified his own wording. 

.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing imaginary about the second law...I agree with every word.
> ...


Clausius Statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

*"Clausius Statement of the Second Law*
_One of the earliest statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics was made by R. Clausius in 1850. He stated the following._

_“It is impossible to construct a device which operates on a cycle and whose sole effect is the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body”._

_Heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold system to hot system without external work being performed on the system. This is exactly what refrigerators and heat pumps accomplish. In a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when forced by an external work, refrigerators are driven by electric motors requiring work from their surroundings to operate."_
_



_


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Do feel free to post any of those experiments that actually demonstrate what you claim...and while I suppose it is pointless to ask...try not to post up the stuff which was only good enough to fool you.
> 
> The rest is nothing more than your endlessly tedious reinterpretation of statements that bear no resemblance to the original statement that was made...either you are a hopeless liar or literally unable to read and grasp the meaning of the words.



You are still evading this point:
You stated that no process is *spontaneous* if there was prior input energy of any sort even though the process later *spontaneously* releases energy without external input. You stated that any configuration that is man-made cannot be *spontaneous*.

You continually cite the second law in part as
_Energy will not flow *spontaneously* from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object._​
That means you believe radiation from the colder atmosphere to the earth surface is possible because the atmosphere and surface both get their energy from the sun and are not spontaneous.

Also according to your physics, man-made ice cubes can radiate to a cup of hot tea.

You can agree energy from the cold CMB does enter the atmosphere.

However, even though your conclusions about the atmosphere are right, they are right for the wrong reasons.

.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Which doesn't stop photons from moving from the Sun's surface toward and through the corona.



As has been pointed out to you multiple times, the molecules in the sun's corona are so far apart that you would actually freeze to death in the near vacuum if you found yourself there...The sun's corona is about as solid to photons leaving the surface of the sun as a chain link fence is to a virus..




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Which doesn't stop photons from moving from the 70 F walls of my home in December toward my 98 F skin.



Do feel free to provide a measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy moving spontaneously from any cooler object to any warmer object made with an instrument that isn't cooled to a temperature lower than that of the claimed radiator...​


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Excellent! What is the mass of a mole of photons?



That would be entirely dependent on the amount of energy they represent...billy gave you the equation to figure it out...maybe you know someone who knows an adult who can help you out with the math...or judging from the equation, most any junior high math nerd could give you a hand..


----------



## SSDD (Sep 5, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing imaginary about the second law...I agree with every word.
> ...



Clearly, you aren't able to read and differentiate the difference between the actual second law of thermodynamics...and someone's opinion based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model...the statement of the second law is as I posted...all the rest is opinion...unobserved, unmeasured, untested...

Oh the tedium of constantly having to correct your reading errors....is there anything that you don't reinterpret/


----------



## SSDD (Sep 5, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> You are still evading this point:
> You stated that no process is *spontaneous* if there was prior input energy of any sort even though the process later *spontaneously* releases energy without external input. You stated that any configuration that is man-made cannot be *spontaneous*.



Actually, that isn't what I said...but then you can't actually read can you  All the words apparently pass through some mixmaster on the way to your brain and get rearranged to mean something entirely different from what was said.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Which doesn't stop photons from moving from the Sun's surface toward and through the corona.
> ...



*As has been pointed out to you multiple times, the molecules in the sun's corona are so far apart that you would actually freeze to death in the near vacuum if you found yourself there...*

You've already said, photons from the surface are not spontaneous.
Wouldn't matter if the corona was thick as a brick.

*Do feel free to provide a measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy moving spontaneously from any cooler object to any warmer object*

Why is energy moving from my walls spontaneous?
I burn a lot of natural gas to get them to that temperature. 
Not spontaneous.

*That would be entirely dependent on the amount of energy they represent*

Pick a wavelength, any wavelength, give me the molar mass.

*maybe you know someone who knows an adult who can help you out with the math...*

Sure, after you ask your adult, send them my way.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You are still evading this point:
> ...



*Actually, that isn't what I said..*







Grand Solar Minimum.... And Cooling....


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> That would be entirely dependent on the amount of energy they represent...billy gave you the equation to figure it out...maybe you know someone who knows an adult who can help you out with the math...or judging from the equation, most any junior high math nerd could give you a hand..


That is way way too funny. Todd set a trap and you fell for it hook line and sinker. I think any physics nerd would recognize a mole of photons as a spoof question.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Clearly, you aren't able to read and differentiate the difference between the actual second law of thermodynamics...and someone's opinion based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model...the statement of the second law is as I posted...all the rest is opinion...unobserved, unmeasured, untested...
> 
> Oh the tedium of constantly having to correct your reading errors....is there anything that you don't reinterpret/


Someone's opinion?? That's funny. That is the "opinion" of 150 years of scientists. You think the opinion of a flat-earther is carries more weight than hundreds of thousands of scientists?

.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You are still evading this point:
> ...



Yes that is what you said, this is the third time you asked for your quotes. And this is the third time I responded with the same thing. As you would say, _Oh the tedium_!

Response to my saying a chemical light stick emits spontaneously.


SSDD said:


> Man made...work went into production...not spontaneous....same old thing..



Response to slow decay phosphorescence.


SSDD said:


> No...phosphorescence is the re emission of energy previously absorbed...not spontaneous...no absorption of energy...no later emission of energy...We have covered this all before.



Response to luminescence from plants and animals


SSDD said:


> Living creature...body is doing work to produce luminescence...luminescence stops shortly after death...not spontaneous.



Response to sunlight passing through hot corona


SSDD said:


> Multiple theories on what sort of work is being done to move the energy from the surface to the corona...only you and toddster seem to think it is spontaneous.



Light bulbs are not spontaneous.


SSDD said:


> Light sticks, like light bulbs etc are the product of work and nothing about them is spontaneous..



Response to clarification: “_So you say that no process in physics is spontaneous if work was done prior to an energy release after all work is ended.”_


SSDD said:


> I don't say it...physics says it.



That is a lie and you know it. I gave you physics definitions of a spontaneous process before. Here is an easy to understand definition. Note the bold faced:

19.1: Spontaneous Processes
A spontaneous process is one that occurs naturally under certain conditions. A *nonspontaneous process, on the other hand*, will not take place* unless it is "driven" by the continual input of energy from an external source*. A process that is spontaneous in one direction under a particular set of conditions is nonspontaneous in the reverse direction.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 5, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > That would be entirely dependent on the amount of energy they represent...billy gave you the equation to figure it out...maybe you know someone who knows an adult who can help you out with the math...or judging from the equation, most any junior high math nerd could give you a hand..
> ...


You and Todd are morons...  Anything that does not fit your religious beliefs are dismissed without a thought and that is why climactic science is in the shit pile it is.  I gave you the equation, I even showed you the mass was dependent on the energy contained... Either you two are too stupid to understand this or intentionally lying.  Which is it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 5, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



You have a source that give the mass of a photon, post it already. Moron.

*I even showed you the mass was dependent on the energy contained... *

Awesome. Post a source that says that. Explicitly.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You have a source that give the mass of a photon, post it already. Moron.
> 
> *I even showed you the mass was dependent on the energy contained... *
> 
> Awesome. Post a source that says that. Explicitly.



This line of discussion is hilarious. The science deniers know how the rest mass is defined but misunderstand the idea of mass. Mass is an intrinsic property of a particle and is always given as the rest mass.
Energy, relativistic mass and momentum of a photon are not intrinsic properties of the photon. 

Yet the science deniers want to quibble over a definition and lose sight of the actual physics, and want to call others morons.

.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly, you aren't able to read and differentiate the difference between the actual second law of thermodynamics...and someone's opinion based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model...the statement of the second law is as I posted...all the rest is opinion...unobserved, unmeasured, untested...
> ...


Care to hazard a guess as to how many opinions that had been accepted for just as long or longer were found to be wrong?

Whoever is right is right regardless of who holds what opinion.  The fact that thousands BELIEVE means exactly squat.  Let’s see the observed measured actual evidence...not the misunderstood “evidence” that is good enough to fool people with a blinding bias.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > That would be entirely dependent on the amount of energy they represent...billy gave you the equation to figure it out...maybe you know someone who knows an adult who can help you out with the math...or judging from the equation, most any junior high math nerd could give you a hand..
> ...




Todd, being the doofus he is is liable to ask anything and when he uses terms in error, you go ahead and answer as it is pointless to point out hus mistake..


----------



## SSDD (Sep 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


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



It is not my problem that every example you can come up with is nothing more than you being fooled...there is a reason that there is a physical law that states that energy does not move spontaneously from a lower energy state to a higher energy state...any example you can name is not going to be what you thought it was...do you think science never considered your examples and dismissed them in a millisecond for the very reasons I noted?  If they were valid, the second law would be invalidated...

If you ever came up with an actual example of energy moving spontaneously from a low energy state to a higher energy state it would invalidate the mother of all physical laws...the fact that you think you can come up with one that is easily observable is prima facie evidence that you are a dupe.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You have a source that give the mass of a photon, post it already. Moron.
> ...


Your bias makes you stupid...the special sort of stupid that can’t be fixed

How much did you say of a “square meter” of atmosphere (still laughing about that one) that is capable of radiating is actually radiating?


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Care to hazard a guess as to how many opinions that had been accepted for just as long or longer were found to be wrong?


False generalization fallacy.



SSDD said:


> Whoever is right is right regardless of who holds what opinion. The fact that thousands BELIEVE means exactly squat. Let’s see the observed measured actual evidence...not the misunderstood “evidence” that is good enough to fool people with a blinding bias.


Your opinion on thermodynamics has absolutely no observed measured actual evidence. You have never shown it. The basics of thermodynamics has been proven many times.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Todd, being the doofus he is is liable to ask anything and when he uses terms in error, you go ahead and answer as it is pointless to point out hus mistake..


Your games are not science. You don't understand a spoof when you see one. Lighten up. As a game Todd won. You lost. 

.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Care to hazard a guess as to how many opinions that had been accepted for just as long or longer were found to be wrong?
> ...



More “interpretations of what I actuallly said...learn to read...get back to me when you can argue against what I actually said...I will check back periodically...


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



You can't even get your fake science straight. I went through a list of processes which you claimed are not spontaneous because they were "man made" or "prior energy absorbed", or "work being done" In that case they do not violate the  second law according to your opinion. So what are you complaining about?

In fact you seem to believe no radiation processes is spontaneous. If that's the case, then no radiation process violates the statement,
_Energy will not flow *spontaneously* from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object._​That means radiation from any object can be absorbed by any object at any temperature.

If there is a radiation process  you think is spontaneous, what is it? Otherwise just what are you complaining about?

.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


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


What did I interpret?

.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 7, 2019)

Wuwei said:


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


Learn to read and it will become obvious...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



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

Right. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a 40C object to a 50C object.

But if I apply work to raise the 40C object to 41C, now energy can flow from the cooler object to the 50C object.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


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


Sorry I couldn't find anything I misinterpreted. 
This is my favorite correct interpretation of your opinion of thermodynamics.

No radiation process on earth is spontaneous since all radiation processes use prior absorbed energy. 
Therefore no radiation process violates the statement, 
_Energy will not flow *spontaneously* from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object._ 
That means radiation from any object can be absorbed by any object at any temperature. 

.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 7, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _Energy will not flow *spontaneously* from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object._
> 
> Right. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a 40C object to a 50C object.
> 
> But if I apply work to raise the 40C object to 41C, now energy can flow from the cooler object to the 50C object.


SSDD's sure painted him in a corner with his fake fizzics.

.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 8, 2019)

Wuwei said:


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



Of course not...because you can't read...


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


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


That's it? Your insults are disappointingly weak.  

My only conclusion is that you believe that radiation from any object can be absorbed by any object at any temperature.

.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 9, 2019)

Not an insult...unless you consider the truth to be an insult. I have been pointing out that you aren't arguing against what I actually said for some time now...I am no longer going to do it...If you can't bother to actually read what is said and respond to that, then there is little point in continuing to talk to you.

And conclusions drawn from faulty understanding of what has been said is just more garbage in...garbage out...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2019)

*How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?*
​SSDD

*People who are wondering what sort of work could move the energy from deep in the sun to the corona wonder....*

The subject is cooler surface radiating at hotter corona.
Something you claimed was impossible.

*Your 40 degree object emits alfen waves?*

Your IQ of 40 emits alfen waves?

*Again...you are confusing work *

No work when I turn on the flashlight?​


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 11, 2019)

Y


Toddsterpatriot said:


> *How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?*
> ​SSDD
> 
> *People who are wondering what sort of work could move the energy from deep in the sun to the corona wonder....*
> ...


You are hopeless...You hang onto fallacy like a life preserver...  

You still can not define a photon, yet you want to assign properties to it that defy known physics. Particle or Wave?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Y
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Defy how?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Y
> ...


Define what the photon is first.  Then I will explain.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



You made the claim.....explain.
Or don't.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 11, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Y
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I believe that in the end...when we have learned enough to do more than make up stories as place holders...all EM radiation will turn out to be waves that simply had properties that we were unable to identify or understand..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Until you define what a photon is there is no explanation.  Your the idiot that runs in circles from one definition to the other. Until you define what it is, I wont play your silly ass 3rd grade games.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Y
> ...


And that is the problem.  Until it is quantitatively defined you can not assign properties to it or define how it reacts.  This thread has been one big circle jerk because some here redefine the Laws and what the item is.  Until that stops, there is no point in further discussion with these idiots.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?*
> ​SSDD
> 
> *People who are wondering what sort of work could move the energy from deep in the sun to the corona wonder....*
> ...


_No work when I turn on the flashlight?_

any light if you don't turn it on?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*Until you define what a photon is there is no explanation.  *

No kidding. Durr.

*You still can not define a photon, yet you want to assign properties to it that defy known physics.*

Which properties did I assign to a photon that defy known physics?

*Your the idiot that runs in circles from one definition to the other.*

Remember when you claimed that 
"cooler photons" can't hit warmer matter because of "covailent [sic] bonds"? 

That was awesome!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



* some here redefine the Laws and what the item is.*

And then your idiocy is pointed out and you run away.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?*
> ...



Is the filament heated up if I don't turn on the flashlight?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


why would it if you did?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



You don't know why a filament heats up?

Wow, you're actually dumber than SSDD.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


sure I do, I was wondering if you knew.

What if it was an LED?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



No work when I turn on the flashlight?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


is there?  why don't you know?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


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


I do, I was wondering if you knew.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I do, so is there work?

And then explain how it is different than the sun.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Still running in circles....

And the hypothesis about magnetic fields still stands.  SO sad your too stupid to grasp the simple concept.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*I do, so is there work?*

Obviously.

*And then explain how it is different than the sun.*

One is a chemical reaction, the other a fusion reaction.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*And the hypothesis about magnetic fields still stands.*

"Covailent [sic] bonds" create a magnetic field that deflects non-magnetic "cooler photons"?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


what's different between a chemical reaction doing the work or the fusion reaction to emitting light?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


why does light bend around a black hole?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 12, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Well...in reality, this thread is one individual's response to someone speaking what he considers to be scientific heresy which he is unable to put down with anything like actual evidence to support his own beliefs..

He fails to see that this discussion is the first foundational brick in the whole greenhouse effect /  AGW hypothesis and if you can't defend it with anything like actual evidence, then the whole house of cards built upon it is indefensible... 

He doesn't like it...but can't produce any actual evidence to put it down so he labels it "denier" and corals it away from everything else so that he can feel comfortable having given it a name (denialism) and relieved himself of having to defend beliefs that are, in realty , indefensible.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


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


so dance he must to keep the string moving.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 12, 2019)

jc456 said:


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


A photon must be matter if it can be affected by gravity.  But that would kill todd's circular jerk fest so he fails to think critically.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*A photon must be matter if it can be affected by gravity. *

OMG!! Hilarious!  Wuwei Crick 

Remember when you said photons were magnetic?

That was awesome!!!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 12, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Tell me MR. Moron, what happens to energy when a molecules outer shells are full?  How does the molecule reject incoming energy, which we know by basic physics and observation to be true..?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*what happens to energy when a molecules outer shells are full?*

Full of energy? LOL!


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *A photon must be matter if it can be affected by gravity. *
> 
> OMG!! Hilarious! Wuwei Crick
> 
> ...



Matter - Wikipedia
_...[*matter *has]... both rest mass and volume. However it does not include massless particles such as photons, or other energy phenomena or waves such as light or sound._​
It is amazing to see billy in an argument about a physics definition which is so easy to look up.

Mass is *not* an intrinsic property of a photon. It is an extrinsic property. The *rest mass* (zero) is intrinsic.

The *wave length* of a photon is not an intrinsic property because observers at different velocities would observe the photon as having different wavelengths due to various Doppler shifts.

If the wave length isn't intrinsic, then neither is the relativistic ersatz mass of the photon. In other words the photon mass is zero.

That may take the fun out of the billy banter, but it is the actual physics, and not something coming from anyone's rectal sphincter. Billy should put it to rest.

Edit: As far as a magnetic photon ...... that's just too hilarious to even think about.
.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Not an insult...unless you consider the truth to be an insult. I have been pointing out that you aren't arguing against what I actually said for some time now...I am no longer going to do it...If you can't bother to actually read what is said and respond to that, then there is little point in continuing to talk to you.
> 
> And conclusions drawn from faulty understanding of what has been said is just more garbage in...garbage out...



You said that you think phosphorescent radiation is not spontaneous because it uses prior absorbed energy. If you don't believe that tell me so.

This is a generalization of what I understand you have been saying:


Wuwei said:


> No radiation process on earth is spontaneous since all radiation processes use prior absorbed energy.
> 
> Therefore no radiation process violates the statement,
> _Energy will not flow *spontaneously* from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object._
> ...


I think my conclusions are accurate. Tell me explicitly where you think my generalizations are a  faulty understanding.

.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 17, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Not an insult...unless you consider the truth to be an insult. I have been pointing out that you aren't arguing against what I actually said for some time now...I am no longer going to do it...If you can't bother to actually read what is said and respond to that, then there is little point in continuing to talk to you.
> ...



Of course phosphorescence is not a spontaneous process...only an idiot would believe otherwise...

spontaneous process - A spontaneous process is one that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings. It is a process that will occur on its own.

phosphorescence  -luminescence that is caused by the absorption of radiations (such as light or electrons) and continues for a noticeable time after these radiations have stopped

If a phosphorescent material does not absorb energy from its surroundings, then it will have no stored energy to emit...easy as that and yet, you don't seem to be able to understand something that simple...


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 17, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Of course phosphorescence is not a spontaneous process....A spontaneous process is one that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings.


Yes, that is what I said your theory of spontaneity is. That was my first point. However there is no radiation process that has not had input energy at some point in the past or present.

You didn't answer my second point:


> Therefore no radiation process violates the statement,
> _Energy will not flow *spontaneously* from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object_.​


Do you agree that quote must always be true with radiation? If not, why?

.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 17, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Of course phosphorescence is not a spontaneous process....A spontaneous process is one that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings.
> ...



It isn't my theory...it is the simple fact.  It is indisputable except by an idiot.



Wuwei said:


> You didn't answer my second point:
> 
> 
> > Therefore no radiation process violates the statement,
> ...



Being that that statement is the mother of all physical laws, one wouldn't expect anything to violate it...which makes your belief that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm patently ridiculous....try applying for any sort of patent with the US patent office which even hints at perpetual motion or a violation of the second law of thermodynamics and your application gets tossed into the nut bin without further consideration.


----------



## Toro (Sep 17, 2019)

Had a conversation today with a group raising $1 billion who demonstrated that global warming is changing water flows, and how we could profit from it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 17, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*which makes your belief that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm patently ridiculous..*

So that's why you feel photons from my flashlight are prohibited from hitting the sun?


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 17, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Being that that statement is the mother of all physical laws, one wouldn't expect anything to violate it...which makes your belief that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm patently ridiculous....try applying for any sort of patent with the US patent office which even hints at perpetual motion or a violation of the second law of thermodynamics and your application gets tossed into the nut bin without further consideration.



I don't expect any violations either. I know there are no violations. But with your definition you haven't come up with any radiation process that is spontaneous. Therefore the second law is not violated by any radiation process since none exist that are spontaneous.

Here is an interesting example of heat flow considering your definition of spontaneity:

If we set two irons at different temperatures facing each other on an ironing board, they can both radiate LWIR toward each other since there is energy input to the irons (because they are both plugged in a wall socket.) Ain't nothing spontaneous about that.

Do you agree they can radiate toward each other?

.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 17, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Being that that statement is the mother of all physical laws, one wouldn't expect anything to violate it...which makes your belief that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm patently ridiculous....try applying for any sort of patent with the US patent office which even hints at perpetual motion or a violation of the second law of thermodynamics and your application gets tossed into the nut bin without further consideration.
> ...



What work exactly is being done to move energy from the cooler iron to the warmer iron?


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 17, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



You are changing the subject. The issue is not work; it's spontaneity. 

Spontaneous process - A spontaneous process is one that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings. It is a process that will occur on its own.

Both irons are heated by the energy from the outside -- electricity, so they definitely are not spontaneous by any definition. Therefore radiation can move both ways between the irons. (As long as the radiation from the hotter iron is stronger than the colder iron.)

Right?

.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 18, 2019)

Wuwei said:


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



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

Clearly you don't know what the subject is.  Describe the work being done to move energy from the cooler iron to the warmer iron.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 18, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Second Law of Thermodynamics: *It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. *Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
> 
> Clearly you don't know what the subject is. Describe the work being done to move energy from the cooler iron to the warmer iron.



Suppose both irons are being driven by electricity from a gas driven portable generator. The colder iron has it's thermostat turned to low. 

There is no question that the pistons of the generator define thermodynamic work.

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Second Law of Thermodynamics: *It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. *Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
> ...



If he reverses himself on a single epicycle, his entire edifice will collapse.

He can't even say if photons from the Sun's surface are emitted spontaneously or not.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 18, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If he reverses himself on a single epicycle, his entire edifice will collapse.
> 
> He can't even say if photons from the Sun's surface are emitted spontaneously or not.



Yes, his epicycles are getting tighter. Sort of like two neutron stars circling closer and closer til they explode.

He won't comment on many things because he knows he will be caught at self-contradiction. 

.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 18, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > If he reverses himself on a single epicycle, his entire edifice will collapse.
> ...


Says the person who cant even correctly do the math on Joules to watts yet thinks that Einstein was wrong on CO2's ability to radiate in our atmosphere...


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 18, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Says the person who cant even correctly do the math on Joules to watts yet thinks that Einstein was wrong on CO2's ability to radiate in our atmosphere.


Liar.
There was no error in the OP. There was a later typo that I caught.

Einstein was right. His theory on radiation lifetime was validated many times. 

Why are you being such an asshole?
.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 18, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Says the person who cant even correctly do the math on Joules to watts yet thinks that Einstein was wrong on CO2's ability to radiate in our atmosphere.
> ...


Let me know when you prove Einstein's computation wrong..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



* yet thinks that Einstein was wrong on CO2's ability to radiate in our atmosphere... *

Link?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 18, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Second Law of Thermodynamics: *It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. *Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
> ...



that just describes the energy required to make the heat...now describe the work being done to move energy from the cooler iron to the warmer iron...do I need to describe the work necessary to move cool to warm in an air conditioning unit again?  It takes a great deal of effort to move cold to warm...and simply placing irons facing each other isn't going to do it.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 18, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


You dont have a damn clue.. Weiwi used the thermal reaction of N2 and CO2 in a forced excited state to get CO2 to act like he thinks it should. He miss applied the science to get a result he wanted and you want..  Einstein's calculations and the paper he quoted, disprove him and you..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*now describe the work being done to move energy from the cooler iron to the warmer iron...*


Now describe the work being done to move energy from the cooler Sun's surface through the warmer corona.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Cool story bro. Link?


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 18, 2019)

SSDD said:


> that just describes the energy required to make the heat...now describe the work being done to move energy from the cooler iron to the warmer iron...do I need to describe the work necessary to move cool to warm in an air conditioning unit again? It takes a great deal of effort to move cold to warm...and simply placing irons facing each other isn't going to do it.


That comes from your definition of spontaneity. Prior work was done. Not spontaneous.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Sep 18, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Most likely culprit--nanoflares:

New theory on why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface
The Mystery of Nanoflares | Science Mission Directorate


_*"One of the interesting problems in space research is explaining why the sun's atmosphere (its corona) is so much hotter than its surface. The chief problem standing in the way of an answer is the lack of suitable instruments for measuring what occurs on the sun's surface and its atmosphere. In this new effort, the researchers used data from the FOXSI-2 sounding rocket (a rocket payload carrying seven telescopes designed to study the sun) to test a theory that suggests heat is injected into the atmosphere by multiple tiny explosions (very small solar flares) on the surface of the sun. Such flares are too small to see with most observational equipment, so the idea has remained just a theory. But now, the new data offers some evidence suggesting the theory is correct.


To test the theory, the researchers looked at X-ray emissions from the corona and found some that were very energetic. This is significant, because solar flares emit X-rays. But the team was studying a part of the sun that had no visible solar flares occurring at the time. This, of course, hinted at another source. The research team suggests the only likely source is superheated plasma that could only have occurred due to nanoflares.


The researchers acknowledge that their findings do not yet solve the coronal heating problem, but they believe they might be getting close. They note that much more research is required—next year, they point out, another sounding rocket will be launched with equipment even more sensitive than that used in the last round, offering better detection of faint X-rays. Also, plans are underway to launch a satellite capable of detecting nanoflares. If future tests can clearly identify the source of the X-rays, the coronal problem may soon be resolved."





*_


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 18, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Cool story bro. Link?


No link. He's bluffing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2019)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


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



New theory on why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface

Thanks, but not what we're discussing here.
This thread was built for a few who believe "back radiation" does not exist because the cooler atmosphere is prohibited from radiating toward the warmer surface of the Earth.

They feel this because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't allow heat (no mention of photons) to spontaneously flow from cooler matter to hotter matter unless work is done to move it.

This has expanded to photons not being allowed to travel from say a flashlight to the surface of the Sun, because the Sun is hotter.
This also, in their minds, prevents a photon from traveling millions, hell billions, of light years across the universe....if the photon will hit warmer matter than the matter that emitted it. Never mind the causality problems that would result.

So, if the corona is hotter than the surface, the surface could not emit a single photon that would hit the hotter matter of the, obviously very tenuous, corona. Now photons would have to be emitted, or not, strictly based on picking their path so that they didn't hit anything warmer.

It gets very complex and involves layer upon layer of epicycles.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*do I need to describe the work necessary to move cool to warm in an air conditioning unit again?  *

Please do!


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Sep 18, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Hmmm---maybe you're overthinking it? 

LOL! Not my area of expertise....I guess I missed the part where someone explained why this matters?


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 18, 2019)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Hmmm---maybe you're overthinking it?
> 
> LOL! Not my area of expertise....I guess I missed the part where someone explained why this matters?


Yes this is a very weird thread. It was made for those who deny the basic tenets of physics so they wouldn't clutter up other threads with their crap.
Hence the word "denial" in the title of this thread.
.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Sep 18, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm---maybe you're overthinking it?
> ...


Ooops..my bad----


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 18, 2019)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > EvilEyeFleegle said:
> ...


LOL. But stay and join the crowd if you want to wallow in idiocy and whack those who promote self-contradictory "alternate" science. It's fun for me, but not very productive.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 18, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


yep and so far still no observed evidence of cool to warm violating the second law, and nothing on back radiation. still waiting.  fk, how many posts now?  you still haven't provided one observation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > EvilEyeFleegle said:
> ...



*so far still no observed evidence of cool to warm violating the second law,*

That's great, because energy moving from cold to warm isn't a violation.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 18, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


it is to the 2nd law.  so you can get your noble prize for the violation of the 2nd law.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Do you feel that the Sun's surface radiating through the corona violates the 2nd? Why or why not?
Do you feel that a flashlight radiating to the Sun's surface violates the 2nd? Why or why not?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 18, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


asked and answered. you need new material. like observed empirical evidence.  post #1169 still nope!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



And there you go, running away again. LOL!


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > that just describes the energy required to make the heat...now describe the work being done to move energy from the cooler iron to the warmer iron...do I need to describe the work necessary to move cool to warm in an air conditioning unit again? It takes a great deal of effort to move cold to warm...and simply placing irons facing each other isn't going to do it.
> ...




Sorry guy.....this whole tangent is the result of you arguing against your interpretation of what I have said..


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> They feel this because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't allow heat (no mention of photons) to spontaneously flow from cooler matter to hotter matter unless work is done to move it.
> .



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

Photon - a quantum of electromagnetic radiation.

Quantum - the smallest quantity of radiant energy.

You have been dodging this question for a long time...why?

What are photons if not simply energy...when the second law states that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm...it is talking about photons since photons are nothing more than the smallest possible part of an electromagnetic field that can still be said to be associated with that electromagnetic field...Photons are energy....prove otherwise if you think that they aren't...

When the second law mentions energy, it doesn't mention any specific type of energy...are you operating under the assumption that all forms of energy not mentioned by the second law are then exempt from the second law because they weren't specifically named?

Chemical energy is not named....is that form of energy exempt?
Nuclear energy is not named...is it exempt?
How about electrical energy, motion energy, sound energy etc...none of them are specifically named...are they exempt?  Which energy do you think the second law is talking about since no specific type of energy is named?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 19, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > They feel this because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't allow heat (no mention of photons) to spontaneously flow from cooler matter to hotter matter unless work is done to move it.
> ...



*when the second law states that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm...*

Do you think photons moving from the cooler Sun's surface to the hotter corona are spontaneous?
Do you think photons moving from my cooler flashlight to the hotter Sun are spontaneous?


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 19, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



Your'e not making sense. My whole argument is using your arguments and looking at the consequences of your opinions in your world of "physics". It leads to contradictions. 

That is called reductio ad absurdum. 

Here is the essence your argument again: a hot iron can receive radiation energy from a colder iron because work went into heating the colder iron. Therefore neither iron emits energy spontaneously. 

That is the nature of your physics. We have been using reductio ad absurdum many times but you keep dancing away, running and hiding, duck and cover, etc. 

.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 19, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


run away, it's you delinquent.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 19, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I see Todd's affliction of head up ass is still present..  Read the thread...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 19, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Tell me more about magnetic photons. LOL!


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 19, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> You dont have a damn clue.. Weiwi used the thermal reaction of N2 and CO2 in a forced excited state to get CO2 to act like he thinks it should. He miss applied the science to get a result he wanted and you want.. Einstein's calculations and the paper he quoted, disprove him and you..


You are a liar. A total liar and you know it.

.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 19, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


asked and answered.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 19, 2019)

Wuwei said:


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


why do you do that?  why not just answer his fking questions?  rewriting his question to fit your answer is like plagiarism or something, you aren't quoting what's his and instead intending it to look like he wrote it and it's yours.  Sweet trick you got going poindexter.

And you admit it.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Still dodging....do you believe that photons are exempt from the second law simply because they are not mentioned specifically?...How about all the other forms of energy...exempt also because they aren't named?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



He can't read anything without reinterpreting it in some form or another...the result is that he is never arguing against anyone...he is only arguing against his version of what they said...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 19, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*do you believe that photons are exempt from the second law simply because they are not mentioned specifically?..*

Why would they be exempt? Are they exempt from SB?

That reminds me, any backup for your silly claim about equilibrium? Any at all?

Ok, let's try a thought experiment. I don't expect you to understand, of course.

We launch a nifty solar observatory and put it into solar orbit, one million miles away from the Sun.

A scientist on board puts some nice new batteries into his nice new flashlight and turns it on.
Are the photons coming out of the flashlight spontaneous or non-spontaneous?
Are they emitted because work is being done?

Once you've avoided answering those questions, here's more you can ignore.
When the flashlight is pointed out of the porthole and aimed at the Sun, do the photons hit the Sun? 
Does the filament unexpectedly go cold when pointed at the Sun? 
Do the photons bounce off of some sort of "2nd Law" forcefield?
Do the photons somehow bend around the Sun to avoid hitting hotter matter?

Thanks in advance for your cowardice.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 19, 2019)

SSDD said:


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


I told you what my interpretation is and I think it's accurate. Rather than just saying it's wrong, it would be helpful if you said exactly what is wrong about it. Otherwise you seem to be just dancing around or just bluffing.

.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why would they be exempt? Are they exempt from SB?



You are the one who has repeatedly suggested that they are when you have said...and I quote..."  They feel this because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't allow heat *(no mention of photons)* to spontaneously flow from cooler matter to hotter matter unless work is done to move it.[/quote]



Toddsterpatriot said:


> That reminds me, any backup for your silly claim about equilibrium? Any at all?








Set T and Tc to the same number...that would mean that they are in equilibrium...when you do that P will equal zero...and before you say it, there is no expression in that equation from which to derive net...



Toddsterpatriot said:


> We launch a nifty solar observatory and put it into solar orbit, one million miles away from the Sun.
> 
> A scientist on board puts some nice new batteries into his nice new flashlight and turns it on.
> Are the photons coming out of the flashlight spontaneous or non-spontaneous?



You guys seem to have a very hard time with the whole spontaneous thing and it isn't that hard to understand.

A spontaneous process is one that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings. It is a process that will occur on its own.

Would the filament in the light bulb light up with no energy input from its surroundings?  If the answer is yes, then it would be a spontaneous process...if it requires energy from somewhere other than itself, then the answer is no...it is not a spontaneous process.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Are they emitted because work is being done?



What work do you think is being done?  Are you not able to separate work from spontaneous and non spontaneous  processes?  Are they all jumbled up in your mind so that you think that one can't exist without the other?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> When the flashlight is pointed out of the porthole and aimed at the Sun, do the photons hit the Sun?



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

Which part of that do you believe suggests that the photons from the cooler filament would move to the warmer surface of the sun?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Does the filament unexpectedly go cold when pointed at the Sun?



Relative to the temperature of the surface of the sun, the filament is cold.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Do the photons bounce off of some sort of "2nd Law" forcefield?



The second law is a pretty straight forward statement...it says that energy will not move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...what work do you think is being done to move the energy from the cooler filament to the warmer surface of the sun?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Do the photons somehow bend around the Sun to avoid hitting hotter matter?



Is there anything in the second law that suggests that such a thing happens?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Thanks in advance for your cowardice.



You are the one who is continuously dodging here...How many times have I asked you whether photons are energy or not?  And how many times have you dodged?  So I will ask again....are photons energy?

thanks in advance for your cowardice...


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I told you that unless you can actually frame your argument based on what I actually said rather than your crazy assed interpretations, you can continue to talk to yourself about it..I am not going to restate everything I have ever said simply because you can't read and respond to what was actually said.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 19, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I told you that unless you can actually frame your argument based on what I actually said rather than your crazy assed interpretations, you can continue to talk to yourself about it..I am not going to restate everything I have ever said simply because you can't read and respond to what was actually said.


I'm not asking you to restate everything you said. I'm simply asking you to state what is wrong with my argument. 

Here is what I think is the essence of your argument again: a hot iron can receive radiation energy from a colder iron because work went into heating the colder iron. Therefore neither iron emits energy spontaneously. 

I think it is accurate. If you don't think so, where do I differ? I can't read your mind.
.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2019)

Sorry guy....not going to do it...If you can't read what I write and respond to that..then talk to yourself...


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 19, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy....not going to do it...If you can't read what I write and respond to that..then talk to yourself...


I did respond to exactly what you had been saying. Since you are running and hiding again, I have to conclude you have no answer. So we are left with your serious contradiction: every radiation phenomenon on earth is never spontaneous and can therefore radiate to any other object at any temperature. 

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 19, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Why would they be exempt? Are they exempt from SB?
> ...





Toddsterpatriot said:


> That reminds me, any backup for your silly claim about equilibrium? Any at all?








Set T and Tc to the same number...that would mean that they are in equilibrium...when you do that P will equal zero...and before you say it, there is no expression in that equation from which to derive net...



Toddsterpatriot said:


> We launch a nifty solar observatory and put it into solar orbit, one million miles away from the Sun.
> 
> A scientist on board puts some nice new batteries into his nice new flashlight and turns it on.
> Are the photons coming out of the flashlight spontaneous or non-spontaneous?



You guys seem to have a very hard time with the whole spontaneous thing and it isn't that hard to understand.

A spontaneous process is one that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings. It is a process that will occur on its own.

Would the filament in the light bulb light up with no energy input from its surroundings?  If the answer is yes, then it would be a spontaneous process...if it requires energy from somewhere other than itself, then the answer is no...it is not a spontaneous process.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Are they emitted because work is being done?



What work do you think is being done?  Are you not able to separate work from spontaneous and non spontaneous  processes?  Are they all jumbled up in your mind so that you think that one can't exist without the other?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> When the flashlight is pointed out of the porthole and aimed at the Sun, do the photons hit the Sun?



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

Which part of that do you believe suggests that the photons from the cooler filament would move to the warmer surface of the sun?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Does the filament unexpectedly go cold when pointed at the Sun?



Relative to the temperature of the surface of the sun, the filament is cold.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Do the photons bounce off of some sort of "2nd Law" forcefield?



The second law is a pretty straight forward statement...it says that energy will not move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...what work do you think is being done to move the energy from the cooler filament to the warmer surface of the sun?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Do the photons somehow bend around the Sun to avoid hitting hotter matter?



Is there anything in the second law that suggests that such a thing happens?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Thanks in advance for your cowardice.



You are the one who is continuously dodging here...How many times have I asked you whether photons are energy or not?  And how many times have you dodged?  So I will ask again....are photons energy?

thanks in advance for your cowardice...[/QUOTE]

*You are the one who has repeatedly suggested that they are*

I have never said photons are heat. 






Thanks for the formula for net power. You have any backup for no radiating at equilibrium?

There must be dozens of articles and textbooks you could reference. No? Not a single one? Weird.

*if it requires energy from somewhere other than itself, then the answer is no...it is not a spontaneous process.*

Well, the filament requires energy from the battery. So flashlight photons are not spontaneous.


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

We agree, energy from a cooler flashlight can flow to a higher temperature object.

_Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object._​​*Which part of that do you believe suggests that the photons from the cooler filament would move to the warmer surface of the sun?*​
The part where we agreed photons from the flashlight are not spontaneous. 

Change your mind already?

​*The second law is a pretty straight forward statement...it says that energy will not move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...what work do you think is being done to move the energy from the cooler filament to the warmer surface of the sun?*​
The energy from the battery that causes non-spontaneous photons to be created.


Do the photons somehow bend around the Sun to avoid hitting hotter matter?​​*Is there anything in the second law that suggests that such a thing happens?*​​The 2nd Law doesn't, your weird misunderstanding of it suggests they aren't allowed to hit hotter matter.​Trying to get a better grasp of your unique mechanism. Either photons aren't allowed, which was my point about the hot filament cooling when pointed at the Sun. Or photons are allowed to travel toward, but prevented from hitting hotter matter by some sort of forcefield, or somehow having their path bent around the hotter target.​​Can't seem to get a logical answer from you.​​*So I will ask again....are photons energy?*​

​


----------



## jc456 (Sep 19, 2019)

SSDD said:


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


Again, he admitted it . Funny shit


----------



## jc456 (Sep 19, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Ahh the guy with no observed empirical evidence. Can’t show cold flow to heat! He’ll use the sun, hahaha the experts can’t explain the sun. But damn Todd can 

Hey Todd, How is it the corona is hotter?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 19, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha  dude you got issues


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 19, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*Ahh the guy with no observed empirical evidence.*

Like your evidence that flashlight photons can't hit the Sun? DURR.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 19, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Prove they do! Go . That’s called observed empirical evidence and you got shit


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Explain why they don't.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 20, 2019)

Fascinating, how SSDD and jc and Billy just can't figure out that heat flow and energy flow aren't the same thing.

Heat is a macroscopic statistical quantity. It obeys the second law.

Energy exists at the quantum level, and it doesn't care about the second law. Individual bits of energy can fly wherever they please. Only the net sum of that energy flow has to obey the second law. 

It's not rocket science, it's been explained to them, but they still fail at it. Every Statistical Mechanics class (generally taught in third year undergrad physics) teaches the non-crazy version of reality. Statistical Mechanics teaches why the Second Law exists. I don't think any of the PSI kooks has gone beyond Physics 101.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 20, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Fascinating, how SSDD and jc and Billy just can't figure out that heat flow and energy flow aren't the same thing.
> 
> Heat is a macroscopic statistical quantity. It obeys the second law.
> 
> ...



I agree. They all have had an opportunity to see what the physics is. It has been shown to them many times with references, but I think it is much deeper than what you say.

SSDD, Billy, and their sock puppets, Frank, JC, Westwall, SunsetTommy reject basic science. Billy and SSDD have the same temperament as a flat-earther. They are psychopaths with deep rooted biases hardwired in their brains that form an aberrant resistance to anything that does not conform to that bias. They have an almost panicky rejection of science. Their answer to any sane approach is to confabulate and ad lib anything that comes to their mind, relevant or not. They reinforce their anti-science with intense mockery, bluff, and bluster. This plays well to the other sock puppets who give them an "agree" or "winner" rating, and give the more science minded a "funny". In one sense they may not be liars, but simply abnormally not in touch with reality. It's a sad state of affairs to bastardize basic physics to maintain their pathological comfort. An ill wind blows in this country.

.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


prove they do

I'll give you a break, shine your flash light at the space station, give them an SOS and see if they respond!  too fking funny.

Oh, one more thing, why do they change the batteries when the light dims? you think the user can still see his intended target?  hahahahahahahahaha


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 24, 2019)

Too Funny...

A friend emailed me and ask me to look at a post over at WUWT and give him my take on a comment. It made me take a step back and I realized that the very basic laws of gases disprove AGW.

Here is the comment;

_*"The Stefan-Boltzmann equation as applied to CO2 was derived for a molecule. It was not derived for a bulk gas mixture like Earth’s atmosphere. One can plausibly assume that one activated molecule is incapable of causing a 1degree C change in atmospheric temperature. Not one molecule, not 10, not even 10 million.

There is a logical lower limit to the concentration of CO2 that is capable of causing the claimed change.

What is this lower limit?
How is it measured?"*_


This one of those light bulb moments. Stefan-Boltzman was not designed for our atmosphere thus it is incapable of telling us how our atmosphere will work in a bulk gas mixture. Then I looked at his questions and they kill AGW DEAD! 

So I am now asking the warmers here to define what the lower limit of the gas is required to create any effect?  What is the Upper limit where the gas no longer has any affect? Now quantify your response with the math and reasoning used to measure these levels...

Source

At current levels, CO2 is incapable of any effect due to water vapor in our atmosphere...


----------



## SSDD (Sep 24, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Fascinating, how SSDD and jc and Billy just can't figure out that heat flow and energy flow aren't the same thing.



Perhaps that is why the second law of thermodynamics distinguishes between the two you idiot...

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

You be sure to let me know when they strike down the second law...or reword it in order to agree with the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 24, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Too Funny...
> 
> A friend emailed me and ask me to look at a post over at WUWT and give him my take on a comment. It made me take a step back and I realized that the very basic laws of gases disprove AGW.
> 
> ...



Anyone who can read an equation knows that the SB law doesn't apply to gasses anyway...the calculation for emissions are based on area.....what exactly is the area of a gas?


----------



## mamooth (Sep 24, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> _*"The Stefan-Boltzmann equation as applied to CO2 was derived for a molecule.*_


_*
*_
Complete nonsense, being how a single molecule doesn't have a temperature. Temperature is a statistical measurement of a large number of molecules.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



Here's that form of the Second Law that you copied from. You left a bit of it out.

Second Law of Thermodynamics
---
Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles.

This is the "second form" or Clausius statement of the second law.

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."
---

It was astonishingly dishonest of you to leave that part out. It flatly contradicts your idiot claims, and it flat out says we're right.

So, you know you're lying here, yet you continue to lie. At this stage, the only purpose you serve is to illustrate how cult devotion leads to moral decrepitude.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 24, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > _*"The Stefan-Boltzmann equation as applied to CO2 was derived for a molecule.*_
> ...



Whatever you do, don't ask him about magnetic photons.


----------



## the other mike (Sep 25, 2019)

If not to stop climate change, at least
do it for the sea bass.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2019)

Angelo said:


> If not to stop climate change, at least
> do it for the sea bass.



CO2 killing the bass? Link?


----------



## the other mike (Sep 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CO2 killing the bass? Link?


Climate change is associated with the larger issue of pollution.
Look up dying coral reefs.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 killing the bass? Link?
> ...



Yeah, fertilizer runoff is awful.

CO2 killing the bass? Link?


----------



## the other mike (Sep 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yeah, fertilizer runoff is awful.
> 
> CO2 killing the bass? Link?



Fertilizers aren't killing the Great Barrier Reef...

*Climate change has caused an 89% decrease in new coral in the Great Barrier Reef, study finds*

*https://www.cbsnews.com/news/great-barrier-reef-dying-climate-change-caused-decrease-in-new-coral-study-says/*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, fertilizer runoff is awful.
> ...



*Climate change has caused an 89% decrease in new coral in the Great Barrier Reef, study finds*

When the Earth cools, things change for reefs.
When the Earth warms, things change for reefs.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, fertilizer runoff is awful.
> ...



_Global warming has caused such extensive damage to the Great Barrier Reef that scientists say its coral may never recover. _

Yup, the last time the Earth warmed, all the coral went extinct. DURR.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, fertilizer runoff is awful.
> ...



*Fertilizers aren't killing the Great Barrier Reef...*


Agriculture run-off polluting the Great Barrier Reef


----------



## Crick (Sep 26, 2019)

That fertilizer runoff is hurting the Great Barrier Reef does not mean it is not being hurt by warmer, acidified seawater.


----------



## Crick (Sep 26, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > If not to stop climate change, at least
> ...



From what I've read, Giant (or Black) Sea Bass became endangered due to human predation.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 29, 2019)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for *heat *to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. *Energy *will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
> ...


Actually hairball...the physical law doesn’t say anything about net anything...net is an opinion based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...let me know when they change the actual physical law to reflect net energy flow.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 29, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Actually hairball...the physical law doesn’t say anything about net anything...net is an opinion based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...let me know when they change the actual physical law to reflect net energy flow.



One way radiation flow is based on your opinion. No observed experiment in science literature disagrees with two way radiation exchange between any objects. Entropy properties do not lead to any sort of blockade to free radiation flow.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 29, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Actually hairball...the physical law doesn’t say anything about net anything...net is an opinion based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...let me know when they change the actual physical law to reflect net energy flow.
> ...



He's even changed his view on work.
Now he doesn't believe photons from a flashlight can hit the hotter surface of the Sun.

What a clown.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> He's even changed his view on work.
> Now he doesn't believe photons from a flashlight can hit the hotter surface of the Sun.
> 
> What a clown.


Did you ever play a kids board game with a tot? My experience is when the tot is loosing, he changes the rules but doesn't let you use his rules. Some never grow up.

.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 29, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Actually hairball...the physical law doesn’t say anything about net anything...net is an opinion based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...



You offered no defense for lying-by-omission about the second law. You didn't even try to pretend you didn't lie. That's for the best, as everyone plainly saw you do it.

Infrared spectrometers direclty measure the backradiation that you say doesn't exist, you're lying when you say it's unobservable.

You lie because you get off on lying, and because you think lying will hasten the arrival of your cult utopia.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 29, 2019)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Actually hairball...the physical law doesn’t say anything about net anything...net is an opinion based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...
> ...



Sorry hairball..it is you who lied...you included the opinion about net energy flow as if it were part of the physical law...lying is all you have and you aren't even good at it..how sad..


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 29, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Sorry hairball..it is you who lied...you included the opinion about net energy flow as if it were part of the physical law...lying is all you have and you aren't even good at it..how sad..


Net energy flow of radiation is a part of the second law. You have no source implying otherwise. Everyone has been asking you for that source for years. It's time to put up or shut up. (Of course we all know you will do neither.)

.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 30, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry hairball..it is you who lied...you included the opinion about net energy flow as if it were part of the physical law...lying is all you have and you aren't even good at it..how sad..
> ...



Sorry guy...lies won't make net real...it isn't part of the second law...never was...never will be.

And my source has been available for years...any statement of the second law you care to choose...the second law is the second law...all sources say the same thing in various forms...and net isn't included...

When you read a statement of the second law, there is invariably an "explanation" that the law is "talking about" net as if the formulator of the second law of thermodynamics wasn't bright enough to say what he meant...do let me know when the actual statement of the second law is revised to include the word net and no longer needs to be interpreted in order to get net in there..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*...lies won't make net real..*

And lies won't make your solo, never backed up claims real.

*When you read a statement of the second law, there is invariably an "explanation" that the law is "talking about" net as if the formulator of the second law of thermodynamics wasn't bright enough to say what he meant...*

And all the scientists who said, "At equilibrium, absorption equals emission", they didn't know what they were talking about, eh?

And still no backup from you of any scientists saying, "At equilibrium all matter ceases all radiating". Weird.
Not a single one.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Actually hairball...the physical law doesn’t say anything about net anything...net is an opinion based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...let me know when they change the actual physical law to reflect net energy flow.
> ...


post the experiment.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


still no proof that flashlight does that.  hmmmmmm why not?


----------



## the other mike (Sep 30, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Climate change has caused an 89% decrease in new coral in the Great Barrier Reef, study finds*
> 
> When the Earth cools, things change for reefs.
> When the Earth warms, things change for reefs.


Deniers always get the last word, even when they're lying.
It's your job.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Forcefields? Magnetic photon repulsion?

Tell us your secret!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Climate change has caused an 89% decrease in new coral in the Great Barrier Reef, study finds*
> ...



Deniers of what? Be specific.


----------



## the other mike (Sep 30, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Well, truth generally when it comes to all the various Internet trolls, but here specifically , 'climate change deniers' working for the fossil fuel industry of course , silly.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


no, no, show us the flashlight light hitting the sun.


----------



## the other mike (Sep 30, 2019)

jc456 said:


> no, no, show us the flashlight light hitting the sun.


Did you know....?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2019)

Angelo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > no, no, show us the flashlight light hitting the sun.
> ...


well you go verify that the flashlight light Todd shines at it hits it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Angelo said:
> ...



I don't deny climate change.
I don't work for the fossil fuel industry.
Silly.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



What stops them? Post your theory.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 30, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



Since we have a disagreement about the idea of net, and the definition of spontaneous, these various statements of the second law do not use the words "spontaneous" nor "net". Do you agree that the following statements of the second law are accurate? 

Clausius Statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics
“_It is impossible to construct a device which operates on a cycle and whose sole effect is the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body”._​Carnot’s principle states:
_1. No engine can be more efficient than a reversible engine (a Carnot heat engine) operating between the same high temperature and low temperature reservoirs._

_2. The efficiencies of all reversible engines (Carnot heat engines) operating between the same constant temperature reservoirs are the same, regardless of the working substance employed or the operation details._​
Thermodynamics - The second law of thermodynamics
_A cyclic transformation whose only final result is to transfer heat from a body at a given temperature to a body at a higher temperature is impossible._​
Second Law of Thermodynamics
_Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is impossible to extract an amount of heat QH from a hot reservoir and use it all to do work W. Some amount of heat QC must be exhausted to a cold reservoir. This precludes a perfect heat engine._​
_Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same._​
5.1 Concept and Statements of the Second Law
_No process is possible whose sole result is the absorption of heat from a reservoir and the conversion of this heat into work. [Kelvin-Planck statement of the second law_

_No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body. [Clausius statement of the second law]_​Second Law of Thermodynamics
The final entropy must be greater than the initial entropy for an irreversible process:​
.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 30, 2019)

Like I said...no mention of net in the bunch...of course, you have demonstrated a penchant to interpret anything to mean what you want, so no doubt, in your mind, they all explicitly say net...such is the level of dishonesty inherent in your thinking.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 30, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Like I said...no mention of net in the bunch...of course, you have demonstrated a penchant to interpret anything to mean what you want, so no doubt, in your mind, they all explicitly say net...such is the level of dishonesty inherent in your thinking.



I swear, I have no idea how you think. You attempt to put a thought in my head and then you call it dishonest!
I have always used the word *net* as an adjective modifying *energy*, as in *net energy*. In my post #1236, not only have the sites I cited not used the word *net*, they have not used the word *energy*.

Again, my question is, do you agree that those statements of the second law in post #1236 are accurate? Or do you just want to dance around?

.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 30, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Our Sun is Grand Central Station for UFO's


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


why do you feel you are resolved of showing us that they do?  come on big guy stand up and show that light hitting the sun.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*why do you feel you are resolved of showing us that they do?  *

Photons travel in a straight line until they're absorbed by matter.
Photons from my flashlight can travel billions of light years across the universe.

Why the fuck wouldn't they hit the Sun if I aimed them properly?

Come on big guy, use that brain of yours.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


just show us that it would hit the sun, why can't you?  you claim they would I'm waiting.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



So no theory?

Maybe you should ask Billy_Boy?

He had some idiocy about "Covailent [sic] bonds" generating a force field or some such shit.

Or SSDD can explain that the flashlight "simply cannot emit toward hotter matter" or some such idiocy.

Be sure to post their theories, can't wait!!!


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


you still don't think you owe to back your claim.  funny shit.  thanks for yet another laugh on a different day.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



You're right, I don't have to back my claim that photons can travel from my flashlight and hit the Sun.

I'm glad basic physics gives you a laugh.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


unobserved, all you ever got bubba.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



No photon was ever observed. Right.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


show the experiment.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



I get it, you have zero understanding of how photons behave. That's okay, you've survived this long 
without a clue. Don't worry about it.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I just want you to post the experiment you claimed was done.  go for it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Don't you worry your pretty little head.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I don't, but I do have images of you pointing your flashlight at the sun trying to warm it up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



I know, the list of things that confuse you grows longer every day, but don't you worry.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


heavens no, I laugh at anyone standing and holding a flashlight to warm the sun.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2019)

Don't you worry about science.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Don't you worry about science.


I know you don't.


----------



## gfm7175 (Oct 7, 2019)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for *heat *to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. *Energy *will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
> ...


There is no such thing as "net flow"... A colder body cannot warm a hotter body.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


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



*There is no such thing as "net flow"...*

A 10C object is prohibited from radiating toward a 20C object? Why?
Force fields? Smart photons? What?

*A colder body cannot warm a hotter body.*

While the 10C object radiates toward the 20C object, the 20C object radiates MORE toward the 10C object.

They BOTH radiate, but the cooler object warms while the warmer object cools.
Because "net flow".


----------



## jc456 (Oct 7, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


dude, it's been explained to you over an over again, 2nd law thing you just can't seem to absorb.  get it? absorbed? hahahaahaha what a boob you are.

anyway, you still haven't presented observed empirical evidence that it does what you said.  you have been losing this battle for over three years now.

Hey you still trying to warm the sun with your flashlight?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > gfm7175 said:
> ...



*dude, it's been explained to you over an over again*

So which is it?

*2nd law thing you just can't seem to absorb.*

Stefan-Boltzmann thing you just can't seem to absorb.

*Hey you still trying to warm the sun with your flashlight?*

If you ever pull your head out of your ass, by all means link where I said anything about "heating" the sun.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 7, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


that 2nd law thing still has you bamboozled I see.  it's ok, all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object.  I've asked too many times to count.  you still haven't.  why not?

and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun like your 10C object at the 20C object is doing?  is that what you meant?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2019)

jc456 said:


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




*all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object.*

Stefan-Boltzmann says they both radiate.
Feel free to post your proof that they don't.

*and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun *

Sorry that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is too complex for you. 
If you understood it, you wouldn't make AOC level comments when discussing it.


----------



## gfm7175 (Oct 7, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


There is no such thing as "net flow" of heat. Heat ONLY flows in ONE direction.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > gfm7175 said:
> ...



I'm talking about photons. Both objects radiate photons. 
At all times in all directions.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


again, I agree they both radiate. I've always said that.  your analogy is the issue, not the object radiating.

Only a fool would say they don't.  what isn't true is that the 10C will radiate at the 20C object when they are next to each other.  And I've asked you for the experiment that shows it.  fk dude, how hard can that be for you to post?

Heat flows to cold and that's it.  Radiate = heat, another thing you can't seem to grasp. 20C radiates at 10C and that's it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*what isn't true is that the 10C will radiate at the 20C object when they are next to each other.*

Great. All you need to do is post a source that agrees and explains why.

*Heat flows to cold and that's it*

That's right.

* Radiate = heat,*

Photons aren't heat.

*20C radiates at 10C and that's it.*

If there is a jc456 caveat to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, you should submit it for publication.
You'd get a Nobel for sure.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


_Great. All you need to do is post a source that agrees and explains why._

nope, all you need to do is supply an experiment that it does.  see how that works.

BTW, I know already you won't and can't.  because, wait for it, one doesn't exist.  prove me wrong.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 8, 2019)

You folks should try to agree on which definition of temperature you're using ... the apples vs. oranges argument doesn't seem to be getting you anywhere ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



If you need me to prove Stefan-Boltzmann, you're going to be disappointed.

Feel free to disprove it...…….or not, your ignorance doesn't impact me at all.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 8, 2019)

S-B describes an ideal radiator ... temperature is proportional to the fourth root of energy _at equilibrium_ ... I do see the point you're trying to make, place a thermometer between two 10ºC objects and it will read 10ºC ...  I have no problem with "net energy" but if that confuses people maybe best not use the term ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 8, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> S-B describes an ideal radiator ... temperature is proportional to the fourth root of energy _at equilibrium_ ... I do see the point you're trying to make, place a thermometer between two 10ºC objects and it will read 10ºC ...  I have no problem with "net energy" but if that confuses people maybe best not use the term ...



*I do see the point you're trying to make, place a thermometer between two 10ºC objects and it will read 10ºC ...  *

Well, this thread was mostly created for someone who believes a thermometer between two 10ºC objects won't read anything, because objects at equilibrium cease all radiating.

*I have no problem with "net energy" but if that confuses people maybe best not use the term ...*

Their confusion is due to their comprehensive misunderstanding of physics.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 8, 2019)

Well ... math is hard ... what do you expect? ...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


like I said, I knew you wouldn't because you can't.  just admit it, you can't and end this dialog.  why do you wish to wash rinse repeat your nonsense you know you can't prove?  you look small.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > S-B describes an ideal radiator ... temperature is proportional to the fourth root of energy _at equilibrium_ ... I do see the point you're trying to make, place a thermometer between two 10ºC objects and it will read 10ºC ...  I have no problem with "net energy" but if that confuses people maybe best not use the term ...
> ...


 actually, if you put a thermometer between the two objects you will get surrounding temps, and not the two objects temperatures.  I asked for you to prove it.  go for it.  post that experiment, put two objects at 10C and put a thermometer between them and give me the reading.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



I admit, your need for me to prove Stefan-Boltzmann is cute.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...



*actually, if you put a thermometer between the two objects you will get surrounding temps, and not the two objects temperatures.  *

Because the two objects stop radiating?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


you can write that all day, I'm still waiting on your experiment.  We're waiting!!!


----------



## jc456 (Oct 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


because the heat of the room flows to the two cooler objects and and that's all you'll read.  prove me wrong.  I give a shit if you think they're radiating at that point, the heat flow is room to objects.  and that's it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*because the heat of the room flows to the two cooler objects*

I'm only interested in the flow between the objects.

Does it stop?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


why do I care? the heat flow is room to objects period.  whatever you wish or think happens between the objects I don't care.  I know what is happening and friend, you'll never prove your point.  NEVER!!!! BTW, the two objects will warm to room temperature eventually.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 9, 2019)

jc456 said:


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


Toddsterpatriot you have me confused with someone who would care about your thoughts.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*why do I care? the heat flow is room to objects period.  *

Didn't you get the memo?
The room is at 9.99999ºC 

*BTW, the two objects will warm to room temperature eventually.*

When they do, are all photons inside the room stopped from ever being emitted?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


then the two objects would radiate outward to the cooler room.  I give a shit your example, I know heat flows to cold.  2nd law tells me that and every experiment shows it. but your afraid to show an experiment, because that experiment doesn't exist.  Like I said already, you have no guts to just say you have no experiment to show two objects at equilibrium would radiate at each other. you don't.  chick, chick, chicken!!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*then the two objects would radiate outward to the cooler room.*

And then, at equilibrium, no more photons are emitted in the room. Ever.

Right?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


  yep, equilibrium--a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 9, 2019)

jc456 said:


> actually, if you put a thermometer between the two objects you will get surrounding temps, and not the two objects temperatures.  I asked for you to prove it.  go for it.  post that experiment, put two objects at 10C and put a thermometer between them and give me the reading.



Get some 0ºC liquid water and add some 0ºC ice in a 0ºC environment ... the thermometer in the water will read 0ºC when the system achieves equilibrium ... not sure what you mean by "post that experiment", this is kitchen counter chemistry ... in this system, there are liquid water molecules giving up energy and freezing on the ice, and there are ice molecules absorbing energy becoming liquid, however the thermometer remains at 0ºC because the _net_ energy flow is 0 ... the melting and freezing occur at the same rate ...

The laws of thermodynamics work for all three types of energy transfer ... including radiation ... this is the principle of how infrared thermometers work ... point it at the coldest object in a system and we'll still get a fairly accurate reading ... this is because the coldest object radiates, just less than all the other objects ... thus we get a _net_ flow into the coldest object ...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 9, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > actually, if you put a thermometer between the two objects you will get surrounding temps, and not the two objects temperatures.  I asked for you to prove it.  go for it.  post that experiment, put two objects at 10C and put a thermometer between them and give me the reading.
> ...


that wasn't his scenario, it was two objects at 10C and a room at 9.99999C.  Well the two objects will radiate until they reach the 9.99999C temperature.  at that point, the temperature would have achieved a state of equilibrium.

What did you think would happen?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 9, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > actually, if you put a thermometer between the two objects you will get surrounding temps, and not the two objects temperatures.  I asked for you to prove it.  go for it.  post that experiment, put two objects at 10C and put a thermometer between them and give me the reading.
> ...


let me ask you a question, it seems you're trying to side with ol toddster here.  Why do we put insulation inside our walls?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*yep, equilibrium--a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced. *

Balanced. No photons?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


the definition didn't include them, no.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



That's funny.

You should post some good sources that agree with you. Must be millions.
Show everyone how wrong I am to claim that objects at equilibrium still radiate.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 9, 2019)

Who said anything about a third object at 9.99999ºC? ... and why are we using a thermometer with that level of accuracy? ... just a pan of water and ice with a Walmart thermometer ... or go to your local high school and ask the chemistry teacher ...

Insulation in building walls prevents convection ... the fiberglass itself isn't the insulating material, it's the air trapping inside the fiberglass ... that's why building inspectors are supposed to check that the fiberglass isn't stuffed into the cavities ... it needs to remain fluffy and trap as much air as possible ... surprisingly, we can frame our homes with 2x4's, we use 2x6's strictly to install more insulation ...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


_Show everyone how wrong I am to claim that objects at equilibrium still radiate_

Everyone, I say toddster can't produce one experiment that shows objects at equilibrium radiate at each other.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Exactly!
Todd won't prove that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is correct.
And you won't prove that it's been wrong all these years.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 9, 2019)

So ... I answered your question ... please answer mine ... how do infrared thermometers work? ...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


there you go, no experiment, just like I said.

t-tc =0 when t=tc.

maybe todd has a different version of SB law.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Every version says that objects above 0K radiate.

Where is the SSDD version that says they don't?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 9, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> Who said anything about a third object at 9.99999ºC? ... and why are we using a thermometer with that level of accuracy? ... just a pan of water and ice with a Walmart thermometer ... or go to your local high school and ask the chemistry teacher ...
> 
> Insulation in building walls prevents convection ... the fiberglass itself isn't the insulating material, it's the air trapping inside the fiberglass ... that's why building inspectors are supposed to check that the fiberglass isn't stuffed into the cavities ... it needs to remain fluffy and trap as much air as possible ... surprisingly, we can frame our homes with 2x4's, we use 2x6's strictly to install more insulation ...


well son, I answered an ask of me by Todd. Perhaps enhance your reading skills.

You wish for me to give you something you must ask.  not sure what larvae you came from, but dude.  you're fking off base by a mile to swing at me like that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> Who said anything about a third object at 9.99999ºC? ... and why are we using a thermometer with that level of accuracy? ... just a pan of water and ice with a Walmart thermometer ... or go to your local high school and ask the chemistry teacher ...
> 
> Insulation in building walls prevents convection ... the fiberglass itself isn't the insulating material, it's the air trapping inside the fiberglass ... that's why building inspectors are supposed to check that the fiberglass isn't stuffed into the cavities ... it needs to remain fluffy and trap as much air as possible ... surprisingly, we can frame our homes with 2x4's, we use 2x6's strictly to install more insulation ...



Photons are prohibited from traveling from cooler matter toward hotter matter.
Because the 2nd Law. So says SSDD and jc456 agrees.

Don't worry about it. It's an old argument.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


sure, again, i agree.  when the objects are at equilibrium t=tc, the output is zero.  At least in math classes that's how math worked.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 9, 2019)

Thank you for the _ad hominem_ attack ... you've conceded my argument is unassailable and are left with only my person to attack ...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 9, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> So ... I answered your question ... please answer mine ... how do infrared thermometers work? ...


do a search in this thread using my user name. it's in here.  I actually spoke to a manufacturer. 

Let me ask you something while you contemplate whether to find your answer from me out or not. I'm not repeating because you're new to the game.

Anyway, your saying that two objects in a room all the same temperature, room+ two objects, that an infrared camera would show the two objects?  just asking.  you don't have to answer.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 9, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> Thank you for the _ad hominem_ attack ... you've conceded my argument is unassailable and are left with only my person to attack ...


oh shaw,  a newby in here who thinks he can just pound his chest because he's new in here.  answer my question on the infrared camera son!  you afraid to answer?  

here from a previous discussion, but SSDD did a better job explaining then I did.  here.



SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I do that experiment every time I point my Home Depot IR thermometer at my windows looking for leaks.. Can read window sills at 40DegF or so even tho the IR thermometer is at room temperature dude... Straighten up and fly right.. There are HUNDREDS of opportunities to hit on "climate science".. THIS --- aint one of them..
> ...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > Who said anything about a third object at 9.99999ºC? ... and why are we using a thermometer with that level of accuracy? ... just a pan of water and ice with a Walmart thermometer ... or go to your local high school and ask the chemistry teacher ...
> ...


and yet again, ol toddster can't produce an experiment or observation of his claim.  And he won't as I told everyone in my previous post.  ol toddster just makes shit up!!

what is the answer if t=tc?  come on todd, tell me what that answer is?  did you study math?

let's see how you react to a challenge.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2019)

jc456 said:


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


*when the objects are at equilibrium t=tc, the output is zero.*

Right, only you have no source that says they don't radiate.
After 140 years.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...



*ol toddster can't produce an experiment or observation of his claim.*

Right, I won't prove Stefan-Boltzmann and I made it up.

*what is the answer if t=tc? *

Net power equals zero.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


what's the answer todd?  zero is zero.  so how does nothing radiate?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



* zero is zero.*

Yes, net is zero.

*so how does nothing radiate?*

Everything radiates. Stefan-Boltzmann.

Stefan-Boltzmann law | Definition & Facts


----------



## jc456 (Oct 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


nothing isn't anything, so it can't be everything.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 10, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Like I said...no mention of net in the bunch...of course, you have demonstrated a penchant to interpret anything to mean what you want, so no doubt, in your mind, they all explicitly say net...such is the level of dishonesty inherent in your thinking.



Hey, SSDD you ran off and didn't answer this question. Here it is again. These various statements of the second law do not use the words "*spontaneous*" nor "*net*" nor "*energy*". These statements are the *Clausius *form, *Carnot's* form and the *entropy* form. Do you disagree with any of the following statements of the second law?

Clausius Statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics
“_It is impossible to construct a device which operates on a cycle and whose sole effect is the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body”._​Carnot’s principle states:
_1. No engine can be more efficient than a reversible engine (a Carnot heat engine) operating between the same high temperature and low temperature reservoirs._

_2. The efficiencies of all reversible engines (Carnot heat engines) operating between the same constant temperature reservoirs are the same, regardless of the working substance employed or the operation details._​Thermodynamics - The second law of thermodynamics
_A cyclic transformation whose only final result is to transfer heat from a body at a given temperature to a body at a higher temperature is impossible._​Second Law of Thermodynamics
_It is impossible to extract an amount of heat QH from a hot reservoir and use it all to do work W. Some amount of heat QC must be exhausted to a cold reservoir. This precludes a perfect heat engine.
Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same._​5.1 Concept and Statements of the Second Law
_No process is possible whose sole result is the absorption of heat from a reservoir and the conversion of this heat into work. [Kelvin-Planck statement of the second law_

_No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body. [Clausius statement of the second law]_​Second Law of Thermodynamics
The final entropy must be greater than the initial entropy for an irreversible process.​
.
.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 11, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> So ... I answered your question ... please answer mine ... how do infrared thermometers work? ...



An infrared thermometer is a rudimentary version of Pictet's experiment.  Pictet focused a cool object upon a warm object and noted that the warm object cooled.  He thought he had demonstrated cold radiation.  In fact all he demonstrated was that that the warm object was losing heat to the cooler object.

An infrared thermometer works on a more advanced application of the same principle.  An IR thermometer has a lens in its front that focuses the objects you point it at on an internal thermopile.  Point it at an object warmer than the internal thermopile and the thermopile begins to warm.  Internal electronics measure how much and how fast the thermopile is warming, run that information through a mathematical equation which provides the information necessary to generate a pretty precise electrical signal which is then converted to a temperature.  

Point the thermometer at a cool object and the internal thermopile starts to cool.  Again, internal electronics measure how much and how fast the thermopile is cooling and that information is converted to an electrical signal which is then converted to a temperature.  The thermometer is not receiving cold radiation from the cooler object..it is only measuring how much and how fast energy is being lost by the warmer thermopile to the cooler object it is focused upon.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 11, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > actually, if you put a thermometer between the two objects you will get surrounding temps, and not the two objects temperatures.  I asked for you to prove it.  go for it.  post that experiment, put two objects at 10C and put a thermometer between them and give me the reading.
> ...



You have ice, water, and air all in theoretical thermal equilibrium...0C.  You don't have the exchange of energy between the three that you believe you do.  Interestingly, you picked the phase boundary of water for your mind experiment.  True, ice at 0C is at a lower energy state than water at 0C, but since you have put the entire system in theoretical equilibrium at 0C, nothing is going to happen according to the SB law stated in the form 





Set T and Tc to the same temperature and P=0.  Alter the temperature of any of the three and then energy will begin to move and since the water is at a phase boundary things will start to happen...of course, all those things will be in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics which states that energy only moves spontaneously from warm to cool

If this is an experiment you performed in a college level physics or chemistry lab, and your professor described what was happening as you described, he failed if he didn't mention to you that in your experiment you really didn't achieve perfect equilibrium...and if you did, then nothing at all would be happening.   It is very easy to look at a thing and believe you are seeing one thing, when in fact, you are seeing something entirely different...especially when you are looking at a substance at a phase boundary.

There are people here, on this very thread who are seemingly very intelligent, and claim to work with, and even design scientific instrumentation who believe that when they point their IR thermometer at an object that is cooler than the thermopile in the thermometer, that cold radiation from the cooler object is actually "beaming" into the thermometer and being read by the thermometer.  Even when given an explanation of how the thermometer works by a manufacturer, he still believes what he believes.  

He has faith rather than knowledge and faith is a very difficult thing to break.  If he were working from knowledge, finding out that he was mistaken about how his thermometer works would just result in adjusting his perception of how it works based on new knowledge.  "Oh...so that's how it works!  Light bulb goes on and now he has an entirely new understanding of how his instrument works...It isn't cold radiation coming in..it is energy leaving the instrument and the amount of and rate of energy leaving tells him how much cooler the object is than the internal thermopile in his thermometer.  

He isn't operating from that position though...he is operating from a position of faith, than energy can flow spontaneously between a cool object and a warm object.  He isn't willing to give up that faith so he will live out his life, being fooled by instrumentation...believing that the instrument is measuring one thing, when in fact, it is measuring something else.  The number on the display of his thermometer is the same, either way, but he is not measuring what he believes he is measuring....and that misunderstanding leaks over into other aspects of energy transfer which also don't alter the number displayed on the instrument being used, but leave him believing that the instruments are measuring something other than what they are actually measuring.

And it isn't just him...it can happen to an entire field of science.  The field of meteorology says that a pyrogeometer is the only device that is acceptable to measure downwelling radiation.  The fact is that a pyrogeometer is no more capable of measuring downwelling radiation than a mercury thermometer.  Pyrogeometers also only measure the temperature change of an internal thermopile and then run that through a mathematical equation that makes an assumption.  The assumption is that the instrument is measuring downwelling radiation.  It isn't of course...it is only measuring the amount of, and rate of change  of the temperature of an internal thermopile...but a whole field of science is being fooled by that particular piece of instrumentation..They have faith that it is measuring downwelling radiation when it is measuring no such thing.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said...no mention of net in the bunch...of course, you have demonstrated a penchant to interpret anything to mean what you want, so no doubt, in your mind, they all explicitly say net...such is the level of dishonesty inherent in your thinking.
> ...




Not playing...been through it all before...if you must relive your failure to make your case, then do it by going back to any of the multitude of times we have already had this discussion...


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 11, 2019)

First off ... THANK YOU *SSDD ... *I sincerely appreciate the time you've taken this morning to type all that in ... I found it very informative, though I don't necessarily agree with everything, I did want to start my answers by acknowledging that some of this information is new to me ... if your intent here is to enlighten, then you're perhaps a better person than me ... let me apologize in advance if I should ever call you a wooly-headed sheep-herder (that sometime slips out of me) ...

*Point the thermometer at a cool object and the internal thermopile starts to cool.*

Why? ... what physics is going on here ... the argument here is that energy can _only _be transferred from hot-to-cold ... this means the thermopile is transferring energy from itself to the cool object ... unfortunately, this requires the passage of time and depending on the materials involved it may require a lot of time ... and if we're clever with our thermal masses we could actually increase the temperature of the cool object, although unlikely it is a remote possibility ...

It's simpler to just measure the radiation from the cool object by focusing it onto the thermopile and let the thermopile shed it's extra energy by whatever means possible ... but for this we'd have to concede that black-body radiation is real, and that all objects radiate at all times ...

*but since you have put the entire system in theoretical equilibrium at 0C, nothing is going to happen according to the SB law stated in the form
*
Yeah, that was an especially poor choice of experiments, but it is easy to set up in a typical kitchen environment ... I disagree that "nothing is going to happen", unless there's some physical property that makes it impossible for water to freeze or melt in the vessel at 0ºC ... my understanding is these are on-going processes at rates that are equal, thus we call this equilibrium ... there's no net change in energy at the mole-for-mole level, however individual molecules are exchanging energy as they freeze and melt ... just simple collision physics ...

If you can forgive me for not learning how to parse fancy-pants scientificy symbols here, then I'll be using e = emissivity, o = SB constant and parentheses for subscript ... SB states that the radiative power of an object is proportional to the fourth power of it's temperature, and (ideally) nothing else ... so we have for our first object P(1) = eoAT(1)^4 and for our second object P(2) = eoAT(2)^4 ... our _net_ power is then P(1) - P(2) ... substituting we have eoAT(1)^4 - eoAT(2)^4 and factoring gives eoA(T(1)^4 - T(2)^4) ... meaning this form of SB you give is for _net_ power, and by extension _net_ energy ... it seems these terms are what's offensive I'm not really clear on why ...

*There are people here ...
*
Not sure if you're referring to me ... I admit it's been 40 years since I study all this and that in terms of photometry ... the subject comes up in climate change studies and it seems to be an easy transition ... perhaps I've forgotten the details but the general principles are the same ... I guess I hold these as true on faith, people smarter than me say they are ...

-----

Let's scamper out of mama's kitchen ... she's still mad about the siphoning experiment that went horribly wrong ... let's build a fire out in the backyard, 1500ºC ... now let's put a 20ºC iron bar in the fire ... before the iron bar reaches 1500ºC, it's going to start glowing red ... thus demonstrating that a cooler object does radiate energy, and in amounts proportional to the fourth power of it's own temperature ... I hear sirens, better put the fire out ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 11, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> First off ... THANK YOU *SSDD ... *I sincerely appreciate the time you've taken this morning to type all that in ... I found it very informative, though I don't necessarily agree with everything, I did want to start my answers by acknowledging that some of this information is new to me ... if your intent here is to enlighten, then you're perhaps a better person than me ... let me apologize in advance if I should ever call you a wooly-headed sheep-herder (that sometime slips out of me) ...
> 
> *Point the thermometer at a cool object and the internal thermopile starts to cool.*
> 
> ...



* meaning this form of SB you give is for net power, and by extension net energy ... it seems these terms are what's offensive I'm not really clear on why ...*


SSDD believes the cooler atmosphere cannot radiate towards the cooler surface, because that would violate the 2nd Law. This would make back radiation (and global warming) impossible.

His "theory" requires epicycle upon epicycle.

For example, the cooler surface of the sun cannot radiate toward the hotter corona.
If I point a flashlight at the sun, for some reason, it is impossible for these flashlight photons to 
hit the sun's surface. Originally he claimed cooler matter simply "will not radiate" toward hotter matter.

Even billions of light years away, an emitter will predict the target and its temperature and not send a photon in the direction of warmer matter. 

Very complicated. Occasionally he would post a source to back up his silly claims. Inevitably, the source would end up contradicting his claims. He now just claims he already won, despite no sources agreeing with "objects at equilibrium stop all emissions" or with "photons from cooler matter don't travel toward or hit hotter matter.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 11, 2019)

Has anyone directed him to the emission spectrum of carbon dioxide? ...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 11, 2019)




----------



## Wuwei (Oct 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



We have never had a discussion on the various laws I quoted. I know why you are not playing. It is because you think the laws that I cited are wrong. You painted yourself in a corner. 

The only thing you cling to is 
Energy will not flow *spontaneously* from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. But you have said anything that has received prior energy does not radiate spontaneously. The only conclusion is radiation can flow anywhere. You have failed to make your case. 

.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 11, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> If you can forgive me for not learning how to parse fancy-pants scientificy symbols here, then I'll be using e = emissivity, o = SB constant and parentheses for subscript ... SB states that the radiative power of an object is proportional to the fourth power of it's temperature, and (ideally) nothing else ... so we have for our first object P(1) = eoAT(1)^4 and for our second object P(2) = eoAT(2)^4 ... our _net_ power is then P(1) - P(2) ... substituting we have eoAT(1)^4 - eoAT(2)^4 and factoring gives eoA(T(1)^4 - T(2)^4) ... meaning this form of SB you give is for _net_ power, and by extension _net_ energy ... it seems these terms are what's offensive I'm not really clear on why ...


You are right. This is a more detailed explanation from Dartmouth Univ. However SSDD does not believe it and makes up his own interpretation. He has no reference that agrees with him.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 12, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> First off ... THANK YOU *SSDD ... *I sincerely appreciate the time you've taken this morning to type all that in ... I found it very informative, though I don't necessarily agree with everything, I did want to start my answers by acknowledging that some of this information is new to me ... if your intent here is to enlighten, then you're perhaps a better person than me ... let me apologize in advance if I should ever call you a wooly-headed sheep-herder (that sometime slips out of me) ...



No sweat...I have the same reaction to people who believe things simply because they are called science but lack empirical evidence to support the belief...It is science after all and belief really doesn't have a place beyond the original thought...then experimentation, observation, careful measurement, thoughtful consideration of the results, then repeated retesting take the element of belief out and replace it with demonstrable empirical evidence.  

Once that has happened, one doesn't need to propose thought experiments and mathematical models and flights such of fancy in which all manner of things can be claimed to be happening without the burden of actually proving that those things are happening.  

People who believe are acting from a quasi religious position whereas people who have actually seen the evidence are not. 



ReinyDays said:


> Why? ... what physics is going on here ...



The physics described by the second law of thermodynamics which says that energy will not flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object.  



ReinyDays said:


> the argument here is that energy can _only _be transferred from hot-to-cold ... this means the thermopile is transferring energy from itself to the cool object ... unfortunately, this requires the passage of time and depending on the materials involved it may require a lot of time ...



Fortunately, the engineers who designed the thermometers chose sensors and instruments that do not take a lot of time.  Otherwise you might need to set your IR thermometer on a tripod to wait.  A bit of time does pass between the instant you activate your thermometer and the time the display appears. Not much, but the process isn't instantaneous.



ReinyDays said:


> and if we're clever with our thermal masses we could actually increase the temperature of the cool object, although unlikely it is a remote possibility ...



Pictet demonstrated that this could happen given time...after all, the warmer object is losing energy to the cooler object.  In the case of a tiny thermopile over distance, however, that isn't a real consideration.  The IR thermometers that you purchase from home depot have a relatively large margin of error.  If you want a smaller margin of error, you must spend considerably more money...7uy\\\87



ReinyDays said:


> It's simpler to just measure the radiation from the cool object by focusing it onto the thermopile and let the thermopile shed it's extra energy by whatever means possible ... but for this we'd have to concede that black-body radiation is real, and that all objects radiate at all times ...



It would be...except there is no radiation from the cooler object.  That whole energy only moving in one direction thing is a big obstacle.



ReinyDays said:


> If you can forgive me for not learning how to parse fancy-pants scientificy symbols here, then I'll be using e = emissivity, o = SB constant and parentheses for subscript ... SB states that the radiative power of an object is proportional to the fourth power of it's temperature, and (ideally) nothing else ... so we have for our first object P(1) = eoAT(1)^4 and for our second object P(2) = eoAT(2)^4 ... our _net_ power is then P(1) - P(2) ... substituting we have eoAT(1)^4 - eoAT(2)^4 and factoring gives eoA(T(1)^4 - T(2)^4) ... meaning this form of SB you give is for _net_ power, and by extension _net_ energy ... it seems these terms are what's offensive I'm not really clear on why ...








This equation can not give you net anything.  In order to derive net from an equation, you must have an expression within the equation to derive net.  This is a simple subtract and multiply equation...there is nothing there from which to derive net.

Simply stated, the equation says that the power emitted by the radiator...that is THE radiator.....only one radiator....is equal to the emissivity of the radiator, times the SB constant, times the area of the radiator times the difference in temperature of the radiator and its cooler surroundings to the 4th power)  There is no description of two radiators within that equation.

One of the guys on this board likes to show an equation....actually, an unfinished equation which he believes shows the means by which one derives net from the SB equation, but his so called equation is nothing more than the process of reducing the equation to its simplest terms...the bottom line...the finished, elegant equation is stated as above....The unfinished equation which he represents as the means by which net may be derived completely ignores the fundamental assumption of the SB law which is that the radiator is warmer than its surroundings.  



ReinyDays said:


> Not sure if you're referring to me ... I admit it's been 40 years since I study all this and that in terms of photometry ... the subject comes up in climate change studies and it seems to be an easy transition ... perhaps I've forgotten the details but the general principles are the same ... I guess I hold these as true on faith, people smarter than me say they are ...



No...unless you actually believe that cold radiation is being beamed into your IR thermometer...It isn't...and one of the guys went so far as to inquire from the manufacturer how the device works...the manufacturer was clear on the fact that the thermopile is losing energy to the cooler object...

The fact is that belief that energy is free flowing between objects of different temperatures is an article of faith...there are certainly no actual measurements of such a thing happening.  The idea of net energy exchange is an artifact of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.  

No such observations or measurements have ever been made...it is a belief...not a statement based on empirical fact.  




ReinyDays said:


> Let's scamper out of mama's kitchen ... she's still mad about the siphoning experiment that went horribly wrong ... let's build a fire out in the backyard, 1500ºC ... now let's put a 20ºC iron bar in the fire ... before the iron bar reaches 1500ºC, it's going to start glowing red ... thus demonstrating that a cooler object does radiate energy, and in amounts proportional to the fourth power of it's own temperature ... I hear sirens, better put the fire out ...



Thought experiments are fun..but they do allow you to fool yourself if you aren't careful and if the only reason you proposed the experiment was an attempt to prove a point.  You throw your iron bar in the fire and it starts warming up...but it is laying in the coals...no radiation going on there...The laws of physics say that there can be no radiation between objects that are in intimate contact.  That sort of energy movement is conduction.  The only radiation that is happening insofar as the iron bar goes is radiation moving from the warmer bar to the cooler air.  

I am an empirical sort of guy...show me data from actual observations, and measurements...and demonstrate that you haven't simply been fooled by the instrumentation and then I can modify my position.  

Now it is true, that I may be wrong, but being wrong based on the best empirical evidence available, in my view is better than being wrong because I took an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model on faith.  If future instrumentation is sensitive enough to actually measure and record spontaneous energy movement between objects of different temperatures, then I will modify my position to include the best empirical evidence available.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 12, 2019)

jc456 said:


> well you go verify that the flashlight light Todd shines at it hits it.



We don't have to use flashlights. We can use observations of binary star pairs.

When a cooler binary star is eclipsed by a warmer star, relative to earth, we do not see the eclipsed star shining through the star in front of it.

That means one of these options has to be true.

A. The photons from the cooler star are absorbed by the warmer star.
B. The cooler star, possessing great intelligence, refuses to radiate in the direction of the hotter star.
C. The cooler star does radiate towards the warmer star, but the photons then vanish into a magical mystery dimension, being that they're exempt from conservation of energy.

"A" is the option chosen by sane people.

Which option do you choose? If you have a different option, please explain it to everyone, in detail.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 12, 2019)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > well you go verify that the flashlight light Todd shines at it hits it.
> ...


Dudette, the only light you see from a star is an explosion and the light off the planets is from the sun! You don’t know much about space.

BTW, if the star doesn’t exist, how does it absorb? Hmmm


----------



## mamooth (Oct 12, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Dudette, the only light you see from a star is an explosion and the light off the planets is from the sun! You don’t know much about space.
> 
> BTW, if the star doesn’t exist, how does it absorb? Hmmm



I'm sorry. I had assumed you weren't a complete drooling retard. My bad.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 12, 2019)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Dudette, the only light you see from a star is an explosion and the light off the planets is from the sun! You don’t know much about space.
> ...


And you know absolutely zero about space.

What do you need me to post to educate you?

Star Formation


----------



## mamooth (Oct 12, 2019)

jc456 said:


> What do you need me to post to educate you?



I asked you how photons and stars behave. In response, you went off on a lunatic rant about planets and exploding stars that don't actually exist. That had absolutely nothing to do with the question, and it sounded completely insane.

If you're too gutless to answer a simple question, just say so. Don't deflect. That makes you look even more craven and dishonest.

Now, let's try this again. Which option do you choose?

A. The photons from the cooler star are absorbed by the warmer star.
B. The cooler star, possessing great intelligence, refuses to radiate in the direction of the hotter star.
C. The cooler star does radiate towards the warmer star, but the photons then vanish into a magical mystery dimension, being that they're exempt from conservation of energy.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 12, 2019)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > What do you need me to post to educate you?
> ...


Did you read the link I posted? Cooler star? LOL our atmosphere is cold


----------



## mamooth (Oct 12, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Did you read the link I posted? Cooler star? LOL our atmosphere is cold



You seem to be denying that one star can be cooler than another. You're denying that a red dwarf star is cooler than a blue-violet supergiant. That would indicate you're an imbecile. Being that you've demonstrated you're an imbecile, why should anyone not laugh at you?

The point sailing way over your head is that you claim a cooler object can't radiate towards a warmer object. So, by your moron science, a cooler star can't radiate towards a warmer star.

Is that indeed the case? Do you say that a cooler star can't radiate towards a warmer star? Is your moron science consistent that way?


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> No sweat...



I'm sure the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has been explained to you multiple times ... 

What I'd like you to focus on is Planck's Blackbody Radiation Theory ... you seem to think this is bogus and safety dismissed ... yet then you rely on an equation that's based on blackbody radiation ... if you don't accept Planck's theory, then you can't use SB ... 

You don't see with your own eyes that the iron is glowing? ... can't help you with that ... not a thought experiment, I encourage you to do this yourself ... safely ...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 12, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No sweat...
> ...



Yes...it has been "explained" in terms of statistics any number of times....and yet, it still says what it has always said....it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...When they rewrite the second law in terms of statistics, then I guess I will have to alter my position...till it is rewritten as such, however, it still says what it has always said.



ReinyDays said:


> What I'd like you to focus on is Planck's Blackbody Radiation Theory ... you seem to think this is bogus and safety dismissed ... yet then you rely on an equation that's based on blackbody radiation ... if you don't accept Planck's theory, then you can't use SB ...



Planck's law also deals with a radiator radiating into a cooler background...no two way energy flow there either...



ReinyDays said:


> You don't see with your own eyes that the iron is glowing? ...



Of course I do...I also happen to be out here in the cooler surroundings and it is glowing in my direction...it is not, however radiating back into the hotter coals which it is in intimate contact with.



ReinyDays said:


> can't help you with that ... not a thought experiment, I encourage you to do this yourself ... safely ...



No need...have seen it and can explain it without having to violate the second law of thermodynamics..energy moving spontaneously from the cooler iron to the warmer coals is a violation of that law.  I will keep watching for it to be rewritten in terms of net though...when it is, I will have to alter my position...if, there is ample empirical evidence to support the change...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object*

Love your unique definition of spontaneous.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Yes...it has been "explained" in terms of statistics any number of times....and yet, it still says what it has always said....it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...When they rewrite the second law in terms of statistics, then I guess I will have to alter my position...till it is rewritten as such, however, it still says what it has always said.


The second law has been understood in terms of statistical mechanics in 1877. 
The outcome is a proof of the law of entropy from very simple principles. 
The Clausius and Carnot form of the second law can never be proven. 


SSDD said:


> Planck's law also deals with a radiator radiating into a cooler background...no two way energy flow there either...


Planks law never considers any background at any temperature. 
It applies no matter what the temperature is.

.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 12, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


The second law is wrong?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 12, 2019)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Did you read the link I posted? Cooler star? LOL our atmosphere is cold
> ...


Not sure what you’re arguing, the sun is a star. The hottest one! Space is ice cold why wouldn’t any star radiate? Each is its own gaseous item?  The earth is ice cold compared to any star. Unless you got any material that shows observed radiation


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 12, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Who said that? Link?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 12, 2019)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Not sure what you’re arguing, the sun is a star. The hottest one*

The Sun isn't close to being the hottest star.

*Space is ice cold why wouldn’t any star radiate?*

According to SSDD's misinterpretation, a 6000K star won't radiate toward an 8000K star.
Right?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 12, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


You questioned SSDD’s  post so you implied he was wrong. If so, then you’re questioning the accuracy of the second law statement


----------



## jc456 (Oct 12, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


According to the second law yep. Again, all you have to do is show an observation of it occurring. 

And there you go implying the second law wrong


----------



## jc456 (Oct 12, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Which star is hotter?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 12, 2019)

jc456 said:


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


*You questioned SSDD’s post so you implied he was wrong.*

Yes, his definition of spontaneous is wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 12, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*According to the second law yep. Again, all you have to do is show an observation of it occurring. *

The 2nd Law says a 6000K star doesn't radiate toward an 8000K star?

That's why we like mocking you, you say the dumbest things.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 12, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Lots of stars are hotter than the Sun.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 12, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


How?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 12, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Then naming one shouldn’t be hard


----------



## jc456 (Oct 12, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Then all you have to do is show an observation of 6000k radiating at an 8000k star violating the second law


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 12, 2019)

jc456 said:


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




LMGTFY


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 12, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



A cooler star radiating at a hotter star doesn't violate the second law.

It's hilarious that you think it does.

Is it the smart photons?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 12, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Yes...it has been "explained" in terms of statistics any number of times....and yet, it still says what it has always said....it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...When they rewrite the second law in terms of statistics, then I guess I will have to alter my position...till it is rewritten as such, however, it still says what it has always said.
> ...



Talking to you is a useless exercise...you completely fail to understand even the basics...

Planck's law deals with theoretical black bodies...which are always assumed to be within perfect vacuums...If your understanding doesn't come from that basic fact, then everything after is nothing more than your nut job interpretation...and is meaningless...


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Talking to you is a useless exercise...you completely fail to understand even the basics...
> 
> Planck's law deals with theoretical black bodies...which are always assumed to be within perfect vacuums...If your understanding doesn't come from that basic fact, then everything after is nothing more than your nut job interpretation...and is meaningless...


Planck's law applies to any surround. Who says it doesn't?


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I am an empirical sort of guy...show me data from actual observations, and measurements...and demonstrate that you haven't simply been fooled by the instrumentation and then I can modify my position.


How would you demonstrate unequivocally that Clausius' version of the second law is correct?


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 12, 2019)

*I also happen to be out here in the cooler surroundings and it is glowing in my direction
*
This may be the heart of our disagreement ... radiation is emitted radially ... in all directions ... that what we mean by a radiator, something that emits energy radially ... 

So without that ... then ... you say it's impossible for the cold Earth to transfer energy to the warm atmospheric gases through IR radiation, thus the greenhouse effect is non-existent ... you'll need to be more clever on how you algebraically manipulate SB than what you've posted ... I showed you how easy it is to demonstrate the equation you give is for net power ... try setting T(c) to 3 K ... see if that makes a difference ... 

I guess I'm just a pansy for the past century's finest minds ...


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 12, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> I guess I'm just a pansy for the past century's finest minds ...


Me too when it comes to thermodynamics.

SSDD believes that two objects at the same temperature do not radiate anything toward each other.
He thinks that if the subtracted T^4 terms are the same temperature, then there is no radiation by either object. That violates quantum mechanics.

This is what Max Planck said in 1914.http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
Page 31: The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.

Page 50: "...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random *exchange by radiation *equal amounts of heat with each other..."

Einstein and many others say the same.

.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 12, 2019)

My computer screen is colder than my eyeball ... it doesn't emit your post ... sorry, just a black screen here ...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 13, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> This may be the heart of our disagreement ... radiation is emitted radially ... in all directions ... that what we mean by a radiator, something that emits energy radially ...



That may be what you mean by a radiator...but that is not what we mean by radiator, nor is that how the word is defined...the science dictionary defines a radiator as a body that emits radiation...the radial emission part is an assumption.

Unfortunately assumption has become an accepted means of logic in physics...it is rampant and becoming more rampant all the time.

CAUTION:  HERETICAL SPEECH AHEAD.  THE NATURE OF THIS SPEECH WILL CHALLENGE THINKING MINDS BUT WILL ONLY OFFEND THOSE HOLDING QUASI RELIGIOUS FAITH IN THE OMNIPOTENCE OF SCIENCE..IF YOU FALL INTO THE SECOND CATEGORY, TURN BACK NOW FOR YOU WILL SURELY BE OFFENDED....AND POSSIBLY OUTRAGED.

Now that my due diligence has been done.

Assumption.  It has become part and parcel of physics and has led to a necessity of circular reasoning in which assumptions are accepted and lauded as true facts.

For example:

Suppose we make the assumption that a proton is made of three quarks.  We can then theoretically derive a formula for the observed mass of a proton...therefore, a proton is made up of three quarks.  It must be a true fact.

Suppose we make the assumption that light is made up of particles...lets call them photons.  We can then theoretically derive a formula for  photoelectricity which just happens to agree with certain observations that we have made...therefore light is made of photons.  It must be a true fact.

Suppose we make the assumption that space time is curved.  We can then theoretically explain observations of gravitation.  Therefore space time is curved....It must be a true fact.

Suppose we make the assumption that there was a big bang.  We can then theorize about the observed expansion of the universe.  Therefore there was a big bang.  It must be a true fact.

Suppose we make the assumption that there is a big old black hole at the center of a galaxy.  Now we can theorize about the observation of the shape of a galaxy.  Therefore there is a big old black hole at the center of a galaxy. It must be true fact.

Suppose we assume that the space time observations of different observers are connected by the Lorentz transformation of special relativity.  Now we can theorize about the observation that the speed of light is the same for all observers.  Therefore, all space time observations of different observers are connected by the Lorentz transformation.

Suppose we assume that the earth is sitting on the back of 4 invisible turtles.  Now we can theorize about why the earth does not fall down even though everything else that is not supported falls down.  Therefore, the earth sits on the backs of 4 big invisible turtles.  It must be true fact.

A thinking person sees the possibility of flawed logic in those assumptions immediately.  A thinking person sees that sort of thinking as pseudoscience...not actual science.

There is the fact that a particular phenomenon was observed...and the observation can be theoretically  explained if certain assumptions are made. The fact that an observation was made is then used to support the claim that the assumption is not mere assumption, but true fact.    Protons ARE made up of 3 quarks....light IS made up of photons.....space time IS curved...there WAS a big bang.....the Lorentz transformation MUST connect different observations....the earth IS sitting on the backs of 4 invisible turtles.  CO2 IS a critical greenhouse gas....

In all of the examples above, it is not possible to directly check to see if the assumption is valid which is the pseudoscientific beauty of post modern physics...The assumption is exempt from direct experimentation and validation...it can only be tested indirectly.  The assumption is correct because the theorized explanation of the observation supports the theorized cause for the observation...The assumption must be true because it is the only way the theoretical explanation seems to be possible...The inability to come up with a plausible alternative explanation is then presented as evidence ..and the more we restrict our creativity and perspective, the more sure we get that we are right...circular thinking at its best.

There are no direct observations and measurements of energy exchange between objects at equilibrium, nor are there observations and measurements of energy moving back and forth spontaneously between objects at different temperatures..



ReinyDays said:


> So without that ... then ... you say it's impossible for the cold Earth to transfer energy to the warm atmospheric gases through IR radiation...



Actually, I have never said that...I have said that the cold atmospheric gasses can not warm the warmer earth earth....except, of course in rare instances of temperature inversion where the atmosphere is warmer than the surface...



ReinyDays said:


> thus the greenhouse effect is non-existent ... you'll need to be more clever on how you algebraically manipulate SB than what you've posted ...



I have not manipulated anything...I only stated in plain english the energy exchange that the equation describes....You assume net, so you see net in an equation from which net can not be derived...therefore net must be a true fact...

And there can be no radiative greenhouse effect in a troposphere which is so completely dominated by convection and conduction..rare indeed, is the greenhouse gas molecule that actually gets to emit radiation...

In the troposphere, the mean time between molecular collisions through which an excited greenhouse molecule can trans for its energy to another gas molecule ) most often N2 is about a nanosecond.  The mean decay time for an excited molecule in the atmosphere to emit that energy is about a second.  

So when a greenhouse gas molecule absorbs some IR radiation, about 99.9999999% of the time, it will lose that energy via collision also known as conduction...

Therefore conduction and convection are the primary modes of energy movement through the troposphere..radiation is such a small player in the troposphere that it is hardly worth mentioning...and yet, we theorized about observations of energy in the atmosphere, and came up with one that seemingly explains the observations and therefore, by fiat, it must be true...even though observation with more and more sensitive instrumentation over the years have shown the original theorization to have been incorrect.

There is certainly a "greenhouse" effect if you like that term that keeps us warm at night, and from burning up in the day, but it is not radiative in nature.



ReinyDays said:


> I showed you how easy it is to demonstrate the equation you give is for net power ... try setting T(c) to 3 K ... see if that makes a difference ...



Actually, you theorized...you didn't show me anything..and you completely ignored the fact that you have your iron bar laying in the hot coals...and the underside of the bar, which is in contact with the coals is not radiating anything...AGAIN...the laws of physics state that there can be no radiation between objects that are in intimate contact...the underside of the bar is in intimate contact with the bed of coals...the iron bar is conducting energy through the side that is in intimate contact with the coals and radiating energy out into the cooler atmosphere precisely as both the second law and the SB law predict..



ReinyDays said:


> I guess I'm just a pansy for the past century's finest minds ...



I appreciate fine minds...but am acutely aware of the fact that even the finest minds can be wrong...and have been wrong throughout the evolution of science...there is no reason whatsoever to suspect that the minds of the present are the finest and that future fine minds won't find our notions on physics as quaint as we find the thinking of the finest minds of the past.  It is arrogant in the extreme to believe that we have learned it all and are mistaken about nothing.....especially when physical evidence is lacking to support most of the true facts we accept today...as has always been the case, improvements in instrumentation, and the ability to look more deeply that those improvements provide will inevitably show us that the finest minds of today were certainly creative, but alas, wrong in far more cases than they will have been right.  

We are constrained by what we can imagine...and nature has shown us over and over that our imaginations are very dim bulbs indeed when contrasted with the realities of nature....


----------



## SSDD (Oct 13, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I am an empirical sort of guy...show me data from actual observations, and measurements...and demonstrate that you haven't simply been fooled by the instrumentation and then I can modify my position.
> ...



All versions of the second law express the same thing...the concept is just spoken differently...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 13, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> My computer screen is colder than my eyeball ... it doesn't emit your post ... sorry, just a black screen here ...



Are you under the impression that no work is being done to make your screen emit that light?  Do you believe that your screen, whatever type it is a spontaneous process?

That's the problem with though experiments...they almost always contain some fatal flaw....which is why in this sort of discussion, thought experiments are the norm....since there are no actual observations and measurements of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...and what few instances of  actual measurements there are, they are inevitably examples of being fooled by instrumentation..

By the way...if it is all cooler than your eyeball...why do you suppose there are so many heat sinks inside?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 13, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Talking to you is a useless exercise...you completely fail to understand even the basics...
> ...



Planck's law itself...Ever look at the equation?  Actually look at it.  Note the "C"  it denotes the speed of light in a vacuum.  

All theoretical perfect black bodies are surrounded by theoretically perfect vacuums...the formulae change when matter is present..this is basic stuff and you don't get it...as a result, everything that comes after your failure to grasp the basics is flawed...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 13, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I'm just a pansy for the past century's finest minds ...
> ...



Great...lets see the measurements....


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Are you under the impression that no work is being done to make your screen emit that light?



Here's the fatal flaw in your reasoning ... even if we allow your unique brand of physics, the greenhouse effect is still valid ... yes, my screen is drawing 10 to 20 W ... the work done is to increase the temperature of a specific point on my screen such that it will emit energy to my eye ... but leaving other points too cool to emit ... the same is true on the Earth's surface, there's a point hotter than the carbon dioxide and a photon zooms over ... then there's also a point on the Earth's surface that is cooler than carbon dioxide and again a photon zooms over back to the Earth ... ergo, the greenhouse effect ... in both steps, energy moves from hot to cold ...

I don't know if you're aware of this, but that's not SB's blackbody equation you posted above ... I see it superficially appears to be, but it most certainly is not ... now generally I'm willing to step past an obvious error ... except now you're claiming the c in Planck's Law is the speed of light in a vacuum ... nothing could be further from the truth, even with your unique brand of physics ... it's like you've learned a few trivia facts and are trying to string these together in some manner of scientific theory, without understanding all the matters between ... just like the climate change Alarmists ... and just like Alarmists, you stubbornly hold onto your half truths without understanding what these half truths mean ...

Take some time and try to learn "lamestream physics" before you criticize it ... and take a class in chemistry, not only will this give you a better understanding of the practical aspects of thermodynamics, but it's about the only place you'll get information on the physics of solutions ... I'll leave it to your imagination why that's important to SB ...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 13, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> Here's the fatal flaw in your reasoning ... even if we allow your unique brand of physics, the greenhouse effect is still valid ...



The greenhouse effect as described by climate science valid if, and only if radiation is the primary mode of energy transport through the troposphere...it isn't.  Energy movement through the troposphere is completely dominated by convection and conduction.



ReinyDays said:


> but leaving other points too cool to emit ... the same is true on the Earth's surface, there's a point hotter than the carbon dioxide and a photon zooms over ... then there's also a point on the Earth's surface that is cooler than carbon dioxide and again a photon zooms over back to the Earth ... ergo, the greenhouse effect ... in both steps, energy moves from hot to cold ...



As I already allowed...rare instances of temperature inversion where the atmosphere is warmer than the surface...not nearly enough radiation to drive anything like the radiative greenhouse effect described by climate science.



ReinyDays said:


> I don't know if you're aware of this, but that's not SB's blackbody equation you posted above ... I see it superficially appears to be, but it most certainly is not ... now generally I'm willing to step past an obvious error ... except now you're claiming the c in Planck's Law is the speed of light in a vacuum ... nothing could be further from the truth, even with your unique brand of physics ... it's like you've learned a few trivia facts and are trying to string these together in some manner of scientific theory, without understanding all the matters between ... just like the climate change Alarmists ... and just like Alarmists, you stubbornly hold onto your half truths without understanding what these half truths mean ...



Yes...I am aware...and no, I am not mistaken.

This....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




is the mathematical expression of the SB law.  But this describes a theoretical perfect black body radiating into a vacuum.

This... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




is the mathematical expression of the SB law for a radiating body other than a perfect black body but still radiating into a vacuum.... 


This....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 is the mathematical expression of the SB law for a less than ideal radiator radiating into its cooler surroundings at temperature TC

None of those forms is an equation from which you can derive net....net is an artifact derived from an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.  Nothing more nothing less.  Lets assume that energy moves freely between objects off different temperatures but the end result is precisely the same as if energy only moved from warm to cool.  Now lets theorize explanation for how energy might freely move between warmer and cooler objects but give a result that is the same if energy only moved spontaneously in one direction as the second law predicts..  The theory matches the observation so it must be true fact...and never mind that the result is indistinguishable from what the second law predicts when it says that energy can't move spontaneously from cool too warm...or from a less organized state to a more organized state.




ReinyDays said:


> Take some time and try to learn "lamestream physics" before you criticize it ...



You mean take some time and develop fanatical and undying faith in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...No thanks...I much more enjoy pointing out the warts on the emperor's hairy ass than I ever would oohing and aaahhhing over his beautiful new clothes.



ReinyDays said:


> and take a class in chemistry, not only will this give you a better understanding of the practical aspects of thermodynamics, but it's about the only place you'll get information on the physics of solutions ... I'll leave it to your imagination why that's important to SB ...



This may come as a surprise to you...but I am educated.  Do you think it is just coincidence that I form my argument in a way that you are reduced to thought experiments and insults rather than slapping me down with observed, measured evidence to support your beliefs...and make no mistake...they are beliefs...my position is one of belief as well...but it is supported by every observation and measurement ever made in so far as we are able to see into the mystery before the wall of the unknown blocks our view....  Like I said..at some point, we will be able to see a bit beyond the present location of said wall,  and in all likelihood, neither of our beliefs will walk away unscathed...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 13, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Are you under the impression that no work is being done to make your screen emit that light?
> ...



You have to understand SSDD's unique "dimmer switch" theory of emissions.

Two identical objects, one at 400K one at 500K.
People who understand SB will see that the cooler radiates X units of power, the hotter 2.44X units of power.
In SSDD's world, the hotter object "knows" the temperature of the cooler non-emitter, magically, and 
reduces it's radiating to 1.44X units of power.

This "smart emitter" magic can occur over billions of light years, not just between nearby objects.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 13, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Actually, the dimmer switch is simply the best theory you can come up with for why anything might obey the law of physics...your theory explains what you see to you...therefore the theory must be correct...it must be a true fact.

And I didn't make up the properties of photons...but those who did say that they exist simultaneously across the entirety of their path...don't like it...take it up with the people who made them up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...



*Actually, the dimmer switch is simply the best theory you can come up with for why anything might obey the law of physics..*

Objects radiating according to the laws of physics DO NOT reduce, or stop, their emissions based on the temperature of nearby (or billions of light years distant) objects. 

In the real world.

In yours, they magically know surrounding temps, without receiving that info through photons, and "simply reduce or stop entirely" their emitting.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 13, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Hbypo


----------



## jc456 (Oct 13, 2019)

Nope, it’s just physics


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The greenhouse effect as described by climate science valid if, and only if radiation is the primary mode of energy transport through the troposphere ...



Climate science like they teach in trade schools and community colleges? ... I think that's required to get an Environmental Science certificate ... have no idea what they teach there ... apparently not much, enough to work in an Environment Science job? ... 

Wait ... What ?!? ... which part of the 9.1 x10^13 watts of Earth's emissions doesn't enter outer space in it's radiative form? ...

P = eoAT^4 is the greybody form of an ideal radiator, notice no concern about what makes it grey, strictly immaterial the to surface of our greybody and our only concern is how grey it is, as expressed by the dimensionless emissivity ratio ... the lower the emissivity, the higher the temperature of the surface ... AGW Theory predicts that more carbon dioxide lowers e, thus increasing T on the Earth's surface (just how much is still unclear) ... I'm sorry, you can't have a minus T(C) on one side of the equation unless you have a minus T(C) on the other side ... that's simple algebra ... and T(C) of outer space is 3 K ... the Earth's surface is 277 K blackbody (293 K greybody), outer space is 3 K ... energy flows from the Earth into outer space ... at 9.1 x 10^13 watts to be exact ... hot to cold ...

I absolutely do not want to hear about dimmer switches ... we've avoided perpetual motion so far and I don't what to press the issue ... credit where credit's due and all that ...


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > This may be the heart of our disagreement ... radiation is emitted radially ... in all directions ... that what we mean by a radiator, something that emits energy radially ...
> ...





SSDD said:


> Unfortunately assumption has become an accepted means of logic in physics...it is rampant and becoming more rampant all the time.



What follows is the reason that is not true.
*Suppose we make the assumption that a proton is made of three quarks..*.
Quarks were not assumed willy nilly.
Historically a plethora of around 100 "elementary" particles had interaction properties that fell into a pattern. That pattern was found to follow group theory. The patterns of group theory enabled prediction of other particles that were sought and found. The last particle recently found was the Higgs Boson. Quarks came out of patterns in group theory. They were not assumed. The Standard Model encapsulates all the basics of these particles.

*Suppose we make the assumption that light is made up of particles...*
Photons were not assumed, but came out of the math.
Initially Pauli found that radiation by discrete energy levels would make black body radiation follow experiment. That was shortly followed by Shrodingers equation which showed that solutions to the wave equation in bound states only allowed discrete energy levels. The release of light at those energy levels were called photons which are not much more than a name for electromagnetic discreteness.

*Suppose we make the assumption that space time is curved...*
That was not assumed. What was assumed by Einstein is that experiments in an accelerating system would be identical to an experiment in a stationary system in a gravitational field. In other words the force you feel by acceleration is the same entity as the force by gravitation. That lead to the extraordinary result of curved space-time.

*Suppose we make the assumption that there was a big bang. We can then theorize about the observed expansion of the universe...*
The expanding universe was observed first. There was a theory by Fred Hoyle that did not have a big bang origin. George Gamow promoted an origin of expansion. The big bang was a derogatory term for Gamow's idea, but it stuck. It was resolved around 1950.

*Suppose we make the assumption that there is a big old black hole at the center of a galaxy. Now we can theorize about the observation of the shape of a galaxy ...*
The shape of the galaxy was known to be spiral well before the assumption of a black hole.

*Suppose we assume that the space time observations of different observers are connected by the Lorentz transformation of special relativity. Now we can theorize about the observation that the speed of light is the same for all observers...*
Your observation of this is mostly correct. The Lorentz transformation originally came as an ad hoc addition to form consistency in Maxwell's equations -- the speed of light is invariant for local systems. Einstein with Lorentz expanded it by assuming all physics laws are invariant with respect to inertial reference frames.

*Assumption.* *It has become part and parcel of physics and has led to a necessity of circular reasoning in which assumptions are accepted and lauded as true facts....*

*In all of the examples above, it is not possible to directly check to see if the assumption is valid which is the pseudoscientific beauty of post modern physics...*
The only reason you came to this erroneous conclusion is that you got the sequence of assumption-result inverted.



SSDD said:


> In the troposphere, the mean time between molecular collisions through which an excited greenhouse molecule can trans for its energy to another gas molecule ) most often N2 is about a nanosecond. The mean decay time for an excited molecule in the atmosphere to emit that energy is about a second.
> 
> So when a greenhouse gas molecule absorbs some IR radiation, about 99.9999999% of the time, it will lose that energy via collision also known as conduction...



You have that backwards.
The vast majority of molecular collisions will simply bounce off without changing the molecular vibration state because the velocities are way too slow. The probability that a collision will *not* quench the CO2 vibration is *0.999999815.* Because of that, almost all CO2 molecules will keep their energy until they emit 15 micron radiation into the atmosphere.



SSDD said:


> We are constrained by what we can imagine...and nature has shown us over and over that our imaginations are very dim bulbs indeed when contrasted with the realities of nature....


That is only true for the most esoteric aspects of physics such as the relation of quantum mechanics and general relativity, the possibility of the black hole singularities, dark matter and dark energy. None of these areas impact the physics knowledge needed for earthly problems.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


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


If you want to disagree with all physicists over the past hundred years, so be it.
If you want to say they all fail to grasp the basics, then you don't grasp the basics.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Planck's law itself...Ever look at the equation? Actually look at it. Note the "C" it denotes the speed of light in a vacuum.



The value "c" is way more than just the speed of light. It is intimately connected to the fabric of space-time and occurs in many places unrelated to light. For example *E=mc²*.

I wrote this note on the four dimensions of relativity some time ago. I will paste it here.

*4-space*​Everyone is familiar with Pythagorean's theorem in plane geometry. The hypotenuse H is given by the two sides of a right triangle:
H² = x²+y²

In 3 dimensions, with x, y, and z being the perpendicular coordinate axes, the distance between the origin and some point in space is a 3 dimensional version of the theorem:
D² = x²+y²+z²

However suppose x and y coordinates are given in centimeters and the z coordinate is given in inches. A conversion factor that relates inches to centimeters is needed. Since there is 2.54 cm per inch, the conversion factor is 2.54 cm/inch:
D² = x² + y² + 2.54² * z²

In the four dimensions of space plus time, the t coordinate is given in seconds, so this equation is wrong and needs a conversion factor.
S² =  x²+y²+z²+t² (wrong. you can't add units of distance to units of time)

Suppose the spatial dimensions are in meters. To turn time into meters, the units of the constant conversion factor must be meters / second, or a velocity. If it is to be consistent with relativity, the velocity turns out to be an imaginary number, ic.
S² = x²+y²+z² + (ict)² or
S² = x²+y²+z² – c² t²

The conversion factor, c, is the velocity of light and is intimately connected to the fabric of space-time. S is no longer just a distance, it is a measure of the separation of events since it includes space and time. More exactly if one event is at 
x₀, y₀, z₀, and time t₀ and a second event is at
x₁, y₁, z₁, t₁ the separation S of these two events is,

S² = (x₀ - x₁)²+(y₀ - y₁)²+(z₀ - z₁)² - c²(t₀ - t₁)²

A few properties of S: Any two viewers moving in space will find that their perceived positions and times of these two events may differ but they will also find that their computation of S is the same for both. That is, S is invariant. Depending on the relative velocities, S can be positive, negative, or zero. But that's another story

.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 13, 2019)

Thank you for making my head hurt ...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 13, 2019)

Wuwei said:


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


2nd law

2nd Law of Thermodynamics

_ Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time. The second law also states that the changes in the entropy in the universe can never be negative_.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 13, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Stefan-Boltzmann







Stefan-Boltzmann law | Definition & Facts


----------



## jc456 (Oct 13, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Still can’t get past that 2nd law


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 13, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Or Stefan-Boltzmann.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 13, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


T-tc=0 2nd law confirmed. Still waiting for your observation


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 13, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



T-tc = not zero, 2nd Law still confirmed.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 13, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


T=tc= 0 in my math class


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 13, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



If T≠ tc, T-tc ≠ 0, 2nd Law still confirmed.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 13, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


But t=tc=0. No negative 2nd law


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 13, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Whether they're equal or not equal, there is no violation of the 2nd law.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 13, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


And cool doesn’t flow to warm


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 13, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



No one ever said it did.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 14, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The greenhouse effect as described by climate science valid if, and only if radiation is the primary mode of energy transport through the troposphere ...
> ...



And yet, it is that "science" which politicians are using to increase the cost of everything you purchase...



ReinyDays said:


> Wait ... What ?!? ... which part of the 9.1 x10^13 watts of Earth's emissions doesn't enter outer space in it's radiative form? ...



Did you miss the part where I said that radiation plays a minor part in the energy movement through the TROPOSPHERE? The greenhouse effect, as described by climate science is a tropospheric phenomenon... What is it with you guys...I speak in perfectly understandable english..I say what I mean to say and take care to be clear...and either you don't understand what is being said, or you interpret it to mean something else then argue, or comment against something I never said.



ReinyDays said:


> P = eoAT^4 is the greybody form of an ideal radiator, notice no concern about what makes it grey, strictly immaterial the to surface of our greybody and our only concern is how grey it is, as expressed by the dimensionless emissivity ratio ... the lower the emissivity, the higher the temperature of the surface ... AGW Theory predicts that more carbon dioxide lowers e, thus increasing T on the Earth's surface (just how much is still unclear) ..



Which would be pseudoscience even if radiation were the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...it isn't..energy movement through the troposphere is completely dominated by conduction and convection...do describe how a radiative greenhouse effect might operate in a troposphere that is completely dominated by conduction and convection...I always like a good story....

You would need to talk to some of the cult guys about dimmer switches and sentient photons...they believe that everything must possess intelligence in order to obey the laws of physics....rocks need to know that they are to fall down when dropped and also be willing to do it...etc...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 14, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...




When you follow circular thinking in reverse...it is still circular...congratulations.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 14, 2019)

Wuwei said:


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



The physicists of the past 100 years all freely admitted that they were dealing with theory...you believe it to be true fact in all cases even though they remain theory....


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Did you miss the part where I said that radiation plays a minor part in the energy movement through the TROPOSPHERE? The greenhouse effect, as described by climate science is a tropospheric phenomenon... What is it with you guys...I speak in perfectly understandable english..I say what I mean to say and take care to be clear...and either you don't understand what is being said, or you interpret it to mean something else then argue, or comment against something I never said.


 No, I just didn't think you knew what "troposphere" means ... there's very little atmosphere outside of the troposphere, thus the top is generally considered our arbitrary top-of-atmosphere ...

And please keep in mind we're discussing this in the context of your own special and unique form of physics ... some of these big long sciency words may actually mean something different in lamestream physics ...



SSDD said:


> Which would be pseudoscience even if radiation were the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...it isn't..energy movement through the troposphere is completely dominated by conduction and convection...do describe how a radiative greenhouse effect might operate in a troposphere that is completely dominated by conduction and convection...I always like a good story....
> 
> You would need to talk to some of the cult guys about dimmer switches and sentient photons...they believe that everything must possess intelligence in order to obey the laws of physics....rocks need to know that they are to fall down when dropped and also be willing to do it...etc...



Oh, I know exactly where you're going with this ... quivering with excitement to hear what *wuwei* and *jc456* have to say ... unfortunately, you have already declared that you won't spend any time learning about lamestream physics, and it's obvious you haven't yet, and as such you haven't been presented with the physical evidence that confirms much of the lamestream ... just because you haven't observed something doesn't mean it's unobservable ... but I like the way you think, question everything, but we do have to be humble enough to accept good answers ... as long as you maintain that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, folks will focus on that, happily, they want to avoid embarrassing questions at all costs ... they know exactly where you're going too ...

First and foremost, you and I have to admit that we don't know how much energy is transferred through radiation and how much through convection ... scientists are just now trying to figure out how to measure this ... we can largely ignore conduction as air is an insulator, roughly R-4 per inch ... I'm not saying energy doesn't conduct, I'm just saying this amount is safety ignored ...

Convection in our atmosphere is a complex subject and (unfortunately for you) it's intimately tied to the greenhouse effect ... if you hold fast your claim the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, I dare not brooch such ... and the Alarmists win ...


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> When you follow circular thinking in reverse...it is still circular...congratulations.



You don't understand what you are saying. 
All the concepts you mentioned started with experiments and observations or holes in theories that could not be explained by the physics of the day. That is how new science starts. Hypotheses were made that might explain those observations. 

In all the cases you mentioned, the hypotheses led to concepts that were unknown and outside the original experimental observations. That led to surprising conclusions in all the cases you mentioned that were actually verified by new experiments. 

Again, discovery is not circular. It is linear. It starts with unexplained phenomena. Then to a new hypothesis, then to a prediction of new phenomena, then to experimental verification of the new phenomena.

You got it backwards in history of discovery. You said science started with the surprising conclusions and worked backwards in history to the hypothesis.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The physicists of the past 100 years all freely admitted that they were dealing with theory...you believe it to be true fact in all cases even though they remain theory....


Not exactly. The physicists started with puzzling observations and experiments. Then they dealt with new hypotheses which led to theory which was accepted only after it agreed with the experiments. I don't think in terms of "true fact". The "truth" in physics is when a mathematical model agrees with observation and experiments at the most detailed level. New more accurate experiments may change things. But the old theory remains useful in the domains where it is accurate enough. For example Einstein's relativistic gravity is not used in planning a mission to Jupiter. Newton's laws are simpler and work fine.

.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 14, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> No, I just didn't think you knew what "troposphere" means ... there's very little atmosphere outside of the troposphere, thus the top is generally considered our arbitrary top-of-atmosphere ...



Which is why conduction and convection no longer play much of a part in energy transfer beyond the top of the troposphere...



ReinyDays said:


> And please keep in mind we're discussing this in the context of your own special and unique form of physics ... some of these big long sciency words may actually mean something different in lamestream physics ...



I have no "special" or "unique" form of physics....I simply don't feel the need to interpret the actual physical laws in order to conform to the dictates of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

So have we reached a point where impotent insult is going to be your main mode of communication?  If so, say so now and we can dispense with the tedium of that sort of discourse...




ReinyDays said:


> and it's obvious you haven't yet, and as such you haven't been presented with the physical evidence that confirms much of the lamestream...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 14, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The physicists of the past 100 years all freely admitted that they were dealing with theory...you believe it to be true fact in all cases even though they remain theory....
> ...



Precisely what I said...the fact that a particular phenomenon is observed, (which can then be explained if you make a certain assumption) is then used to prompt the belief that the assumption is not an assumption but is a true fact...the experiment is designed with the intent of proving the hypothesis...

And therein lies the failure of post modern sceince...the experiment is supposed to be designed with the explicit goal of disproving the hypothesis...It is only after the hypothesis has survived every attempt at proving it wrong that it gains merit...and alas, that isn't how post modern science works...all work is geared towards proving the hypothesis and make the assumption into a true fact...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > No, I just didn't think you knew what "troposphere" means ... there's very little atmosphere outside of the troposphere, thus the top is generally considered our arbitrary top-of-atmosphere ...
> ...



*I have no "special" or "unique" form of physics...*


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


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


*Precisely what I said.*​You said no such thing. 

*And therein lies the failure of post modern sceince...the experiment is supposed to be designed with the explicit goal of disproving the hypothesis*.​That's not true either. Experiments are designed to resolve several possible hypotheses in many cases. Many experiments are designed to get more precision than past experiments to see if the theory still holds. The explicit goal of disproving a hypothesis is not applicable in many cases. For example, when an experiment searches for a hypothetical particle, failure does not prove the particle does not exist. Finally by designing the experiment to resolve a hypothesis, disproof is often a fundamental part of the experiment whether designed for it or not, such as the many experiments on Bell's Theorem. 

.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I have no "special" or "unique" form of physics....I simply don't feel the need to interpret the actual physical laws in order to conform to the dictates of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.



For you I would use the term "fake physics" rather than "special" or "unique". Mathematical models give precision to physics. You throw away the precise meaning of the models and substitute colloquial meanings. In your quest to reinterpret actual physics you continually create self contradiction. 

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 14, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I have no "special" or "unique" form of physics....I simply don't feel the need to interpret the actual physical laws in order to conform to the dictates of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.
> ...



Yeah, but every scientist in the world is wrong about equilibrium, because SSDD, on his own, 
realized that the 2nd Law was misunderstood. 

He's a delicate genius. 

The only one, "not fooled by instrumentation".


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 14, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yeah, but every scientist in the world is wrong about equilibrium, because SSDD, on his own,
> realized that the 2nd Law was misunderstood.
> 
> He's a delicate genius.
> ...


He seems to be content in his own little self contradictory world. To hell with the rest of the world. 

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 14, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, but every scientist in the world is wrong about equilibrium, because SSDD, on his own,
> ...



When every single source he posts contradicts his claims, he has to go it alone.

Our brave little soldier.

We knew him when...…..


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 14, 2019)

Well ... SSDD does make a good point about convection ... energy that leaves the Earth's surface as kinetic energy to be released in it's radiative form above 80% of the atmosphere ... it experiences the greenhouse effect but substantially less ... how much energy transitions the atmosphere in this form appears to be unknown, and doesn't look like it can be safely ignored ... we just can't assume yet that _all_ energy transits _all_ the atmosphere in it's radiative form, and predictions based on the assumption need to be dialed back ...

Stupid question: Does the greenhouse effect work on inbourd energy? ...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 15, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> Stupid question: Does the greenhouse effect work on inbourd energy? ...



Is the atmosphere warmed by incoming short wave radiation?  

And speaking of radiation, my thoughts regarding the nature of radiation are really not much more than a straw man in the climate change discussion.  Since radiation plays a very small part in the movement of energy through the troposphere the transfer of radiation is a very minor part of the discussion...

And there is the fact that the SB law is irrelevant as well.  The SB law can't rightly be applied to a gas.  The SB law uses the area of the radiator to determine how much energy said radiator is emitting.  Air has no area.  one of the locals believes that it is fine to use a cubic meter of air in place of area, but exactly what is the area of a cubic meter of air...and then there is the fact that the SB law assumes that the entire area is radiating.  Even if you could use a cubic meter of air, exactly how much of that cubic meter is even capable of radiating...the vast bulk of any cubic meter of air is composed of N2 and O2 molecules with a very small part being CO2...

Then there is the whole energy being conducted rom greenhouse gas molecules to  other molecules (mostly N2 and O2) via the multiple collisions with other molecules in the time between energy is absorbed and energy is emitted thing to consider,  Of the total number of CO2 molecules in a cubic meter of air, if it had an area, how many would actually possess any energy to radiate at any given time?  About 1 in a billion according to Dr. William Happer.

And there is one other thing spoiling the notion of a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate sceince...there is the inconvenient fact that near infrared radiation can not, and does not warm the air.   The infrared heating industry has about a million hours of design, testing, observation, and commercial and residential installations that demonstrate this fact pretty well.  Their whole features and benefits argument for using their product  revolves around the demonstrable fact that near infrared radiation, (the sort emitted by the earth) does not warm the air...and since their heaters do not waste energy trying to warm the air...but only solid objects, their products are more efficient and less expensive to use than traditional air exchanger types of heating that does warm air via conduction before it is pumped into the area to be warmed.  .Of course IR can warm water vapor but that is a special case being that it can change phases at atmospheric temperatures and pressures.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> And speaking of radiation, my thoughts regarding the nature of radiation are really not much more than a straw man in the climate change discussion.  Since radiation plays a very small part in the movement of energy through the troposphere the transfer of radiation is a very minor part of the discussion...



This is based on your flawed notion of what the second law says ... the part you ignore is that if energy is to flow, it will flow in all possible ways ... the amounts are based in part on the magnitude of the force ... and in this context, electromagnetism is overwhelmingly dominate over gravity ... your lack of understanding in these matters isn't a strawman ... it's a very real and palatable argument against everything you post ...

You're wrong ... and you refuse to see what is plain before your eyes ... I can't help the blind ...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


again, if T=Tc the answer will always be Zero.  It's amazing you don't understand zero.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 15, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



*again, if T=Tc the answer will always be Zero.*

Yup, net power will be zero. Never denied it.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


then how is SSDD wrong? you have yet to accommodate any request for observed measured evidence.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 15, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



He claims objects dial down their emissions, based on the temperature of nearby objects.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


well zero is zero.  it's there based on math.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 15, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



There is no reduction of emissions.
If you understood Stefan-Boltzmann, or causality, you'd see that.

Don't worry about it. You'll hurt yourself.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


well again, I abide by the 2nd law that says energy will not flow from cool to hot. And SB says t=tc equals zero.  no emission.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 15, 2019)

Ah ... you two seem to understand where Tc comes from ... any chance you can explain it to me? ... feel free to use small words, I make no claim to expertise in this matter ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 15, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



You don't need to repeat your confusion, we've already seen it multiple times.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 15, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> Ah ... you two seem to understand where Tc comes from ... any chance you can explain it to me? ... feel free to use small words, I make no claim to expertise in this matter ...



T is the temperature of the emitting object.
Tc is the temperature of the surroundings.

In the real world, the object emits to the surroundings while the surroundings emit to the object.
Subtract to find the net power.

In SSDD world, the emitting object magically senses the temperature of the (cooler) non-emitting surroundings to dial down its emissions.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


and still today, not one observed measured piece of evidence posted by you!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 15, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Right, no evidence behind Stefan-Boltzmann. DURR


----------



## jc456 (Oct 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


post the piece that shows energy flowing from cool to hot.  I've been waiting. you fail every day.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 15, 2019)

jc456 said:


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







Plug in your variables. This formula will show you the power radiated by the cool object.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > Ah ... you two seem to understand where Tc comes from ... any chance you can explain it to me? ... feel free to use small words, I make no claim to expertise in this matter ...
> ...



SSDD also thinks that Tc must always be smaller than T. In other word he thinks the background must always be colder than the object at temperature T for the formula to work. He has no formula for what happens in the case where the background is warmer than the object. That is because he ignores the premise that the object can both radiate and absorb energy. It is really quite ludicrous.

.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


hey dude, I stated many times, I don't have any qualms with that equation.  none.  The one we disagree on is the one were t can equal tc and zero is the answer.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 15, 2019)

jc456 said:


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


*The one we disagree on is the one were t can equal tc and zero is the answer. *

Net is zero. Why do you disagree?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


P= zero.  yep!! no power.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 15, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



The whole SB equation is nothing more than a strawman anyway...The SB equation is not applicable to a gas since a gas has no area...The A in the equation is for area...good luck calculating the area of a gas....and then calculating how much of any given volume (which is not area) is actually radiating...


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 15, 2019)

Lucky thing we're applying SB to the surface of the Earth ... you've been told this a dozen times ... we use NS in the atmosphere ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> T is the temperature of the emitting object.
> Tc is the temperature of the surroundings.
> 
> In the real world, the object emits to the surroundings while the surroundings emit to the object.
> ...



∆P = eoA(T^4 - Tc^4) then?

Smells like the crap climatologists like playing in ... no offense ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 15, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > T is the temperature of the emitting object.
> ...



*∆P = eoA(T^4 - Tc^4) then?*

Yes. No need for objects to predict the future or remotely, magically determine the temperature of their surroundings.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 15, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Yup, net=0


----------



## jc456 (Oct 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


yup- nada.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 15, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Yup, incoming radiation equals outgoing radiation.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


zero, I know.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 15, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Yup, SSDD is wrong.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


how so?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 15, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



He thinks emitting stops at equilibrium.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


it doesn't?  how does it do it if it's zero?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 15, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*it doesn't?  *

If you understood Stefan-Boltzmann, you'd realize what a stupid question that was.

*how does it do it if it's zero?*

The same way it emits when net isn't zero.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


zero is zero.  hmmmmm you're confused, I gotcha.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 15, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



No, your ignorance doesn't confuse me at all.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


but zero power sure does.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 15, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



No, your ignorance about net power doesn't confuse me at all.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 15, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> Lucky thing we're applying SB to the surface of the Earth ... you've been told this a dozen times ... we use NS in the atmosphere ...



No....climate science is using the SB law to calculate the radiation from the atmosphere as well......

Here...from Columbia University......Highlighted at step 8


*The greenhouse effect.*
_As described in the notes to lecture 1, when we apply this equation to Earth the calculated temperature we obtain is much lower than the observed temperature. As explained in the notes this is because the Earth's atmosphere contains gases that absorb the longwave radiation emitted from the Earth's surface. Let us now examine what this atmospheric absorption implies.







*Figure 2*: A plant with an atmosphere containing a single layer of IR absorbing matter.

Consider *Figure 2* above. It shows the planet's surface still receiving a solar flux of *(1-A) S *(accept for reflection, expressed in the albedo* A*, the solar flux is hardly affected by the presence of the atmosphere because only small segments of the shortwave spectrum are absorbed by its constituents). The planet warms up and emits a flux of longwave (*IR*) radiation that we will denote by the letter *G*. In the atmosphere there are gases that absorb longwave radiation. We will consider for a moment  that these gases are all arranged in a layer of some thickness above the surface and spread equally over the entire planet. We will also assume that all the longwave radiation is absorbed in that layer. As it absorbs the longwave radiation the layer also warms up and by radiative laws also emits longwave radiation. We will denote this flux by the letter *H*. Because the layer is elevated from the surface, it emits radiation through both its upper and lower surface in equal amounts. Thus overall the layer emits a total flux of *2H* W m-2. Using these considerations we can find if the addition of longwave radiation absorbing gases to the atmosphere changes the equilibrium surface temperature.

In this new situation *the outer surface of the absorbing layer becomes the outer surface of the planet*, and as described in section 1 above, *it must come to radiative balance with the radiation absorbed by the planet*. Thus, in radiative balance and following equation (5) above, we have:
_
*(6) H = (1-A) S / 4 *
_
where the division by 4 represents the ratio between the effective planetary area for absorption of solar radiation and the planetary area emitting longwave radiation (Figure 1 above).

At the surface, the energy balance is:
_
*(7) G = (1-A) S / 4 + F *
_
This is because all the incoming shortwave radiation, not reflected back to space, is absorbed by the Earth's surface. Substituting for *H* from equation (6) we get:
_
*(8) G = 2 (1-A) S / 4 *

_*The addition of one IR absorbing layer has thus changed the balance of energy at the ground. It now must balance twice as much radiation than before! *We can now use the Stefan-Boltzman law to find out the new equilibrium temperature (the one affected by the greenhouse effect) and get:_

*(9) sTg4 = 2 (1-A) S / 4 *

_Which implies that in the presence of one effective layer of an atmospheric absorbent the temperature ( *Tg*) is larger than the equivalent temperature ( *Te*) by a factor of *2*1/4 (the fourth root of 2 or approximately 1.2).

When this calculation is repeated adding another layer, the temperature at the equilibrium temperature at the ground increases even more. With N layers, equation 9 becomes:
_
*(10) σTg4 = (1+N) (1-A) S / 4 *
_
and *TG* becomes *(1+N)*1/4 times larger than *Te*.

_

As you can see, according to climate science, the so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere represent a second absorption layer and according to them, there is now TWICE as much radiation as before...imagine...simple absorption and emission doubles the amount of energy present...That is the nature of the greenhouse effect as described by climate sceince, and as you can see, the SB law is used to calculate the amount of energy radiating from this new absorbing layer in the atmosphere to reach a new equilibrium temperature...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > Lucky thing we're applying SB to the surface of the Earth ... you've been told this a dozen times ... we use NS in the atmosphere ...
> ...



_As it absorbs the longwave radiation the layer also warms up and by radiative laws also emits longwave radiation. We will denote this flux by the letter *H*. Because the layer is elevated from the surface, it emits radiation through both its upper and lower surface in equal amounts. _

Do you have any sources that say the cooler atmosphere is prohibited from emitting back toward the warmer surface?


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> No....climate science is using the SB law to calculate the radiation from the atmosphere as well......
> 
> Here...from Columbia University......Highlighted at step 8
> _
> ...



I'm sure Columbia University is a fine liberal arts school ... their business and law schools are world famous ... unfortunately, they don't offer any classes on climatology, only a non-credit lecture series that's open to all students ... and this blerb you've presented seems to be a part of the lecture series, it is certainly written to the high school level ...

The blerb describes how a gardener's greenhouse works ... as this is very accessible to the typical high school student ... something many of them have been in and experienced the warmer temperatures first hand ... the university isn't on the hook for issuing credits, so this is fine ... but the notion of different IR layers in the atmosphere is ridiculous, unless you mean the entire atmosphere, one layer ... one emissivity value ...

That is some artistic math, for liberals ... eq. 7 must be a misprint, F isn't defined anywhere ... the high schoolers' eyes have already glazed over, no one's bother to fix that ... Eq. 10 did wind up being SB greybody, set e = 1/(1+N) set N to infinity ... [smile] ... and integrate ... but no sense making the kids wet their pants ...

I've expressed my disdain of "climate science" ... I fully understand the foolish things they say ... but I've tried to explain blackbody radiation to high school kids as well, so I understand some liberties need to be taken ... I don't know if I would offer bogus math, but none of them was paying me either ... my mistake I guess ...

Eq. 8 is wrong ... where the numeral "2" is should be a gradient ... [shrugs shoulders] ... that's why God invented third year calculus ...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 16, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> I'm sure Columbia University is a fine liberal arts school ... their business and law schools are world famous ... unfortunately, they don't offer any classes on climatology, only a non-credit lecture series that's open to all students ... and this blerb you've presented seems to be a part of the lecture series, it is certainly written to the high school level



Not even high school level and that pretty much sums up the state of climate sceince...

And do you ever actually research anything at all?  

Mission - The Earth Institute - Columbia University
Atmospheric Science | Earth and Environmental Sciences

Denial of the state of climate science hardly changes the fact...



ReinyDays said:


> The blerb describes how a gardener's greenhouse works ... as this is very accessible to the typical high school student ... something many of them have been in and experienced the warmer temperatures first hand ... the university isn't on the hook for issuing credits, so this is fine ... but the notion of different IR layers in the atmosphere is ridiculous, unless you mean the entire atmosphere, one layer ... one emissivity value ...



And no..it does not describe how a garden greenhouse works...a garden greenhouse works by blocking convection of energy radiated from the floor...there is no "second absorptive layer" which "doubles" the amount of energy being radiated from the floor...  

And yes it is ridiculous, but alas, that is the state of climate science...



ReinyDays said:


> That is some artistic math, for liberals ... eq. 7 must be a misprint, F isn't defined anywhere ... the high schoolers' eyes have already glazed over, no one's bother to fix that ... Eq. 10 did wind up being SB greybody, set e = 1/(1+N) set N to infinity ... [smile] ... and integrate ... but no sense making the kids wet their pants ...



Again...that is the state of climate science...interesting that you are unaware of this.

 from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.






Note the equation at the bottom..the claim is that if you have a radiator emitting X W/m2 and add another radiator emitting X W/m2, you end up with a radiator emitting 2XW/m2.  So if you have a pot of water at 100C and add another pot of water at 100C, you end up with a larger pot of water at 200C.

Here is one from Pen State








There are any number of graphics more or less just like this one which is just like the one from Columbia university...they all show the same thing and use the same equations...they all apply the SB equation to the atmosphere and claim that absorption and emission of IR by the atmosphere doubles the amount of energy present.



ReinyDays said:


> I've expressed my disdain of "climate science" ... I fully understand the foolish things they say ... but I've tried to explain blackbody radiation to high school kids as well, so I understand some liberties need to be taken ... I don't know if I would offer bogus math, but none of them was paying me either ... my mistake I guess ...



Maybe so, but you do defend the radiative greenhouse effect and you see the model of it and how it is derived...  Like I said...there is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...



ReinyDays said:


> Eq. 8 is wrong ... where the numeral "2" is should be a gradient ... [shrugs shoulders] ... that's why God invented third year calculus ...



And yet, every atmospheric physics department associated with climatology teaches the same thing...the equation is not a misprint, or an error....it is part and parcel of the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...and the basis for the AGW hypothesis...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


Sure, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Guys name was Clausius I believe.

_The *Clausius Statement*: It is impossible to construct a device which operates on a cycle and produces no other effect than the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body. It is remarkable that the two above *statements* of the *Second Law* are in fact equivalent_


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 16, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*Sure, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.*

SSDD posted a source that disagreed with the 2nd Law?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


wasn't me, and you asked, I answered.  why do you need to bring in SSDD to our exchange exactly?  are you obsessed with him?   can't get him out of your head?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 16, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*wasn't me, and you asked, I answered.*

I asked him.

* why do you need to bring in SSDD to our exchange exactly?*

Why do you need to answer a question to him?

If you want to answer the question to him, provide a source that answers my actual question.

_Do you have any sources that say the cooler atmosphere is prohibited from emitting back toward the warmer surface?_

The source would have to say, "_the cooler atmosphere is prohibited from emitting back toward the warmer surface, because the 2nd Law" _or something equivalent.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 16, 2019)

You posted this information once and claimed it's bogus ... and I agreed with you ...
You can post it as many times as you want and claim it's bogus ... and I will agree with you every time ...
You'll have to have those who claim this is correct explain to you why ... I'm guessing because they're speaking to children ... and children still believe in the Fairy Godmother ...

Consider what happens to temperature if we make this layer infinitely thin ... holding an infinitely small amount of mass ... an infinitely small amount of kinetic energy ... we have an infinitely small temperature ...



SSDD said:


> Maybe so, but you do defend the radiative greenhouse effect and you see the model of it and how it is derived...  Like I said...there is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...



I have no idea why you don't think the Fairy Godmother can't do this ... nor why you dismiss any model that relies on the Fairy Godmother ... I personally don't believe in the Fairy Godmother and neither do you ... can we _please_ set aside any model that relies on her? ... the model I use has been explained to you multiple times, unfortunately you reject the radial nature of force in spite every observation in the Newtonian universe confirming this radial nature ... perhaps you should explain what your model is ... I'm desperately curious how you're managing 10^14 watts at 10 mph (that's the measured speed of convection) ...



SSDD said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > Eq. 8 is wrong ... where the numeral "2" is should be a gradient ... [shrugs shoulders] ... that's why God invented third year calculus ...
> ...



Strawman argument ... I said Eq. 7 was a misprint, or F = Fairy Godmother dust ... I said Eq. 8 is wrong, there's a difference between the two claims ... you don't know what a gradient is, and I'm not going to try and explain it to you ... math is hard ...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 17, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> the model I use has been explained to you multiple times, unfortunately you reject the radial nature of force in spite every observation in the Newtonian universe confirming this radial nature ... perhaps you should explain what your model is ... I'm desperately curious how you're managing 10^14 watts at 10 mph (that's the measured speed of convection) ...



10mph?  Perhaps in a controlled environment the size of an aircraft hanger....out in the chaotic atmosphere, convection currents can move at speeds of 20 meters per second and more...

And you keep ignoring some demonstrable facts in order to maintain belief in a radiative greenhouse effect...

Number one....radiation plays a very small part in the movement of energy through the troposphere

Number two...far infrared radiation does not, and can not warm the air.

It is interesting to me that all of you who believe that there is a radiative greenhouse effect have your own version and they rarely seem to conform to each other and almost never agree with climate science.  Is it a sort of quasi religious polytheism where everyone gets his own to hold dear to his heart?

And every observation in the Newtonian universe does not support your radial nature of emission...in fact, none of them do or you could convince me with some actual observations of discrete wavelengths of energy moving spontaneously from a cooler object to a warmer object made with an instrument that is not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the cooler object.

Perhaps that is how it works in all the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models since Newton was around...but not out hear in reality...saying that it is so does not make it so...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 17, 2019)

SSDD said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > the model I use has been explained to you multiple times, unfortunately you reject the radial nature of force in spite every observation in the Newtonian universe confirming this radial nature ... perhaps you should explain what your model is ... I'm desperately curious how you're managing 10^14 watts at 10 mph (that's the measured speed of convection) ...
> ...



*It is interesting to me that all of you who believe that there is a radiative greenhouse effect have your own version and they rarely seem to conform to each other and almost never agree with climate science.*

Irony is ironic.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


_I asked him._

I answered because it's a message board.  you want to ask and not get any other answers Private Message him.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> You posted this information once and claimed it's bogus ... and I agreed with you ...
> You can post it as many times as you want and claim it's bogus ... and I will agree with you every time ...
> You'll have to have those who claim this is correct explain to you why ... I'm guessing because they're speaking to children ... and children still believe in the Fairy Godmother ...
> 
> ...


tough to get passed that if T=Tc, then the P becomes zero.  hmmmmmmmm.

And that the second law 

_*Clausius Statement* of the *Second Law*. One of the earliest *statements* of the *Second Law* of Thermodynamics was made by R. *Clausius* in 1850. He stated the following. “It is impossible to construct a device which operates on a cycle and whose sole effect is the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body”._


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 17, 2019)

SSDD said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > the model I use has been explained to you multiple times, unfortunately you reject the radial nature of force in spite every observation in the Newtonian universe confirming this radial nature ... perhaps you should explain what your model is ... I'm desperately curious how you're managing 10^14 watts at 10 mph (that's the measured speed of convection) ...
> ...



Feel free to use 20 m/s ... how are you moving all this energy through the atmosphere? ... what temperature does the air need to be to convect 10^14 watts? ...



SSDD said:


> And you keep ignoring some demonstrable facts in order to maintain belief in a radiative greenhouse effect...
> 
> Number one....radiation plays a very small part in the movement of energy through the troposphere
> 
> Number two...far infrared radiation does not, and can not warm the air.



You have not provided this demonstration ... what experiment can we perform that shows far IR cannot be absorbed by air molecules? ...



SSDD said:


> It is interesting to me that all of you who believe that there is a radiative greenhouse effect have your own version and they rarely seem to conform to each other and almost never agree with climate science.  Is it a sort of quasi religious polytheism where everyone gets his own to hold dear to his heart?
> 
> And every observation in the Newtonian universe does not support your radial nature of emission...in fact, none of them do or you could convince me with some actual observations of discrete wavelengths of energy moving spontaneously from a cooler object to a warmer object made with an instrument that is not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the cooler object.



Gravity is a force, and it is radial in nature ... I'm not clear on why you think outer space is warmer than the Earth's surface ... I'm also not clear why you think the top of the troposphere is warmer than the Earth's surface ... I'm fine with radiative energy moving from hot-to-cold ... why aren't you? ...



SSDD said:


> Perhaps that is how it works in all the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models since Newton was around...but not out hear in reality...saying that it is so does not make it so...



You have yet to post anything that would lead me to believe that you have any knowledge of any kind what-so-ever regarding Newton's mathematics ... as long as you keep your eyes closed, you will always be able to claim you don't see anything ... now I've asked a simple arithmetic question above, you should be able to answer ...

In scientific discourse ... it's not enough to say what is wrong, you must also say what is right ... I'm fine if you want to get rid of the greenhouse effect, but you need to tell us what's really happening and how this explains the effects we do observe and measure ... specifically why the temperature of the Earth's surface is 10ºC higher than what SB predicts ...

-----

I'm assuming the rest of us are on-board with the theory that explains the greenhouse effect ... outbound radiation is absorbed by carbon dioxide molecules and in part re-emitted down back to the Earth and increasing the temperature at the surface ... and this is quantified by the emissivity factor ...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


 _what experiment can we perform that shows far IR cannot be absorbed by air molecules?_ ..

so you have an experiment of gas absorbing and emitting?  wow


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 17, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*I answered because it's a message board. *

And then you asked......

_why do you need to bring in SSDD to our exchange exactly?_

DURR


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


because it was my post, not SSDD's D'OH!


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 17, 2019)

SSDD said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure Columbia University is a fine liberal arts school ... their business and law schools are world famous ... unfortunately, they don't offer any classes on climatology, only a non-credit lecture series that's open to all students ... and this blerb you've presented seems to be a part of the lecture series, it is certainly written to the high school level
> ...



*Note the equation at the bottom..the claim is that if you have a radiator emitting X W/m2 and add another radiator emitting X W/m2, you end up with a radiator emitting 2XW/m2.  So if you have a pot of water at 100C and add another pot of water at 100C, you end up with a larger pot of water at 200C.*​
This is at least the third time you posted those types of diagrams, and the third time you misunderstood them. They are toy examples and "what-if" examples for students. That model is not used by the IPCC. It is way too  simplistic. 

I already showed you where you went wrong. You do not end up with any thing like two pots of water doubling in temperature. I showed you the missing math, but you must have forgotten. 


.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 18, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> Feel free to use 20 m/s ... how are you moving all this energy through the atmosphere? ... what temperature does the air need to be to convect 10^14 watts? ...



As I have said..conduction and convection through the troposphere then radiation takes over in the upper atmosphere where molecules are to far apart to support conduction..



ReinyDays said:


> You have not provided this demonstration ... what experiment can we perform that shows far IR cannot be absorbed by air molecules? ...



Who said that far IR can't be absorbed by certain molecules in the air?  I said that far IR does not warm the air...Since you are the one who believes in magic, the onus is upon you to demonstrate that absorption and emission equals warming...

And like I said..the infrared heating industry has about a million hours of experiment, design, testing, observation and commercial and residential installation that demonstrates that far IR does not warm the air...do you have anything at all that can demonstrate that absorption, and emission result in warming?

The energy that greenhouse gas molecules lose via collision with other molecules is known as conduction..and N2 and O2 molecules can certainly conduct energy...they don't absorb IR however..



ReinyDays said:


> Gravity is a force, and it is radial in nature ...



Great...if gravity were only radiation you would have something there...



ReinyDays said:


> I'm not clear on why you think outer space is warmer than the Earth's surface ... I'm also not clear why you think the top of the troposphere is warmer than the Earth's surface ... I'm fine with radiative energy moving from hot-to-cold ... why aren't you? ...



Are you sure you aren't wuwei's sock puppet?  He likes to fabricate arguments from his opponents and argue against them.  Feel free to provide a quote from me where I ever suggested that I have a problem with energy moving from hot to cold...I'll wait..................waiting...................waiting......



ReinyDays said:


> You have yet to post anything that would lead me to believe that you have any knowledge of any kind what-so-ever regarding Newton's mathematics ... as long as you keep your eyes closed, you will always be able to claim you don't see anything ... now I've asked a simple arithmetic question above, you should be able to answer ...



Since I am not the one expressing a belief in magic, I have no responsibility to demonstrate anything...



ReinyDays said:


> In scientific discourse ... it's not enough to say what is wrong, you must also say what is right ... I'm fine if you want to get rid of the greenhouse effect, but you need to tell us what's really happening and how this explains the effects we do observe and measure ... specifically why the temperature of the Earth's surface is 10ºC higher than what SB predicts ...



Refer to Nikolov and Zeller...they have probably the best explanation of why the temperature of earth is what it is...in addition, their explanation works on every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere..unlike the greenhouse effect which only predicts the temperature here..and then only with the application of an ad hoc fudge factor..



ReinyDays said:


> I'm assuming the rest of us are on-board with the theory that explains the greenhouse effect ... outbound radiation is absorbed by carbon dioxide molecules and in part re-emitted down back to the Earth and increasing the temperature at the surface ... and this is quantified by the emissivity factor ...



So you do believe in the fairy godmother, and unicorns, and all manner of magic..  

You can prove your point by providing one measurement of a discrete wavelength of radiation emitted by CO2 being radiated back to the earth made with an instrument that is not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...

Unfortunately, no such measurements exist...that sort of energy movement only exists within climate models...and the very models you acknowledged were bullshit are the basis for the belief you just expressed...interesting.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 18, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...



Can any "Climate" scientist" please explain why it is that Neptune has atmospheric winds clocked at 1,300MPH or why Jupiter apparently radiates 2.3 times the energy it receives from the Sun?  Has their CO2 been rising?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 18, 2019)

SSDD said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > Feel free to use 20 m/s ... how are you moving all this energy through the atmosphere? ... what temperature does the air need to be to convect 10^14 watts? ...
> ...



*And like I said..the infrared heating industry has about a million hours of experiment, design, testing, observation and commercial and residential installation that demonstrates that far IR does not warm the air.*

Always funny.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 18, 2019)

SSDD said:


> As I have said..conduction and convection through the troposphere then radiation takes over in the upper atmosphere where molecules are to far apart to support conduction..


The density of 15 micron CO2 radiation is 95 Watts per m*³ *just from the equipartition principle alone. That is plenty enough to allow energy movement by radiation in the lower atmosphere.


SSDD said:


> I said that far IR does not warm the air.


What happens to the roughly 400 W/m² emitted by the earth? It doesn't all go to outer space? You are forgetting you have to reckon with the conservation of energy law.


SSDD said:


> Are you sure you aren't wuwei's sock puppet? He likes to fabricate arguments from his opponents and argue against them.


I don't fabricate. I have given you references and shown quotes from you where you disagreed with science. If you are referring to something specific, tell me about it.


SSDD said:


> Since I am not the one expressing a belief in magic, I have no responsibility to demonstrate anything...


Yes you are. You never explained why you think black body radiation magically disappears when near a warmer object. No scientist believes what you do.


SSDD said:


> Refer to Nikolov and Zeller...they have probably the best explanation of why the temperature of earth is what it is...in addition, their explanation works on every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere..unlike the greenhouse effect which only predicts the temperature here..and then only with the application of an ad hoc fudge factor..


New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model
Nikolov and Zellar gave no explanation. All they did was curve fitting of temperature and atmosphere to a formula with these four fudge factors in their equation 12(b):
0.174222, 0.150275, 5.25043 10⁻¹⁵, 3.32375. That looks pretty fudgy.
They attempted to fit six data points of six planets or moons with four fudge factors. Their paper was published on false pretenses and was later withdrawn. Read their paper again. It shows a struggle to find find fudge factors with a plethora of guesses that don't work. That is not science.

.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 18, 2019)

SSDD said:


> ... Are you sure you aren't wuwei's sock puppet? ...



This is going to have me giggling the rest of the day ... if I knew 5% about thermodynamics as he does I would count myself "reasonable knowledgeable" ... I thought Clausius converted to Islam and changed his name to Muhammad Ali ... you know, practical thermodynamics ... thank you for the shout out on equipartition theory, I need to withdraw my earlier claim this effect was caused by the 2nd Law, I'll try not make that mistake again ... 

*SSDD* ... You didn't answer my question, which is an answer in of itself ... you did the math in your head and realized how completely and utterly bogus you theories are ... especially after you remembered only half the atmosphere can be moving up, the other half has to be moving down ... did you see there where iron conducts energy 4,000 times faster than air? ... that bears repeating ... _*4,000 times faster*_ ... you have personal experience with heating iron, please don't pretend you don't ... "I have no responsibility to demonstrate anything" ... the definition of pseudo-science ...

*CrusaderFrank* ... I looked up Neptune on Wikipedia and that gives 6,000 mph at the equator ... re-read your citation because I'm pretty sure that 1,300 mph figure means something else ... just saying ...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 21, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ... Are you sure you aren't wuwei's sock puppet? ...
> ...



Giggle away...that's what believers like to do.  It seems to be a universal quality.  And if you believe that energy is radiating from the cooler atmosphere to the surface and actually warming the surface, then 5% would be a number for you to shoot for.  Not even the hard core warmers believe that one any more.

The better question would be how do you radiate that energy away from the surface of the earth with only about 0.05% of the atmosphere participating and only a very very VERY small percentage of that 0.05% ever actually radiating any energy away at all.

And your bar of iron is quite small compared to the entirety of the atmosphere.  Then there is the inconvenient fact that the speed of conduction depends on the temperature and the nature of the material through which the conduction is happening.   The atmosphere which is conducting and convecting which are the primary modes of energy movement through the troposphere is a great deal larger than your bar of iron, and the energy moving from the surface of the earth is considerably cooler than your red hot coals...  It is the inability to actually understand that trivia like that is no more than a red herring that leads you guys to believe in the sort of magic that haas the surface of the earth being warmed by the cooler atmosphere..


----------



## SSDD (Oct 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model
> Nikolov and Zellar gave no explanation. All they did was curve fitting of temperature and atmosphere to a formula with these four fudge factors in their equation 12(b):
> 0.174222, 0.150275, 5.25043 10⁻¹⁵, 3.32375. That looks pretty fudgy.
> They attempted to fit six data points of six planets or moons with four fudge factors. Their paper was published on false pretenses and was later withdrawn. Read their paper again. It shows a struggle to find find fudge factors with a plethora of guesses that don't work. That is not science.
> ...



Yet another model...when will you guys wake up to the fact that models are not empirical evidence?  Garbage in...garbage out...magic in....magic out..


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 21, 2019)

That's an interesting philosophy you have there ... maybe the confusion is you haven't stated the underlying principles that you're basing these ideas on ... is this just a personal thing or are you part of a larger group? ... anything published? ... there's nothing here that I can tell is part of any of the larger religions or philosophic schools, if that's a mistake then please enlighten me ... sounds like some of the New Age stuff that came out of Berserkley back in the 1970's to be honest ...

You're entitled to ignore how the state-of-matter affects conduction ... this is philosophy after all ... we can dispense with the details if there's a greater truth to be had ...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 21, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> That's an interesting philosophy you have there ... maybe the confusion is you haven't stated the underlying principles that you're basing these ideas on ... is this just a personal thing or are you part of a larger group? ... anything published? ... there's nothing here that I can tell is part of any of the larger religions or philosophic schools, if that's a mistake then please enlighten me ... sounds like some of the New Age stuff that came out of Berserkley back in the 1970's to be honest ...
> 
> You're entitled to ignore how the state-of-matter affects conduction ... this is philosophy after all ... we can dispense with the details if there's a greater truth to be had ...


yeah, they call it observed.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 21, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> That's an interesting philosophy you have there ... maybe the confusion is you haven't stated the underlying principles that you're basing these ideas on ... is this just a personal thing or are you part of a larger group? ... anything published? ... there's nothing here that I can tell is part of any of the larger religions or philosophic schools, if that's a mistake then please enlighten me ... sounds like some of the New Age stuff that came out of Berserkley back in the 1970's to be honest ...
> 
> You're entitled to ignore how the state-of-matter affects conduction ... this is philosophy after all ... we can dispense with the details if there's a greater truth to be had ...



Nothing but insults...how unsurprising is that?

Is it that you don't believe energy can be transferred from a molecule that has absorbed energy to another molecule via collision....or is it that you don't believe that molecules actually collide?

Actually, the "physics" you believe in if they can be called physics that create  that mythical radiative greenhouse effect only predict the temperature on earth..and only then with the application of an ad hoc fudge factor...they don't eve get close to predicting the temperature on any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...hell, they don't even accurately predict the temperature of the moon, with no atmosphere...


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 21, 2019)

You gave Nikolov and Zeller as a reference that they have the best explanation and that the greenhouse effect  has a fudge factor. Here:





SSDD said:


> Refer to Nikolov and Zeller...they have probably the best explanation of why the temperature of earth is what it is...in addition, their explanation works on every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere..unlike the greenhouse effect which only predicts the temperature here..and then only with the application of an ad hoc fudge factor..


I read their paper and replied that all they did was curve fitting with four fudge factors, and gave no explanation of the science. Here:





Wuwei said:


> New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model
> Nikolov and Zellar gave no explanation. All they did was curve fitting of temperature and atmosphere to a formula with these four fudge factors in their equation 12(b):
> 0.174222, 0.150275, 5.25043 10⁻¹⁵, 3.32375. That looks pretty fudgy..


Now you are saying,





SSDD said:


> Yet another model...when will you guys wake up to the fact that models are not empirical evidence? Garbage in...garbage out...magic in....magic out..


Just why did you give that reference and now denigrate it as garbage??? I already told you it was garbage!!

Either you are
being a troll,
can't understand the subject matter,
you didn't read your own paper, or
your brain isn't functioning logically.

It is really hard to fathom what goes on in your head anymore. I stick with well proven science. You don't seem to know what you think anymore.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Is it that you don't believe energy can be transferred from a molecule that has absorbed energy to another molecule via collision....or is it that you don't believe that molecules actually collide?


You forgot a third reason, and were already told this. 
There are lots of collisions, but the probability of quenching the 15 micron mode radiation of CO2 is vanishingly small. I gave a reference.
The reason is that at 15C the velocities of the air molecules are too slow to disrupt the CO2 15 micron bending mode state.
.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 21, 2019)

With philosophy, we can ignore laboratory results ... it's in these laboratories where we can demonstrate iron conducts energy 4000 times faster than air at normal environmental temperatures ... both conduct energy, but at different rates, usually explained by the tightly packed nature of solids and the diffuse nature of gases ... but that's using lamestream physics that you haven't bothered to learn anything about yet ... has Halliday/Resnick been in print over 50 years already? ... talk about lame ... 

Actually, we can use Wein's Law to predict surface temperatures ... the problem is getting thermometers to last more than 5 minutes on the surfaces of many of these other planets ... the surface of the Jovian planets remain completely unexplored ... all the other are at best trivially explored ... so we haven't been able to confirm these predictions ... but that's only a concern if we're responsible to demonstrate our claims, you said "I have no responsibility to demonstrate anything", and that's irresponsible by definition ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> It is really hard to fathom what goes on in your head anymore ...



It looks like cherry-picking ... but all I see in his basket is road apples ...


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 21, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> With philosophy, we can ignore laboratory results ... it's in these laboratories where we can demonstrate iron conducts energy 4000 times faster than air at normal environmental temperatures ... both conduct energy, but at different rates, usually explained by the tightly packed nature of solids and the diffuse nature of gases ... but that's using lamestream physics that you haven't bothered to learn anything about yet ... has Halliday/Resnick been in print over 50 years already? ... talk about lame ...



Yes, air is a very poor conductor of heat. 
Thermal conductivity of air is 0.026 W/(m ℃ ).
The atmospheric lapse rate is 0.0098 ℃ / m
So the energy flow of heat due to conduction is the product of the above measurements:
 0.000255 Watts per square meter
That is much much less than radiation which is a few dozen watts.

SSDD is wrong. The bulk of energy leaving the surface is carried by convection and radiation, not conduction. 

[I read Halliday-Resnick decades ago. I didn't know it was still in print. ]

.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 21, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> It looks like cherry-picking ... but all I see in his basket is road apples ...


SSDD does that a lot: He chooses a reference to attempt to prove his point, but it does just the opposite.

.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > With philosophy, we can ignore laboratory results ... it's in these laboratories where we can demonstrate iron conducts energy 4000 times faster than air at normal environmental temperatures ... both conduct energy, but at different rates, usually explained by the tightly packed nature of solids and the diffuse nature of gases ... but that's using lamestream physics that you haven't bothered to learn anything about yet ... has Halliday/Resnick been in print over 50 years already? ... talk about lame ...
> ...




Sorry guy...but radiation is barely a bit player in the movement of energy through the troposphere...If you must believe in magic...at least you could believe in more interesting magic...


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy...but radiation is barely a bit player in the movement of energy through the troposphere...If you must believe in magic...at least you could believe in more interesting magic...


It's not magic.  It is science. In each cubic meter there is 95 W of energy available for energy movement by radiation near the earth surface. 

Conduction is a bit player and can only move 0.000255 Watts. Do the calculation. It's simple. 

.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 21, 2019)

What philosophical truth are you trying to advance? ... "The greenhouse effect doesn't exist, therefore [fill in the blank]" ... obviously this is important to you and I'm not sure you're too far off the mark ... if we can get away from the details and focus on the point we're trying to make? ...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy...but radiation is barely a bit player in the movement of energy through the troposphere...If you must believe in magic...at least you could believe in more interesting magic...
> ...



We have been through your math.....more fantasy... You can't use the SB law to determine radiation per volume...the A represents area and exactly what is the area of a cubic meter of atmosphere?


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


What on earth are you talking about. Since when did I mention the SB law? I am not talking about the SB law. I simply told you that CO2 in the atmosphere is teeming with the 15 micron bending mode of excitation and is radiating it and collisions lack the energy to quench it at surface temperatures. That has nothing to do with the SB law, unless you tell me how you are thinking.

.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 22, 2019)

[raises hand] ... I'm the one who brought up Planck and SB ... ask me anything ...


----------



## gfm7175 (Oct 22, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


He simply doesn't get it... If heat COULD flow from 10C to 20C, then that would be decreasing entropy, as colder areas would be getting colder and warmer areas would be getting warmer... That denies thermodynamics. Heat ONLY flows from hot to cold. Entropy increases. Hotter areas cool off and colder areas warm up...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 22, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*If heat COULD flow from 10C to 20C, then that would be decreasing entropy, *

What about photons flowing from 10C to 20C? Is that allowed?


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 22, 2019)

We'll need a bit of space between the two objects ... what's the temperature of space these days? ...


----------



## mamooth (Oct 22, 2019)

Poor SSDD always has his cause and effect reversed. The ideal gas law is the result of other forces, not the cause. The second law is a result of the statistical behavior of molecules, and not a cause of anything.

If he had ever taken an undergrad physics course in statistical mechanics and advanced thermodynamics, he'd understand that. But he hasn't. He's been educated at Conspiracy U., where all mainstream science is defined as an evil socialist plot.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 22, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Got that demo?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 22, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > gfm7175 said:
> ...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 22, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Chocolate pudding? Weird!


----------



## jc456 (Oct 22, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> With philosophy, we can ignore laboratory results ... it's in these laboratories where we can demonstrate iron conducts energy 4000 times faster than air at normal environmental temperatures ... both conduct energy, but at different rates, usually explained by the tightly packed nature of solids and the diffuse nature of gases ... but that's using lamestream physics that you haven't bothered to learn anything about yet ... has Halliday/Resnick been in print over 50 years already? ... talk about lame ...
> 
> Actually, we can use Wein's Law to predict surface temperatures ... the problem is getting thermometers to last more than 5 minutes on the surfaces of many of these other planets ... the surface of the Jovian planets remain completely unexplored ... all the other are at best trivially explored ... so we haven't been able to confirm these predictions ... but that's only a concern if we're responsible to demonstrate our claims, you said "I have no responsibility to demonstrate anything", and that's irresponsible by definition ...


Didn’t answer SSDD’s question! Nice little story . Story it is.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 22, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> We'll need a bit of space between the two objects ... what's the temperature of space these days? ...


Tell us


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 22, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Binary stars.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Didn’t answer SSDD’s question! Nice little story . Story it is.





jc456 said:


> Tell us



Just because you don't understand the answer doesn't mean I didn't ... read it again and look up all the long words ...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 23, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> [raises hand] ... I'm the one who brought up Planck and SB ... ask me anything ...




You already made clear your misconceptions about the SB and Planck laws...no further comment necessary.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 23, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



They are under the impression that entropy somehow means energy flow is a two way street...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 23, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Poor SSDD always has his cause and effect reversed. The ideal gas law is the result of other forces, not the cause. The second law is a result of the statistical behavior of molecules, and not a cause of anything.
> 
> If he had ever taken an undergrad physics course in statistical mechanics and advanced thermodynamics, he'd understand that. But he hasn't. He's been educated at Conspiracy U., where all mainstream science is defined as an evil socialist plot.



And I suppse you think it is a coincidence that the ideal gas laws are able to predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc fudge factor...

And strangely enough, the standard atmosphere predicts the temperature here with no mention of a greenhouse effect...coincidence?


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 23, 2019)

SSDD said:


> They are under the impression that entropy somehow means energy flow is a two way street...


No. Entropy applies to heat flow. Heat flow is a one way street. There is nothing in the law of entropy that denies radiation from flowing both ways between two objects, as long as the hotter object radiates more to the colder object. In that case heat flow is one way while radiation is two way. 

You tell  me where in the law of entropy that two way EM radiation is denied.

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 23, 2019)

SSDD said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Only because it is.

Still no back up for your theory? Weird.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 23, 2019)

SSDD said:


> And I suppse you think it is a coincidence that the ideal gas laws are able to predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc fudge factor...
> 
> And strangely enough, the standard atmosphere predicts the temperature here with no mention of a greenhouse effect...coincidence?


That is clearly wrong. You gave Nikolov and Zeller as a reference that they have the best explanation. All they did was curve fitting with four fudge factors.

They did not predict anything at all, and gave no explanation of any science behind the four fudge factors..
.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


hahahahahaha, on my phone last night, the two stars weren't showing. hahahahaahaha.

So now that I see the two stars there on my  PC,  I see the brighter one pushing light to the dimmer one.  That's it. You see the dimmer one due to the light off the brighter one hitting it.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > gfm7175 said:
> ...


still no observed cool to heat flow.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And I suppse you think it is a coincidence that the ideal gas laws are able to predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc fudge factor...
> ...


and?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The both radiate, with no restriction.
Weird.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Photons.....durr


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


prove it?  I explained why you saw the dimmer star, it is reflected light from the brighter one.  That's all.  So prove it isn't reflective light?  you can't.  Nor can I since we can't touch them.  So your choice of observation can't be used.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


what's the difference?  Light is energy.  or don't you know that either?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*prove it? *

You need proof that stars radiate in all directions? LOL!

Maybe you should contact SSDD's professor source?

* I explained why you saw the dimmer star, it is reflected light from the brighter one. *

Their emission spectrum is different.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*what's the difference?*

The difference is that photons aren't restricted.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


_You need proof that stars radiate in all directions_

Not at all,  I need proof that cooler stars radiate at hotter ones.  and your post doesn't show that for the reason I gave.

_Their emission spectrum is different._
correct, one is hotter,  and the one hotter is radiating at the cooler one and the photons we see are the reflected light.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


then all you need to do is show an observation of them flowing from a cooler object to a hotter one.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



* I need proof that cooler stars radiate at hotter ones.  *

If you have any proof, any at all, that a cool star can't radiate at a hotter star, post it.

Their emission spectrum is different.

*correct, one is hotter,  and the one hotter is radiating at the cooler one and the photons we see are the reflected light*

Reflected light would have the same spectrum as the original source.

You may know less about this topic than usual.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


_If you have any proof, any at all, that a cool star can't radiate at a hotter star, post it._

2nd law.  whaaaa Hooo, we've gone full circle yet again, and still nothing of observation from old Todd.

BTW, the lips should be a different color than the rest of her face then.  hahaahahahaa


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


already explained, no need to repeat your circle again.  the camera is loosing energy to the colder ice pop and that's all.  I even gave you the info from the company and yet here you are back at ground zero.  too funny todd. derp


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*2nd law.*

If you have any source that says, explicitly, "this star can't radiate at its hotter companion, because 2nd Law"

Post it.

If you have any sources that say, explicitly, "this object can't radiate at a hotter object, because 2nd Law"

Post it.

Weird that SSDD has been saying this for years......still zero backup.
Well, he posts backup, it just ends up disproving his claim.

Maybe you'll have better luck? DURR​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*the camera is loosing energy to the colder ice pop*

It is losing energy. Now prove that photons aren't moving from the ice cream to the camera. 

* I even gave you the info from the company *

Feel free to post the email of the company contact. 
I'll be happy to get his help in correcting your misunderstanding.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


_It is losing energy. _
yes
_Now prove that photons aren't moving from the ice cream to the camera. _
I did.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 23, 2019)

We allow the cooler star to radiate into space ... there's nothing about this process that takes into consideration what's on the other side of the space ... this is the space in between molecules ... take our measurements between the stars and you'll read both emissions ... this is how weather satellites are able to take IR photos at local noon ... so there's your proof that the Earth radiates towards the sun, we have pictures ...

Also if you'll note ... some of those IR sources come from the lower portions of the atmosphere ... low level stratus is fairly common and easily picked up by the IR cameras in space ... thus demonstrating IR travels through the atmosphere ...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I did, here again.  How many times do you need to read it?  Just curious, I'll have to bookmark the page at some point if I have to keep going back to it every week.

Clausius Statement - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

_Clausius statement:_ It is impossible for heat to move of itself from a lower-temperature reservoir to a higher-temperature reservoir. That is, heat transfer can only occur spontaneously in the direction of temperature decrease. For example, we cannot construct a refrigerator that operates without any work input.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> We allow the cooler star to radiate into space ... there's nothing about this process that takes into consideration what's on the other side of the space ... this is the space in between molecules ... take our measurements between the stars and you'll read both emissions ... this is how weather satellites are able to take IR photos at local noon ... so there's your proof that the Earth radiates towards the sun, we have pictures ...
> 
> Also if you'll note ... some of those IR sources come from the lower portions of the atmosphere ... low level stratus is fairly common and easily picked up by the IR cameras in space ... thus demonstrating IR travels through the atmosphere ...


here, in the event you missed my last post.

Clausius Statement - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

_Clausius statement:_ It is impossible for heat to move of itself from a lower-temperature reservoir to a higher-temperature reservoir. That is, heat transfer can only occur spontaneously in the direction of temperature decrease. For example, we cannot construct a refrigerator that operates without any work input.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2019)

BTW light is heat and photons are light.  So the 2nd law takes it all under consideration.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Post your proof that photons aren't moving both ways. You must have hundreds...….

Post a few that say, "photons can't move this way because...the target is warmer"


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I'm not doing your work for you.  you prove cooler objects violate the 2nd law and Clausius Statement.

even SB when T=Tc and power is zero.


----------



## EvMetro (Oct 23, 2019)

It is interesting to see a debate about heat when established science is so clear.  It's like seeing a debate about which way water flows...


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 23, 2019)

We're moving energy from a cool reservoir to empty space ... do you see that step ... 300K object radiates into 3K space ... think of a dirt molecule, above it at some distance is a nitrogen molecule, in between the two is empty space ... or are you suggesting all these molecules are in physical contact? ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*I did, here again. How many times do you need to read it?  *

Thanks for the link. Now do you have one that actually helps your claim?

Your source didn't mention photons, waves or radiate.
I'll be happy to PM you Dr Raeder's contact info.
He'd probably be enjoy mocking your confusion.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 23, 2019)

EvMetro said:


> It is interesting to see a debate about heat when established science is so clear.  It's like seeing a debate about which way water flows...



[giggle] ... wait until we start pointing the gravity vector straight up ... that's always good fun ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


> BTW light is heat and photons are light.  So the 2nd law takes it all under consideration.



*BTW light is heat *

Prove it.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> We're moving energy from a cool reservoir to empty space ... do you see that step ... 300K object radiates into 3K space ... think of a dirt molecule, above it at some distance is a nitrogen molecule, in between the two is empty space ... or are you suggesting all these molecules are in physical contact? ...


empty space is cooler.  how so?  no violations there. not at all.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2019)

QUOTE="Toddsterpatriot, post: 23350314, member: 29707"]





jc456 said:


> BTW light is heat and photons are light.  So the 2nd law takes it all under consideration.



*BTW light is heat *

Prove it.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*I'm not doing your work for you.*

I'm not trying to prove your claim...….you're not doing YOUR work.

*even SB when T=Tc and power is zero.*

If you have proof that no photons move when T=Tc, you should post it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 23, 2019)

EvMetro said:


> It is interesting to see a debate about heat when established science is so clear.  It's like seeing a debate about which way water flows...



*It is interesting to see a debate about heat *

I'm not debating heat, I'm debating photons.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


_I'm not trying to prove your claim._

I'm not asking, you can't prove your own.

T=Tc = zero,  no output.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2019)

QUOTE="Toddsterpatriot, post: 23350335, member: 29707"]





EvMetro said:


> It is interesting to see a debate about heat when established science is so clear.  It's like seeing a debate about which way water flows...



*It is interesting to see a debate about heat *

I'm not debating heat, I'm debating photons.[/QUOTE]

photons are light and light is heat, so yes you are.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*T=Tc = zero, no output. *

If you have a source that says no output (photons) when T=Tc......post it.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


photons are an output and if zero output is the answer, then zero photons follow.

Physics for Kids: Photons and Light

*What is a photon?*

_In physics, a photon is a bundle of electromagnetic energy. It is the basic unit that makes up all light. The photon is sometimes referred to as a "quantum" of electromagnetic energy._

Let me know when zero isn't zero.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


> I'm not doing your work for you.  you prove cooler objects violate the 2nd law and Clausius Statement.
> 
> even SB when T=Tc and power is zero.



You should definitely focus on doing your own work ... Clausius Theorem states:   ∫ dQ/T = 0 (where ∫ is a circle integral, Q = heat transferred and T = temperature) ... maybe start by refreshing my memory of what a circle integral is ...

There's no Tc variable in SB ... try again ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Thanks. Now if you have one that helps your claim, it would be even better.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not doing your work for you.  you prove cooler objects violate the 2nd law and Clausius Statement.
> ...


hmmmmm

Stefan-Boltzmann Law






and from that is T=Tc = zero.  P=zero!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


post up that light energy moving from cold to warm.  we're still waiting todd.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


> hmmmmm
> 
> Stefan-Boltzmann Law
> 
> ...



That's not Stefan-Boltzmann greybody Law ... P=eoAT^4 ... you can't just throw the Tc factor in without explaining why ... the emission of an object doesn't take into consideration the eventual fate of the energy ... you seem to be confused about cause-and-effect ... one follows the other ...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > hmmmmm
> ...


I didn't say it was.  I said SB law. I posted the calculation and the answer will always be zero if T=Tc.  no matter how you wish to make it.  2nd law, cool objects don't flow to hot objects.  until you get by all of this, your physics is junk.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 23, 2019)

What's the difference between SB Law and SB Law? ...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> What's the difference between SB Law and SB law? ...


well?


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 23, 2019)

I'm asking you ... I say nothing is different ... P=eoAT^4 ... there's no Tc term ...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 24, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> I'm asking you ... I say nothing is different ... P=eoAT^4 ... there's no Tc term ...




Because that is the form of the SB law used for a radiator that is less than an ideal black body but is still radiating into a vacuum...you don't seem to grasp that different forms of the equation exist for different circumstances...if you don't see a Tc term, then the equation implies that the black body is radiating into a vacuum.  If you don't see an e term, then the equation implies that you are talking about a theoretical ideal black body..

Generally there is no explanation of what the equation is saying, or implying because it is assumed that you know..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > I'm asking you ... I say nothing is different ... P=eoAT^4 ... there's no Tc term ...
> ...



Of course......dimmer switch!


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Because that is the form of the SB law used for a radiator that is less than an ideal black body but is still radiating into a vacuum...you don't seem to grasp that different forms of the equation exist for different circumstances...if you don't see a Tc term, then the equation implies that the black body is radiating into a vacuum.  If you don't see an e term, then the equation implies that you are talking about a theoretical ideal black body..
> 
> Generally there is no explanation of what the equation is saying, or implying because it is assumed that you know..



Of course we're radiating into space (technically not a vacuum) ... where did you think we were radiating to? ... chocolate pudding, the persistent rash on my ankle, some magically charged æther? ... are you trying to put two black bodies together, without any space in between? ... that's about as far removed from what Stefan-Blotzmann is addressing as we can get ... 

I'm sorry the Alarmists have convinced you that we can treat the atmosphere as a black body, we can't, we treat it as a fluid ... whatever's going on, we can assign a value of emissivity and use this in our equation without bothering with all the details of NS ... emissivity is a synonym of the greenhouse effect ... have you even bothered to solve the equation for this value of emissivity? ... didn't think so ...

What you don't seem to grasp is all forms of SB are algebraically identical ... if you'll remember from high school algebra, if we include a Tc term on one side of the equals sign, we have to include it on the other side ... P in this context is irradiance, somehow subtracting Tc from this makes it something _other than_ irradiance ... therefore yours is something _other than_ SB ... get it, the Earth radiates into space, no where else ... 

I checked yesterday ... weather satellites are still showing IR radiation at local noon ... apparently the Earth does radiate towards the Sun ... care to explain how this is possible if it violates your version of the 2nd Law? ... maybe the dimmer switch is broken again ...


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> .if you don't see a Tc term, then the equation implies that the black body is radiating into a vacuum. If you don't see an e term, then the equation implies that you are talking about a theoretical ideal black body..


Suppose the object is colder than the surround. The resulting negative value of power P then refers to how much the object absorbs. 



SSDD said:


> Generally there is no explanation of what the equation is saying, or implying because it is assumed that you know..


It is assumed that scientists know. Apparently you don't know what the equation is saying even though we gave you the meaning countless times.

.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 24, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Because that is the form of the SB law used for a radiator that is less than an ideal black body but is still radiating into a vacuum...you don't seem to grasp that different forms of the equation exist for different circumstances...if you don't see a Tc term, then the equation implies that the black body is radiating into a vacuum.  If you don't see an e term, then the equation implies that you are talking about a theoretical ideal black body..
> ...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 24, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> I'm asking you ... I say nothing is different ... P=eoAT^4 ... there's no Tc term ...





ReinyDays said:


> I'm asking you ... I say nothing is different ... P=eoAT^4 ... there's no Tc term ...


but there is,

_where e is the emissivity of the object (e = 1 for ideal radiator). If the hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings at temperature Tc, the net radiation loss rate takes the form_
_


energy transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing the net radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:




Calculation




While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying net radiative transfer to the object.

Why is a good absorber of radiation also a good emitter?
Index

Blackbody radiation concepts

Heat transfer concepts

HyperPhysics***** Thermodynamics R Nave
Go Back

_


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > I'm asking you ... I say nothing is different ... P=eoAT^4 ... there's no Tc term ...
> ...







Yup.

Why is a good absorber of radiation also a good emitter?

Is it because SSDD's one-way claim is wrong?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


2nd law says so.  can't get past that one todd.  I know it's hard.  but, your failure continues.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*2nd law says so*

That SSDD is wrong? Nice!

*can't get past that one todd. *

I can't get passed SSDD's errors.

* but, your failure continues.*

I know, but I'll continue to try to educate you idiots. No matter how much I fail to make you realize your errors.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


nor can you get past the 2nd law.  keep trying, a nobel is in it for you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



There is no conflict between the 2nd Law and two way energy flow as calculated with Stefan-Boltzmann.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


as long as cool doesn't flow to hot right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



What is cool? How does cool flow?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


to cooler objects.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Cool (undefined) flows to cooler objects? 

What are you trying, so poorly, to say?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


warmer objects flow to cooler ones.  I thought that was the discussion.  hmmmmm you lost?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*warmer objects flow to cooler ones.*

Now objects are flowing? Weird.

*I thought that was the discussion.*

Your confusion is become more obvious.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I never said hot didn't flow to cool.  you're confused again as usual.

here tell this guy he's wrong

_Clausius statement:_ It is impossible for heat to move of itself from a lower-temperature reservoir to a higher-temperature reservoir. That is, heat transfer can only occur spontaneously in the direction of *temperature decrease.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*I never said hot didn't flow to cool.*

Where did you hear that "hot flows"?
Where did you hear that "cool flows"?

You're speaking non-scientific gibberish.

*here tell this guy he's wrong*

He's not wrong. It's your misunderstanding of his statement that's wrong.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I'm just talking on an internet board.  I gave the statement from a physicist.  when you can show the opposite transfer of heat than his comment, you be getting a nobel prize ole boi!!

_Clausius statement:_ It is impossible for heat to move of itself from a lower-temperature reservoir to a higher-temperature reservoir. That is, heat transfer can only occur spontaneously in the direction of temperature decrease.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*I'm just talking on an internet board.*

Yes, all your errors are on an internet board.

* I gave the statement from a physicist. *

No physicist said "hot flows to cool".

*when you can show the opposite transfer of heat than his comment*

His comment is correct.  Your misunderstanding is not correct.

_Clausius statement: It is impossible for heat to move of itself from a lower-temperature reservoir to a higher-temperature reservoir. That is, heat transfer can only occur spontaneously in the direction of temperature decrease._

Yup. And there is no conflict between this statement and the statement that the energy objects radiate  is directly proportional to the fourth power of the body's thermodynamic temperature.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


> but there is,
> 
> _where e is the emissivity of the object (e = 1 for ideal radiator). If the hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings at temperature Tc, the *net* radiation loss rate takes the form ..._
> 
> _... P = *net* radiated power ..._



[red emphasis mine]

Other than a couple nitpicky mistakes ... the major flaw is you're using *net *values, this has the usual definition in this context, the difference between two (typically) opposite values ... gross income - payroll taxes = net income ... people born - people died = net population change ... here we have (power from 1 to 2) - (power from 2 to 1) = net power ... you claim the term (power from 2 to1) does not exist, which makes the net power equation stated above complete nonsense ... you can't have things both ways ...

The workaround is setting Tc = 3 K and ignore it ... that is the published value for the temperature of outer space ... or do you think we should a different value for this temperature of space? ...

The mistakes in your reference are tragic ... the idealness of our radiator has nothing to do with emissivity, these are all ideal; for e = 1 we have an ideal black body, for 0 < e < 1 we have an ideal grey body ... more troubling is P = power; when we insert the A term for area (in m^2), then the P term is irradiance (in W/m^2), we can drop the A term and then our P term becomes power (in W) ... very undisciplined on the part of the author ...

Do we know why weather satellites image IR at local noon? ...


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 24, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> Other than a couple nitpicky mistakes ... the major flaw is you're using *net *values, this has the usual definition in this context, the difference between two (typically) opposite values ... gross income - payroll taxes = net income ... people born - people died = net population change ... here we have (power from 1 to 2) - (power from 2 to 1) = net power ... you claim the term (power from 2 to1) does not exist, which makes the net power equation stated above complete nonsense ... you can't have things both ways ...
> 
> The workaround is setting Tc = 3 K and ignore it ... that is the published value for the temperature of outer space ... or do you think we should a different value for this temperature of space? ...
> 
> ...


Oops. It looks like SSDD didn't coach his sock puppet enough in how to promote fake science. 
.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 25, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> Of course we're radiating into space (technically not a vacuum) ... where did you think we were radiating to? ... chocolate pudding, the persistent rash on my ankle, some magically charged æther? ... are you trying to put two black bodies together, without any space in between? ... that's about as far removed from what Stefan-Blotzmann is addressing as we can get ...



Are you sure you aren't wuwei's sock...once again, you are arguing against something I never said....



ReinyDays said:


> I'm sorry the Alarmists have convinced you that we can treat the atmosphere as a black body, we can't, we treat it as a fluid ...



Again...arguing against something I never said...in fact I have said explicitly more than once that the atmosphere is not a black body...and not even a gray body....



ReinyDays said:


> What you don't seem to grasp is all forms of SB are algebraically identical ...



And you seem to think that that makes them physically the same...this may come as a surprise to you but those equations describe different physical realities...till you come to terms with that, your arguments will be moot.



ReinyDays said:


> I checked yesterday ... weather satellites are still showing IR radiation at local noon ... apparently the Earth does radiate towards the Sun ... care to explain how this is possible if it violates your version of the 2nd Law? ... maybe the dimmer switch is broken again ...



You mean energy is radiating towards the satellite which is blocking the sun?  Of course..the satellite is cooler than the surface of the earth..in order to say that the earth is radiating towards the sun, you would have to make your measurements from the sun itself...if you block the sun with a cooler object, of course radiation is going to move from the warmer earth to the cooler object.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > .if you don't see a Tc term, then the equation implies that the black body is radiating into a vacuum. If you don't see an e term, then the equation implies that you are talking about a theoretical ideal black body..
> ...



Again...you fail to understand the fundamental assumption of the SB law...that being that the radiator is always...ALWAYS radiating into cooler surroundings...



Wuwei said:


> It is assumed that scientists know. Apparently you don't know what the equation is saying even though we gave you the meaning countless times.
> 
> .



And clearly many do not...since the SB law is used routinely to determine radiation emitting from the atmosphere...  

And look who is talking...how many pages did you resist actually stating in english what the equation said?  ...was it 6 pages or was it 10 pages..and when you finally said in plain english what the equation was stating, you finally admitted that it was saying precisely what I had been saying that it said...then you immediately reverted to your interpretation..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > Of course we're radiating into space (technically not a vacuum) ... where did you think we were radiating to? ... chocolate pudding, the persistent rash on my ankle, some magically charged æther? ... are you trying to put two black bodies together, without any space in between? ... that's about as far removed from what Stefan-Blotzmann is addressing as we can get ...
> ...



*You mean energy is radiating towards the satellite which is blocking the sun? Of course..the satellite is cooler than the surface of the earth..in order to say that the earth is radiating towards the sun, you would have to make your measurements from the sun itself...if you block the sun with a cooler object, of course radiation is going to move from the warmer earth to the cooler object. *

Smart emitters are awesome!!!


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Again...you fail to understand the fundamental assumption of the SB law...that being that the radiator is always...ALWAYS radiating into cooler surroundings...


The SB law doesn't put any constraints on the surrounding temperature.
The SB law works for a warmer surround. The equation simply shows that the object absorbs more than it emits.
Here are some references.






*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Radiation – The Physics Hypertextbook
It is now derived mathematically from Planck's law.
P = ɛơA(T⁴ − T₀⁴)
where…
P = net heat flow rate [W] emitted (+) or absorbed (−)
A = surface area [m²] of the object emitting or absorbing thermal radiation
T = absolute temperature [K] of the object emitting or absorbing thermal radiation
T₀ = absolute temperature [K] of the environment
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*
SBLaw
To correct for this absorption, you should use a modified Stefan-Boltzmann Law:
L = As (T⁴ - Tenv⁴)
Where Tenv is the temperature of the environment.
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Stefan–Boltzmann Law - Stefan-Boltzmann Constant
Two bodies that radiate toward each other have a net heat flux between them. The net flow rate of heat between them is given by:
q = ɛơ(T⁴₁ −T⁴₂) [J/m²s]
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Blackbody Radiation - ScienceDirect
All objects that have a temperature at any value other than absolute zero continuously emit and absorb radiation.



SSDD said:


> And look who is talking...how many pages did you resist actually stating in english what the equation said? ...was it 6 pages or was it 10 pages..and when you finally said in plain english what the equation was stating, you finally admitted that it was saying precisely what I had been saying that it said...then you immediately reverted to your interpretation..


Your memory deceives you. I have always said the SB law was net energy absorption or loss depending on temperature difference.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 25, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> What you don't seem to grasp is all forms of SB are algebraically identical .





SSDD said:


> And you seem to think that that makes them physically the same...this may come as a surprise to you but those equations describe different physical realities...



That is one of the grossest misunderstandings of science that I have ever heard. 
Algebraic manipulation does not change the meanings of the terms used in a formula. Complex arithmetic and algebra is used in deriving almost everything in science. The "physical realities" of each term is and must be unchanged for anything to make sense. 

There is no limit to the depth that you will sink to in order to promote your fake physics. That really takes the cake.

.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > ... where did you think we were radiating to? ...
> ...



Right ... you've never said where we're radiating to ... let's try this again ... I say we're radiating into outer space ... you think we're radiating into [fill in the blank] ...



SSDD said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry the Alarmists have convinced you that we can treat the atmosphere as a black body, we can't, we treat it as a fluid ...
> ...





SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > It is assumed that scientists know. Apparently you don't know what the equation is saying even though we gave you the meaning countless times.
> ...



Are you making two opposite claims now? ... that's funny ... you got it right the first time, but you discovered that "paints you into a corner" ... you can't have things both ways ...



SSDD said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > What you don't seem to grasp is all forms of SB are algebraically identical ...
> ...



Do you mean in alternate universes there's alternate realities? ... not sure that makes claims in _this_ universe and _this_ reality moot, but it's an interesting philosophical question ... total power is proportional to the 4th power of temperature, to make a math equation we insert the "constant of proportionality" giving us P = oT^4 where o = the Stefan=Boltzmann constant ... whatever _correct_ algebra we apply doesn't change the proportionality ... perhaps in some alternate universe we can add a Tc term to one side of the equation and not the other ... but in _this_ universe that's _incorrect_ ... it's also _incorrect_ to use the same letter to represent two different values in the same context ... [rolls eyes] ... but I'm afraid you're way too far down your rabbit hole to see this ... tell Alice I said hello ...



SSDD said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > I checked yesterday ... weather satellites are still showing IR radiation at local noon ... apparently the Earth does radiate towards the Sun ... care to explain how this is possible if it violates your version of the 2nd Law? ... maybe the dimmer switch is broken again ...
> ...



Ha ha ha ha ... that's rich ... intelligent photons with a sophisticated communications network ... or are you suggesting for the cause of the camera we have the effect of a photon being emitted 50 milliseconds _*beforehand*_? ... is this a joke? ...



> the bartender says "we don't serve faster-than-light particles in this establishment" ... A tachyon walks into a bar ...



Ha ha ha ha ... get it? ... the effect occurs before the cause ... it's a joke, don't take it seriously ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Your memory deceives you. I have always said the SB law was net energy absorption or loss depending on temperature difference.



[raises hand] ... it was I who said SB law is used without consideration of where the energy goes ... because the energy always goes into outer space ... that's a perfectly safe assumption for photometry ... and as I understand matters, it's also perfectly safe for computational fluid dynamics ... I suppose that doesn't make sense to someone so unclear on basic algebra ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 25, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...



*Ha ha ha ha ... get it? ... the effect occurs before the cause ... it's a joke, don't take it seriously … *

SSDD has claimed that photons can predict their target billions of light years away, billions of years in the future, before they decide to travel in that direction.

It's a long, confusing explanation, just to deny "back radiation".


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Your memory deceives you. I have always said the SB law was net energy absorption or loss depending on temperature difference.
> 
> .



I can only guess that you just lie so much that you can't remember what you said to who...

In reference to this equation:






You said...and I quote:

_"That particular equation states that the power output from an object is emissivity times sigma times the area times the fourth power object temperature minus the fourth power of a colder background."_

And you said it here:

Paradoxical Earth..  Complex responses often misinterpreted...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> where did you think we were radiating to? ...



Ever notice people's eyes glazing over when you talk to them because they have no idea what you are talking about?  This is a good example...Feel free to provide a quote from me suggesting that the earth is radiating anywhere other than into space.  I'll wait... 




ReinyDays said:


> Right ... you've never said where we're radiating to ... let's try this again ... I say we're radiating into outer space ... you think we're radiating into [fill in the blank] ...



See above...still waiting





ReinyDays said:


> Are you making two opposite claims now? ... that's funny ... you got it right the first time, but you discovered that "paints you into a corner" ... you can't have things both ways ...



Again...what in the hell are you talking about?  What "opposite" claims are you suggesting that I made....I'll wait....



ReinyDays said:


> total power is proportional to the 4th power of temperature, to make a math equation we insert the "constant of proportionality" giving us P = oT^4 where o = the Stefan=Boltzmann constant ... whatever _correct_ algebra we apply doesn't change the proportionality ...



Proportionality was not the topic..but thanks for sharing...




ReinyDays said:


> Ha ha ha ha ... that's rich ... intelligent photons with a sophisticated communications network ... or are you suggesting for the cause of the camera we have the effect of a photon being emitted 50 milliseconds _*beforehand*_? ... is this a joke? ...



Yet another person who thinks that intelligence is required to obey the laws of physics...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Your memory deceives you. I have always said the SB law was net energy absorption or loss depending on temperature difference.
> ...




Again.....thanks for sharing but your comments have nothing to do with the statement wuwei was answering...


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 26, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Your memory deceives you. I have always said the SB law was net energy absorption or loss depending on temperature difference..
> ...



Just what are you whining about? I explained it a few posts later.


Wuwei said:


> You are the one who was dishonest.
> The only reason I said a colder background is because *you said you were calling Tc colder*. But science recognizes that in the more general form, the background can be any temperature and the SB equation tells how fast an object gains or loses temperature depending on if the background temperature is higher or lower.


If you had posted the equation
P =  ƐơA (T⁴ – TH⁴)​and said TH was hotter than T, then I would have said
_"That particular equation states that the power *absorbed* from an object is emissivity times sigma times the area times the fourth power object temperature minus the fourth power *of a hotter background*."_

However, as I said then and say now science recognizes the more general equation is:
P =  ƐơA (T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)​Where the equation is valid for any temperatures, T₁ and T₂.

.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 26, 2019)

The backtracking begins ... "I never said that and you can't make me admit that I did" ... 

*So:* you agree the cooler Earth can radiate towards the warmer Sun as long as there's eight minutes of much colder space in between ... and that because the Earth is entirely surrounded by the much colder space, she radiates in all directions ... _i.e._ radially ...

*Proportionality was not the topic..but thanks for sharing...*

Yes ... this is the topic at hand ... Stefen-Boltzmann Law is stated as a proportionality ... if you're not using this law, then you can't use the equation that's based on the law ... although this may explain some of your confusion about SB ...

*Yet another person who thinks that intelligence is required to obey the laws of physics...*

Wow ... just wow ... I think you should drink a cup of coffee before posting to the internet ... resurrect your objective self and read this line again ... see, whatever you were trying to say came out horribly wrong ... 

If you are now agreed that the cold Earth can radiate towards the hot Sun as long as there's plenty of much colder space in between ... we can get back to the subject at hand ... we can use Wein's Law and determine the Earth's blackbody temperature is 4ºC ... however, we measure 16ºC ... you claim this can't be caused by the greenhouse effect, but you still haven't explained what does cause this higher temperature ... "I'll wait" ...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 27, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> The backtracking begins ... "I never said that and you can't make me admit that I did" ...



Not at all.  Just pointing out that it seems as if you are looking at me, but having a conversation with some entirely different person.

And why am I not surprised that you didn't provide any quotes from me stating the things you claim I said?

*


ReinyDays said:



			So:
		
Click to expand...

*


ReinyDays said:


> you agree the cooler Earth can radiate towards the warmer Sun as long as there's eight minutes of much colder space in between ... and that because the Earth is entirely surrounded by the much colder space, she radiates in all directions ... _i.e._ radially ...



Once again...you must be speaking to someone else.  I never agreed to any such thing.  Do you suffer from wuwei's affliction?  He reads the words I write, but then they go through some sort of interpretation filter in his head which leaves him arguing against things I never said as well  Unfortunate...to be able to read words but not respond to them directly...



ReinyDays said:


> Yes ... this is the topic at hand ... Stefen-Boltzmann Law is stated as a proportionality ... if you're not using this law, then you can't use the equation that's based on the law ... although this may explain some of your confusion about SB ...



Talk about getting lost in trivialities...




ReinyDays said:


> Wow ... just wow ... I think you should drink a cup of coffee before posting to the internet ... resurrect your objective self and read this line again ... see, whatever you were trying to say came out horribly wrong ...



I doubt it.  I tend to say exactly what I meant to say.



ReinyDays said:


> If you are now agreed that the cold Earth can radiate towards the hot Sun as long as there's plenty of much colder space in between ... we can get back to the subject at hand ... ..



Again....a conversation with someone else...I certainly never agreed to any such thing, and really didn't see a post from anyone who did.  Maybe if you provide the exact statement from me to which you are speaking, we can at least establish that you aren't actually responding to anything that I have actually said.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 27, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Just what are you whining about? I explained it a few posts later.



No..  You stated exactly what the equation said..then a few posts later you stated your interpretation ....which was quite different from what the equation actually said..


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 27, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Do you suffer from wuwei's affliction? He reads the words I write, but then they go through some sort of interpretation filter in his head which leaves him arguing against things I never said as well Unfortunate...to be able to read words but not respond to them directly...


That is a total lie. You are being a lying troll again.
.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 27, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Just what are you whining about? I explained it a few posts later.
> ...


Of course I stated the equation in terms of what you said the Tc meant. If you want it to be colder in that specific case, then that is the assumption. 


SSDD said:


> then a few posts later you stated your interpretation ....which was quite different from what the equation actually said..



Do you suffer from an affliction? You read the words I write, but then go through some sort of interpretation filter in your head 

I later stated the SCIENCE meaning of the equation which is *not* an interpretation. 

Read this again:
If you had posted the equation
P = ƐơA (T⁴ – TH⁴)​and said TH was hotter than T, then I would have said
_"That particular equation states that the power *absorbed* from an object is emissivity times sigma times the area times the fourth power object temperature minus the fourth power *of a hotter background*."_
However, as I said then and say now science recognizes the more general equation is:
P = ƐơA (T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)​Where the equation is valid for any temperatures, T₁ and T₂.

That is not an interpretation. It's the science you will find in any appropriate textbook, lecture, or journal. Your problem is that you have never read any textbook, or journal, or listened to any lecture on the subject. So it's understandable you have a misinterpretation.

.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 27, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> ... we can use Wein's Law and determine the Earth's blackbody temperature is 4ºC ... however, we measure 16ºC ... you claim this can't be caused by the greenhouse effect, but you still haven't explained what does cause this higher temperature ... "I'll wait" ...



You forgot to answer this last part ...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 28, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > ... we can use Wein's Law and determine the Earth's blackbody temperature is 4ºC ... however, we measure 16ºC ... you claim this can't be caused by the greenhouse effect, but you still haven't explained what does cause this higher temperature ... "I'll wait" ...
> ...



I will go with Maxwell, Clausius, and Carnot who thought that the temperature of the atmosphere is the result of incoming solar radiation, gravity, atmospheric mass, pressure, density and heat capacities....they all predicted temperature gradients in columns of air but lacked instrumentation sensitive enough to verify the predictions...such temperature gradients have been observed, measured, and repeated in the laboratory by Graeff.


Maxwell, Clausius, and Carnot.....who was Arrhenius anyway and why does his hypothesis still lack any observed, measured support after all these years?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > but there is,
> ...


My math says if T=Tc in the equation, the answer is zero.  dude you can make up all the bullshit you want, but the math equation when t=tc = zero.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Again...you fail to understand the fundamental assumption of the SB law...that being that the radiator is always...ALWAYS radiating into cooler surroundings...
> ...


I love it when you all don't know what a minus sign actually means. And why one is T and the other is t something.  'T' is always before the minus sign.  hmmmmmm and when they equal each other the answer to the equation will always be zero.  always.  unless of course your math skills have escalated outside ours.

And exactly where is the 'W' at in this equation?
_ Radiation – The Physics Hypertextbook
  It is now derived mathematically from Planck's law.
P = ɛơA(T⁴ − T₀⁴)
  where…
  P = net heat* flow rate [W] emitted *(+) or absorbed (−)
  A = surface area [m²] of the object emitting or absorbing thermal radiation
  T = absolute temperature [K] of the object emitting or absorbing thermal radiation
  T₀ = absolute temperature [K] of the environment_
and btw, when 'T' equals 'T_o'_ P=Zero.  Zero flow rate.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


what does this say?

_P = net heat* flow rate [W] emitted *(+) or absorbed (−)_

your buddy ole  wuwei posted it.  what's that one word there, kind of foggy I supposed,  But on my screen, it says FLOW Rate.....emitted!!!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


_Again...you fail to understand the fundamental assumption of the SB law...that being that the radiator is always...ALWAYS radiating into cooler surroundings..._

isn't that why the 'T' is always the leading digit in the equation ahead of the minus sign and then the 'Tc'?  It is truly hilarious, they don't understand the equation design.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*But on my screen, it says FLOW Rate.....*

It doesn't say "hot flows" or "cool flows"?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


what does flow mean in your world exactly? Rate infers moving.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



What does "hot flows" mean in your world exactly?

What does "cool flows" mean in your world exactly?​


----------



## SSDD (Oct 28, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



To them, it means whatever it needs to mean in order to support their beliefs...actual definitions, and meanings are optional to them...its that whole interpretation thing doncha know....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2019)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*To them, it means whatever it needs to mean in order to support their beliefs..*

Like the definition of spontaneous. DURR


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*flow*
verb
\ ˈflō  \
flowed; flowing; flows
*Definition of flow*
 (Entry 1 of 2)

intransitive verb

1a(1): to issue or move in a streamrivers flow into the sea
(2): CIRCULATE
b: to move with a continual change of place among the constituent particles


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2019)

Hard photon flow and photon-photon correlation in intermediate...

*Hard photon flow and photon-photon correlation in intermediate energy heavy-ion collisions*
Y. G. Ma, G. H. Liu, X. Z. Cai, D. Q. Fang, W. Guo, W. Q. Shen, W. D. Tian, H. W. Wang
(Submitted on 1 Mar 2012)
_Hard photons emitted from energetic heavy ion collisions are very interesting since they do not experience nuclear interaction, and therefore they are useful to explore properties of nuclear matter. We investigated hard photon production and its properties in intermediate energy heavy-ion collisions with the help of the Blotzmann-Uehling-Ulenbeck model. Two components of hard photons are discussed: direct and thermal. _


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



So "hot flows" with a continual change of place among the constituent particles?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


sure it's leaving one place to another. to move!!! right?  the heat moves from the hot object to the cold object.  Right?  I mean, isn't that why the earth gets warm?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*sure it's leaving one place to another. to move!!! right?*

Hot is leaving one place to another?

Link?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


nope, I gave all you get.  take your game to another.

BTW, cool objects don't radiate to a warm objects until you prove it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*nope, I gave all you get.*

Right, you said "hot flows" and "cool flows".

I've been laughing ever since.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 28, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I will go with Maxwell, Clausius, and Carnot who thought that the temperature of the atmosphere is the result of incoming solar radiation, gravity, atmospheric mass, pressure, density and heat capacities....they all predicted temperature gradients in columns of air but lacked instrumentation sensitive enough to verify the predictions...such temperature gradients have been observed, measured, and repeated in the laboratory by Graeff.
> 
> Maxwell, Clausius, and Carnot.....who was Arrhenius anyway and why does his hypothesis still lack any observed, measured support after all these years?



Those are some great names in science ... easy to throw out there without any understanding of what they contributed ... but I'll bite, what did they say? ... let's make this simpler; after one second, our square meter of the Earth's surface absorbs 1,000 joules of energy ... Clausius tells us this can't stand ... where does this 1,000 J go, and which force drives it there? ...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I did!!  thanks for quoting me.

you think I care, and that has me on the floor!!!


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I will go with Maxwell, Clausius, and Carnot who thought that the temperature of the atmosphere is the result of incoming solar radiation, gravity, atmospheric mass, pressure, density and heat capacities....they all predicted temperature gradients in columns of air but lacked instrumentation sensitive enough to verify the predictions...such temperature gradients have been observed, measured, and repeated in the laboratory by Graeff.
> ...


----------



## gfm7175 (Oct 28, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Yes, photons can be emitted in all directions, but that does not magickally make heat flow backwards. We are speaking about a continuous process, not a sequence of processes. The Sun heats the surface, the surface heats the atmosphere, and the atmosphere heats space.  Heat cannot suddenly and magickally flow from the atmosphere to the surface again...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > gfm7175 said:
> ...


sure it can, just look at the evidence.  oh wait,  there isn't any, uh-oh


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > gfm7175 said:
> ...



*Yes, photons can be emitted in all directions*

Excellent!

Don't tell SSDD and jc456.

* but that does not magickally make heat flow backwards.*

Obviously.

*Heat cannot suddenly and magickally flow from the atmosphere to the surface again...*

But photons from the atmosphere can move toward the surface. Right?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


_Don't tell SSDD and jc456._

tell us what?  I stated photons can be emitted in all directions.  hmmm you should post that quote where i said that didn't happen.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > gfm7175 said:
> ...



What about photons flowing from 10C to 20C? Is that allowed?

*Yes, photons can be emitted in all directions*


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


flowing?  hmmmmm too funny.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 29, 2019)

I try and avoid using the word "heat" in this context, that's such an 18th Century concept ... I'm fine if folks want to use the words "heat" and "energy" interchangeably ... but some use "heat" exclusively and seem to rely on caloric flow ... the notion of the caloric particle was mostly abandoned 200 years ago, along with the alchemy that relied on caloric flow ... 

If we want to use "heat = energy" ... please keep in mind that energy can flow without any change in temperature ... and it sounds stupid to say heat flows without temperature change ... just saying ...

*Heat cannot suddenly and magickally flow from the atmosphere to the surface again*

This is true for caloric flow, the magic only allows flow in one direction depending on the specific hand motions of the alchemist and how much money the king is paying for the magic ... energy certainly can, and can be demonstrated by tracking radionuclides as they move from the surface to the air and back again ... remember, energy can flow without changing temperature ... caloric particles cannot ...


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 29, 2019)

I agree. Heat and temperature are very misunderstood concepts in this forum. Two people here even posted that a single molecule can have a temperature.

The ancients didn't differentiate between heat and EM radiation. That was before the idea of radiation. 

To prevent confusion in some cases I use the phrase "thermal energy" because it implies the form of energy is random motion. 
.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 29, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I agree. Heat and temperature are very misunderstood concepts in this forum. Two people here even posted that a single molecule can have a temperature.
> 
> The ancients didn't differentiate between heat and EM radiation. That was before the idea of radiation.
> 
> ...


wow, amazing.  just post something that backs your statement.  go ahead, name a group that backs your confusion.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


hey yo, here's another using the word 'flow'.  hmmmmmm

Heat and Thermal Energy
_Heat always flows from the system with a higher temperature towards the system or systems with a lower temperature._

Shut up!! no way huh?  Only jc uses that term 'flow'.  hey todd, what's that thing in your hand?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 29, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




*Only jc uses that term 'flow'.*

Only jc uses that term 'hot flows'.

Only jc uses that term 'cold flows'.

DURR


----------



## jc456 (Oct 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Bam


----------



## SSDD (Oct 30, 2019)

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. *Energy* *will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.*


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 30, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. *Energy* *will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.*


That is one statement of the second law, but there are many others in the references which are different.

These various statements of the second law do not use the words "spontaneous" nor "net" nor "energy". They are the *Clausius *form, *Carnot's* form and the *entropy* form.
*Do you disagree with any of the following references of the second law?*

Clausius Statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics
“_It is impossible to construct a device which operates on a cycle and whose sole effect is the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body”._
Carnot’s principle states:
_1. No engine can be more efficient than a reversible engine (a Carnot heat engine) operating between the same high temperature and low temperature reservoirs.
2. The efficiencies of all reversible engines (Carnot heat engines) operating between the same constant temperature reservoirs are the same, regardless of the working substance employed or the operation details._
Thermodynamics - The second law of thermodynamics
_A cyclic transformation whose only final result is to transfer heat from a body at a given temperature to a body at a higher temperature is impossible._
Second Law of Thermodynamics
_It is impossible to extract an amount of heat QH from a hot reservoir and use it all to do work W. Some amount of heat QC must be exhausted to a cold reservoir. This precludes a perfect heat engine._
_Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same._
5.1 Concept and Statements of the Second Law
_No process is possible whose sole result is the absorption of heat from a reservoir and the conversion of this heat into work. [Kelvin-Planck statement of the second law.]_
_No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body. [Clausius statement of the second law]_
Second Law of Thermodynamics
_The final entropy must be greater than the initial entropy for an irreversible process._
*Do you think any of those references are wrong?*

.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 30, 2019)

Perhaps if *SSDD* posted his walk-through of how energy moves through the atmosphere, then we could better understand how he's using the 2nd law ... and why he's using it that way ... 

Solar energy is absorbed by the Earth's surface ... now what happens? ...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 30, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> Perhaps if *SSDD* posted his walk-through of how energy moves through the atmosphere, then we could better understand how he's using the 2nd law ... and why he's using it that way ...
> 
> Solar energy is absorbed by the Earth's surface ... now what happens? ...


you don't know? wow, you act like such a brain in here.  wow!!!


----------



## SSDD (Oct 30, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. *Energy* *will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.*
> ...



They all say the same thing....energy doesn't move spontaneously from a lower state to a higher state..


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 30, 2019)

SSDD said:


> They all say the same thing....energy doesn't move spontaneously from a lower state to a higher state..


That is a grossly wrong interpretation. None say the same thing.* None of those statements I quoted use the words "spontaneous" nor "net" nor "energy". 
*
Furthermore you have not defined what you mean by "state".
*.*


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 30, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> Perhaps if *SSDD* posted his walk-through of how energy moves through the atmosphere, then we could better understand how he's using the 2nd law ... and why he's using it that way ...
> 
> Solar energy is absorbed by the Earth's surface ... now what happens? ...



I have asked him that "what happens next" question countless times but he avoids it.

The average earth temperature is around 15C. That means the earth radiates around 396 Watts per square meter. He doesn't believe that CO2 turns that into thermal energy; and he believes that the absorbed energy is lost through collisions.

My basic question is where does that 396 Watts per square meter go?
It doesn't all go to outer space.

The whole contradiction becomes more obvious when it comes to Venus where the surface temperature is 462 degrees C (hot enough to melt zinc and lead) and radiates 16500 Watts per square meter. 

He won't answer that question either -- "Where does that radiation go?"

.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 30, 2019)

That's sad ... here he has his own thread pinned to the top on the Environment forum all for his special use to tell everyone why the greenhouse effect doesn't exist ... he's gotten as far as claiming that the 100 years of scientific research is bogus all started by that charlatan Alessandro Volta and his clever use of unicorn pee ...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 31, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I have asked him that "what happens next" question countless times but he avoids it.
> 
> 
> .



What a liar....we have been through it more than once on this thread alone...It begins with the fact that conduction and convection are the primary modes of energy movement through the troposphere...  Your penchant for lying...and reinterpreting everything that passes into your mind is why I don't care much for talking to you...i find repeating myself ad nauseam tedious in the extreme...


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 31, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I have asked him that "what happens next" question countless times but he avoids it..
> ...


So you want to cover your ignorance and shame by calling me a liar. Misinterpretation is one way you have of avoiding the question again: Where does the hot surface radiation go? 

The surface of Earth and Venus are respectively radiating 396 and 16500 Watts per square meter. 
That LWIR radiation has nowhere to go but upward through the atmosphere.
You said that the presence of CO2 in the air does not cause absorption of LWIR energy.
Countless times you said the proof was in heating company literature.
Yes, yes convection and a minor amount of conduction can move thermal energy.
But *conduction and convection cannot move surface radiation!*
It can only move thermal energy.

So, again where does the radiation go?
If you think I'm lying or misinterpreting anything. Tell me where. 
Simply calling me a liar just doesn't work anymore. 
.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 31, 2019)

SSDD said:


> What a liar....we have been through it more than once on this thread alone...It begins with the fact that conduction and convection are the primary modes of energy movement through the troposphere...  Your penchant for lying...and reinterpreting everything that passes into your mind is why I don't care much for talking to you...i find repeating myself ad nauseam tedious in the extreme...



Air is an insulator ... we use it in our homes and businesses ... energy conducts _very_ slowly in most gases, and air is cheap ... go ahead and pick up a bat of fiberglass insulation, see how light it is, that's because it's mostly air ... same with styrofoam insulation ... there's an immense body of literature, both scientific and lay, that confirms these claims I've made ... I wish you would try to inform yourself about conduction ... 

Convection is a different matter and this does transport a non-trivial amount of energy through the troposphere ... unfortunately, this energy has to be released as the air parcel rises in the atmosphere as part of cloud formation ... so this won't transport the energy from the surface to the top-of-troposphere (a.k.a. "tropopause") ...

You'll have to keep repeating yourself because you're wrong ... and you know it ... "it's the liar who calls others 'liars' first" ... so be careful ...

Solar energy is absorbed by the Earth's surface ... now what happens? ...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 31, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> So you want to cover your ignorance and shame by calling me a liar. Misinterpretation is one way you have of avoiding the question again: Where does the hot surface radiation go?



Not covering at all...just pointing out what sort of person you are...and we have been through where the radiation goes...over and over...the fact that you choose not to believe it is irrelevant to the fact that the greenhouse hypothesis can not account for the temperature on venus...not even close...Even if you assumed the now wildly outdated 6 degrees per doubling of CO2...that means that once you account for the difference between incoming solar radiation you get to add 18 doublings to the temperarature of venus according to the greenhouse hypothesis...that gives you 108 degrees....not even close...if you use the more accepted figure today of less than a degree per doubling you get to add about 11 degrees....

As I have said multiple times:

Venus.....Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a gas. Since the atmosphere of Venus is above 10kPa, convection occurs. Convection, and the action of auto-compression causes the potential energy to convert enthalpy, pressure and hence to kinetic energy the 50% of the gas that is descending in the atmosphere of Venus. 

This happens in accord with the equation

H = PV=U

Where

H = enthalpy (J/kg)
P = pressure (Pa)
V - Specific Volume (m^3)
U = Specific internal energy (kinetic energy)

Half of the very large mass of the atmosphere of Venus holds a VERY large amount of potential energy.....hence the 16,000W/m2 at the surface.

That is the long and short of it...the fact that you don't believe it, but instead believe in the greenhouse hypothesis which is so far off the temperature of venus so as to be laughable is just comic relief.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 31, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> You'll have to keep repeating yourself because you're wrong ... and you know it ... "it's the liar who calls others 'liars' first" ... so be careful ...
> 
> ..



I suppose since you are new here, you haven't had time to notice the sheer number of lies good ole wuwei tells...which is one of the reasons I don't talk to him so much any more...it is very tedious correcting everything he claims that I have said..and pointing out to him that I have, in fact, already answered his endlessly tedious questions...as if he thinks he will get a different answer by asking again......

By the way....you seem to be assuming that some gas is necessary to radiate all the energy from the earth...a great deal of energy radiates directly out into space...The absorption by CO2 represents a very small part of the energy moving through the atmosphere..and rare indeed is the CO2 molecule which actually gets to emit a photon...since most of them lose any energy they absorb to collisions with other molecules...mostly O2 and N2


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 31, 2019)

SSDD said:


> ...and we have been through where the radiation goes...over and over...


No we haven't. What you posted over and over is the following.


SSDD said:


> Venus.....Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a gas. Since the atmosphere of Venus is above 10kPa, convection occurs. Convection, and the action of auto-compression causes the potential energy to convert enthalpy, pressure and hence to kinetic energy the 50% of the gas that is descending in the atmosphere of Venus.
> 
> This happens in accord with the equation
> 
> ...


Over and over you tell us your model of why you think the surface is hot. I already know how it gets hot.

Please read this carefully because it is the crux of the tedious epicycles and the question you refuse to answer.

The surface was measured to be hot. We know that because it was measured. It radiates.* Where does the 16,000 W/m² radiation from the surface go?*

You keep deflecting from that question. Again, the question is not where the heat that radiates comes from. The question is where does it go after leaving the surface?

.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 31, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I suppose since you are new here, you haven't had time to notice the sheer number of lies good ole wuwei tells...which is one of the reasons I don't talk to him so much any more...it is very tedious correcting everything he claims that I have said..and pointing out to him that I have, in fact, already answered his endlessly tedious questions...as if he thinks he will get a different answer by asking again......


Reinydays, don't believe him he is lying through his teeth.



SSDD said:


> .and rare indeed is the CO2 molecule which actually gets to emit a photon...since most of them lose any energy they absorb to collisions with other molecules...mostly O2 and N2



That was proven to be wrong. Air collisions do not have enough energy to affect CO2 in the bending mode of vibration. CO2 reradiating is the primary mode of excitation relaxation.
.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 31, 2019)

SSDD said:


> By the way....you seem to be assuming that some gas is necessary to radiate all the energy from the earth...a great deal of energy radiates directly out into space...The absorption by CO2 represents a very small part of the energy moving through the atmosphere..and rare indeed is the CO2 molecule which actually gets to emit a photon...since most of them lose any energy they absorb to collisions with other molecules...mostly O2 and N2



Bingo ... this is the greenhouse effect ...

Without the atmosphere, the Earth radiates directly into space ... with the atmosphere, this energy transfer is a bit slower ... this extra time in the atmosphere is reflected in a slightly higher temperature ... CAGW Theory holds that a miniscule amount of extra carbon dioxide will cause hypercanes to make landfall in Florida every fifteen minutes by 2050 ... or kill the billions of people ... hockey sticks falling from the sky ... flooding rains and severe drought at the same time in the same place ... us humans are fucked ...

Don't you hear every other form of life on the planet cheering? ...


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 31, 2019)

SSDD said:


> They all say the same thing....energy doesn't move spontaneously from a lower state to a higher state..


I gave you 8 references for the various ways of expressing the 2nd law of thermodynamics here:
Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

You came back with a new expression of the 2nd law:





SSDD said:


> They all say the same thing....energy doesn't move spontaneously from a lower state to a higher state..


*That is not the second law*.​
You are dragging out this tedium and boxed yourself in a corner again. *None of the 8 references I quoted use the words "spontaneous" nor "net" nor "energy". And none of them preclude radiation exchange.* So in your wonderland of fake physics you are obligated to disagree with all 8 of those statements of the second law.

If you think I am lying or reinterpreting what you are trying to say, please try to explain in more detail what you are thinking so nobody has to interpret how you think. Saying I'm lying doesn't work anymore.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 31, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Reinydays, don't believe him he is lying through his teeth.



I'm very quick to forgive someone who repeats the lies they tell themselves ... I'm more concerned about bringing up _Kung Pow_ with you ...

Opps ... see what I mean? ... you bet I'm quick to forgive, as I need soooooooo much forgiveness myself ...


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 31, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> I'm very quick to forgive someone who repeats the lies they tell themselves ... I'm more concerned about bringing up _Kung Pow_ with you ...


Well Kung Pow was meant to be funny. SSDD is bitter and ill-tempered.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 31, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Well Kung Pow was meant to be funny. SSDD is bitter and ill-tempered.



I admire a man who can take a hard elbow to the ribs and still laugh ... SSDD gets his nose broken down at this local tavern whenever he says anything ... less pain here on the internet ...

I have been meaning to ask you a question ... kinda sorta related to the topic of this thread ... we have a 15 micron photon leave the Earth's surface but it never reaches the carbon dioxide molecule _unless _both nitrogen and oxygen can't absorb at 15 microns ... which is true ... a little after our carbon dioxide absorbs the 15 micron photon, it re-emits a 15 micron photon that also can't be absorb by nitrogen or oxygen ...

My Walmart thermometer is measuring the average temperature of nitrogen and oxygen ... and it's rising at about 1ºC/hr here in the morning sun ... correct me if I'm wrong, but none of that energy comes from 15 micron radiation ... somehow, carbon dioxide has to divide this 15 micron energy into two longer wavelength photons, at least one of which has to be able to be absorbed by something other than carbon dioxide; preferably nitrogen or oxygen, but argon and water vapor are available ...

No ... you don't have to type it all in ... better to refer me to a good source reference ... let me worry about the two hour drive to my local university, or four to one with any "QD" books in the stacks ...


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 31, 2019)

The American Institute of Physics has good up to date references which are probably more than you want to know. The history also covers skeptic's controversies.

The Discovery of Global Warming February 2018.
Simple Models of Climate

Discovery of Global warming February 2019.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The Discovery of Global Warming February 2019.
The Modern Temperature Trend

The increased morning warmth comes from the sun short wave radiation hitting and warming the earth and the earth emitting long wave radiation. I agree that CO2 doesn't have much immediate influence with a rising sun.

I have not found a simple source for how the bending vibration states of 15 micron transfers to linear kinetic motion. I don't think anyone has bothered to simplify it. CO2 in a pure bending mode is not quenched by a collision.

The transfer of CO2 internal energy to kinetic energy is a slower process and involves higher excitation states than the 15 micron. The bending mode combined with a vibration mode has a high enough energy that it can more readily interact with N2 and O2.

Some of the details are here, mostly covering higher temperatures.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/771554.pdf
This covers lower temperatures.
https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/3478579/109243.pdf
.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 1, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> Bingo ... this is the greenhouse effect ...



An atmospheric thermal effect...nothing at all like the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science and upon which are based the insane, economy busting, culture changing political actions being suggested.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 1, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I suppose since you are new here, you haven't had time to notice the sheer number of lies good ole wuwei tells...which is one of the reasons I don't talk to him so much any more...it is very tedious correcting everything he claims that I have said..and pointing out to him that I have, in fact, already answered his endlessly tedious questions...as if he thinks he will get a different answer by asking again......
> ...




Really?  How did you "prove" it wrong?  Another of your imaginary models which you believe to be real?  Perhaps you should speak to William Happer about your "proof" because he is under the impression that collisions prevent nearly all CO2 molecules from radiating..


----------



## SSDD (Nov 1, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > I'm very quick to forgive someone who repeats the lies they tell themselves ... I'm more concerned about bringing up _Kung Pow_ with you ...
> ...



Lying again....I am known among my circle as mister sunshine.....do you ever tell the truth about anything?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 1, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Well Kung Pow was meant to be funny. SSDD is bitter and ill-tempered.
> ...



I don't drink at the local taverns...I play music in most of them...Mostly blues, some rock and jazz...and the patrons pay to see me do it.  

Yet another "model" which bears little resemblance to realty...there is a great deal of that going on these days...and it is a real detriment to science...


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Really? How did you "prove" it wrong? Another of your imaginary models which you believe to be real? Perhaps you should speak to William Happer about your "proof" because he is under the impression that collisions prevent nearly all CO2 molecules from radiating..



Mr Happer didn't know what the collision cross sections are and made a rash conclusion. You must have forgotten that I cited a paper that had those cross sections and the author found that at 15C there was not enough energy for collisions to quench the pure bending mode.
.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...



Why do you call it lying when I only know you through your postings. Here you are being ill-tempered again on the internet. With the anonymity of this forum mister sunshine's sun sets and he becomes ill tempered.  

What is ironic is that this post proves my point. Your id is showing.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 1, 2019)

You haven't addressed the dilemma I posed here:
Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.
I know the reason why. You have two choices:

The famous scientists behind the various statements of the second law are idiots and don't know what they are talking about. 
Radiation exchange is allowed by the 2nd law. So the current understanding of green house back radiation is not invalidated.
Neither option is palatable to you. You are cornered and that is why you dare not answer. Simply invoking abusive invectives is your only resort. What I don't understand is that there are lots of ways to approach invalidation of AGW, but you choose to set yourself up as a science laughing stock and defy basic physics. 

.


----------



## ReinyDays (Nov 1, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> The American Institute of Physics has good up to date references which are probably more than you want to know ...



Touché ... three links that say I'm old, link that says I'm stupid and a link that tells me to shut up ... yeah, I lived through some of that "history" ... it'll take me a while to read four of the five, I'm just not emotional ready yet for more than ten or twelve states of carbon dioxide ... my dog died a couple years ago and it's been rough for me without him ... [0,1,1,1] --> [0,0,0,1] v-t transitions was his thing, not mine ...

But I will be keeping my elbows to myself from now on ... payback is a bitch ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Nov 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> An atmospheric thermal effect...nothing at all like the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science and upon which are based the insane, economy busting, culture changing political actions being suggested.



The greenhouse effect is one of many atmospheric thermal effects, the one you described to a tee a few posts ago ... I've already discredited this non-sense description you keep throwing in my face ... it's wrong, what you said above is right ... that's what we _define_ as the greenhouse effect ... none one likes the word "greenhouse", but we're stuck with it ... 

For future reference ... if you read something that sounds stupid ... don't shove it in my face demanding I explain ... most likely I'll agree with you that it's stupid ... "greenhouse effect as described by climate science" from that blerb a couple dozen pages ago is stupid ... and speaks more to the quality of students entering our nation's vocational schools ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Nov 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I don't drink at the local taverns...I play music in most of them...Mostly blues, some rock and jazz...and the patrons pay to see me do it.



A musician arguing with an oceanographer about fluid mechanics ... I self-identify as an uneducated construction laborer who dropped out of high school ... many many construction companies won't hire anyone who has been to college, no high school diploma is a plus ... a little knowledge makes people highly and hard to train ... by the time my employers figure out I lied, I've established myself as the only person in the company who can finish concrete ... can't be fired with nine yards sitting on the ground ...



Wuwei said:


> ... What I don't understand is that there are lots of ways to approach invalidation of AGW, but you choose to set yourself up as a science laughing stock and defy basic physics.



This is the sad part for me ... SSDD's posts on other threads are good, sound, and very informative ... and I'm not so sure he's all that far off-base in this thread ... it's just the term "greenhouse effect" triggers a mental block ... and it appears to be because some moron used the term incorrectly in the distant past ... "Can't sing the Blues unless you've lived the Blues" I guess ...


----------



## SSDD (Nov 1, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> A musician arguing with an oceanographer about fluid mechanics ....



Yet another failed model...I would never call myself a musician...I never made a living playing music, and over the course of my long life can only be heard in about an hour of professionally recorded music.  I have to fill my semi retirement with something and it may as well be something that I enjoy doing, and doesn't bother others...

Ever consider how many professionals play a musical instrument?...and play it quite well? 

Assuming that a model is correct with no actual real world evidence to support it will lead you down the primrose path.

By the way...the "greenhouse effect" hypothesis as described by climate science hasn't changed in decades...even though it has littered the scientific landscape with failed predictions..the only change it has seen is an increase in the margin of error so as it invariably wanders further and further from reality, climate science can still claim it is within the margin of error..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > A musician arguing with an oceanographer about fluid mechanics ....
> ...



*Assuming that a model is correct with no actual real world evidence to support it will lead you down the primrose path.*

But enough about your, "no emitting at equilibrium" fantasy.


----------



## ReinyDays (Nov 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> By the way...the "greenhouse effect" hypothesis as described by climate science hasn't changed in decades...even though it has littered the scientific landscape with failed predictions..the only change it has seen is an increase in the margin of error so as it invariably wanders further and further from reality, climate science can still claim it is within the margin of error..



I'm fine if you want to deny the greenhouse effect, but now you have to tell us why the Earth's surface is 12ºC warmer than it would be without an atmosphere ... if you don't think you're responsible for this, then you're irresponsible ... adults call this a "lie of omission" ... withholding information for the purposes of deceit ... you're better than that, so why persist? ...


----------



## SSDD (Nov 2, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > By the way...the "greenhouse effect" hypothesis as described by climate science hasn't changed in decades...even though it has littered the scientific landscape with failed predictions..the only change it has seen is an increase in the margin of error so as it invariably wanders further and further from reality, climate science can still claim it is within the margin of error..
> ...




I have done it over and over...in this thread also...back towards the beginning.  I haven't "omitted", or withheld anything.  It is all there for anyone who cares to look.  As I have already said, the temperature of the atmosphere is the result of incoming solar radiation, gravity, atmospheric mass, pressure, density and heat capacities and the composition of the atmosphere is irrelevant beyond the contribution of each gas to the total mass of the atmosphere...

Here is a new review of the radiosonde data going back to the beginning something like 20 million data sets spanning seventy years and demonstrates clearly and convincingly that any radiative atmospheric effect; call it the greenhouse effect or whatever you like simply does not exist.   The video is a bit on the long side, but for anyone interested in seeing the numerous, as of yet, untested paradigms that presently prevail in climate science put to the test, it is very interesting...One might wish that the speakers were a bit more accustomed to public speaking, but clearly they are far more comfortable doing the work as opposed to a media savvy fraud like michael man who is very cool on camera but lies with every breath he takes.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Here is a new review of the radiosonde data going back to the beginning something like 20 million data sets spanning seventy years and demonstrates clearly and convincingly that any radiative atmospheric effect; call it the greenhouse effect or whatever you like simply does not exist. The video is a bit on the long side, but for anyone interested in seeing the numerous, as of yet, untested paradigms that presently prevail in climate science put to the test, it is very interesting.



Up through about half way through the video the Connolly family develops an interesting perspective on looking at the data concerning the atmospheric height by considering density rather than temperature. This creates very neat piece-wise-linear sections that correspond to the atmospheric strata. A number of things can be inferred from that

However things fall apart with their invention of the concept they call “Pervection”.

At 44:17
The intention is a simple experiment that seems to be an example of pervection by sucking air through long tubing. That is just Avogadro's Law and not something that should have any other name. Any kid who has sucked soda through a straw has done that experiment.

At 47:23
They show the bouncing balls of “Newton' cradle” – an old problem for physics students that illustrate conservation of both momentum and energy. Their balls were supposed to represent atoms, but the balls were constrained to be largely* colinear!* *Atoms in the atmosphere are chaotic, never colinear*! Even then Connolly's first attempt was little chaotic because the balls were moving a bit.

They both think pervection should be used as a replacement for radiation in atmospheric physics. If you want to replace radiation with something else, just don't do it that way.

At 46:00
_SUMMARY OF “PERVECTION” EXPERIMENT
Maximum rates of energy transmission by the known mechanisms:
• Conduction = 0.00015 Watts/m*²*
• Kinetic convection = 0.0000075 Watts/m*²*
• Enthalpic convection = 0.14 Watts/m*²*
• Radiation = 0.29 Watts/m*²*
• Acoustic transmission = 1.37 Watts/m*²* [Where does this come from?]_

He says the Observed rate of energy transmission [Energy sucked through tube.] = 2400± 80 Watts/m*².*[That is a gross exaggeration to think that has anything to do with the atmosphere.]

“_In this particular controlled experiment, the energy was not transmitted by conduction, convection, radiation or acoustic. Therefore, there is some other key energy transmission mechanism available for air”_

It it should be called Avogadro's Law, not pervection.

*However, note that he thinks radiation has a faster rate of transmission than conduction, convection, contrary to what many deniers think . *

48:53
He agrees, _“GHG's are IR active.”_
“_This means they absorb and emit at fixed wavelengths/frequencies_”, (Einstein, 1916)
_Rate of absorbtion equals the rate of emission If the atmosphere is in thermodynamic equilibrium you will not get a green house effect the gas will not store energy. _

48:20
He says if you increase the CO2 you still won't get a GH effect or store the energy. Because the rate of absorption still equals rate of emission *at equilibrium*.

He says the data show the gas is in thermodynamic equilibrium. This is really wrong because during the day the sun is shining. Heat and radiation are flowing through the atmosphere, so it is *not in thermal equilibrium nor radiative equilibrium.*

Conclusion: I think their theory fails because they didn't think through that atoms are not colinear and the atmosphere is not in thermal nor radiative equilibrium.

.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Conclusion: I think their theory fails because they didn't think through that atoms are not colinear and the atmosphere is not in thermal nor radiative equilibrium.
> 
> .



I think they are far closer to being correct than you...what does the greenhouse hypothesis predict the temperature of venus is again?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I think they are far closer to being correct than you...what does the greenhouse hypothesis predict the temperature of venus is again?


I have no idea what is predicted. 

Where does that 16500 Watts per square meter of radiation from the surface of Venus go again? You never said. You only said why you think the surface gets hot. Do you think it's absorbed by the atmosphere? Do you think it all goes to outer space?

.


----------



## ReinyDays (Nov 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I have done it over and over...in this thread also...back towards the beginning.  I haven't "omitted", or withheld anything.  It is all there for anyone who cares to look.  As I have already said, the temperature of the atmosphere is the result of incoming solar radiation, gravity, atmospheric mass, pressure, density and heat capacities and the composition of the atmosphere is irrelevant beyond the contribution of each gas to the total mass of the atmosphere...



I've been pondering how to answer this ... you've used such wide brushstrokes as to cover everything ... and indeed everything is connected to everything else ... but that's not very useful ... you don't say anything ... quick, the paint is running there where you double-downed on gravity ... maybe that's because you mentioned mass three times ... 

You left out latent heat ... a rather serious omission ... keeping water in it's vapor state requires an enormous amount of energy ... and the water vapor content varies wildly in both time and space ... you know the numbers, condensing just half the water in a typical kilogram of air will raise the temperature 10ºC ... if not for radiation ...



SSDD said:


> Here is a new review of the radiosonde data going back to the beginning something like 20 million data sets spanning seventy years and demonstrates clearly and convincingly that any radiative atmospheric effect; call it the greenhouse effect or whatever you like simply does not exist.   The video is a bit on the long side, but for anyone interested in seeing the numerous, as of yet, untested paradigms that presently prevail in climate science put to the test, it is very interesting...One might wish that the speakers were a bit more accustomed to public speaking, but clearly they are far more comfortable doing the work as opposed to a media savvy fraud like michael man who is very cool on camera but lies with every breath he takes.



I got about ten minutes into this ... just chewing the same ground I've been on the past couple of days ... with their admission of self-publishing and wuwei's comments may lead me away ... perhaps if you gave the start time to their main body of work? ... just want to point out that if the radiosonde data follows an adiabat, then that atmospheric column is in thermodynamic equilibrium ... conduction and convection are inhibited, we have only radiation for energy transfer from the Earth's surface to outer space ... it's not all that rare for the atmosphere to be completely stable, and common for a significant portion to be such ... just saying ...

Not sure what's untested about transparency ... just load your camera with some 2.5 micron film and try imaging the star-forming regions of the Orion Nebula ... rats ... everything fogged out completely ... our atmosphere is opaque to 2.5 micron light ... we'll have to be in Earth's orbit to take that shot ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Nov 4, 2019)

There's no meteor craters on the surface of Venus older than about a half billion years ... as though her entire surface was subsumed by the molten mantle and a new surface solidified ... we need to be careful comparing atmospheres, there's still much we don't know about Venus ...

We do have one temperature measurement, and we can measure solar radiation and then calculate the greenhouse effect ... see, perfectly predicts our temperature to better than a millionth of a degree ... the perfect circle ...


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> You haven't addressed the dilemma I posed here:
> Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.
> I know the reason why. You have two choices:
> 
> ...


or you could post up observed empirical evidence.  fk dude, we're on like page 1000 and still you haven't provided that observed evidence.  why not?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You haven't addressed the dilemma I posed here:
> ...



You need evidence of radiation exchange?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 5, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > By the way...the "greenhouse effect" hypothesis as described by climate science hasn't changed in decades...even though it has littered the scientific landscape with failed predictions..the only change it has seen is an increase in the margin of error so as it invariably wanders further and further from reality, climate science can still claim it is within the margin of error..
> ...


he told you.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


in other words, a lot of shit!! too fking complicated for a greenhouser to ever understand.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


I need evidence that during a hot day,  CO2 radiates to earth surface from the atmosphere.  you failed.  in every post you have ever made in here to post that evidence.  I'm still waiting.

In fact, you haven't shown CO2 in the atmosphere ever radiating back to earth's surface..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*I need evidence that during a hot day,  CO2 radiates to earth surface from the atmosphere.*

CO2 in the atmosphere radiates in all directions. Hot day, cold day, everyday.

*In fact, you haven't shown CO2 in the atmosphere ever radiating back to earth's surface..*





The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two


----------



## jc456 (Nov 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


_CO2 in the atmosphere radiates in all directions. Hot day, cold day, everyday._

Great, then you have evidence of it radiating back to the surface? on those hot days then.  BTW, how much of the atmospheric CO2 actually radiates?  got those figures old wise one?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


----------



## jc456 (Nov 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


that says nighttime.  I said hot days.  hmmmm reading really is an issue for you isn't it?


----------



## ReinyDays (Nov 5, 2019)

Lay out some 15 micron photographic film on the Earth's surface face up ... see how it becomes completely exposed ... fogged ... 15 micron solar radiation is completely absorbed in the first 20% of the atmosphere ... the only way to expose this film is by 15 micron radiation from CO2 back to the Earth's surface ...

If you can explain this phenomena any other way ... please do ... every astronomer in the whole world awaits your answer ...

ETA: 4.5 and 2.5 micron film will work just as well, but this includes water vapor's radiation back to the Earth's surface ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*that says nighttime. I said hot days.  *

That's a 72 hour period. Try reading.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


It says nighttime


----------



## ReinyDays (Nov 5, 2019)

I looked up the high temperatures recorded at Oklahoma City for the period 3 - 5 October 1993 ... around 80ºF ... is that hot enough? ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*It says nighttime*










DURR.


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 22, 2019)

[Crickets] ...


----------



## jc456 (Dec 22, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> [Crickets] ...


I agree, still no evidence


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 22, 2019)

You haven't done the IR film experiment yet? ...


----------



## the other mike (Dec 22, 2019)

This should be us, but we were sold out in the last 40 years by the fossil fuel industry primarily. The United States has no long term goals.

From a climate change perspective, China’s carbon footprint is huge: It consumes nearly as much coal as every other country in the world combined. And it’s the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter.

But it may be possible for China to shake most of its reliance on fossil fuels, in part by producing more than 85 percent of its electricity and more than 60 percent of its total energy needs from renewables by 2050, according to a study published Monday.

*China Can Cut Cord on Coal (Mostly) by 2050*


----------



## jc456 (Dec 22, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> You haven't done the IR film experiment yet? ...


Post it


----------



## jc456 (Dec 22, 2019)

Angelo said:


> This should be us, but we were sold out in the last 40 years by the fossil fuel industry primarily. The United States has no long term goals.
> 
> From a climate change perspective, China’s carbon footprint is huge: It consumes nearly as much coal as every other country in the world combined. And it’s the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter.
> 
> ...


Hahaha hahaha


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 22, 2019)

Angelo said:


> This should be us, but we were sold out in the last 40 years by the fossil fuel industry primarily. The United States has no long term goals.
> 
> From a climate change perspective, China’s carbon footprint is huge: It consumes nearly as much coal as every other country in the world combined. And it’s the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter.
> 
> ...



*This should be us, but we were sold out in the last 40 years by the fossil fuel industry primarily.*

Cheap, reliable energy in useful quantities. Bastards!!!


----------



## the other mike (Dec 22, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *This should be us, but we were sold out in the last 40 years by the fossil fuel industry primarily.*
> 
> Cheap, reliable energy in useful quantities. Bastards!!!


It's not easy keeping 1.3 billion people cool in the summer.


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 22, 2019)

jc456 said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > You haven't done the IR film experiment yet? ...
> ...



The hypothesis is that there's 15µm radiation striking the Earth surface ... our experiment is putting 15µm film on the Earth's surface, face up, and this should fog our film ... if we do this on a moonless night, then we eliminate any solar sources for this radiation ... which would only allow atmospheric components as our source ... specifically carbon dioxide if theory holds true ...


----------



## jc456 (Dec 22, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


Video tape it and post it


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 22, 2019)

Angelo said:


> It's not easy keeping 1.3 billion people cool in the summer.



It's not easy doing _anything_ for 1.3 billion people ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 22, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *This should be us, but we were sold out in the last 40 years by the fossil fuel industry primarily.*
> ...



Especially without reliable fossil fuels.


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 22, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Video tape it and post it



Send me the money for a camcorder ... are you nuts ... how hard is it to place a thin piece of plastic on the ground? ...


----------



## jc456 (Dec 22, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Video tape it and post it
> ...


You don’t have a smart phone? Ohhhk


----------



## the other mike (Dec 22, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


And we'll be drowning in it in 30 years when they're energy-independent, laughing at us.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 22, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Angelo said:
> ...


Where?


----------



## the other mike (Dec 22, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


A euphemism for when the SHTF, choking in pollution and facing Mad Max hyperinflation, Walmarts converted to FEMA camps, dogs and cats living together....mass hysteria.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 22, 2019)

Angelo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Angelo said:
> ...


You’ll be alive then?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 22, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Angelo said:
> ...



Oh no, we'll have cheaper fossil fuels!!!! Just awful.


----------



## the other mike (Dec 22, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Oh no, we'll have cheaper fossil fuels!!!! Just awful.


Drowning in pollution and debt.


jc456 said:


> You’ll be alive then?


.....Damn, meet the party poopers. 

In 2050, I'll be 89 if I'm lucky and God doesn't want me yet.
_And this matters why ? _

Are you saying you're gonna be worm food when you die and
*"why should I care about anyone else, much less people in the future ?"
*
Pretty selfish attitude if you ask me.


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 22, 2019)

jc456 said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



What good is a smart phone videoing photographic film being exposed? ... that makes absolutely no sense at all ... you want me to photograph a photograph being taken ...

Also:  I'll need money for a canister, chemicals, a film dryer and lighting ... I don't know where to find lighting that doesn't produce IR, maybe LED's? ... kinda pointless shining 15µm artificial light on 15µm film if we're trying to detect natural 15µm light ... don't you think ... US funds only please ...


----------



## jc456 (Dec 22, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


I thought you were doing an experiment


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 22, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Pretty selfish attitude if you ask me.



Yeah ... so? ... have you seen the retirement home your kids are gonna put you in ...


----------



## the other mike (Dec 22, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty selfish attitude if you ask me.
> ...


That's how far you see into the future ?
My tree house in the Tazmanian bush ?

Pretty weak sauce dude.


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 22, 2019)

jc456 said:


> I thought you were doing an experiment



Oh, heavens no ... I did this years ago on accident ... I re-started this thread because the subject material was, once again, disrupting another thread ... moderators want discussions about whether there's a greenhouse effect or not confined here ... 

I was asked to give an experiment that would demonstrate "back radiation", so anyone who doesn't believe this can be demonstrated, is welcome to try ... I myself don't have a problem with it ... I've seen IR film get fogged this way ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 22, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Oh no, we'll have cheaper fossil fuels!!!! Just awful.
> ...



*Drowning in pollution and debt.*

Why would we be drowning in pollution?
The solution to debt is to use more expensive, less reliable energy?


----------



## the other mike (Dec 22, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Drowning in pollution and debt.*
> 
> Why would we be drowning in pollution?
> The solution to debt is to use more expensive, less reliable energy?


Peak oil has passed.
When it get's to the last 10 - 20 % of coal and petroleum left in the ground
it will be devastating for whoever is unprepared.

Our way of life will totally change.
OTR trucking will shut down and every region will go local
,hyperinflation we can't imagine. Karma I say.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 22, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Drowning in pollution and debt.*
> ...



*Peak oil has passed.*

That's horrible!!!
How many new nuke plants should we build?


----------



## the other mike (Dec 22, 2019)




----------



## the other mike (Dec 22, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How many new nuke plants should we build?


We need to save the uranium for space travel, dummy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 22, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > How many new nuke plants should we build?
> ...



Is there a shortage of uranium?


----------



## the other mike (Dec 22, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


There's generally a shortage of any natural resource
once humans discover it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 22, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Angelo said:
> ...



So like 10,000 years of uranium left?


----------



## the other mike (Dec 22, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So like 10,000 years of uranium left?


If that's God's plan, so be it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 22, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So like 10,000 years of uranium left?
> ...



Using uranium is better than...….. "OTR trucking will shut down and every region will go local,
hyperinflation we can't imagine"


----------



## the other mike (Dec 22, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


If diesel fuel hit $10 a gallon next week, trucking would shut down.
But if we gradually convert to biofuels and mass transportation upscales,
then we'll be ready when the time comes like China, Japan, and many EU counties will be, as I said before.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 22, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Angelo said:
> ...



*If diesel fuel hit $10 a gallon next week, trucking would shut down.*

Is it going to hit $10 next week?
You should buy some futures contracts.

*But if we gradually convert to biofuels *

The cure for higher fuel prices in the future is higher fuel prices now? Dude!


----------



## the other mike (Dec 22, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The cure for higher fuel prices in the future is higher fuel prices now? Dude!


Let's just run on corn ethanol.
Except corn flakes will be $20 a box and our motors will only last 4 years.


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 22, 2019)

Well ... the electricity will hold, plenty of land to grow food, clean water in abundance ... just get rid of Federal gubbermint and we're fine here ... change for the good I say ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 22, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So like 10,000 years of uranium left?
> ...



God's wants us to build fossil fuel power plants everyplace there's no electricity ... duh ... we're supposed to burn fossil fuels to better the human condition ... plus warm things up some ... who the hell likes snow? ...


----------



## the other mike (Dec 22, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> God's wants us to build fossil fuel power plants everyplace there's no electricity ... duh ... we're supposed to burn fossil fuels to better the human condition ... plus warm things up some ... who the hell likes snow? ...


When I was a kid , I thought we'd be travelling like the Jetson's by 2020.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 22, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The cure for higher fuel prices in the future is higher fuel prices now? Dude!
> ...



*Let's just run on corn ethanol.*

Awful idea. End the ethanol mandate, today.


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 22, 2019)

Are we trying to replace fossil fuels and still maintain such a high level of energy consumption? ... I don't think it can be done ... it doesn't matter how much alternative energy sources we come up with, we'll just use more energy and keep burning fossil fuels ... alternatives fail without conservation ...

Much better is making ethanol out of sugar cane ... and in no small part this is because sugar cane only grows where there's plenty of hydropower potential ... tropical Brazil for example ...


----------



## Chuz Life (Dec 22, 2019)

I have (I think) a rather unique take on the whole "global warming" debate.

Based on the most basic principles of physics, man (mankind) has to have an affect on our environment. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." 

Mankind has undeniably altered the planet with not only gas emissions but also by deforestation, blacktopping and concreting a large percentage of the land masses, countless billions of heat sources, including Transportation engines and other machinery, Commercial and residential Air Conditioners / Heat Pumps, Electrical Grids, Lighting, etc. . . All the way down to the numbers of human bodies, each one radiating an average of 98.6 degrees, 24/7.

We basically have an enormous electric blanket on our planet that didn't use to be there.

If by nothing more than simple displacement (physics,) Our sea levels have to rise from the simple numbers of floating ships, ship wrecks, man made islands, trash, plane crashes, river flow increases resulting from man made attempts to eliminate flood zones,etc.

Bottom line, it's cumulative and undeniable.

However, despite all of our efforts to warm the planet (intentional or not) our impact simply isn't all that serious.

It is just as undeniable that the planet's own activity with volcanos and such, above and below the oceans, fluctuations in the Sun's output, etc. . .  all varies considerably and HAS historically drastically affected the climate, many times before the industrial revolution was in the mix.

I have yet to see anything from any of the alarmists to get me even the slightest bit worried that Man can or has done anything to the planet that the Planet can not absorb or remedy in a way that would render itself uninhabitable to an otherwise intelligent species, like man.


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 23, 2019)

I would add domesticated livestock to the list man's altering of the environment ... but otherwise agree completely ... we are warming the planet, but it's trivial ...


----------



## jc456 (Dec 23, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Drowning in pollution and debt.*
> ...


Well oil we now know replenishes and coal, we have sooo much of hard to say we would ever run out.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 23, 2019)

Chuz Life said:


> I have (I think) a rather unique take on the whole "global warming" debate.
> 
> Based on the most basic principles of physics, man (mankind) has to have an affect on our environment. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
> 
> ...


When trees grow, they use water, and can deplete the water enough to kill other plants that need water too. Should we kill trees?


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 14, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> I have (I think) a rather unique take on the whole "global warming" debate.
> 
> Based on the most basic principles of physics, man (mankind) has to have an affect on our environment. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
> 
> ...



The most important greenhouse gas is H_2O, water vapour. The most effective vaporisators are trees. More deforestation - less water vapour - less greenhouse effect.

From another hand - large forests are antropogenic landscapes. They were produced by hunters, whose activity eliminated large herbivores. 
There were no large forests in Pleistocene epoche, you know, and greenhouse effect was much weaker.


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 14, 2020)

jc456 said:


> When trees grow, they use water, and can deplete the water enough to kill other plants that need water too. Should we kill trees?


If "no" should we kill beavers to save trees?
In fact, does not matter will we kill trees or not. If you don't manage forests and don't do fire-protection logging, and gathering dead trees, it will be fire, that will clean all of it. Look at Australia, where the mad environmentalists were fighting against fire-prevention measures.


----------



## Crick (Jul 5, 2020)

Fire prevention measures are not to the benefit of the forest, they are to the benefit of man.  Intermittent small fires are beneficial.  Putting them off allows fuel to build till the day when condition are right and you get an enormous blaze that destroys the forest and any human infrastructure in the way.


----------



## the other mike (Jul 5, 2020)

Crick said:


> Fire prevention measures are not to the benefit of the forest, they are to the benefit of man.  Intermittent small fires are beneficial.  Putting them off allows fuel to build till the day when condition are right and you get an enormous blaze that destroys the forest and any human infrastructure in the way.


Just a couple decades ago, we never anticipated having to worry about 
it as far north as Canada either.








						Climate change driving up risk of wildfires in Canada: fire experts  | Globalnews.ca
					

Canadian wildfire experts say Canada is very vulnerable to the kind of devastating wildfires ravaging Australia right now.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## ChemEngineer (Aug 21, 2020)

emilynghiem said:


> I hope we get past this stage of trying to demonize and discredit
> one group or approach or another. And just focus on the reforms
> we CAN agree on which is plenty to work on for sustainable living!



Ah, "sustainable living." As in hunter-gatherers, such as those 500 or so on North Sentinel Island in the Andaman Sea.

Do you have any idea of what the ONLY country on earth currently classified as "sustainable" is?  Any idea?  If you consider sustainability so very important, would you like to live there, before finding out where it is?


----------



## fncceo (Aug 21, 2020)

emilynghiem said:


> sustainable living!



No life is sustainable indefinitely...


----------



## ChemEngineer (Aug 21, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> The most important greenhouse gas is H_2O, water vapour. The most effective vaporisators are trees. More deforestation - less water vapour - less greenhouse effect.



Trees cannot begin to compete with the water vapor contributions of the oceans.  No comparison.  Consider the respective surface areas, coupled with the fact that most plant life on solid earth consists of grasslands and by far most oxygen is produced by oceanic algae.  So planting a tree or many trees, as environmental  saviors are wont to do is absurdly futile.


----------



## toobfreak (Aug 21, 2020)

ChemEngineer said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > I hope we get past this stage of trying to demonize and discredit
> ...


Papua New Guinea.


----------



## the other mike (Aug 21, 2020)

fncceo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > sustainable living!
> ...


----------



## the other mike (Aug 21, 2020)

toobfreak said:


> Papua New Guinea.


Is that headhunter territory ?

I think Tasmania's a good spot for sustainability.


----------



## fncceo (Aug 21, 2020)

Angelo said:


> Is that headhunter territory ?



You know where a headhunter would starve?


----------



## Jitss617 (Aug 21, 2020)

Oddball said:


> I'm a "denier" of the 4th kind...The warmers are lying sacks of Malthusian declinist shit.
> 
> The doomsayers have always ended up being proven wrong over time.
> 
> Get a new hobby.


When you see areas with poor ppl and no manufacturing and you as a democrat why. They say so I can breath clean air,, every time they say that 200 kids get addicted to meth, or children starve to death.. lefties need to be outlawed in America


----------



## the other mike (Aug 21, 2020)

Jitss617 said:


> When you see areas with poor ppl and no manufacturing and you as a democrat why. They say so I can breath clean air,, every time they say that 200 kids get addicted to meth, or children starve to death.. lefties need to be outlawed in America


wtf are you talking about ?
(no offense)


----------



## Jitss617 (Aug 21, 2020)

Angelo said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > When you see areas with poor ppl and no manufacturing and you as a democrat why. They say so I can breath clean air,, every time they say that 200 kids get addicted to meth, or children starve to death.. lefties need to be outlawed in America
> ...


We don’t have manufacturing in poor areas because democrats won’t allow it


----------



## the other mike (Aug 21, 2020)

Jitss617 said:


> We don’t have manufacturing in poor areas because democrats won’t allow it


Actually, _most_ of our manufacturing that went away, outside the military (weapons) industry and auto manufacturing, was outsourced to China and elsewhere and the rest was replaced by robotics.

And the reason chemical & plastic companies and paper mills, etc, operate in largely "poor" areas is because they know with their revolving door at the EPA when the local water and air is polluted, and people are dying of cancer the worst they'll get is a fine and slap on the wrist.


----------



## Jitss617 (Aug 21, 2020)

Angelo said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > We don’t have manufacturing in poor areas because democrats won’t allow it
> ...


Democrats have anti industrial zones in most urban areas. It’s pretty much impossible to bring it back,, why blacks are killing so much, and so many hooked on meth, democrats have destroyed America


----------



## toobfreak (Aug 22, 2020)

How typical:  The ChemEngineer OP fraud throws a question out there, you actually answer it, and a day later, the bum doesn't even visit his own thread or reply to it!


----------



## the other mike (Aug 22, 2020)

toobfreak said:


> How typical:  The ChemEngineer OP fraud throws a question out there, you actually answer it, and a day later, the bum doesn't even visit his own thread or reply to it!


Maybe he lives in California and liberals burned his house down.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Aug 22, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> If "no" should we kill beavers to save trees?
> In fact, does not matter will we kill trees or not. If you don't manage forests and don't do fire-protection logging, and gathering dead trees, it will be fire, that will clean all of it. Look at Australia, where the mad environmentalists were fighting against fire-prevention measures.



Right you are, Cat.  Sick environmentalists (sic) did the same thing in Arizona, and it resulted in the biggest brush fire of all time.  As for me, I do my part to protect trees by eating plenty of beaver.  Absolutely love it as all real men do.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Aug 22, 2020)

Angelo said:


> Actually, _most_ of our manufacturing that went away, outside the military (weapons) industry and auto manufacturing, was outsourced to China and elsewhere and the rest was replaced by robotics.



Actually, unions and Democrats demanding higher and higher wages killed jobs because manufacturers couldn't compete with foreign manufacturers worldwide, whose employees don't earn what so many Leftist Americans call "a living wage."
Why don't Leftists demand laws against volunteering your time if failure to "earn a living wage" is so deadly?



Angelo said:


> And the reason chemical & plastic companies and paper mills, etc, operate in largely "poor" areas is because they know with their revolving door at the EPA when the local water and air is polluted, and people are dying of cancer the worst they'll get is a fine and slap on the wrist.



Those heavy manufacturing companies SHOULD, according to you, locate in the most expensive neighborhoods, such as Malibu and Century City, where they would have to pay many times more for the property.  That makes so much sense you have to wonder why THEY didn't think of your brilliant idea.

Why don't you give us some examples of big businesses which have "polluted the local water and air" and killed people while getting "a fine and slap on the wrist."
I'd be very interested in seeing your list.    Evidently you haven't heard of the countless number of settlements in the billions of dollars against manufacturers whose products have caused cancer. They're all over the television.  Don't you ever watch television?


----------



## ChemEngineer (Aug 22, 2020)

ChemEngineer said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > I hope we get past this stage of trying to demonize and discredit
> ...



In case emilyngheim is afraid to respond, I'll provide answer for everyone else to put down this "sustainability" nonsense.  The answer is Cuba. Cuba is THE only country currently listed as "sustainable."  In other words, if you're so poor, you simply get by on beans and rice, it's good for the world and makes so-called "environmentalists" happy. Then they can go abroad on their "EcoTours" and feel good about how  good they are.... to Mother Earth.... as they fly and drive around the world... and to Earth Day festivities... and to Trump Protests... and Freeway Blockages..... and to Statue Protests..... and to BLM Protests.....

How tiring it must be to virtue  posture day after day after day.  Fewf.  They need a break.  In both legs.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Aug 22, 2020)

toobfreak said:


> How typical:  The ChemEngineer OP fraud throws a question out there, you actually answer it, and a day later, the bum doesn't even visit his own thread or reply to it!



1.  This isn't my thread.
2.  I have no idea what you are talking about, and obviously you don't either.
3. In the future, why don't you be specific. Be precise.  Cite the "question" that so vexes you.  
4.  Now who's "the bum"?  I know.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 22, 2020)

ChemEngineer is a radiative physics denier? ... why doesn't that surprise me ...

He's been bragging about have me on ignore ... what a moron ... someone quote me so he has to read this comment ...


----------



## ding (Sep 2, 2020)

C'mon 580.


----------



## ding (Sep 2, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Now you are getting it.  Finally.


----------



## the other mike (Sep 2, 2020)

ding said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > Angelo said:
> ...


Save the uranium for submarines and space travel.


----------



## ding (Sep 2, 2020)

I'm a "the world is going to end climate model" denier.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Sep 2, 2020)

ding said:


> I'm a "the world is going to end climate model" denier.



Oh yeah?  I'm the compiler of 









						theglobalwarmingfraud
					






					TheGlobalWarmingFraud.wordpress.com


----------



## ReinyDays (Sep 5, 2020)

Liberals cause photons ... them bastards ...


----------



## abu afak (Sep 27, 2020)

DING Pollution in this thread too.
Three Posts totaling 19 words on the last page, and ZERO topical content.
This guy has nothing to do.


----------



## abu afak (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> I have (I think) a rather unique take on the whole "global warming" debate.
> 
> Based on the most basic principles of physics, man (mankind) has to have an affect on our environment. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
> 
> ...


The second half of your post needs to read the first.
It's absolutely contradictory.
The old "it's been warm before" doesn't justify making it warm Very fast (in geologic terms) now.
The consequence are dire and getting worse, and as you say 'cumulative', and at some point accelerating/snow-balling. That point may be as we speak/now.

IMO we are well past the point of no return now.
If we capped CO2 and NH4 even at 20 years ago levels, it would have slowed but not stopped what's coming.
(al Gore 2000 was probably the last chance, to dent the damage)

Sea Level will be rising enough by mid-century to make many low-lying cities uninhabitable.
Place like (but not limited to) Miami already have regular tidal flooding, and the housing market changed there.
By century end most of the largest coastal cities on the planet from Shanghai to London, to NYC will be forever changed and in parts evacuated. Of course the areas left above water will get the picture everyone will be leaving, and certinly no one buying.
`


----------



## jc456 (Sep 28, 2020)

abu afak said:


> doesn't justify making it warm Very fast


how long did it take millions of years ago?  let's see that graph. when did you graph it?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 28, 2020)

abu afak said:


> IMO we are well past the point of no return now.


based on what?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 28, 2020)

jc456 said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > IMO we are well past the point of no return now.
> ...



AOC was very convincing.


----------



## abu afak (Sep 28, 2020)

jc456 said:
			
		

> *how long did it take millions of years ago?  let's see that graph. when did you graph it?*


The thing is you guys are ALL TROLLS.
STUPID BEYOND belief.
Neither of you know how to search or post data.
*You and especially ToadStoolPieceOfShlt, never post any meat, you are just STUPID Heel nippers unwittingly setting me up to Smash the Ball.*
Oh Baby!

ScienceDaily
*Climate change occurring ten times faster than at any time in past 65 million years*
Date: August 1, 2013
Source: Stanford University
Summary:
Not only is the planet undergoing one of the largest climate changes in the past 65 million years, scientists report that it's occurring at a rate *10 times faster than any change in that period. Without intervention, this extreme pace could lead to a 5-6 degree Celsius spike in annual temperatures by the end of the century.*









						Climate change occurring ten times faster than at any time in past 65 million years
					

Not only is the planet undergoing one of the largest climate changes in the past 65 million years, scientists report that it's occurring at a rate 10 times faster than any change in that period. Without intervention, this extreme pace could lead to a 5-6 degree Celsius spike in annual...



					www.sciencedaily.com
				




*WOW*
That really was quite the backfiring set up by two of the boards biggest clowns.

`*
EDIT:
Just the usual TROLLING losers below.*
`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 28, 2020)

abu afak said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just because I refuted your claim and made you look stupid doesn't mean you have to be a whiney twat about it.

_Not only is the planet undergoing one of the largest climate changes in the past 65 million years, scientists report that it's occurring at a rate _*10 times faster than any change in that period. *

Really?

Post the 10 fastest changes over an equivalent period of time.

Thanks!!!


----------



## jc456 (Sep 28, 2020)

abu afak said:


> The thing is you guys are ALL TROLLS.
> STUPID BEYOND belief.


we're stupid and you think you have statistics for equivalent periods of time from millions of years ago.  Yeah, go with that.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 28, 2020)

jc456 said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is you guys are ALL TROLLS.
> ...


abu afak so post the statistics then from millions of years ago.  Still waiting, or are you too stupid to know you ain't got em?  let us know.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 28, 2020)

jc456 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...



Don't make him cry......again.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 28, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


I was curious where he'd go. I guess crazy is a place he fits into well.


----------



## abu afak (Sep 28, 2020)

I put ToddlerPatriot, jc456, and Skookerassbitch on Ignore
Not for differing opinions, but Blatant Juvenile emoticon stupidity and posting in the case of Skooker and,
and NO CONTENT at all from Toddster and jc456, just harassment.

`


----------



## Dale Smith (Sep 28, 2020)

abu afak said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are a blithering idiot and a chump. This whole global warming scam started with suggestions from the Iron Mountain Report and the Club Of Rome took the ball and ran with it starting with "Limits To Growth" and their idea of "Sustainable Development" which lead to the Agenda 21 agreement at the Rio Conference in 1992. You totally ignore the weather modification programs of which every super power has one complete with ionospheric heaters that "zap" the heavy metal nano-particulates. They have been targeting the food supply in a major way the last five years. They wish to starve the populace into compliance. I have posted the remarks of the climate change clowns that do the bidding of the global elites. Shall I post them yet again? I don't mind making you look like an idiot.......it certainly hurts your already bad odds of gaining converts.....

(snicker)


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 29, 2020)

abu afak said:


> I put ToddlerPatriot, jc456, and Skookerassbitch on Ignore
> Not for differing opinions, but Blatant Juvenile emoticon stupidity and posting in the case of Skooker and,
> and NO CONTENT at all from Toddster and jc456, just harassment.
> 
> `



Stupid AND a pussy.


----------



## abu afak (Sep 29, 2020)

Dale Smith said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


You're a Conspiracy Fraud and A Chemtrails Clown.
You need to be institutionalized.
Ignore #5 in 24 hours.

Cleaning house of the Freaks/trolls here.
That will leave less than half the posters, if that.
Probably more like 30%.
bye.

`

`


----------



## Thevolunteerwino (Dec 1, 2020)

Always wondered why no one ever asks what direction the global temp should be headed?
If you are looking for a reason to deny someone solely because they are different. .I will offer myself in saying the Earth is an eclectic living organism with many diverse living systems on it. Just like your body is with lungs, brain, probiotic organisms, etc.
  I once did a chart of ice ages and warming cycles throughout earths history using ice core data etc. and concerning climate change if we were now in a warming trend a thousand years after a recent ice age or cooling cycle we could say average temperatures were rising and shouldnt be?.  But then again they should have been rising after a long cooling cycle was over.  So whats your problem.  It happens all the time.  Adapt to it. 
  So my first question I always ask the other individual on this subject is according to our planets point in history which direction should we be headed right now?
If you cant answer that.  You really need to do more homework before commenting on current global warming possibilities. . .
  The second thought I have on this is.  I always wonder if the powers that be are hiding the true extent of the original ozone depletion.  With duponts chloroflorocarbons and its mass marketing without political restraint the ozone layer became extreamly thin letting in the suns radiation. I dont think it fully healed.
  To me I think they (those responsible and those in power) are worried and scared of its results and now in denial are blaming overpopulation and us for their errors and calling it global warming under false pretenses while painting the sky white to hide their mistakes.    Just my thoughts. 
  Feel free to trash me now but dont call me a labled name like liberal as I might prove you wrong by stating my beliefe in the right to bear arms or any other lable which for some reason never fit.
  My thoughts on global warming


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 1, 2020)

Thevolunteerwino said:


> Always wondered why no one ever asks what direction the global temp should be headed?
> If you are looking for a reason to deny someone solely because they are different. .I will offer myself in saying the Earth is an eclectic living organism with many diverse living systems on it. Just like your body is with lungs, brain, probiotic organisms, etc.
> I once did a chart of ice ages and warming cycles throughout earths history using ice core data etc. and surely concerning cli.ate change if we were in a warming trend a thousand years after a prior ice age or cooling cycle we could say average temperatures were rising.  But then again they should have been.  So whats your problem.  Adapt to it.
> So my first question I always ask the other individual on this subject is according to our planets point in history which direction should we be headed right now?
> ...



Geez ... another liberal poster ... with a gun ... as if my day wasn't bad enough ...

I don't think us hairless semi-evolved rodents should say what temperature should be doing ... up, down, around ... temperature has a natural right to do whatever she wants to do ... we start pushing her around, she *will* push back in ways we won't like ... piss her off at the wrong time of the month and she'll go on yet another murderous rampage ... 

Liberals don't think about that ... you should be ashamed of yourself ...

Oh ... and welcome to the USMB ... it's a laugh a minute around here ...


----------



## ChemEngineer (Dec 1, 2020)

Dale Smith said:


> You (AbuAfak)  are a blithering idiot and a chump. This whole global warming scam started with suggestions from the Iron Mountain Report and the Club Of Rome took the ball and ran with it starting with "Limits To Growth" and their idea of "Sustainable Development" which lead to the Agenda 21 agreement at the Rio Conference in 1992.



*The birth of The Global Warming Fraud can be traced to a conference organized by anthropologist Margaret Mead, in 1975.  You can read the paper documenting the conference which began the ongoing fraud  here. *


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 1, 2020)

Thevolunteerwino said:


> ......
> So my first question I always ask the other individual on this subject is according to our planets point in history which direction should we be headed right now?
> .....
> It happens all the time. Adapt to it.


I don't think your question is well-posed. I presume you are referring to what is good for humans. Yes the flora and fauna can adapt to a wide range of temperatures, but a problem will occur when trying to adapt to a climate changing rapidly within one generation. It will affect farming regions, sea side cities, ocean ecology, invasive species, etc. 

The question should be about the rate of change of climate, not which direction it's headed.


----------



## Thevolunteerwino (Dec 1, 2020)

Wuwei.  I believe if people would quit fighting and get along.  They would adapt amd help each other out.  Plenty of time to adjust and adapt to new housing locations and new crops. Where you see trauma I see opportunity


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 1, 2020)

Wuwei said:


> I don't think your question is well-posed. I presume you are referring to what is good for humans. Yes the flora and fauna can adapt to a wide range of temperatures, but a problem will occur when trying to adapt to a climate changing rapidly within one generation. It will affect farming regions, sea side cities, ocean ecology, invasive species, etc.
> 
> The question should be about the rate of change of climate, not which direction it's headed.



We've endured a single degree centigrade temperature rise over the past 100 years ... why would you characterize a single degree centigrade over 50 years as "rapid" ... and that's actually two generations ... the infant born today would be welcoming their *grand*children in 50 years ...

What crops do not grow where 100 years ago they florished? ... which sea side city cannot add two or three feet to their sea walls over 100 years? ... how could a slight increase in temperature stop over-fishing the oceans? ... how does a change in climate cause humans to start releasing their unwanted pets into the wild? ...

"Rate of change" has a very specific definition in this context ... using Newtonian notation: f'(T, P, RH, w, r) [where T=temperature, P=pressure, RH=relative humidity, w=the wind vector, r=precipitation] ... with respect to time ... if all these parameters remain within instrumentation error, then we can conclude climate change cannot be measured ... f'(T, P, RH, w, r) = 0 ...

I'm sorry, environmental devastation better correlates to human population growth ... the more people raping the Earth, the worst off the Earth is ...


----------



## Thevolunteerwino (Dec 1, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think your question is well-posed. I presume you are referring to what is good for humans. Yes the flora and fauna can adapt to a wide range of temperatures, but a problem will occur when trying to adapt to a climate changing rapidly within one generation. It will affect farming regions, sea side cities, ocean ecology, invasive species, etc.
> ...


Not just population growth.  I find that somewhat misleading.  As I travel the country in my car I find most of it is vacant of human population.  Huge swaths of land across the country are void of human life.
Im not saying the population numbers dont contribute to devestation.  Im just saying its not at the core of the problem.  DDT and other examples show how industrial science mixed with irresponsible marketing and proliferation contribute greatly as well.  With only 1/ 4 of the current population we still would have polluted streams and destroyed the ozone.  It just would have taken longer to show itself and we would have less people anf scientists to recognize the problem as well.
  I was an avid organic gardener for years and had a good instruction from experience on the tenacity of life amd the earth and how well it loves to work in unison.  Im not so much sure its too much population as it is irresponsibility of management of our current science. 
Even now we are supposed to be solving a misguided warming theory with electric cars which tear up bog ponds in other countries for lithium.  The bogs seem unimportant but unknowingly the microbes in the bottom contribute to the ecosystem above.
  In the end to the marketing and their paid science  its not about the planet we are living on its about profit.  And in the end when things get desperate they can always blame the population even though they knew better about their actions from the start.  Its not simply the population.  Change must start from the top and they must first admit their wrongs and the problems they are causing.  In this increasing technological age with nano tech, nuclear tech. Space knowledge.  etc..  Even a few people can in theory destroy the planet unawares.
And it looks as if they will make it so if they dont change their perspective very soon.
  And yes adapting to a changing planet amd its climate is easy.  You learn that from working with your fingers in the earth and observing growing things.
But changing an entire adapting planets environment is like medically trying to treat the symptoms of a disease while ignoring the cause.  It becomes very difficult to save the patient.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 1, 2020)

Thevolunteerwino said:


> Wuwei. I believe if people would quit fighting and get along. They would adapt amd help each other out. Plenty of time to adjust and adapt to new housing locations and new crops. Where you see trauma I see opportunity


"if people would quit fighting and get along" 
There's the rub.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 1, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> We've endured a single degree centigrade temperature rise over the past 100 years ... why would you characterize a single degree centigrade over 50 years as "rapid" ... and that's actually two generations ... the infant born today would be welcoming their *grand*children in 50 years ...


I did not say that I think there has been a rapid change. My point is only that a rapid rate of change is more difficult problem than a stable temperature that is several degrees different one way or another. It was a hypothetical remark.



ReinyDays said:


> What crops do not grow where 100 years ago they florished? ... which sea side city cannot add two or three feet to their sea walls over 100 years? ... how could a slight increase in temperature stop over-fishing the oceans? ... how does a change in climate cause humans to start releasing their unwanted pets into the wild? ...


Again you are reading to much into my post that isn't there.



ReinyDays said:


> "Rate of change" has a very specific definition in this context ... using Newtonian notation: f'(T, P, RH, w, r) [where T=temperature, P=pressure, RH=relative humidity, w=the wind vector, r=precipitation] ... with respect to time ... if all these parameters remain within instrumentation error, then we can conclude climate change cannot be measured ... f'(T, P, RH, w, r) = 0 ...


Thermodynamics is way outside the context of my post. It would be more practical to measure rate of change by changes in precipitation, regional temperature changes, flooding increases, etc.  Eg. the wine industry in France is very sensitive to those changes and is currently beginning to suffer. But who cares about wine.

IMO it will take a few decades to see if there is a climate change problem. 



ReinyDays said:


> I'm sorry, environmental devastation better correlates to human population growth ... the more people raping the Earth, the worst off the Earth is ...


Of course. 
.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 10, 2020)

Wuwei said:


> Thevolunteerwino said:
> 
> 
> > ......
> ...


where is that happening at?


----------



## evenflow1969 (Dec 10, 2020)

petro said:


> To be honest I never considered myself a climate change denier.
> 
> More of a climate change encourager. I fully encourage the appearance of Palm Trees in Duluth. Being tommorows forecast calls for snow in the area, I am completely discouraged about the current rate of warming.


Um, ya know you can just move south for such a thing. Meanwhile the plats and animals in your area like the weather.


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 10, 2020)

evenflow1969 said:


> Um, ya know you can just move south for such a thing. Meanwhile the plats and animals in your area like the weather.



No they don't ... look at your maple tree ... looks dead doesn't it? ... see how the deer are starving? ... how many birds just flat desert your area for winter? ... if there's snow on the ground where you live, you've made a _terrible_ mistake ... there's a reason Fargo is the butt of so many jokes ...


----------



## ding (Dec 10, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> the more people raping the Earth, the worst off the Earth is


I never saw myself as raping the earth.


----------



## ding (Dec 10, 2020)

Not sure how anyone can deny the greenhouse effect or radiative physics.


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 10, 2020)

ding said:


> Not sure how anyone can deny the greenhouse effect or radiative physics.



They don't come around anymore ... they believed that photons come with return addresses on them ... individual molecules can then decide which ones to keep and which ones to return to sender ... oh, and molecules are very conscientious and only send photons to good homes ... where they'll be loved and adored and get regular visits to the photon doctor down the block ... 

[sigh] ...


----------



## ding (Dec 10, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure how anyone can deny the greenhouse effect or radiative physics.
> ...



I don't think so.


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 10, 2020)

Thank you ... it's been awhile since I've seen a video about physics where no house cat was harmed ...


----------



## james bond (Dec 11, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Thank you ... it's been awhile since I've seen a video about physics where no house cat was harmed ...



I'm getting my next door neighbor a house kitten for Christmas because my dog chased one of her three feral cats away.  But I'm not sure if she wants a house kitten.  I'm hoping she goes for it.


What's weird is I see the cat as my dogs chase it out of the bushes along the river, but there no way I can catch it.  I set out a trap, but it caught a skunk.  Ugh.  The SPCA man came out and shot it with an air gun and put a big hole in the cage.


----------



## esalla (Dec 27, 2020)

Wuwei said:


> Thevolunteerwino said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei. I believe if people would quit fighting and get along. They would adapt amd help each other out. Plenty of time to adjust and adapt to new housing locations and new crops. Where you see trauma I see opportunity
> ...


And if people would stop cooking dogs alive


----------



## Resnic (May 3, 2021)

I'm not sure where I fall.

This planet is 4.5 billion years old. This planet has been through worldwide fires, worldwide floods, bombardment by cosmic radiation, the depletion and rebuilding of the ozone layer, a total reversal of the poles, entire land masses breaking apart, major techtonic damage, the ice age, hit by countless meteors, extinction of entire species, volcanos and a lot more million and billions of years before we even showed up. I can't help but wonder if we're just going through a phase yet again. Earth is not static, it's chaotic, always changing. We have only been here in the blink of an eye and only a small portion of that has been with real science and real equipment. What is going now has happened thousands of times already.

I mean 



In the 70s we had scientic proof and everyone agreed we were headed into an ice age because of nuclear power being a prime problem. It was a fact we had an ice age coming.

In this day and age of everyone using anything they can as an agenda or to spin a narrative it's hard for me to take any of it serious. Climate change is a big big business with million dollar grants floating around, speeches to be made, tshirts to be printed, podcasts made on it with sponsors and so on. We all know people will do anything for money, even exploiting the climate trend.

But then again pollution could be a contributing factor but I don't believe it to be the sole one. We haven't even had heavy industry that long in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## miketx (May 3, 2021)

Resnic said:


> This planet is 4.5 billion years old.


So they tell you.


----------



## ChemEngineer (May 3, 2021)

Resnic said:


> I'm not sure where I fall.
> 
> This planet is 4.5 billion years old. This planet has been through worldwide fires, worldwide floods, bombardment by cosmic radiation, the depletion and rebuilding of the ozone layer, a total reversal of the poles, entire land masses breaking apart, major techtonic damage, the ice age, hit by countless meteors, extinction of entire species, volcanos and a lot more million and billions of years before we even showed up. I can't help but wonder if we're just going through a phase yet again. Earth is not static, it's chaotic, always changing. We have only been here in the blink of an eye and only a small portion of that has been with real science and real equipment. What is going now has happened thousands of times already.
> 
> ...


The 1977 issue is fake.  I deplore mendacity.


----------



## sparky (May 4, 2021)

Resnic said:


> I'm not sure where I fall.
> 
> This planet is 4.5 billion years old. This planet has been through worldwide fires, worldwide floods, bombardment by cosmic radiation, the depletion and rebuilding of the ozone layer, a total reversal of the poles, entire land masses breaking apart, major techtonic damage, the ice age, hit by countless meteors, extinction of entire species, volcanos and a lot more million and billions of years before we even showed up. I can't help but wonder if we're just going through a phase yet again. Earth is not static, it's chaotic, always changing. We have only been here in the blink of an eye and only a small portion of that has been with real science and real equipment. What is going now has happened thousands of times already.
> 
> ...











						Agnotology - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



~S~


----------



## jc456 (May 4, 2021)

ChemEngineer said:


> Resnic said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure where I fall.
> ...


prove it.


----------



## jc456 (May 4, 2021)

sparky said:


> Resnic said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure where I fall.
> ...


how old do you think this planet is?  are you saying the land masses didn't split?  are you saying we didn't have a global ice age?  what exactly is stupid?  come on man stand up and be noticed.


----------



## Crick (May 4, 2021)

Resnic said:


> I'm not sure where I fall.
> 
> This planet is 4.5 billion years old. This planet has been through worldwide fires, worldwide floods, bombardment by cosmic radiation, the depletion and rebuilding of the ozone layer, a total reversal of the poles, entire land masses breaking apart, major techtonic damage, the ice age, hit by countless meteors, extinction of entire species, volcanos and a lot more million and billions of years before we even showed up. I can't help but wonder if we're just going through a phase yet again. Earth is not static, it's chaotic, always changing. We have only been here in the blink of an eye and only a small portion of that has been with real science and real equipment. What is going now has happened thousands of times already.
> 
> ...



There was never any consensus among scientists that we were heading into an ice age.  There were a few individuals leaning that way and the media picked up on it.


----------



## jc456 (May 4, 2021)

Crick said:


> Resnic said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure where I fall.
> ...


are they smarter than you?  those few individuals?


----------



## ChemEngineer (May 4, 2021)

jc456 said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> > Resnic said:
> ...



Don't be so lazy.  Look it up yourself.  Disgraceful of you.


----------



## sparky (May 5, 2021)

jc456 said:


> come on man stand up and be noticed.


*Stand*
*You've been sitting much too long
There's a partisan crease in your right and wrong

Stand
There's a denier standing tall
And the oilocracy behind them all



Stand. stand, stand
Stand. stand, stand

Stand
They will try to make you crawl
And they know what you're saying makes no sense and all

Stand
Don't you know they’d pay the fee
Where’s those flying cars that they promised me



Everybody*
_*Stand, stand, stand

w/apologies to >>



~S~*_


----------



## Crick (May 5, 2021)

ChemEngineer said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ChemEngineer said:
> ...


WHAT is "the 1977 issue"?


----------



## jc456 (May 5, 2021)

ChemEngineer said:


> Don't be so lazy. Look it up yourself. Disgraceful of you.


you claimed it as fake, prove it.  I owe no effort. post the link that says it's fake.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 12, 2021)

jc456 said:


> you claimed it as fake, prove it.  I owe no effort. post the link that says it's fake.


It's a well-known hoax. Well, at least it's well-known to anyone who isn't a brainwashed cult imbecile.









						1977 "coming ice age" Time magazine cover is a fake
					

This meme utilizes a widely circulated fake image purporting to show a 1977 Time magazine story titled "How To Survive The Coming Ice Age". The cover is actually from 2007, for a story titled "The Global Warming Survival Guide". While a claim of global cooling did appear a couple times in the...




					climatefeedback.org
				




It's not surpirsing that you fell so hard for the hoax, given your track record of falling hard for every conspiracy hoax.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 12, 2021)

mamooth said:


> It's a well-known hoax. Well, at least it's well-known to anyone who isn't a brainwashed cult imbecile.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


that proves nothing.


----------



## miketx (Aug 12, 2021)

mamooth said:


> It's a well-known hoax. Well, at least it's well-known to anyone who isn't a brainwashed cult imbecile.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


fake like all of you.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Aug 12, 2021)

The oceans are blue. The sky is blue. These facts have been known for thousands of years but only in the last century or so has man learned WHY they are blue.  It is because the water in the ocean, and in the atmosphere (~1,500 ppmv) absorb infrared light, leaving the blue light  to disperse everywhere.   Not only does atmospheric water vapor represent about 40 times the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide, but it also absorbs infrared wavelengths far more effectively than does CO2.





So keep panicking, you Leftists. Keep riding the bus while your handlers ride their Lear Jets, limousines, and yachts.  YOU "cut back." Barack Obama, the Clintons, the Gores, Richard Branson, Leftists everywhere - hell no.









						theglobalwarmingfraud
					






					TheGlobalWarmingFraud.wordpress.com


----------



## Crick (Aug 22, 2021)

You might want to consider 1) the average lifespan of a water molecule in the atmosphere and 2) what changes global humidity levels have undergone in the last 150 years and why.

Try:








						Trends in continental temperature and humidity directly linked to ocean warming
					

Changes in surface temperature and humidity over land are important for climate-change impacts on humans and ecosystems. Here, we show how trends in land humidity and temperature in recent decades are linked to ocean warming. While changes in temperature and humidity have been different over...




					www.pnas.org
				



and








						Recent Climatology, Variability, and Trends in Global Surface Humidity
					

Abstract In situ observations of surface air and dewpoint temperatures and air pressure from over 15 000 weather stations and from ships are used to calculate surface specific (q) and relative (RH) humidity over the globe (60°S–75°N) from December 1975 to spring 2005. Seasonal and interannual...




					journals.ametsoc.org
				




for scholarly articles explaining, among other things, that increasing surface temperatures are driving increasing surface specific and absolute humidity, not vice versa.  Humidity is the largest global warming feedback, not its cause.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Aug 26, 2021)

ChemEngineer said:


> The oceans are blue. The sky is blue. These facts have been known for thousands of years but only in the last century or so has man learned WHY they are blue.  It is because the water in the ocean, and in the atmosphere (~1,500 ppmv) absorb infrared light, leaving the blue light  to disperse everywhere.   Not only does atmospheric water vapor represent about 40 times the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide, but it also absorbs infrared wavelengths far more effectively than does CO2.
> 
> View attachment 524909
> 
> ...


Shareprofit doesn't care for science.  It conflicts with his need for fear and coloring books.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 6, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> *There's a sliding scale on what is considered to be "GWarming denial".. It's an abusive, term meant to stoke discord and polarization.. But in reality, "denial" ranges from "I accept GW -- I just don't accept the CATASTROPHIC predictions that have been pounded by media/politicians based on MISREPRESENTATION of the actual science"  -----   to the folks that will be using this thread that fall into to "I not only reject GWarming totally and IN ADDITION I don't believe in the physics and chemistry behind how the basic GreenHouse theory works"....*


No, there are many worse kinds of GW denial.
In Reality, many on this board believe there is no warming, GW or AGW. (The largest and longest running thread on this msg board)
There are many other _"It's cold this week/somewhere so it can't be warming"_ threads to that effect.
They think it's not warming.

Many more that there is No AGW. All natural cycle GW.

The reason you think/spin 'denial' is 'abusive' is you failed to define the Actual width/irrationality of at least that position which IS denial.




flacaltenn said:


> *I'm a "denier" of the first kind". Relatively not an extremist on the topic.* THIS thread is for the folks in that latter category who are just fillibustering EVERY GW thread with their "alternative science".... *It's OK TO HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS*.. But they have to contained to threads where THAT IS the actual topic...



You of course claim your position is not 'extremist.'
But what does that mean?
Do you believe AGW?
Do you believe a rise in Sea Level of 1-7 feet by 2050 or 2100 or 2200 is coming?
At what point is it "catastrophic"?
Do you believe we should do anything at all to stop warming?
(if you believe in AGW at all)

You have taken no position except claiming you're reasonable.

`

EDIT: No one answered this post a few pages back either:




__





						Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.
					

I have (I think) a rather unique take on the whole "global warming" debate.  Based on the most basic principles of physics, man (mankind) has to have an affect on our environment. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."  Mankind has undeniably altered the planet with not...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Just because I refuted your claim and made you look stupid doesn't mean you have to be a whiney twat about it.
> 
> _Not only is the planet undergoing one of the largest climate changes in the past 65 million years, scientists report that it's occurring at a rate _*10 times faster than any change in that period. *
> 
> ...



_Not only is the planet undergoing one of the largest climate changes in the past 65 million years, scientists report that it's occurring at a rate _*10 times faster than any change in that period.*

Really?

Post the 10 fastest changes over an equivalent period of time.

Thanks!!!


----------



## westwall (Jan 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _Not only is the planet undergoing one of the largest climate changes in the past 65 million years, scientists report that it's occurring at a rate _*10 times faster than any change in that period.*
> 
> Really?
> 
> ...







Ooooooh.  They are going to have a hard time manufacturing that little tale.  Just believe their BS.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 6, 2022)

westwall said:


> Ooooooh.  They are going to have a hard time manufacturing that little tale.  Just believe their BS.


The usual, dislike with no response to my meaty post... and then a ONE line partisan high-five.
You are Trash.
You PhD is a Do.Pe and you deface/degrade this serious thread with your non-topical team play post.

I repeat: you are a disgrace to this mb and they were justified in Demoting you from mod to Demented trash can.

`


----------



## the other mike (Jan 6, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *Climate change occurring ten times faster than at any time in past 65 million years*
> 
> 
> `


Your timeline is wrong.

Scientists have recorded five significant ice ages throughout the Earth’s history: the Huronian (2.4-2.1 billion years ago), Cryogenian (850-635 million years ago), Andean-Saharan (460-430 mya), Karoo (360-260 mya) and Quaternary (2.6 mya-present). *Approximately a dozen major glaciations have occurred over the past 1 million years,* the largest of which peaked 650,000 years ago and lasted for 50,000 years. The most recent glaciation period, often known simply as the “Ice Age,” reached peak conditions some 18,000 years ago before giving way to the interglacial *Holocene epoch 11,700 years ago.*









						Ice Age
					

An ice age is a period of colder global temperatures and recurring glacial expansion capable of lasting hundreds of millions of years.




					www.history.com
				












						Timeline of glaciation - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## westwall (Jan 6, 2022)

abu afak said:


> The usual, dislike with no response to my meaty post... and then a ONE line partisan high-five.
> You are Trash.
> You PhD is a Do.Pe and you deface/degrade this serious thread with your non-topical team play post.
> 
> ...





"Meaty"?  If you mean in a vegan, fake meat sort of way, ok.  But we only deal with facts, not false claims.  To date you have never posted one thing that supports the idea that mankind causes globull warming.

Not one.  We, on the other hand, have posted THOUSANDS of links that prove the theory is wrong.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 6, 2022)

the other mike said:


> Your timeline is wrong.
> 
> Scientists have recorded five significant ice ages throughout the Earth’s history: the Huronian (2.4-2.1 billion years ago), Cryogenian (850-635 million years ago), Andean-Saharan (460-430 mya), Karoo (360-260 mya) and Quaternary (2.6 mya-present). *Approximately a dozen major glaciations have occurred over the past 1 million years,* the largest of which peaked 650,000 years ago and lasted for 50,000 years. The most recent glaciation period, often known simply as the “Ice Age,” reached peak conditions some 18,000 years ago before giving way to the interglacial *Holocene epoch 11,700 years ago.*
> 
> ...


You're very confused 'the other dick.'
*They are talking about the CURRENT post-Industrial Revolution warming/AGW, really 1880-2020 and most of it Forward changes.*

*""Stanford climate scientists warn that the likely rate of change OVER THE NEXT CENTURY will be at least 10 times quicker than any climate shift in the past 65 million years.""*​
*They are talking Now and forward based on temp and emission projections.
You IDIOT.

Anytime you get a like from Demented Westwall, you know you're wrong.*

`




westwall said:


> "Meaty"?  If you mean in a vegan, fake meat sort of way, ok.  But we only deal with facts, not false claims.  To date you have never posted one thing that supports the idea that mankind causes globull warming.
> 
> Not one.  We, on the other hand, have posted THOUSANDS of links that prove the theory is wrong.


Most of my thread starts are in DETAILED support of AGW and I have discussed and defended them in detail.

*You, OTOH, can't write more than ONE topical sentence, nor a paragraph, and have NEVER started a thread in Science or Environment.
You are functional Illiterate on any and all topics.
Resign before you lose your last 5%.*

`


----------



## westwall (Jan 6, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You're very confused 'the other dick.'
> *They are talking about the CURRENT post-Industrial Revolution warming/AGW, really 1880-2020 and most of it Forward changes.*
> 
> *""Stanford climate scientists warn that the likely rate of change OVER THE NEXT CENTURY will be at least 10 times quicker than any climate shift in the past 65 million years.""*​
> ...






No, your threads contain opinion, and falsified data.

This has been PROVEN to you multiple times.

All you do is laugh like a loon, and hurl insults.


----------



## the other mike (Jan 6, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You're very confused 'the other dick.'
> 
> 
> `


Whatever, Abdulla the Dumfuk


----------



## abu afak (Jan 6, 2022)

westwall said:


> "Meaty"?  If you mean in a vegan, fake meat sort of way, ok.  But we only deal with facts, not false claims.  To date you have never posted one thing that supports the idea that mankind causes globull warming.
> 
> Not one.  We, on the other hand, have posted THOUSANDS of links that prove the theory is wrong.





westwall said:


> No, your threads contain opinion, and falsified data.
> 
> This has been PROVEN to you multiple times.
> 
> All you do is laugh like a loon, and hurl insults.


Really?
LYING old Clocksupper.

*LINK for my "Falsified data?"
LINK for me "PROVEN wrong?"
You can't you LIAR.*

You Demented old FRAUD.

*I use NASA (alot), Yale, Columbia, Wall Street Journal (my home page), etc x 10.

I don't think you've EVER posted a link you Illiterate POS, and never started a threads in Science or Environment compared to my 100?*
You are through..
Demented.
*Do the right thing before you lose your last 5%.
Resign.*

`


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 6, 2022)

abu afak said:


> n Reality, many on this board believe there is no warming, GW or AGW. (The largest and longest running thread on this msg board)
> There are many other _"It's cold this week/somewhere so it can't be warming"_ threads to that effect.
> They think it's not warming.



Both sides confuse weather with climate often.  Doesn't mean that folks who see global warming as severely over-stated in terms of IMMEDIACY and CONSEQUENCES don't believe there hasn't been warming.  In fact, MOST of the people to the SOUTH of what I believe about GW -- will tell you that the "climate is ALWAYS changing". And who you might consider a denier could have some reservations about the DETAILS of how the 0.6DegC in your lifetime has been measured, modeled or otherwise created. 


abu afak said:


> You of course claim your position is not 'extremist.'
> But what does that mean?
> Do you believe AGW?



What's the SPECIFIC question here? AGW is not just ONE QUESTION. Are you asking me what the temperature anomaly in 2100 will be? How MUCH of the relatively small anomaly we've measured is DUE TO MAN? Whether I believe in ACCERATED or RUN-AWAY warning or "Trigger Temperatures" ?  Only a fool says "yes or no" to AGW... 



abu afak said:


> Do you believe a rise in Sea Level of 1-7 feet by 2050 or 2100 or 2200 is coming?



Sea level WILL RISE.  Currently at 3mm/yr. HISTORICALLY, before they went to satellite measurement -- it was about 2.2mm/yr. To get to 2 meters -- that's 300 yrs. The numbers you're quoting rely on GROSS ESTIMATES of ANTARCTICA melting pretty fully. 

 Good news is -- GW doesn't really AFFECT the southern hemisphere nearly as much as the rest of the globe. 

Bad news is --- Since about 2015 -- science has discovered that the volcanic rifts BENEATH the Antarctic coastal glaciers are INDEED ACTIVE.  And all that ice speeding up is FAR MORE likely due to "lubricating the skids" thru the ocean bedrock beneath them.  SO -- WE COULD HAVE about 6Ft of sea level rise in ANY ONE DECADE BEFORE 2100.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 6, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *""Stanford climate scientists warn that the likely rate of change OVER THE NEXT CENTURY will be at least 10 times quicker than any climate shift in the past 65 million years.""*



Stanford scientists have NO historical evidence that can MEASURE rises of less than about 400 years because the tree rings, ice cores, mud bugs they use DONT HAVE TEMPORAL resolution TO SEE accurate measurements of "climate temperature" in anywhere CLOSE to our ability to measure today.. 

The only thing we know about ancient temperatures is a rough AVERAGE of "the climate" multiple CENTURIES..  

To quote a scientist.  "I think that I shall never see, a thermometer worse than a tree".


----------



## abu afak (Jan 6, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> Both sides confuse weather with climate often.  Doesn't mean that folks who see global warming as severely over-stated in terms of IMMEDIACY and CONSEQUENCES don't believe there hasn't been warming.  In fact, MOST of the people to the SOUTH of what I believe about GW -- will tell you that the "climate is ALWAYS changing". And who you might consider a denier could have some reservations about the DETAILS of how the 0.6DegC in your lifetime has been measured, modeled or otherwise created.


You can say "both sides" anything but it's mostly the Right.
IAC, You Hugely misrepresented what the degrees of climate/warming denial were. (none, and no GW v AGW consideration.. the Actual debate.)
Again, it wasn't just a matter of degree, it was also AT ALL, and any AGW at all.




flacaltenn said:


> What's the SPECIFIC question here? AGW is not just ONE QUESTION. Are you asking me what the temperature anomaly in 2100 will be? How MUCH of the relatively small anomaly we've measured is DUE TO MAN? Whether I believe in ACCERATED or RUN-AWAY warning or "Trigger Temperatures" ?  Only a fool says "yes or no" to AGW...


*And AGW is absolutely is one specific question. You are free to give your opinion how much, if any. 
"Only a fool says yes or no to AGW" is ducking the issue, probably you are in DENIAL of it.
The vast majority of scientists and 100% of Intl Sci orgs agree there IS AGW.
All "Fools" I guess.

Denying AGW is also denying the Greenhouse effect of 50% more CO2 and other GHGs

You can't finesse me BOY.  
Time to think about who may indeed may have an extreme position.*




flacaltenn said:


> Sea level WILL RISE.  Currently at 3mm/yr. HISTORICALLY, before they went to satellite measurement -- it was about 2.2mm/yr. To get to 2 meters -- that's 300 yrs. The numbers you're quoting rely on GROSS ESTIMATES of ANTARCTICA melting pretty fully.
> 
> Good news is -- GW doesn't reallyAFFECT the southern hemisphere nearly as much as the rest of the globe.
> 
> Bad news is --- Since about 2015 -- science has discovered that the volcanic rifts BENEATH the Antarctic coastal glaciers are INDEED ACTIVE.  And all that ice speeding up is FAR MORE likely due to "lubricating the skids" thru the ocean bedrock beneath them.  SO -- WE COULD HAVE about 6Ft of sea level rise in ANY ONE DECADE BEFORE 2100.


There's no good News about Rising seal level and the Northern and Southern Hemisphere's will be just as much. (more near the equator tho). A good part of the planet live in coastal cities, some of our biggest.

*Then you try to attribute sea level rise to Volcanos, not warming!
IOW, "only fools take a position on AGW," while you claim it's Volcanos raising sea level.

Never mind that warming Correlates with the increase in GHGs WE put in the atmo and will raise temp even more even at current levels as the warming and Oceans continue to absorb even at this thickness of the GHG 'blanket.' 
BTW, half the current sea level rise is estimated to be from Volume expansion due to the Warming Oceans.
All points to that warming.*

IOW, you just don't like the "denier" label you absolutely merit with your opinions.
What a piece of BS work/false triangulation that post was.


*EDIT: For the record I put Skookerasbil, jc456, and Toddster back on Ignore today after a week of tolerating Idiocy beyond belief.*


`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 6, 2022)

abu afak said:


> The usual, dislike with no response to my meaty post... and then a ONE line partisan high-five.
> You are Trash.
> You PhD is a Do.Pe and you deface/degrade this serious thread with your non-topical team play post.
> 
> ...



Meaty post?

_Not only is the planet undergoing one of the largest climate changes in the past 65 million years, scientists report that it's occurring at a rate _*10 times faster than any change in that period.*

Meathead post.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 6, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You're very confused 'the other dick.'
> *They are talking about the CURRENT post-Industrial Revolution warming/AGW, really 1880-2020 and most of it Forward changes.*
> 
> *""Stanford climate scientists warn that the likely rate of change OVER THE NEXT CENTURY will be at least 10 times quicker than any climate shift in the past 65 million years.""*​
> ...



*""Stanford climate scientists warn that the likely rate of change OVER THE NEXT CENTURY will be at least 10 times quicker than any climate shift in the past 65 million years.""*

The likely rate of change? That's fucking hilarious!!!

Even funnier than saying it was _already_ 10 times quicker.


----------



## Leo123 (Jan 6, 2022)

The Earth's climate is always changing.  Sometimes slowly or quickly as in the onset of the Ice Age.   The true extent of Human contributory factors has not been scientifically proven yet.  Consensus is not science it is politics.   Until an actual scientific experiment is performed that can make it rain in drought areas (for instance) or stop a hurricane or tornado, there is no scientific proof that humans can globally affect Earth's climate.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 6, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> The Earth's climate is always changing.  Sometimes slowly or quickly as in the onset of the Ice Age.


Never this fast in GHG's, and temp will soon follow/keep following.
You need to at least read a few pages back to enter a thread without looking like an idiot.
That's Proven.



Leo123 said:


> The true extent of Human contributory factors has not been scientifically proven yet.  Consensus is not science it is politics.   Until an actual scientific experiment is performed that can make it rain in drought areas (for instance) or stop a hurricane or tornado, there is no scientific proof that humans can affect Earth's climate.


Actually this is wrong too.
Science does not deal in "Proof," only math can really do that. (2+2 IS 4)
Science deals in Theories affirmed over time by continuing consistent observation.
So in fact, science IS consensus. The more and longer the merrier.
And there is overwhelming consensus on AGW.
`


----------



## abu afak (Jan 6, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> The Earth's climate is always changing.  Sometimes slowly or quickly as in the onset of the Ice Age.   The true extent of Human contributory factors has not been scientifically proven yet.  Consensus is not science it is politics.   Until an actual scientific experiment is performed that can make it rain in drought areas (for instance) or stop a hurricane or tornado, there is no scientific proof that humans can globally affect Earth's climate.








						How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?
					

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural "it goes up, it goes down" but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.  About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds) Search Results Web results  How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				



`


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 6, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You can say "both sides" anything but it's mostly the Right.
> IAC, You Hugely misrepresented what the degrees of climate/warming denial were. (none, and no GW v AGW consideration.. the Actual debate.)
> Again, it wasn't just a matter of degree, it was also AT ALL, and any AGW at all.



Definately NOT "mostly the right". Before GW lost it's scientific momentum, EVERY weather record was not just INSINUATED by the left and the media, it SCREAMED GW multiple times a week. All of that drama has cooled down now since about 2008 and "the hiatus" (look it up -- GW pretty much STOPPED for a 12 year period). And you RARELY get the monthly headline about "NEW STUDY CONFIRMS" anything about GW. 

If I ADMIT that the Earth is experiencing a relatively mild warning -- which I DO. There's not REALLY a huge diff about GW and AGW. Would our mitigation actions be A LOT different if man only contributed 50% of it? Or am I denier if I believe that we dont have enough PRECISION in our knowledge of the NATURAL CO2 cycle sources and sinks to UNDERSTAND the 5% that man contributes to sourcing CO2 every year when the literature says that HALF of that is absorbed by natural sinks?  Do you even UNDERSTAND what I'm talking about here? Do you CARE? 

Or are you here just to rack people and scream obscenities at them? 

You're treating this more like TEAM LOYALTY then appreciating ALL THE QUESTIONS that must be answered to HAVE an educated opinion.


----------



## Leo123 (Jan 7, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Never this fast in GHG's, and temp will soon follow/keep following.
> You need to at least read a few pages back to enter a thread without looking like an idiot.
> That's Proven.
> 
> ...



Theories have to be proven by experimentation, not 'affirmed' which is a vague term.   If you want to prove that humans can change global climate do an experiment where you actually alter storms (for instance), control the winds, the rain, etc.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 7, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> Theories have to be proven by experimentation, not 'affirmed' which is a vague term.   If you want to prove that humans can change global climate do an experiment where you actually alter storms (for instance), control the winds, the rain, etc.


Theories do NOT Get Proven.
We still have Atomic theory, Relativity, and Evolution theories which remain theories and are FACTS if not 'proven.'

*15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
John Rennie - Editor in Chief
Scientific American - 2001.

*1. Evolution is 'only' a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*​​Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law.​Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), _a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”_​No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.​​In addition to the _theory_ of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the _FACT_ of evolution...."​
`


----------



## abu afak (Jan 7, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> Definately NOT "mostly the right". Before GW lost it's scientific momentum, EVERY weather record was not just INSINUATED by the left and the media, it SCREAMED GW multiple times a week. All of that drama has cooled down now since about 2008 and "the hiatus"* (look it up -- GW pretty much STOPPED for a 12 year period). And you RARELY get the monthly headline about "NEW STUDY CONFIRMS" anything about GW.*


WHAT
GW stopped in 2008?
WHAT?
You're not even in this debate.
That's Lunatical or 100% ignorant.
and 2020 Tied 2016 as warmest.
(I posted a thread on that in Env section a year go)









flacaltenn said:


> If I ADMIT that the Earth is experiencing a relatively mild warning -- which I DO. There's not REALLY a huge diff about GW and AGW. Would our mitigation actions be A LOT different if man only contributed 50% of it? Or am I denier if I believe that we dont have enough PRECISION in our knowledge of the NATURAL CO2 cycle sources and sinks to UNDERSTAND the 5% that man contributes to sourcing CO2 every year when the literature says that HALF of that is absorbed by natural sinks?  Do you even UNDERSTAND what I'm talking about here? Do you CARE?
> 
> Or are you here just to rack people and scream obscenities at them?
> 
> You're treating this more like TEAM LOYALTY then appreciating ALL THE QUESTIONS that must be answered to HAVE an educated opinion.


Most tellingly a stunning only very partial 'quote' and response to only 1/3 of my post.
Whoa!
All that topical meat evidencing my point/what IS the truth about AGW and your denial WHIFFED on egregiously.

So I'll respond to that 1/3 and accept the 2/3 as conceded on the actual point/evidence for AGW.
Wow.

Flacaltenn""If I ADMIT that the Earth is experiencing a relatively mild warning -- which I DO. There's not REALLY a huge diff about GW and AGW.""​
What's this "IF" ****?
Can't you state your position?
Will you lose your rep/conservative status among the lackeys here. Cognitive dissonance?
You constantly are 'If'ing.
Wimp city
Be a big bot, pretend you can actually defend your position/non-position.

So first, you ARE basically admitting you basically do not believe in AGW, or only an insignificant one.
Second, It may have cooled without AGW and OUR GHGs.
Man may be responsible for ie, 150 or 200% of the warming!
As some scientists surmise, the 20th c may have been cooler instead of warmer were it not for our GHG dump.
So you have a premise error too.
We may responsible for not only up 1.2 C, but for it not being down 1.2 C. IOW maybe we contributed 2.4 C.

"Team Loyalty"
I am in the 'STEM' party.
I believe in hard quantitatively evidenced Facts.
I believe there ARE races. I believe there are differences among them physically and Cognitively.
Crime is attrocious in one, tiny in another.
Facts first.
**** liberality.
I believe in balanced Budgets, and many other Conservative ideas.

I have no one/no side I have to defend except the truth.
YOU, OTOH are RW through the spectrum.
(and if I recall a creationist too, at least with your likes. Go ahead and clarify)

*I posted that alot of that truth in the BULK of my post you did not/could not answer.
Big WHIFF on lots of info re Temp, GHGs, Sea Level, etc.*

`


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 7, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Theories do NOT Get Proven.
> We still have Atomic theory, Relativity, and Evolution theories which remain theories and are FACTS if not 'proven.'



You still worried that an atom bomb will destroy the atmosphere? That's why they TESTED IT. Don't get that. We have atom theory NOW that keeps getting MORE SPECIFIC. Finding sub-atomic particles IS proven. Showing that atoms can communicate with other over VAST DISTANCES is SO proven that the world powers are RACING to implement space based communications, command/control apps operating on that theory. 

What part of atomic theory bothers you bunky?  Aint interested in rehashing evolution in this thread.*  IN FACT, this thread is reserved by moderation SPECIFICALLY to debate people who insist the GREENHOUSE theory is wrong.* Why did you choose to rehash OLD conflicts in HERE????


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 7, 2022)

abu afak said:


> WHAT
> GW stopped in 2008?
> WHAT?
> You're not even in this debate.
> ...



*That's NOT what I said and you're showing your ignorance. *Even the bogus IPCC UN panel had a section on "the Hiatus" in their AR3 or 4 report.* Showing a random collection of hottest years does not NEGATE THE FACT that in the beginning 2000s, the GMAST anomaly did not change for 10 or 11 years more than subtely in the 3rd digit to the right of the decimal point. *

We're done.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 7, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> *That's NOT what I said and you're showing your ignorance. *Even the bogus IPCC UN panel had a section on "the Hiatus" in their AR3 or 4 report.* Showing a random collection of hottest years does not NEGATE THE FACT that in the beginning 2000s, the GMAST anomaly did not change for 10 or 11 years more than subtely in the 3rd digit to the right of the decimal point. *
> 
> We're done.


You Got GUTTED on every point and have responses to NONE of the many points I made and answered.
Astonishing WHIFF!
Even a bigger fraudulent post than your last which whiffed on 2/3 of my post
Now Whiffing on about 80% of lots of climate explanation and debunking of your astonishing ignorance and DUPLICITY.
You're a Complete FRAUD.

In the tiny portion you replied to you said you don't hear so much on warming any more because it paused since 2008.
What a Complete NON-entity you are on this topic in all respects.
You know NOTHING and tried to hedge with noncommittal, omission, and 'short-quoting.' (and an 'Atom Bomb' Deflection/TROLL post)
YOU FRAUD.
`

EDIT:
Whole exchange COPIED for future reference.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2022)

Seems like this debate could be settled by performing a controlled laboratory experiment where the associated temperature of CO2 at varying concentrations was quantified.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 16, 2022)

ding said:


> Seems like this debate could be settled by performing a controlled laboratory experiment where the associated temperature of CO2 at varying concentrations was quantified.


CO2 absorption of thermal radiation has been done well over one hundred years ago. I believe it was covered in this thread.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2022)

Wuwei said:


> CO2 absorption of thermal radiation has been done well over one hundred years ago. I believe it was covered in this thread.


And it's your belief that the associated temperature for varying concentrations of CO2 was measured?  

That's not my understanding.  It's my understanding that no one has ever tried to quantify the associated temperature from CO2 at varying concentrations.  Why don't you go back and check and get back to me?


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 17, 2022)

Wuwei said:


> CO2 absorption of thermal radiation has been done well over one hundred years ago. I believe it was covered in this thread.



The question is "how much" ... and "for how long" ... and this all boils down to the numerical relationship between CO2 concentration and SB's emissivity factor ... you know, the math ... 

We've seen a degree Celsius temperature increase since 1980 ... we should be able to point and say, "here is what a single degree increase will do" ... where in the world are we seeing weather that can't occur, or occurs at a significant reduction of intensity, if average global temperatures were a single degree cooler? ... the climatologists interviewed on NPR say they can't tell us this ... so far, no smoking gun demonstrating climate change ...

Projecting catastrophe where none has occurred before ... with only 1.8 W/m^2 ... we'll need something more definitive than just carbon dioxide has an emission spectrum ... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 17, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> The question is "how much" ... and "for how long"


I was addressing the fact that many on this thread do not even believe that CO2 has anything to do with global warming. 

What you  are asking cannot be experimentally done because you cannot experimentally simulate the earth. There are lots of IPCC mathematical models that look into that. But many people on this thread guffaw at the IPCC. There was an experiment that confirmed back-radiation from CO2 is what models predict. That's the extent of my knowledge. See the IPCC for details.
.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 18, 2022)

Wuwei said:


> I was addressing the fact that many on this thread do not even believe that CO2 has anything to do with global warming.
> 
> What you  are asking cannot be experimentally done because you cannot experimentally simulate the earth. There are lots of IPCC mathematical models that look into that. But many people on this thread guffaw at the IPCC. There was an experiment that confirmed back-radiation from CO2 is what models predict. That's the extent of my knowledge. See the IPCC for details.
> .



The IPCC report is seven times longer than the Holy Bible ... I thought you might have more light to shine on this matter ...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 18, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> The IPCC report is seven times longer than the Holy Bible ... I thought you might have more light to shine on this matter ...


Some on this board know how to navigate it. I have too many other things to do. IPCC has many detailed papers to slog through but there are executive summaries on climate science and predictions. 

APS.org had a great summary of greenhouse gas physics, but it isn't there anymore.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 18, 2022)

westwall said:


> No, your threads contain opinion, and falsified data.
> 
> This has been PROVEN to you multiple times.
> 
> All you do is laugh like a loon, and hurl insults.


(Still waiting)

Really?
LYING old Clocksupper.

*LINK for my "Falsified data?"
LINK for me "PROVEN wrong?"
You can't you LIAR.*

You Demented old FRAUD.

*I use NASA (alot), Yale, Columbia, Wall Street Journal (my home page), etc x 10.

I don't think you've EVER posted a link you Illiterate POS, and never started a threads in Science or Environment compared to my 100?*
You are through..
Demented.
*Do the right thing before you lose your last 5%.
Resign.*

`


----------



## westwall (Jan 18, 2022)

abu afak said:


> (Still waiting)
> 
> Really?
> LYING old Clocksupper.
> ...






Almost everything you post comes from climate reanalyzer, in other words they take raw data, and falsify it.  So, yeah, you live in fantasy land and are either to stupid to understand, or simply don't care because it interferes with your religion.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 18, 2022)

ding said:


> And it's your belief that the associated temperature for varying concentrations of CO2 was measured?
> 
> That's not my understanding.  It's my understanding that no one has ever tried to quantify the associated temperature from CO2 at varying concentrations.  Why don't you go back and check and get back to me?



The science going back on CO2 that proved CO2 back radiation and energy storage didn't address the conversion to temperatures at the destinations. 

When it's an EARTH with multiple ACTUAL climate zones and they all respond differently to "forcings" -- having ONE consolidated conversion factor to temperature (like what appears in the lit) is virtually useless. It's also useless to have a conversion factor if you ignore the THERMAL STORAGE and DISTRIBUTION of the resultant heat where it falls. 

So -- THERE IS an ad hoc (global) factor to take CO2 warming power to a surface temperature.  But the effort to understand either transient or steady state temperatures as DISTRIBUTED by the planet thermodynamics is still in development. 

Note: we do see power to temp conversion estimates for various climate zones. But tying them together in an accurate "whole earth model" hasn't been done.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jan 18, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> The science going back on CO2 that proved CO2 back radiation and energy storage didn't address the conversion to temperatures at the destinations.
> 
> When it's an EARTH with multiple ACTUAL climate zones and they all respond differently to "forcings" -- having ONE consolidated conversion factor to temperature (like what appears in the lit) is virtually useless. It's also useless to have a conversion factor if you ignore the THERMAL STORAGE and DISTRIBUTION of the resultant heat where it falls.
> 
> ...


The problem I have with this climate dilemma, is that from my background in geology, I know the earth's history. I know all the processes of the earth that can increase and decrease co2 levels, amongst other things. I've trekked over Scotland, England and parts of Europe whilst doing my studies. I concentrated on local rocks and glaciation. I understand what organisms etc.. in the past contributed to the rise in co2.

What I object to is, people that feel the whole of the climate is based on co2 and mankind is the sole purpose that the climate is not what these climate alarmists have enjoyed throughout childhood.

And the biggest part I object too, we are told the earth is on the tipping point of destruction, yet we are hundreds and hundreds of percentage points behind where life flourished. And all I see is, alarmists copy and pasting graphs from someone who receives funding to come up with these graphs.

Most of science is flawed and people simply replicate this misinformation. I loved studying glaciation in the Lake District, and what is said on forums about the climate, is beggers belief. When I try to point something out, I'm classed as a climate denier.

So you as a mod, please enjoy moderating the 12 billion threads on the climate that all too frequently amalgamate in to the same rhetoric.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> The science going back on CO2 that proved CO2 back radiation and energy storage didn't address the conversion to temperatures at the destinations.
> 
> When it's an EARTH with multiple ACTUAL climate zones and they all respond differently to "forcings" -- having ONE consolidated conversion factor to temperature (like what appears in the lit) is virtually useless. It's also useless to have a conversion factor if you ignore the THERMAL STORAGE and DISTRIBUTION of the resultant heat where it falls.
> 
> ...


It seems to me that the actual greenhouse effect is not transient.  It's instantaneous or practically instantaneous.  Like how a cloudy night is 10 to 20 degrees warmer than a cloudless night.  You don't have to wait years to see that effect.  

If the original experiment showed slower cool down times for 100% CO2 vs air.  Then the delta temperature between the two curves would be the associated temperature of the 100%CO2 case.  All I am saying is to do the same experiment at varying concentrations of CO2 and compare the differences to arrive at the greenhouse effect of varying CO2 concentrations.  The majority of the greenhouse effect occurs just from having an atmosphere.  It's ridiculous to assume slight changes in the concentrations of the gases will have any material effect.

What you have described above (i.e. climate sensitivity) seems to be describing the feedback effect which is something entirely different from the choking effect of an atmosphere and should be kept separate from the greenhouse effect.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 18, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> And the biggest part I object too, we are told the earth is on the tipping point of destruction, yet we are hundreds and hundreds of percentage points behind where life flourished. And all I see is, alarmists copy and pasting graphs from someone who receives funding to come up with these graphs.



All very insightful.  And you do it with a touch of humility.  Not with the ARROGANCE of playing to media or misleading anyone about "what we know". 

The quote above is where I throw my marker also.  I've spent just as much time arguing with GHouse Deniers and other strange birds as I have the PANICKED folks who dont appreciate that GWarming can NOT BE just ONE QUESTION answered. 

The usual Alarmist/Denier scale is measured by ONE QUESTION.  Which is actually a trivial compound question.

"Do you believe that the Earth is warming and Mankind is in whole or part responsible for the warming.  I (probably you) can relent to ACCEPTING this. The other 170 questions were asked in a series of papers by Bray and von Storch over about a decade where they polled VETTED climate scientists about everything in between "faith in the modeling" and "current (weather) evidence for global warming". There WAS NO CLEAR "consensus". 

One of the more interesting questions in the 1st poll was -- "Do you consider Climate science to be a mature discipline capable of forecasting climate" or something close to that -- and the answers were definitely tilted towards NO. 
Because it wasn't in 1998 or whenever that 1st poll was taken. We had barely satellite knowledge for 25 years at that point and modeling was REALLY ROUGH. 

As far as the adjunct theories about "accelerated or run-away warming" or "tipping points" -- that's my real line in the sand. They make little sense for ALL the reasons you laid out in Geological history.  If the Earth survived FOUR periods of glaciation where the CO2 cycle virtually SHUT down and then RECOVERED without all these catastrophic effects (mainly a fear of melting permafrost and releasing EVER INCREASING amounts of CO2) then why after FOUR trials do we still exist to argue this? Each of those events buried and then exposed 100 or more times more permafrost than we have LEFT NOW !!! 

And mankind's 5% contribution (nature = 95%) to yearly CO2 cycle IS NOT sufficient to push that over the edge in the NEXT ice age. In fact, instead of catastrophic theories mentioned -- we MAY just be buying another 1000 years of a habitable temperate world. 

THEN -- there's the dynamics of GW science CHANGING over the past 40 years.  Old bad science and media fear porn still exists on the web. While the SCIENCE has moved on.

 Best example of that is the media stories describing how NYCity/Fla and most Pac islands would be underwater by 2100 or so because the West Antarctic Ice sheets were ACCELERATING towards the sea. When YOU say you dont think CO2 is the MAIN climate control knob -- you're probably right. Because yeah -- that ice was speeding up a bit, but NOT BECAUSE of AIR temps or WATER temps in Antarctica.  About 2012 -- It was discovered that the many assumed volcanic rifts in that region WERE ACTIVE. And they were RIGHT BENEATH the FOOTERS of those coastal glaciers. 

Without folks like us that have a more objective view of history and science and hype of this circus --- it would be REALLY IRONIC if NYCity/Fla/most Pac Islands went underwater NOT IN 100 or even 50 years -- but if that volcanic activity was to INCREASE -- it could be in a couple decades or less. 

GW sucks the air right out of objective science on the topic. It's politically driven at the UN and in the various capitols of the world.  DESTROYS emphasis on OTHER environmental emergencies. We need to calm the fuck down a bit and DEBATE and TEST and IMPROVE all the sciences that roll up into GWarming. 

Sorry for the length but loved your take on it.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 18, 2022)

ding said:


> It seems to me that the actual greenhouse effect is not transient.  It's instantaneous or practically instantaneous.  Like how a cloudy night is 10 to 20 degrees warmer than a cloudless night.  You don't have to wait years to see that effect.
> 
> If the original experiment showed slower cool down times for 100% CO2 vs air.  Then the delta temperature between the two curves would be the associated temperature of the 100%CO2 case.  All I am saying is to do the same experiment at varying concentrations of CO2 and compare the differences to arrive at the greenhouse effect of varying CO2 concentrations.  The majority of the greenhouse effect occurs just from having an atmosphere.  It's ridiculous to assume slight changes in the concentrations of the gases will have any material effect.
> 
> What you have described above (i.e. climate sensitivity) seems to be describing the feedback effect which is something entirely different from the choking effect of an atmosphere and should be kept separate from the greenhouse effect.



I think you're right in the sense that CO2 back radiation goes to work pretty fast. But it also has a long atmos retention time. If you were just measuring thru clear dry sky and could jolt a bolt of CO2 up there -- and ONLY cared to CONTAINE that gas above your lat/long 1000 x 1000 mile square of SAND (say) -- you'd get some quick response. 

The complication on a calculating a GLOBAL MEAN temp change however is monumentally more difficult because "the earth" is one of the most complex thermodynamic systems of heat distribution that you can imagine. It's not only SURFACE variations (iced, dry desert, ocean, latitude and sun irradiance differences, WEATHER patterns, ect, ect. -- It's ABOVE the ground due to weather and jet streams and BELOW the ocean with thermal conveyors. 

So what they ACTUALLY DO -- and remember they are focused on a whole earth composite model, not building a model from different climate zones -- is to provide a Short Term Climate Sensitivity number and a Long Term Climate Sensitivity number. THOSE numbers are the FACTOR that convert CO2 forcing power to a GMAST (Global Mean Averaged Surface Temp [anomaly]}

Because SOME heat goes into land/ocean storage. Some heat takes decades for the ocean to store and redistribute to the surface and SOME goes into tropospheric "weather storage" as the jet stream and storms and such. It takes a LONG TIME for something that complex to "come to equilibrium" again after any transient on a climate sized time scale.  And our little 80 or 100 year event aint even enough time to reach an equilibrium surface temp.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 18, 2022)

ding said:


> The majority of the greenhouse effect occurs just from having an atmosphere. It's ridiculous to assume slight changes in the concentrations of the gases will have any material effect.



Always remember the back rad forcing of CO2 is SMALL. It's about 3 W/m2. That's a couple Christmas lights. And the temperature anomaly EFFECT IS SMALL.  Satellites measure about 0.14 DegC/decade. That's 0.014 DegC/YEAR !!! 

So YEAH -- ALL of that is a "slight change". But in CAN accumulate over time.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> I think you're right in the sense that CO2 back radiation goes to work pretty fast. But it also has a long atmos retention time. If you were just measuring thru clear dry sky and could jolt a bolt of CO2 up there -- and ONLY cared to CONTAINE that gas above your lat/long 1000 x 1000 mile square of SAND (say) -- you'd get some quick response.


Exactly.  If you could remove all CO2 from the atmosphere there should be an immediate effect.  That is the greenhouse effect associated with CO2.  The retention time is irrelevant to the greenhouse effect.  The retention time affects climate sensitivity.  The greenhouse gas effect is effectively a heat choke.  It delays the transfer of heat to outer space by building up heat in the atmosphere.  It's just like a choke on a garden hose which builds up pressure in the hose and chokes the transfer of water from the hose to the atmosphere.  Same general principle.  Anything more than that is what happens as a consequence of the greenhouse gas effect and should be accounted for separately.  To me it is disingenuous to lump them together and call all of it the greenhouse effect.  One is and the other isn't. 


flacaltenn said:


> The complication on a calculating a GLOBAL MEAN temp change however is monumentally more difficult because "the earth" is one of the most complex thermodynamic systems of heat distribution that you can imagine. It's not only SURFACE variations (iced, dry desert, ocean, latitude and sun irradiance differences, WEATHER patterns, ect, ect. -- It's ABOVE the ground due to weather and jet streams and BELOW the ocean with thermal conveyors.


Please don't get me started on the idiocy of people believing we can "measure" the average ambient temperature of the earth - with any precision - where at any point in time parts of the earth are in darkness and sunshine and in opposite seasons.  I accept using oxygen isotope curves and seas levels as proxies for temperature - as well as pre-industrialization CO2 levels - but not with the precision they are arguing today. 


flacaltenn said:


> So what they ACTUALLY DO -- and remember they are focused on a whole earth composite model, not building a model from different climate zones -- is to provide a Short Term Climate Sensitivity number and a Long Term Climate Sensitivity number. THOSE numbers are the FACTOR that convert CO2 forcing power to a GMAST (Global Mean Averaged Surface Temp [anomaly]}


And disingenuously roll that into the radiative forcing equation of CO2.  Whereas if they actually measured the associate temperature of just the greenhouse effect they would see how ludicrous their climate sensitivity forcing is.   It's a shell game. 


flacaltenn said:


> Because SOME heat goes into land/ocean storage. Some heat takes decades for the ocean to store and redistribute to the surface and SOME goes into tropospheric "weather storage" as the jet stream and storms and such. It takes a LONG TIME for something that complex to "come to equilibrium" again after any transient on a climate sized time scale. And our little 80 or 100 year event aint even enough time to reach an equilibrium surface temp.


Right, but let's say they measured the greenhouse gas effect at varying concentrations of CO2 in a controlled laboratory experiment.  And let's say the measured greenhouse effect for CO2 increasing from 300 ppm to 420 ppm was 0.3C, what do you believe the long term associated temperature would be for a 0.3C greenhouse gas effect?


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> Always remember the back rad forcing of CO2 is SMALL. It's about 3 W/m2. That's a couple Christmas lights. And the temperature anomaly EFFECT IS SMALL.  Satellites measure about 0.14 DegC/decade. That's 0.014 DegC/YEAR !!!
> 
> So YEAH -- ALL of that is a "slight change". But in CAN accumulate over time.


Not only is it small but it is a logarithmic relationship so it's effect per ppm diminishes as the concentration increases.  How can it accumulate to more than what the actual greenhouse gas effect actually is?

Without a controlled laboratory experiment their arguments are meaningless to me.  There's way too much data that shows CO2 does not drive climate change for me to dismiss that data for no other reason than they say so based upon a rigged model which is uncontrolled with too many variables that are poorly understood and obfuscates the actual greenhouse gas effect instead of directly measuring it in a laboratory.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 18, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> All very insightful.  And you do it with a touch of humility.  Not with the ARROGANCE of playing to media or misleading anyone about "what we know".
> 
> The quote above is where I throw my marker also.  I've spent just as much time arguing with GHouse Deniers and other strange birds as I have the PANICKED folks who dont appreciate that GWarming can NOT BE just ONE QUESTION answered.
> 
> ...



_"Do you believe that the Earth is warming and Mankind is in whole or part responsible for the warming. I (probably you) can relent to ACCEPTING this. The other 170 questions were asked in a series of papers by Bray and von Storch over about a decade where they polled VETTED climate scientists about everything in between "faith in the modeling" and "current (weather) evidence for global warming". There WAS NO CLEAR "consensus"._

Yeah, but 75/77!!!!!


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 18, 2022)

ding said:


> Exactly. If you could remove all CO2 from the atmosphere there should be an immediate effect. That is the greenhouse effect associated with CO2. The retention time is irrelevant to the greenhouse effect. The retention time affects climate sensitivity. The greenhouse gas effect is effectively a heat choke. It delays the transfer of heat to outer space by building up heat in the atmosphere. It's just like a choke on a garden hose which builds up pressure in the hose and chokes the transfer of water from the hose to the atmosphere. Same general principle. Anything more than that is what happens as a consequence of the greenhouse gas effect and should be accounted for separately. To me it is disingenuous to lump them together and call all of it the greenhouse effect. One is and the other isn't.



OK -- maybe you caught me snoozing a bit there.  CO2 doesn't CREATE any heat, it acts to restrain the LOSS of heat to space. So does water vapor which is the dominant GHouse gas. All heat comes from the core or from the sun or FROM STORAGE elsewhere -- like deep in the oceans. 

But CO2 is no different from H2O in how it acts. H2O vapor is LESS "persistent" because it cycles back to earth more readily in the troposphere. But nonetheless, they CAN accumulate and they CAN grow over time in concentration. 

The climate sensitivity is inherent in the REGION of the earth in which it exists tho. It's a measure of how the back rad converts to a temperature. It's independent of the POWER that comes in the form of InfraRed. It's the material constitution of what is radiated, the amount of power it TAKES to make a degree on a thermometer which would vary in the Arctic and at the equator. 

The 2 diffs between H2O and CO2 are in the TOTAL GHouse system are --

1) H2O not only has back rad capability, like on the clouds warming up the desert night, but it also has REFLECTIVE properties in the form of clouds that REDUCES solar irradiance in PRETTY much totality at the surface. Which reduces the heat available at the surface instantaneously to be "restrained" by your GH gas blanket. 

2) H2O is FAR AND AWAY a broader spectral absorber and emitter of the LWave IR and it's VOLUME makes CO2 LESS of GHouse gas because there are fewer holes in the "back rad" spectrum that CO2 can fill. So unless your "experiment" is in the desert AT NIGHT -- you'd never unwind the two in terms of contributions for anything "instantaneous".


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 18, 2022)

ding said:


> Not only is it small but it is a logarithmic relationship so it's effect per ppm diminishes as the concentration increases. How can it accumulate to more than what the actual greenhouse gas effect actually is?



Even tho its log, - a log never ends. So if you started from ZERO concentration, a small amount would make a huge diff. At each doubling of concentration, you'll get approx the same number of degree(s) (actually 1.2DegC to be exact). So -- we're not EVEN AT the first doubling of CO2 since the Industrial Age. It just takes a LOT of CO2 to get there. From 270 ppm to 540ppm.  We'll be there in about 2080 if China doesn't sputter out. FROM THERE -- you need an additional 540 this time to make the next doubling,. 

The GreenHouse is not INHERENTLY stable. Even more water vapor could tip it one way or the other. There's room for heavy man-made chemicals up there too that could REEK disastrous effects on the GH with just SMALL concentrations. 


ding said:


> Without a controlled laboratory experiment their arguments are meaningless to me. There's way too much data that shows CO2 does not drive climate change for me to dismiss that data for no other reason than they say so based upon a rigged model which is uncontrolled with too many variables that are poorly understood and obfuscates the actual greenhouse gas effect instead of directly measuring it in a laboratory.



Dont need to model the whole thing. If you ACCEPT the GreenHouse theory, you then acknowledge that a tighter blanket of GHouse gases COULD affect the surface the temps in a transient or longer steady way depending on how the COMPLEX Earth Thermodynamical system redistributes and stores this "retained" heat. 

Any gas that can vibrate in modes that allows it to emit LWave IR when warmed IS part of the GH.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> OK -- maybe you caught me snoozing a bit there.  CO2 doesn't CREATE any heat, it acts to restrain the LOSS of heat to space. So does water vapor which is the dominant GHouse gas. All heat comes from the core or from the sun or FROM STORAGE elsewhere -- like deep in the oceans.
> 
> But CO2 is no different from H2O in how it acts. H2O vapor is LESS "persistent" because it cycles back to earth more readily in the troposphere. But nonetheless, they CAN accumulate and they CAN grow over time in concentration.
> 
> ...


I didn't think you were saying CO2 creates heat.  I get all that about water vapor and clouds too.  Which is why the only way they can ever precisely determine the associated temperature of CO2 for varying concentrations is through a controlled laboratory experiment.  

Science is good.  They should actually do some.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> Even tho its log, - a log never ends. So if you started from ZERO concentration, a small amount would make a huge diff. At each doubling of concentration, you'll get approx the same number of degree(s) (actually 1.2DegC to be exact). So -- we're not EVEN AT the first doubling of CO2 since the Industrial Age. It just takes a LOT of CO2 to get there. From 270 ppm to 540ppm.  We'll be there in about 2080 if China doesn't sputter out. FROM THERE -- you need an additional 540 this time to make the next doubling,.
> 
> The GreenHouse is not INHERENTLY stable. Even more water vapor could tip it one way or the other. There's room for heavy man-made chemicals up there too that could REEK disastrous effects on the GH with just SMALL concentrations.
> 
> ...


See that's exactly what I am challenging.  How do they know that unless they have tested that at varying CO2 concentrations?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 18, 2022)

ding 

You want an experiment to directly measure the LWave IR back radiation from A REAL SKY anywhere in the world?  At LEAST 80 studies out there that do exactly that. That cuts your goalpost for experimental evidence at least in half. 

You can stop laughing when they attribute everything they measured to a 22 ppm change in the amount of CO2 between start/end of the measurements. LOL.  ALTHOUGH the CO2 very likely was a major contributor. 

There are others like this that measure the back rad (reflected radiative heat) from the GHouse. 










						Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010 - PubMed
					

The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth's radiation field from pre-industrial and present-day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the...




					pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
				




Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010
D R Feldman 1, W D Collins 2, P J Gero 3, M S Torn 4, E J Mlawer 5, T R Shippert 6
Affiliations expand
PMID: 25731165 DOI: 10.1038/nature14240
Free article
Abstract
The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth's radiation field from pre-industrial and present-day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual-mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 ± 0.19 W m(-2) (ref. 2). *However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2. Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, *between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations-the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska-are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations. *The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m(-2) per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m(-2) per decade and ±0.07 W m(-2) per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1-0.2 W m(-2). This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation. *These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 18, 2022)

I can give you the equation to get from .2W/m2 to a surface temp change and we could also check the forcing function for CO2 with a 22 ppm change.  

All this GETS YOU NEAR the "experimental proof" if you at least attribute SOME of the increase they measured on CO2 -- which is a fine bet.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> ding
> 
> You want an experiment to directly measure the LWave IR back radiation from A REAL SKY anywhere in the world?  At LEAST 80 studies out there that do exactly that. That cuts your goalpost for experimental evidence at least in half.
> 
> ...


Not a real sky, no.  A lab test.  That can directly measure temperature differences.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> I can give you the equation to get from .2W/m2 to a surface temp change and we could also check the forcing function for CO2 with a 22 ppm change.
> 
> All this GETS YOU NEAR the "experimental proof" if you at least attribute SOME of the increase they measured on CO2 -- which is a fine bet.


I want something more controlled that I don't have to bet on.


----------



## gtopa1 (Jan 18, 2022)

I dunno much about nuffink, but I do know that it was real nutjobs who pushed whatever was happening was the fault of the US and Capitalism. This was despite me knowing for a fact that the Commy blox were the most polluting in the world and the West was "cleaning up its act". 

So their theory? Stuff them. Sounded like rubbish then and nothing has changed much. It is NOT colder than 1974!!! That's all I'm sayin'. 

Plus the dodgy bastards were found out:


Greg


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 18, 2022)

ding said:


> I want something more controlled that I don't have to bet on.



You have the measurements of the GH heat reflection back to the surface. They CHANGED by .2W/m2 from 2000 to 2010.  (roughly the period of the famous "hiatus" when GW slowed to a crawl but but but)

And the Earth proceeded to get WARMER. Like I said, that part is NOT instantaneous. So you now can say at the very least that the *GHouse is NOT a constant and the "blanket" is getting slightly thicker. *

Attribute that to ANYTHING that strikes your fancy...   THAT part has been measured. Not JUST in this one study. Is it more DIRECT solar rad at the surface? Is it more H2O vapor? Is it URBANIZATION and changing the albedo of the surface?

Or is it actually that we KNOW CO2 has been steadily linearly increasing in our lifetimes by small amount in respect to a doubling of it?


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> You have the measurements of the GH heat reflection back to the surface. They CHANGED by .2W/m2 from 2000 to 2010.  (roughly the period of the famous "hiatus" when GW slowed to a crawl but but but)
> 
> And the Earth proceeded to get WARMER. Like I said, that part is NOT instantaneous. So you now can say at the very least that the *GHouse is NOT a constant and the "blanket" is getting slightly thicker. *
> 
> ...


That is my point.  We still don't know because there are too many variables.  Why do you think they have never done a controlled experiment?  Where they eliminate all other variables so that there's no doubt about it?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 18, 2022)

gtopa1 said:


> I dunno much about nuffink, but I do know that it was real nutjobs who pushed whatever was happening was the fault of the US and Capitalism. This was despite me knowing for a fact that the Commy blox were the most polluting in the world and the West was "cleaning up its act".
> 
> So their theory? Stuff them. Sounded like rubbish then and nothing has changed much. It is NOT colder than 1974!!! That's all I'm sayin'.
> 
> ...



That was fun to watch.  He's pretty honest and brutal about opinions on other scientists!  I love it when primadonnas fight. 

I would recommend that to anyone that believes that scientists are infallible and totally objective. ESPECIALLY with what they tell the public versus what say in papers and conferences.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 18, 2022)

ding said:


> That is my point.  We still don't know because there are too many variables.  Why do you think they have never done a controlled experiment?  Where they eliminate all other variables so that there's no doubt about it?



Geez ding. You're a tough customer. I give you better than a CONTROLLED experiment -- those studies MEASURE THE GHouse retardation. BY LOOKING AT IT. 

I think you WANT to believe that CO2 doesn't have a role here. Even I dont accept the superpowers that some of the more catastrophic theories give to this minority gas. But it IS a player. And it's not worth "cancelling" just because you dont believe physics and chemistry of it is worth anything to the GHouse. 

If LAB experiments are what you want -- they've also been done. Not with weather and seasonal changes in CO2 or accurately atmospheric water vapor variations and all that. You measure the gases basics physics and chemistry and then you model all of that until you get it right.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> Geez ding. You're a tough customer. I give you better than a CONTROLLED experiment -- those studies MEASURE THE GHouse retardation. BY LOOKING AT IT.
> 
> I think you WANT to believe that CO2 doesn't have a role here. Even I dont accept the superpowers that some of the more catastrophic theories give to this minority gas. But it IS a player. And it's not worth "cancelling" just because you dont believe physics and chemistry of it is worth anything to the GHouse.
> 
> If LAB experiments are what you want -- they've also been done. Not with weather and seasonal changes in CO2 or accurately atmospheric water vapor variations and all that. You measure the gases basics physics and chemistry and then you model all of that until you get it right.


Yes, I am a tough customer.  I have trust issues with them.  I do believe there is a greenhouse gas effect but I don't trust them when they tell me it's transient and takes a really really long time for it's effects to be felt.  That seems to go against the concept of a greenhouse gas.  So because of that I want to see an experiment where a volume of gas (air) is heated up (radiant heat) and allowed to cool down and then repeat that experiment with varying concentrations of CO2 and compare the difference in cool down times to measure the temperature differentials.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 20, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> I can give you the equation to get from .2W/m2 to a surface temp change and we could also check the forcing function for CO2 with a 22 ppm change.
> 
> All this GETS YOU NEAR the "experimental proof" if you at least attribute SOME of the increase they measured on CO2 -- which is a fine bet.



[ ... can't resist math baiting ... ]

I have that equation right here in my Christmas stocking ... Temperature = (0.2 W/m^2 / (4 (5.67x10^-8 W/m^2/K^4))^0.25 ≈ 0.032ºC ... where are we going to find a world-wide network of thermometers that measure down to the hundredth of degree? ...

In this thread ... temperature is proportional to the _fourth root_ of irradiance ... accept no alternatives ...

ETA:  oops ...
Temperature = (0.2 W/m^2 / (5.67x10^-8 W/m^2/K^4)^0.25 ≈ 0.043ºC
My bad ...


----------



## Crick (Feb 12, 2022)

ding said:


> Yes, I am a tough customer.  I have trust issues with them.  I do believe there is a greenhouse gas effect but I don't trust them when they tell me it's transient and takes a really really long time for it's effects to be felt.  That seems to go against the concept of a greenhouse gas.  So because of that I want to see an experiment where a volume of gas (air) is heated up (radiant heat) and allowed to cool down and then repeat that experiment with varying concentrations of CO2 and compare the difference in cool down times to measure the temperature differentials.


What makes you think cool down time is a better way to measure temperature differential than simply measuring the temperatures?


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

Crick said:


> What makes you think cool down time is a better way to measure temperature differential than simply measuring the temperatures?


Controlled experiment.


----------



## Crick (Feb 12, 2022)

No shit Sherlock.  How about an actual answer to my question?


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

Crick said:


> No shit Sherlock.  How about an actual answer to my question?


That was my response.  And use the reply button, dummy.


----------



## themirrorthief (Feb 12, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> Too many threads are ending up with the same 20 page discussion between a small fraction of the members that read Enviro topics.. Every rule and design of USMB moderation is there to get UNIQUE TOPICAL discussion of specific events and topics as laid out in the Opening Posts. *No one wants to wade thru the same fillibustering arguments that atmospheric physics and the GHouse effect is all wrong.*.  And they violate the "on-topic" rules at USMB..
> 
> That's what this thread is for.. CONTAIN those rodeos in THIS thread or start your own threads on whatever you deny.... *DON'T hijack other specific topics.*.  Members and visitors will appreciate your cooperation...
> 
> Go have your sideline debates about this topic HERE.. The topic is clearly spelled out in the title of this thread...


nobody seems  to  care  that  the  sky  is  falling


----------



## ding (Feb 13, 2022)

themirrorthief said:


> nobody seems  to  care  that  the  sky  is  falling


That's probably because it isn't.


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 13, 2022)

Crick said:


> What makes you think cool down time is a better way to measure temperature differential than simply measuring the temperatures?



Ding's experiment tests the thermodynamics of the system ... something you don't seem to know much about ... however, I think just shining a light on a gas-filled vessel and measure the temperature is good enough ... if one used monochromatic light and went though all the wavelengths of concern ...

Better ... point out a place on Earth and tell us how the climate has changed ...


----------



## jc456 (Feb 15, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Ding's experiment tests the thermodynamics of the system ... something you don't seem to know much about ... however, I think just shining a light on a gas-filled vessel and measure the temperature is good enough ... if one used monochromatic light and went though all the wavelengths of concern ...
> 
> Better ... point out a place on Earth and tell us how the climate has changed ...


so then we'd see how warm 120 PPM of CO2 is? Cool, why isn't anyone doing it then?


----------



## Crick (Feb 17, 2022)

ding said:


> That was my response ["controlled experiment"].  And use the reply button, dummy.


Okay, dummy.  Your response isn't.  Try again:  "What makes you think cool down time is a better way to measure temperature differential than simply measuring the temperatures"?


----------



## ding (Feb 17, 2022)

Crick said:


> Okay, dummy.  Your response isn't.  Try again:  "What makes you think cool down time is a better way to measure temperature differential than simply measuring the temperatures"?


Because it is a direct measurement of temperature and because the GHG effect is effectively a chokes the transfer of heat from earth to outer space (i.e. the earth cooling down).


----------



## ding (Feb 18, 2022)

No one is questioning the greenhouse effect of an atmosphere. Just the effect of changing concentrations.

let’s see the direct measurement of associated temperature of varying concentrations of CO2.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 18, 2022)

ding said:


> No one is questioning the greenhouse effect of an atmosphere. Just the effect of changing concentrations.
> 
> let’s see the direct measurement of associated temperature of varying concentrations of CO2.


*Edited and Revised New posting, old one deleted.*
This has NUMBERs and real scientists worldwide have been researching for YEARS/DECADES the very topic.
You just never looked for anything but BS anomalous info.
This is not a Hockey game.
You don't just root for your team.
You try to find the Truth.
You Do NOT.
You put up intentionally uncontexted BS info and goofy graphs.
Again:



ding said:


> Yes, I am a tough customer.  I have trust issues with them.  I do believe there is a greenhouse gas effect but I don't trust them when they tell me it's transient and takes a really really long time for it's effects to be felt.  That seems to go against the concept of a greenhouse gas.  So because of that I want to see an experiment where a volume of gas (air) is heated up (radiant heat) and allowed to cool down and then repeat that experiment with varying concentrations of CO2 and compare the difference in cool down times to measure the temperature differentials.


If you're a "tough Customer" at least do some simple research.
Scientists have of course done the experiments.
*They know, ie, that the reflection of radiation back into space is being blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs, and there are plenty of graphics on the net showing such, and I have posted some previously.*

Or if one was even basically/truly curious, and not a denialist sitting with his arms folded/Hrmmpph, one could at least go to the GHG page of Wiki and find lots of info on the topic as well as much more in the footnotes.









						Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




ie, the opening paragraph:
A *greenhouse gas* (*GHG* or *GhG*) is a gas that absorbs and emits radiant energy within the thermal infrared range, causing the greenhouse effect.[1] The primary greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). *Without greenhouse gases, the average temperature of Earth's surface would be about −18 °C (0 °F),[2] rather than the present average of 15 °C (59 °F).*[3][4][5] The atmospheres of Venus, Mars and Titan also contain greenhouse gases."""​
*Now unless you think they pulled those Numbers from a hat, someone HAS done the work.*

And in the footnotes I came across the CDIAC/*Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center*, a Govt agency that ran for 30 years doing nothing but that. They closed//were merged in 2017 into the DOE, but all they did was CO2 experiments and measurements.





__





						Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC)
					

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center




					cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov
				




*Info is so easy to find these days, but You and others don't want to find out, you want to maintain your politics, and count on shifting the heavy detail burden to non-experts on message boards.
(Demand endless detail fallacy variant, sure to work on amateur mbs)*
That disingenuous way you can maintain your Stubborn position (in your case positionS) on all your little individual Conspiracies.. from anti-evo Intelligent Design to Climate.

And this board is 95% full of lazy politicos who would have different positions if they spent any time even looking for the facts/truth. And again, it's so G-D easy these days.


Crick Sunsettommy Stann et al.


----------



## ding (Feb 18, 2022)

He's repeating himself.


----------



## Crick (Feb 22, 2022)

When you have a set of facts that correspond very closely to reality, you tend to do that.


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 27, 2022)

abu afak said:


> ​He's getting worse and doing it multiple times daily. Always/10 YEARS a jerk, Cons can do his every day. You need a taste.
> this is a RW troll board.
> Absolutely YOUR Doing.
> 
> ...



*THIS IS the appropriate thread to confront folks that deny basic GHouse theory.* I've spent time in here opposing their assertions.  Now it's YOUR turn and good luck. 

No amount of GHouse theory which is VERY solid compared to the "catastrophic tenets" of Global Warming will dissuade them.  KEEP IT OFF THE PERSONAL. And make the points.  You have a good start WITHOUT all the angry ole man flaming.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 13, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> *THIS IS the appropriate thread to confront folks that deny basic GHouse theory.* I've spent time in here opposing their assertions. Now it's YOUR turn and good luck.
> 
> No amount of GHouse theory which is VERY solid compared to the "catastrophic tenets" of Global Warming will dissuade them.  KEEP IT OFF THE PERSONAL. And make the points.  You have a good start WITHOUT all the angry ole man flaming.


And this would be why I no longer post in this thread. CO2 cannot affect over 72% of earth's surface, only the sun can do that.  While energy can be held for a bit longer due to GHG's it cannot affect the oceans in mass. Thus, CO2 has a very limited effect on our atmosphere that water vapor controls.  The thermocline barriers and density of our atmosphere have a much greater effect and no "hot spot" has ever formed.  It's not denying GH theory, its testing it and finding that the effect of CO2 is dampened by water vapor and does not drive it.  

With the cooling of the last 12 years, we are now at a 0.2 multiplier (climate sensitivity number). CAGW theory is falling apart, and the alarmists are apoplectic.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 14, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> And this would be why I no longer post in this thread. CO2 cannot affect over 72% of earth's surface, only the sun can do that. While energy can be held for a bit longer due to GHG's it cannot affect the oceans in mass.



Maybe you NEED to post in this thread. LOL..  Because while you dont deny Greenhouse theory -- you seem to OVER COMPENSATE to the catastrophic Warmers by MINIMIZING the ability of increased CO2 density to warm the planet. 

If the 72% is the OCEANS that you're talking about,  a LOT of warming can occur due to changes in fresh water RUN-OFF temperature. That WILL take up and store the surface temperature over the entire river system watershed. Also the temperature of PRECIPT can add considerable warming to the oceans.  And remember that there is still a "skin effect" on the oceans. And a lot of mixing can occur at current boundaries and due to storms, wind, ect. THe ocean is the MOST efficient heat storage on the planet.  Can lock it up for decades or centuries. 

That's why the WEATHER and ATMOS temp can be so influenced by El Nino/Nina and other cyclical ocean effects. THAT exchange BACK to sky ALSO occurs "mainly in the skin temperature" of the oceans. 

A common misconception is there is such a thing as cold. Cold is simply the absence of heat. So if you have a VERY cold ocean at 50meters down, it's ability to WARM requires less heat forcing for each degree increase.  Same reason that drives some of the POLAR "climate sensitivity"..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 14, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> Maybe you NEED to post in this thread. LOL..  Because while you dont deny Greenhouse theory -- you seem to OVER COMPENSATE to the catastrophic Warmers by MINIMIZING the ability of increased CO2 density to warm the planet.
> 
> If the 72% is the OCEANS that you're talking about,  a LOT of warming can occur due to changes in fresh water RUN-OFF temperature. That WILL take up and store the surface temperature over the entire river system watershed. Also the temperature of PRECIPT can add considerable warming to the oceans.  And remember that there is still a "skin effect" on the oceans. And a lot of mixing can occur at current boundaries and due to storms, wind, ect. THe ocean is the MOST efficient heat storage on the planet.  Can lock it up for decades or centuries.
> 
> ...


Please show me where there is a hot spot in the atmosphere.  Absent this hot spot, precipitation can not warm enough to affect the ocean. One must remember that the water is evaporating as it falls and is cooling.  Just as the wavelength at which GHG's emit can not get past the skin layer, the energy stored in precipitation must be warmer than the ocean temperature, it is very seldom the case.
There are many misconceptions with much of these different methods of heat/energy transfer, most of which are not modeled correctly and why GCM's over estimate warming by, at minimum, a factor of ten.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 14, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> Please show me where there is a hot spot in the atmosphere. Absent this hot spot, precipitation can not warm enough to affect the ocean.



Doesn't TAKE a "hot spot" to warm precip.  The precipt that hits the ground has a temperature LARGELY due to the warming in the LOWER/MID troposphere. 

If the clouds are warmed by increased greenhouse and run into cooler air above and/or below the cloud deck -- the precipt that hits the surface will be warmer.  It's like the difference between hail/sleet/freezing rain.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Mar 14, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> Doesn't TAKE a "hot spot" to warm precip.  The precipt that hits the ground has a temperature LARGELY due to the warming in the LOWER/MID troposphere.
> 
> If the clouds are warmed by increased greenhouse and run into cooler air above and/or below the cloud deck -- the precipt that hits the surface will be warmer.  It's like the difference between hail/sleet/freezing rain.


Rain often feels COOLER than the air it travels through I just checked the rain outside of my house it is clearly feels COOLER than the air and common reason is because rain originated in cooler air it fell from.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 14, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> Rain often feels COOLER than the air it travels through I just checked the rain outside of my house it is clearly feels COOLER than the air and common reason is because rain originated in cooler air it fell from.



Of course. But no doubt INFLUENCED by the layers thru which it fell.  Difference between wintry mix and snow/rain. SAME origination temp -- but the differences all occur in Mid/Lower troposphere.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Mar 14, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> Of course. But no doubt INFLUENCED by the layers thru which it fell.  Difference between wintry mix and snow/rain. SAME origination temp -- but the differences all occur in Mid/Lower troposphere.



But even in the Tropics it still feels cool despite the warm air it falls through because it originated in the much colder air, if there was a true hot spot the rain would be less common and warmer.

If it starts cold, it will lose heat rapidly to warm air as it falls to the ground the bigger the temperature differences the more rapid it cools down this is what helps rainstorms last longer.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 14, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> But even in the Tropics it still feels cool despite the warm air it falls through because it originated in the much colder air, if there was a true hot spot the rain would be less common and warmer.
> 
> If it starts cold, it will lose heat rapidly to warm air as it falls to the ground the bigger the temperature differences the more rapid it cools down this is what helps rainstorms last longer.



If it changes by ONLY 0.4DegC -- that's an effect significant to Global Warming on the fresh water water-shed.  We're looking at REALLY MINOR numbers for ANYTHING global warming. 

And it can WARM as well as cool depending on the temp layers it falls thru.  There's not ALWAYS cooler air below.  EVEN IF there is cooler air below -- if there is global surface warming -- the precipt will INHERIT some of that warming. 


Start HERE::: 









						Understanding the Various Temperatures of Rain Drops
					

On average, raindrops have temperatures somewhere between 32 F and 80 F, but whether a raindrop is warmer or colder depends on factors in the air.




					www.thoughtco.com


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 14, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> If it changes by ONLY 0.4DegC -- that's an effect significant to Global Warming on the fresh water water-shed.  We're looking at REALLY MINOR numbers for ANYTHING global warming.
> 
> And it can WARM as well as cool depending on the temp layers it falls thru.  There's not ALWAYS cooler air below.  EVEN IF there is cooler air below -- if there is global surface warming -- the precipt will INHERIT some of that warming.
> 
> ...


There are three zones in our lower troposphere. The sun affects those zones far more than any GHG.  The amount of warming that any precipitation gets will not be enough to change the overall temperature of the larger body.  Were talking mass vs mass and rain drops that might be 0.4 deg C warmer than the ocean it falls into will have very little effect.

Then we look at angle of incidence and thickness of the atmosphere for both incoming solar radiation and outgoing long wave radiation..  The amount of heat your talking about is like pissing in the stream and does very little to change its temperature.

Rain in the past, even with lower GHG's was about 0.4 deg C warmer than the oceans in the tropics.  What your telling me is, that somehow the rain is warmer than it was 150 years ago... Please tell me by how much and then how you ascertained that.  If your lucky, it might be in the hundredths of a degree of warming.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Mar 14, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> If it changes by ONLY 0.4DegC -- that's an effect significant to Global Warming on the fresh water water-shed.  We're looking at REALLY MINOR numbers for ANYTHING global warming.
> 
> And it can WARM as well as cool depending on the temp layers it falls thru.  There's not ALWAYS cooler air below.  EVEN IF there is cooler air below -- if there is global surface warming -- the precipt will INHERIT some of that warming.
> 
> ...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 14, 2022)

You might want to move that outside of flactens quote brackets.  









						Understanding the Various Temperatures of Rain Drops
					

On average, raindrops have temperatures somewhere between 32 F and 80 F, but whether a raindrop is warmer or colder depends on factors in the air.




					www.thoughtco.com
				




It is an excellent article and proves the point I was just making to flacten. Rain starts as ice and depending on the air masses and micro circulations, through which it passes, it either cools or warms.  The point being, without a warmer mass or HOT SPOT that is different than 150 years ago "warming rain is but a figment of the imagination by comparison.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Mar 14, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> You might want to move that outside of flactens quote brackets.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It is fine and knew this for decades already even watched the air temperature on every air flight I have been on where at 40,000 Feet can be 30 below zero F and still below zero F in the Tropics.

I just DELETED my post I had written, this software doesn't allow deletion once someone's post is being replied to which is weird since many forum software allows a full deletion of a post *not yet posted* no matter what.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 14, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> Doesn't TAKE a "hot spot" to warm precip.


That assumption depends soley on what you mean by 'warms'.  As compared to what?  If we compare the rain 150 years ago to today, the temperature is no different (or statistically insignificant) then it was before the rise in CO2. Where are we getting the energy to warm the rain further without a significant hot spot above the tropics? without that warmer airmass where are you deriving the heat/energy from?

I am not underestimating the ability of GHG's to warm, I am quantifying it.  Much of the warmist dogma is not supported by observations.  This is why their modeling fails without exception.  Just like you assuming that water must warm because of GHG's you cannot prove that it is occurring.  Logically, it could warm things if there were a region with that stored energy.  Where is that region? Absent that region, the warming is no different than it was over 150 years ago/


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 14, 2022)

abu afak said:


> They know, ie, that the reflection of radiation back into space is being blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs, and there are plenty of graphics on the net showing such, and I have posted some previously.


Bull Shit...

The ERBE satellite data shows that you are WRONG.  





Your models say it is being reflected or emitted towards the earth but the actual empirically observed data shows that this is not happening.  That the majority of the energy is not stopped by GHG's.  Pay close attention to the slopes in the above attachment. Empirical evidence shows that the energy is leaving earth's atmosphere, a positive slope.    The modeling shows a negative slope that would be seen if the GHG's were indeed slowing the outgoing LWIR.  

Further, as the GHG's increase there is no decrease in outgoing LWIR...  

Sorry Charlie, but the empirical evidence says you be full of Schiff...


----------



## Sunsettommy (Mar 14, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> Bull Shit...
> 
> The ERBE satellite data shows that you are WRONG.
> 
> ...



Climate worriers like him never seem to understand that CO2 doesn't block around 90-95% of the OLWR at all.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 15, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> You might want to move that outside of flactens quote brackets.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Proves no such thing. Increased GENERAL HEATING of the Mid/Lower troposphere WITHOUT a "hotspot" --  WILL affect the temp of precip.. Regardless of whether the clouds they fell from were at -19DegC or 20DegC... 



 But more importantly, GROUND heating of rivers/streams and run-off from asphalt/concrete flowing to the sea WILL be STORED in the oceans.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 15, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> Proves no such thing. Increased GENERAL HEATING of the Mid/Lower troposphere WITHOUT a "hotspot" --  WILL affect the temp of precip.. Regardless of whether the clouds they fell from were at -19DegC or 20DegC...
> 
> 
> 
> But more importantly, GROUND heating of rivers/streams and run-off from asphalt/concrete flowing to the sea WILL be STORED in the oceans.


Ground heating is quite another thing.  We can measure that very well. However, once again, as compared to what?  We can only guess at the long-term changes. We can only guess Solar output shifts and what they do to the surface temperatures.  How much is caused by land mass use change?  Deforestation? Dams and power generation, etc.    You say it WILL affect the oceans but by how much as compared to 150 years ago.  How much is actually GHG driven and how much is from land use change.  Again, another area that the Global warming folks can not quantify or determine what the source really is.

As to your precip, how much of a rise? As compared to 150 years ago?  where is the energy stored?  So far, no heat build up in the atmosphere is capable of warming water more than 150 years ago.  Your making assumptions that you cannot quantify or prove are occurring.  

Do they make logical sense that they could happen? Yes, but then we have observed evidence that it is not occurring at any statically significant rates compared to 150 years ago.

My premise is simple, show me where the energy is that is capable to do what you say. Quantify it.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 15, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> As to your precip, how much of a rise? As compared to 150 years ago? where is the energy stored? So far, no heat build up in the atmosphere is capable of warming water more than 150 years ago. Your making assumptions that you cannot quantify or prove are occurring.



Simple man.  You're exhausting yourself over nothing.  It's the MEASURED INCREASE in surface heating.  PRIMARILY since we've had the tech MEANS to record/track it to the accuracy required to even FIND 0.014DegC per year increases. 

We're not hunting BIG game here. We're working with tiny things. That increase in surface heating WILL FIND ITS WAY to the oceans.  In any NUMBER of ways. 

Dont really care about paleontology of fresh water temperature. Only making the point that there's more than ONE way to warm an ocean.  And RAIN and rivers and run-off can and will contribute.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 15, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> Simple man.  You're exhausting yourself over nothing.  It's the MEASURED INCREASE in surface heating.  PRIMARILY since we've had the tech MEANS to record/track it to the accuracy required to even FIND 0.014DegC per year increases.
> 
> We're not hunting BIG game here. We're working with tiny things. That increase in surface heating WILL FIND ITS WAY to the oceans.  In any NUMBER of ways.
> 
> Dont really care about paleontology of fresh water temperature. Only making the point that there's more than ONE way to warm an ocean.  And RAIN and rivers and run-off can and will contribute.


You still have not identified the source of the energy, where it is stored, and that there is enough of it to cause the warming your claiming.   Again, the atmosphere is not harboring a hot spot or reservoir of energy. Where is your energy coming from?


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 16, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> You still have not identified the source of the energy, where it is stored, and that there is enough of it to cause the warming your claiming.   Again, the atmosphere is not harboring a hot spot or reservoir of energy. Where is your energy coming from?



Man -- are you EVER in the right thread to slog thru this.  NOTHING ABOUT the Greenhouse CONTRIBUTES energy.  The sole function of the GreenHouse is to prevent LOSS OF ENERGY.  MASSIVE losses to space -- every MICROSECOND of every day/night.

You follow so far?  Can we go on?  Maybe read what I already wrote and get a "fine tune" on how the heat happens that prevents you from being an instant popsicle or warms precipt/rivers/runoff?   And ditch the fucking "hotspot" canard. That construct doesn't PRECLUDE uniform heating of the surface/lower atmos by back-radiation of greenhouse gases.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Mar 16, 2022)

FlaCalTenn writes:

"We're not hunting BIG game here. We're working with tiny things. That increase in surface heating WILL FIND ITS WAY to the oceans. In any NUMBER of ways."

As you say it is tiny things so tiny that I don't see it being significant enough for the oceans to be warmed enough to measure.

The Sun provides 99.99% of the energy into the waters of the world even those that run off into the ocean too back radiation is so negligible at the ocean waters surface to be discounted.

Where I live in the Columbia and Snake rivers the two largest in the Northwest are bone chilling cold that is only bearable to swim in late July into early September, they reach about 60F in that time frame but be much colder otherwise even all clear day summer sun it stays cold the entire summer.

I have swum in some the warmest waters in the world right off the coast of the Philippines and even there it is around 85 F and only near the surface which shows that CO2 isn't warming the waters up to notice it.

 FlaCalTenn Writes:

"Only making the point that there's more than ONE way to warm an ocean. And RAIN and rivers and run-off can and will contribute."

But is so insignificant warming since the sun is shining on those waters too thus how can you really know how much of it is the Sun and how little the back radiation warms it?

I say the Sun is the only significant source of warming of the waters of the world that matters because of multiple high energetic wavelengths easily penetrate to meters and deeper while back radiation gets stopped at the water's surface since the IR wavelength is too feeble to go deeper thus 99.99% of the ocean waters doesn't warm by CO2 back radiation at all.

The Ocean waters dozens of meters down is quickly colder and down to near freezing in the bottom 1/3 of the waters which makes back radiation a non-factor to total energy content since even Dr. Trenberth says it is the SUN/Ocean dynamo that is generating the pooling of warm surface pool and causing El-Nino's to exist periodically.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 16, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> But is so insignificant warming since the sun is shining on those waters too thus how can you really know how much of it is the Sun and how little the back radiation warms it?



That's been a big issue for the GW "ocean guys" like Trenberth.  The guy famous for his radiative "Energy Map" that was REALLY a "Power Map" because he ignored the STORAGE of energy -- particularly in the oceans. Then about 10 years later, he suddenly discovers that the missing GW "ENERGY" (in Joules) is sitting as STORED ENERGY in Davy Jone's locker 100 meters under the sea. 

IT GETS THERE and accumulates until some ocean cycle like El Nino blows it off. 

Their ISSUE ALWAYS WAS -- How did it get there? Because the back radiation is in the INFRA-RED which can't penetrate beyond the skin of the water. And Trenberth STRUGGLED to argue about "mixing effects" at the edges of deep ocean currents and such.  WHICH IS TRUE !! there's submarinal RIVERS of "hot water" flowing N/S to the POLES and RIVERS of cold water flowing the other way.  THere's also coastal mixing which can bring DEEP COLD CO2 rich waters to the warmer surface.

So -- the LIKELY CONTRIBUTION to ocean heating is "storage" ON LAND for river temperatures and run-off AND that small incremental rise in the temperature of PRECIPITATION that surely is occuring. 

Because it's NOT a forcing in the direct sense, but a reserve of heat FROM STORAGE (either in river/run-off pr atmospheric temp increases to precipt) -- the ocean heat capacity CHANGE is even smaller than the forcing from back radiation.


----------



## Matted Joybeard (Apr 24, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> Ground heating is quite another thing.  We can measure that very well. However, once again, as compared to what?  We can only guess at the long-term changes. We can only guess Solar output shifts and what they do to the surface temperatures.  How much is caused by land mass use change?  Deforestation? Dams and power generation, etc.    You say it WILL affect the oceans but by how much as compared to 150 years ago.  How much is actually GHG driven and how much is from land use change.  Again, another area that the Global warming folks can not quantify or determine what the source really is.
> 
> As to your precip, how much of a rise? As compared to 150 years ago?  where is the energy stored?  So far, no heat build up in the atmosphere is capable of warming water more than 150 years ago.  Your making assumptions that you cannot quantify or prove are occurring.
> 
> ...



The energy is eight light minutes away as any self claim solar physicst would know. Funny argument against anthropogenic climate change by citing anthropogenic activities as a causes. Why bother being a supposed scientist (you're not) if you can never know anything? It's laughable how the goal posts constantly move on this. What was the data compared to 150 years ago? Oh, we have that, well, about about 300 years ago then, wait, 3,000, uh..


----------



## ReinyDays (Apr 24, 2022)

Matted Joybeard said:


> The energy is eight light minutes away as any self claim solar physicst would know. Funny argument against anthropogenic climate change by citing anthropogenic activities as a causes. Why bother being a supposed scientist (you're not) if you can never know anything? It's laughable how the goal posts constantly move on this. What was the data compared to 150 years ago? Oh, we have that, well, about about 300 years ago then, wait, 3,000, uh..



You've satisfied the first half of the conservation law ... where the energy comes from ... but now we ask the other half ... where does the energy go? ...

Shouldn't the carbon dioxide released today effect temperatures today? ... or say within a year ... a fairly high percentage of catastrophic claims rely on this temperature rise being delayed decades to centuries ... but without any explanation of the physics that would cause this "thermal lag" ... 

Where do you think the `goal posts` should be? ... how small of a time interval is too small to get good climatological data? ... whatever fundamental truth we ferret out of our 100-year averages should also be true for our 10,000 year-averages ...


----------



## ding (May 11, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> You've satisfied the first half of the conservation law ... where the energy comes from ... but now we ask the other half ... where does the energy go? ...
> 
> Shouldn't the carbon dioxide released today effect temperatures today? ... or say within a year ... a fairly high percentage of catastrophic claims rely on this temperature rise being delayed decades to centuries ... but without any explanation of the physics that would cause this "thermal lag" ...
> 
> Where do you think the `goal posts` should be? ... how small of a time interval is too small to get good climatological data? ... whatever fundamental truth we ferret out of our 100-year averages should also be true for our 10,000 year-averages ...


I don't see how it can be anything other than immediate.

"Climate sensitivity" is a farce.


----------



## Crick (May 15, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Shouldn't the carbon dioxide released today effect temperatures today? ... or say within a year ... a fairly high percentage of catastrophic claims rely on this temperature rise being delayed decades to centuries ... but without any explanation of the physics that would cause this "thermal lag" ...



How about a few examples of these catastrophic claims that call for decades to centuries of delay in the effect of GHG emssions?


----------



## ReinyDays (May 15, 2022)

Crick said:


> How about a few examples of these catastrophic claims that call for decades to centuries of delay in the effect of GHG emssions?



Any .. you pick ... test it against the Law of Thermodynamics first ... and if the claim of catastrophe satisfies these laws ... then we can look at `how fast` and `how much` ...


----------



## ding (May 16, 2022)

Crick said:


> How about a few examples of these catastrophic claims that call for decades to centuries of delay in the effect of GHG emssions?


The GHG effect is immediate.  Climate sensitivity is horseshit.  In fact, the argument of amplification ought to be your first clue that they are manufacturing a crisis for pay.


----------



## jc456 (May 16, 2022)

ding said:


> The GHG effect is immediate.  Climate sensitivity is horseshit.  In fact, the argument of amplification ought to be your first clue that they are manufacturing a crisis for pay.


THANK YOU


----------



## Crick (May 16, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Any .. you pick ... test it against the Law of Thermodynamics first ... and if the claim of catastrophe satisfies these laws ... then we can look at `how fast` and `how much` ...


Temperature increase leading to sea level rise.  Disrupted migrations.  Distorted predator/prey relationships.  Droughts.  Flooding.  Increased severity in hurricanes and typhoons.  What delays are you talking about?  The time it will take for temperatures to rise, say, 4C or for sea level to rise, say 1 meter?


----------



## jc456 (May 16, 2022)

Crick said:


> Temperature increase leading to sea level rise.  Disrupted migrations.  Distorted predator/prey relationships.  Droughts.  Flooding.  Increased severity in hurricanes and typhoons.  What delays are you talking about?  The time it will take for temperatures to rise, say, 4C or for sea level to rise, say 1 meter?


Where? No sea levels rising anywhere


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (May 17, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Where? No sea levels rising anywhere


Really?






__





						Sea Level Rise - Map Viewer
					

NOAA's Sea Level Rise map viewer gives users a way to visualize community-level impacts from coastal flooding or sea level rise (up to 10 feet above average high tides).




					www.climate.gov
				












						Is sea level rising?
					

There is strong evidence that sea level is rising and will continue to rise this century at increasing rates.



					oceanservice.noaa.gov
				













						Sea Level Rise - Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
					

Sea level rise is expected to continue for centuries and may impact human and the natural environment.




					www.whoi.edu
				






What is sea level rise?​_*Sea level rise is an increase in the ocean’s surface height relative to the land in a particular location.
 The expansion of warm ocean water and melting polar ice are the primary causes of today’s rising sea levels. Both factors are the result of increasing human greenhouse gas emissions driving Earth’s temperatures higher.
 If the planet surpasses 1.5–2°C of warming, irreversible impacts such as melting ice and sea level rise will significantly impact human and environmental sustainability.*_

_*What causes sea levels to rise?*_​_*Earth has warmed 1°C (2°F) since 1880. The ocean’s surface temperature rose about 1.5°F in that time because it absorbs more than 90 percent of the excess heat greenhouse gases trap in the atmosphere. Warmer water takes up more space, and this increase in volume—the thermal expansion of water—was sea level rise’s main culprit over the last century.
 Meltwater from the world’s diminishing ice sheets and glaciers also drives sea levels up, and it is now the main contributor to global sea level rise. Hotter air temperatures melt the surface of the ice while warmer ocean water erodes ice shelves from the sides and below, allowing more ice and meltwater to flow into the sea.*_
*The Greenland ice sheet, the world’s largest, is melting four times faster than it did in 2003 and is responsible for 20 percent of current sea level rise. The IPCC projects that by 2100, Greenland could contribute 3.1 to 10.6 inches (8 to 27 cm) to global sea level, and the melting of Antarctic ice may add another 1.2 to 11 inches (3 to 28 cm).*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 17, 2022)

Crick said:


> Temperature increase leading to sea level rise.  Disrupted migrations.  Distorted predator/prey relationships.  Droughts.  Flooding.  Increased severity in hurricanes and typhoons.  What delays are you talking about?  The time it will take for temperatures to rise, say, 4C or for sea level to rise, say 1 meter?


Are you able to replicate this 4C temperature increase in a lab by controlling for CO2?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 17, 2022)

ding said:


> No one is questioning the greenhouse effect of an atmosphere. Just the effect of changing concentrations.
> 
> let’s see the direct measurement of associated temperature of varying concentrations of CO2.


jc456 skookerasbil and I have been asking for that for decades now and instead of getting crickets in response, we're called "deniers"

We wear that title proudly


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2022)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Tides have always existed, so no, none of that is evidence of anything other than high tides still occur today.  Project is not, has occurred.  Come on man, scratch out some other no nothing information for us.


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2022)

Crick said:


> Temperature increase leading to sea level rise.  Disrupted migrations.  Distorted predator/prey relationships.  Droughts.  Flooding.  Increased severity in hurricanes and typhoons.  What delays are you talking about?  The time it will take for temperatures to rise, say, 4C or for sea level to rise, say 1 meter?


where's that experiment to correlate that comment?  That sounds like your off the shelf bullshit as always.


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> Ground heating is quite another thing.  We can measure that very well. However, once again, as compared to what?  We can only guess at the long-term changes. We can only guess Solar output shifts and what they do to the surface temperatures.  How much is caused by land mass use change?  Deforestation? Dams and power generation, etc.    You say it WILL affect the oceans but by how much as compared to 150 years ago.  How much is actually GHG driven and how much is from land use change.  Again, another area that the Global warming folks can not quantify or determine what the source really is.
> 
> As to your precip, how much of a rise? As compared to 150 years ago?  where is the energy stored?  So far, no heat build up in the atmosphere is capable of warming water more than 150 years ago.  Your making assumptions that you cannot quantify or prove are occurring.
> 
> ...


Billy, you might know this answer, what's hotter, concrete and asphalt or dirt?


----------



## Crick (May 17, 2022)

Before you folks continue this nonsensical claim that the ocean can't absorb IR radiation, I suggest you review the following paper:



			https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JC013351#:~:text=At%20the%20ocean%20surface%2C%20most,skin%20layer%20(TSL)%20exists.
		


Where you will find the following graphic:




In this study, cloud cover was used as a substitute for downwelling IR from greenhouse gases.  Due to the temperature profile, the normal situation is for thermal energy to move into the Thermal Skin Lay (TSL) from below and then be lost to the atmosphere via radiation, convection and evaporation.  Note the amount of energy moving from below on the left and right side of the diagram.  When energy is added to the TSL by downwelling radiation, it replaces some of the energy formerly supplied from the deeper ocean.  Less energy is lost from below and the ocean's equilibrium temperature increases.


----------



## ding (May 17, 2022)

Crick said:


> Temperature increase leading to sea level rise.  Disrupted migrations.  Distorted predator/prey relationships.  Droughts.  Flooding.  Increased severity in hurricanes and typhoons.  What delays are you talking about?  The time it will take for temperatures to rise, say, 4C or for sea level to rise, say 1 meter?


First of all that's weather.  Nothing new there.  Secondly, I suspect a 4C increase in temperature would cause sea levels to rise considerably more than 1m due to the thermal expansion of water and past climate records.  Do you even oxygen isotope curve?

And lastly do you even know what the radiative forcing equation predicts the CO2 level would need to be to get a 4C rise in temperature?  It's 3500 ppm. 

You are making statements without sense checking them.  So it's no wonder your imagination runs wild when looking at weather events.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 17, 2022)

ding said:


> First of all that's weather.  Nothing new there.  Secondly, I suspect a 4C increase in temperature would cause sea levels to rise considerably more than 1m due to the thermal expansion of water and past climate records.  Do you even oxygen isotope curve?
> 
> And lastly do you even know what the radiative forcing equation predicts the CO2 level would need to be to get a 4C rise in temperature?  It's 3500 ppm.
> 
> You are making statements without sense checking them.  So it's no wonder your imagination runs wild when looking at weather events.


Crick does that a whole bunch.. Never checks the facts before posting and getting egg all over his face..


----------



## ReinyDays (May 17, 2022)

ding said:


> You are making statements without sense checking them.  So it's no wonder your imagination runs wild when looking at weather events.



I got as far as "sea level rise" ... actual data gives this as 22 inches by Year 2100 ... one guy with a shovel can completely protect Houston, Texas in 20 years tops ... it's not that hard piling up two feet of dirt ... 

The IPCC is only giving us a 2ºC temperature increase out a good 300 years ... that's assuming we spew enough CO2 to drive climate forcing to 4.5 W/m^2 ... seems unlikely with these technological advances in both energy generation and conservation ... 

"Migratory patterns" ... HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... Mexicans will still flock to California every Spring from now until forever ... white people won't do that kind of work ...


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 17, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Billy, you might know this answer, what's hotter, concrete and asphalt or dirt?


ITs pretty simple.  Dirt is less dense than concrete. Thus, the energy it will absorb is far less.  Concrete is less dense than asphalt and due to its light albedo, it too will be far less warm as an asphalt would be.  The density of Asphalt and its albedo are the reason it gets so hot and collects energy.


----------



## ding (May 17, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> ITs pretty simple.  Dirt is less dense than concrete. Thus, the energy it will absorb is far less.  Concrete is less dense than asphalt and due to its light albedo, it too will be far less warm as an asphalt would be.  The density of Asphalt and its albedo are the reason it gets so hot and collects energy.


We need to ban roads.  Then we won't need cars.


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2022)

ding said:


> First of all that's weather.  Nothing new there.  Secondly, I suspect a 4C increase in temperature would cause sea levels to rise considerably more than 1m due to the thermal expansion of water and past climate records.  Do you even oxygen isotope curve?
> 
> And lastly do you even know what the radiative forcing equation predicts the CO2 level would need to be to get a 4C rise in temperature?  It's 3500 ppm.
> 
> You are making statements without sense checking them.  So it's no wonder your imagination runs wild when looking at weather events.


Off the shelf nonsense is what I like to call his responses!


----------



## ding (May 17, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Off the shelf nonsense is what I like to call his responses!


He must be on a keto diet because he always has egg on his face.


----------



## Sunsettommy (May 17, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> ITs pretty simple.  Dirt is less dense than concrete. Thus, the energy it will absorb is far less.  Concrete is less dense than asphalt and due to its light albedo, it too will be far less warm as an asphalt would be.  The density of Asphalt and its albedo are the reason it gets so hot and collects energy.



As a kid back in the 1960's-1970's learned that firsthand as I walked barefoot a lot asphalt was always the hottest and grass the coolest I spray a lot of water onto the blacktop to see it evaporate faster than it does on the sidewalk.


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> ITs pretty simple.  Dirt is less dense than concrete. Thus, the energy it will absorb is far less.  Concrete is less dense than asphalt and due to its light albedo, it too will be far less warm as an asphalt would be.  The density of Asphalt and its albedo are the reason it gets so hot and collects energy.


So the pure existence of man increased heat when we made roads. Why didn’t god just kill us. The planet would be better off! But CO2 would still be over 400 ppm.


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> As a kid back in the 1960's-1970's learned that firsthand as I walked barefoot a lot asphalt was always the hottest and grass the coolest I spray a lot of water onto the blacktop to see it evaporate faster than it does on the sidewalk.


How about sand? Ouch


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (May 17, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Tides have always existed, so no, none of that is evidence of anything other than high tides still occur today.  Project is not, has occurred.  Come on man, scratch out some other no nothing information for us.


How cute..you conflate tides with long term sea level rise~

LOL@ "no nothing"


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2022)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> How cute..you conflate tides with long term sea level rise~
> 
> LOL@ "no nothing"


You presented it


----------



## ReinyDays (May 18, 2022)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> How cute..you conflate tides with long term sea level rise~
> 
> LOL@ "no nothing"



Sea levels have been falling over the long term ... they were 20 to 30 feet higher 10,000 years ago ... of course, with a tiny increase in temperatures we'll see a tiny rise in sea levels ... but just a couple feet, nothing catastrophic ...

The million dollars it takes to protect a city can be spent over 100 years ... that's one less cup of coffee every five years per person ... ouch ...


----------



## jc456 (May 18, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Sea levels have been falling over the long term ... they were 20 to 30 feet higher 10,000 years ago ... of course, with a tiny increase in temperatures we'll see a tiny rise in sea levels ... but just a couple feet, nothing catastrophic ...
> 
> The million dollars it takes to protect a city can be spent over 100 years ... that's one less cup of coffee every five years per person ... ouch ...


Well technically, the tectonic plates moving may contribute to sea levels.


----------



## Crick (May 19, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Sea levels have been falling over the long term ... *they were 20 to 30 feet higher 10,000 years ago* ... of course, with a tiny increase in temperatures we'll see a tiny rise in sea levels ... but just a couple feet, nothing catastrophic ...
> 
> The million dollars it takes to protect a city can be spent over 100 years ... that's one less cup of coffee every five years per person ... ouch ...



*Ten thousand years ago, oceans were 40 meters LOWER than they are today.  When glaciers melt, sea level rises.*


----------



## ding (May 19, 2022)

Crick said:


> *Ten thousand years ago, oceans were 40 meters LOWER than they are today.  When glaciers melt, sea level rises.*
> 
> View attachment 646854
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what point you are trying to make when you stated "Ten thousand years ago, oceans were 40 meters LOWER than they are today."  The sea level has been rising at the same rate for the past 6,000 years.  That 40 ft you are talking about occurred in the 4,000 years between 10,000 years ago and 6,000 years ago.

Depending on the volume of ice, yes , when glaciers melt, sea level rises.  Another driver is thermal expansion of water.  Which is why this graphic is the best proxy for earth's temperature there is.


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2022)

ding said:


> I'm not sure what point you are trying to make when you stated "Ten thousand years ago, oceans were 40 meters LOWER than they are today."  The sea level has been rising at the same rate for the past 6,000 years.  That 40 ft you are talking about occurred in the 4,000 years between 10,000 years ago and 6,000 years ago.
> 
> Depending on the volume of ice, yes , when glaciers melt, sea level rises.  Another driver is thermal expansion of water.  Which is why this graphic is the best proxy for earth's temperature there is.
> 
> View attachment 646923


movement of tectonic plates can cause sea level change.


----------



## ReinyDays (May 20, 2022)

Crick said:


> *Ten thousand years ago, oceans were 40 meters LOWER than they are today.  When glaciers melt, sea level rises.*
> 
> View attachment 646854
> 
> ...



The lying asshole doesn't notice how flat the traces are recently ...


----------



## Crick (May 21, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> The lying asshole doesn't notice how flat the traces are recently ...


Are you planning on admitting you made a mistake?


----------



## ding (May 25, 2022)

Holy shit!  Crick used the reply button!


----------



## Crick (May 26, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> The lying asshole doesn't notice how flat the traces are recently ...


You claimed that 10,000 years ago, ocean levels were 20-30 feet higher when, in fact, they were 30 meters lower.


----------



## jc456 (May 26, 2022)

Crick said:


> You claimed that 10,000 years ago, ocean levels were 20-30 feet higher when, in fact, they were 30 meters lower.











						What Thawed the Last Ice Age?
					

The relatively pleasant global climate of the past 10,000 years is largely thanks to higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide




					www.scientificamerican.com
				



SEMENT
Roughly 20,000 years ago the great ice sheets that buried much of Asia, Europe and North America stopped their creeping advance. Within a few hundred years sea levels in some places had risen by as much as 10 meters—more than if the ice sheet that still covers Greenland were to melt today.


----------



## Crick (May 26, 2022)

jc456 said:


> What Thawed the Last Ice Age?
> 
> 
> The relatively pleasant global climate of the past 10,000 years is largely thanks to higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide
> ...


So the ice sheets 20,000 years ago had more ice than Greenland does today.  Does that surprise you?  Look at a fricking globe.


----------



## ding (May 26, 2022)

Crick said:


> You claimed that 10,000 years ago, ocean levels were 20-30 feet higher when, in fact, they were 30 meters lower.


My guess is he was thinking about the last interglacial cycle.


----------



## jc456 (May 26, 2022)

Crick said:


> So the ice sheets 20,000 years ago had more ice than Greenland does today.  Does that surprise you?  Look at a fricking globe.


It melted and filled the oceans, idiot


----------



## Crick (May 27, 2022)

jc456 said:


> It melted and filled the oceans, idiot


What's your point?


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2022)

Crick said:


> What's your point?


You claim lower, but that’s not logical if most of the northern hemisphere melted,


----------



## ReinyDays (May 27, 2022)

Crick said:


> You claimed that 10,000 years ago, ocean levels were 20-30 feet higher when, in fact, they were 30 meters lower.



You've proved my point ... why quibble over a couple feet? ...


----------



## Crick (Jul 14, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> You've proved my point ... why quibble over a couple feet? ...


What I proved is that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.  The planet's temperatures are climbing and at an accelerating rate.  As a result of that, the world's snow and ice are melting.  As a result of that, sea levels are rising.  Within a century, tens of MILLIONS of people living along our coastlines will have been displaced at a cost of hundreds of trillions of dollars.  And fools like you can take your fair share of credit for the unholy fucking disaster into which YOU are leading us.


----------



## miketx (Jul 14, 2022)

Crick said:


> What I proved is that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.  The planet's temperatures are climbing and at an accelerating rate.  As a result of that, the world's snow and ice are melting.  As a result of that, sea levels are rising.  Within a century, tens of MILLIONS of people living along our coastlines will have been displaced at a cost of hundreds of trillions of dollars.  And fools like you can take your fair share of credit for the unholy fucking disaster into which YOU are leading us.


I never saw any of you loons prove shit.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 14, 2022)

Crick said:


> What I proved is that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The planet's temperatures are climbing and at an accelerating rate.


prove it.  What's your definition of accelerated?

Prove the changes in increments of temperature rise


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 14, 2022)

Crick said:


> What I proved is that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.  The planet's temperatures are climbing and at an accelerating rate.  As a result of that, the world's snow and ice are melting.  As a result of that, sea levels are rising.  Within a century, tens of MILLIONS of people living along our coastlines will have been displaced at a cost of hundreds of trillions of dollars.  And fools like you can take your fair share of credit for the unholy fucking disaster into which YOU are leading us.



Why do you believe in hypercanes? ...


----------



## Crick (Jul 15, 2022)

I'll have a  conversation with you when you stop making up nonsense terms and avoiding topics I take it you find difficult to handle.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 15, 2022)

Crick said:


> I'll have a  conversation with you when you stop making up nonsense terms and avoiding topics I take it you find difficult to handle.



The topic is radiative physics ... the terms I use come from astrophysics textbooks ... just last night I was verifying on Wikipedia some of these claims I making here, and on some other threads ... just to make sure I wasn't off on a tangent ... something you should try sometime ...

I certainly avoid topics I don't know much about ... there's a half dozen threads open right now about EVs ... I don't know ... I drive a motorized wheelbarrow (Toyota Tacoma) ... 25 mpg ... I fill the tank once a month whether I need to or not ... 

Or maybe I agree with you on some topics ... screwy weird I know ... you should certainly be breaking out in hives thinking I might like you ... ewwwwwwwww ...


----------



## ding (Jul 16, 2022)

Crick said:


> What I proved is that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.  The planet's temperatures are climbing and at an accelerating rate.  As a result of that, the world's snow and ice are melting.  As a result of that, sea levels are rising.  Within a century, tens of MILLIONS of people living along our coastlines will have been displaced at a cost of hundreds of trillions of dollars.  And fools like you can take your fair share of credit for the unholy fucking disaster into which YOU are leading us.


Clearly you don't understand what accelerating actually means.  But putting that aside, the geologic record is littered with warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcings.


----------



## Crick (Jul 16, 2022)

ding said:


> Clearly you don't understand what accelerating actually means.  But putting that aside, the geologic record is littered with warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcings.


I quite obviously DO know what "accelerating" means but your comment suggest that YOU do not.  And that the geologic record is littered with such trends is ab-so-fucking-lutely IRRELEVANT.


----------



## ding (Jul 16, 2022)

Crick said:


> I quite obviously DO know what "accelerating" means but your comment suggest that YOU do not.  And that the geologic record is littered with such trends is ab-so-fucking-lutely IRRELEVANT.


What's the rate of acceleration?

The geologic record being littered with warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcings is relevant because it shows that warming and cooling trends occur through natural processes.  You have mistakenly attributed CO2 as the cause for the recent warming trend,  Correlation does not prove causation.  The fact that the planet is 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 is proof that there is no correlation of CO2 driving temperature.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 16, 2022)

Crick said:


> I quite obviously DO know what "accelerating" means ...



I'm sorry, that is not obvious ... I'm sure you've memorized F = m dv/dt ... but you sure as hell don't know why that equation is wrong ... but let's see if you can find the acceleration term in it ... I already know ding has forgotten this, but he does know exactly where to look and find out ... if he cared enough, which I don't think he does ...


----------



## ding (Jul 16, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> I already know ding has forgotten this


You know this how?  I was the one who pointed it out to crick that he was improperly using acceleration.  And it wasn't the first time I've had to do that.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 16, 2022)

ding said:


> You know this how?  I was the one who pointed it out to crick that he was improperly using acceleration.  And it wasn't the first time I've had to do that.



Because you use acceleration as a scalar ...


----------



## ding (Jul 16, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Because you use acceleration as a scalar ...


How so?


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 16, 2022)

ding said:


> How so?



Yes ...


----------



## ding (Jul 17, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Yes ...


That was even more than less than helpful.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 17, 2022)

ding said:


> That was even more than less than helpful.



The differential of helpfulness? ... how indiscreet of you ...


----------



## ding (Jul 17, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> The differential of helpfulness? ... how indiscreet of you ...


Sometimes.


----------



## Crick (Jul 17, 2022)

On what basis do you claim I was using the term as a scalar and where did you get the idea that it was incorrect to use acceleration as a scalar?  I think you're thinking of speed vs velocity.

If I say that Sally's car can accelerate from 0-60 in 5 seconds, does the lack of a direction component prevent you from understanding what I'm saying?  When I tell you that the Earth's temperature is increasing and accelerating, do you suffer any confusion as to the direction in which that acceleration is taking place?

What seems to always be the case is that you serve no purpose here other than to waste people's time.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 17, 2022)

Crick said:


> On what basis do you claim I was using the term as a scalar and where did you get the idea that it was incorrect to use acceleration as a scalar?  I think you're thinking of speed vs velocity.
> 
> If I say that Sally's car can accelerate from 0-60 in 5 seconds, does the lack of a direction component prevent you from understanding what I'm saying?  When I tell you that the Earth's temperature is increasing and accelerating, do you suffer any confusion as to the direction in which that acceleration is taking place?
> 
> What seems to always be the case is that you serve no purpose here other than to waste people's time.



I posted _dv/dt_ ... why does that confuse you? ... 

Sally's car went from a heading of 45º to 105º ... or 12 degrees of arc per second per second ... you didn't say what her speed was but it would remain the same ... that kind of acceleration? ... 

The IPCC report gives the equation as ∆T = 5.35 k ln (CF/CO) ... I don't know if you would know how to graph an algebraic function ... or if you even know how to solve a log function ... good thing the IPCC posted the graph right there in their report AR5 1WG Fig 12-5 ... see there where the RATE of temperature increase is decreasing over time while radiative forcing is still increasing ... note that SB gives even worse results, the fourth root function flatlines a lot quicker than the natural log function ... 

Sally's car can also accelerate from 60-0 mph in 5 seconds ... Sally herself accelerates from 120-0 mph in 100 milliseconds ... splat on the cement ... we certainly don't have to specify direction, straight down always works ... except for Sally ... you were supposed to bring a house cat ...


----------



## ding (Jul 19, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> we certainly don't have to specify direction


So scalar instead of vector


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 19, 2022)

ding said:


> So scalar instead of vector



Tensor ... with a field domain ... this is Faraday's discovery ...


----------



## ding (Jul 19, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Tensor ... with a field domain ... this is Faraday's discovery ...


I learn something mew about you everyday.


----------



## Crick (Aug 10, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> I posted _dv/dt_ ... why does that confuse you? ...
> 
> Sally's car went from a heading of 45º to 105º ... or 12 degrees of arc per second per second ... you didn't say what her speed was but it would remain the same ... that kind of acceleration? ...
> 
> ...



I presume this is the Figure 12.5 to which you were referring:





IPCC , AR5, WGI, Technical Summary, Figure 12.5

The only scenario here showing deceleration prior to 2100 is RCP 2.6 which requires immediate, significant reductions of ALL GHG emissions.  If you were to review my statements you will find I was referring to the present regime at which time empirical observations and every one of those data lines are accelerating.  I'd also like to point out that even without acceleration, you're still looking at steadily increasing temperature projections everywhere besides RCP 2.6.  Are you okay with that?  Do you think that indicates there is no global warming?  Why have you spent so much time arguing about acceleration if not simply because you have no other points to make? The world is getting warmer and human GHG emissions are the primary cause.  You have not given us a single iota of evidence casting the slightest doubt on that fact.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 10, 2022)

Crick said:


> I presume this is the Figure 12.5 to which you were referring:
> 
> View attachment 680229
> IPCC , AR5, WGI, Technical Summary, Figure 12.5
> ...



All the traces show a negative _dv/dt_ ... don't you know that acceleration is the second order derivative? ... it's the 4.5 W/m^2 scenario I'm focused on, as this is the closest to the logarithmic curve we're using ... notice the 6.0 W/m^2 scenario is completely abandoned as useless and the 8.5 is used for click-bait ... for suckers ha ha ha ha ha ...

RPC4.5 is our "worst reasonable case scenario" ... 2.5ºC in 300 years ... HAW HAW HAW HAW ... too funny ... there's far far far better reasons to move away from the Oil Economy ... will fossil fuels even last 300 years? ...


----------



## jc456 (Aug 10, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> All the traces show a negative _dv/dt_ ... don't you know that acceleration is the second order derivative? ... it's the 4.5 W/m^2 scenario I'm focused on, as this is the closest to the logarithmic curve we're using ... notice the 6.0 W/m^2 scenario is completely abandoned as useless and the 8.5 is used for click-bait ... for suckers ha ha ha ha ha ...
> 
> RPC4.5 is our "worst reasonable case scenario" ... 2.5ºC in 300 years ... HAW HAW HAW HAW ... too funny ... there's far far far better reasons to move away from the Oil Economy ... will fossil fuels even last 300 years? ...


Are they suggesting someone has come up with a replacement product for plastic?


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 10, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Are they suggesting someone has come up with a replacement product for plastic?



There's still the products that plastic replaced ...


----------



## jc456 (Aug 10, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> There's still the products that plastic replaced ...


let's see those phones and PCs.

And the resistors and capacitors back to vacuum tubes?  hahahahaahahahahahahaahaha


----------



## ChemEngineer (Aug 10, 2022)

*Humans do not have much more time on this earth in our present condition.
Nature's God put just enough resources here for our time, which is hurtling to a close. Nobody can know exactly when, but......*


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 10, 2022)

jc456 said:


> let's see those phones and PCs.
> 
> And the resistors and capacitors back to vacuum tubes?  hahahahaahahahahahahaahaha



I'm a carpenter by trade ... hammers are the same since Roman times ... girls might suffer, serves them right for evolving too fast ...


----------



## BackAgain (Aug 10, 2022)

The climate can warm. Or it can get colder or it can change. I deny none of any part of those things. 

What I deny (up to a point) is the notion that scientists can validly deduce that human-kind plays much of a role in any of that. It’s the “A” in “AGW” that is suspect. 

When the AGW FAITH BASED cadre speaks about anyone who deviates in any way from swallowing their orthodox beliefs, they falsely label them “Deniers.”  The question is: Deniers of what?

I’m more of a skeptic. But I will accept the term “denier” for a little bit. Absent better evidence and non-fudged data, I’ll deny your claims about the role of a tiny bit more of a very trace amount of CO2 in our atmosphere as constituting a greenhouse gas caused catastrophe. Especially when it is conjoined with demands for some world wide socialist new order and one world government.


----------



## Crick (Aug 10, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> The climate can warm. Or it can get colder or it can change. I deny none of any part of those things.
> 
> What I deny (up to a point) is the notion that scientists can validly deduce that human-kind plays much of a role in any of that. It’s the “A” in “AGW” that is suspect.
> 
> ...


Do you have any idea HOW scientists have concluded that humans have played a role in the warming observed over the last 150 years?  Before you decide whether or not they can actually do that, you need to learn what it is they're actually doing.  It is most assuredly not based on "faith".


----------



## BackAgain (Aug 10, 2022)

Crick said:


> Do you have any idea HOW scientists have concluded that humans have played a role in the warming observed over the last 150 years?  Before you decide whether or not they can actually do that, you need to learn what it is they're actually doing.  It is most assuredly not based on "faith".


I have. And I sort of get (handicapped by being just a layman) how some scientists have come to that conclusion. But that is a far cry from the claims made by you AGW Faithers about how well supported “the” science is.

SIDE COMMENT:

The whole point of this thread, I believe, is to avoid just looping the same arguments. I am not clear, though, on what is considered “on topic” versus what qualifies as being “off topic.”


----------



## Oddball (Aug 10, 2022)

Crick said:


> Do you have any idea HOW scientists have concluded that humans have played a role in the warming observed over the last 150 years?  Before you decide whether or not they can actually do that, you need to learn what it is they're actually doing.  It is most assuredly not based on "faith".


It's based upon the closed political circle jerk of pal review....The same kind of self-licking ice cream cone that is used by holocaust deniers.


----------



## Crick (Aug 10, 2022)

Oddball said:


> It's based upon the closed political circle jerk of pal review....The same kind of self-licking ice cream cone that is used by holocaust deniers.


One of the problems with "pal review" is that for the few "pals" doing the reviewing, their are a thousand readers capable of making the same checks.  But, of course, each and every one of them has joined the decades old global conspiracy among climate scientists to lie to the public in order to get rich from research grants.  Right?  But the oil and coal industry are absolutely honest about the existential threat they're facing because unlike science, the only way to succeed in a business like that is complete and total honesty.  Right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 10, 2022)

Crick said:


> One of the problems with "pal review" is that for the few "pals" doing the reviewing, their are a thousand readers capable of making the same checks.  But, of course, each and every one of them has joined the decades old global conspiracy among climate scientists to lie to the public in order to get rich from research grants.  Right?  But the oil and coal industry are absolutely honest about the existential threat they're facing because unlike science, the only way to succeed in a business like that is complete and total honesty.  Right?



That's ridiculous!
That's why the warmers tried to stop anyone who disagrees from being published.

Because there isn't a conspiracy, the warmers are all awesome and totally honest and all the sciense in on their side.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 11, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> I'm a carpenter by trade ... hammers are the same since Roman times ... girls might suffer, serves them right for evolving too fast ...


I'm in electronics.  Back to 350 lb tvs I guess huh?  What about glue?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 11, 2022)

Crick said:


> Do you have any idea HOW scientists have concluded that humans have played a role in the warming observed over the last 150 years?  Before you decide whether or not they can actually do that, you need to learn what it is they're actually doing.  It is most assuredly not based on "faith".


no, can you provide what they base that on?

Son, you can't even say how warm 120 PPM of CO2 is.  You want me to believe someone can tell what human's put into the atmosphere as CO2?  Sure we put shit in the atmosphere.  The thing you need to do is prove it makes the weather worse.  And son, You get an FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


----------



## Crick (Aug 11, 2022)

*Crick said:*
One of the problems with "pal review" is that for the few "pals" doing the reviewing, their are a thousand readers capable of making the same checks. But, of course, each and every one of them has joined the decades old global conspiracy among climate scientists to lie to the public in order to get rich from research grants. Right? But the oil and coal industry are absolutely honest about the existential threat they're facing because unlike science, the only way to succeed in a business like that is complete and total honesty. Right?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's ridiculous!
> That's why the warmers tried to stop anyone who disagrees from being published.
> 
> Because there isn't a conspiracy, the warmers are all awesome and totally honest and all the sciense in on their side.



You haven't addressed my point.  Pal Review doesn't work because the audience has lots of folks in it just as good as the reviewers.  And, you are correct, Todd, there is no conspiracy among climate scientists.  They don't need it because, yes indeed, the science is on their side.  It's too bad the same cannot be said for the fossil fuel industry, the folks motivated by the existential threat created by the knowledge that their product is fucking the world.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2022)

Crick said:


> And, you are correct, Todd, there is no conspiracy among climate scientists. They don't need it because, yes indeed, the science is on their side.



Exactly!

That's why they alter historical temperature data and suppress skeptics.
Because what else would they do when the science is on their side?

* It's too bad the same cannot be said for the fossil fuel industry, the folks motivated by the existential threat created by the knowledge that their product is fucking the world.*

Yeah, it's awful! They should just immediately stop producing oil, coal and nat gas. That'd cause far fewer deaths than a tiny increase in temperature in the next 50 years.

Maybe you should find the real definition of "existential", yours is broken.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2022)

Crick said:


> e. It's too bad the same cannot be said for the fossil fuel industry, the folks motivated by the existential threat


Why aren’t they installing solar panels around the globe for free?


----------



## Crick (Aug 20, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Exactly!
> 
> That's why they alter historical temperature data and suppress skeptics.
> Because what else would they do when the science is on their side?
> ...


The term 'existential' is an accurate characterization of the threat global warming mitigation measures pose to the fossil fuel industries.

That is why it's so blitheringly ignorant of AGW deniers to ignore the possibility that elements within such industries might be spreading falsehoods about the science, particularly when the Number One attack point of the lot of you is the contention that the tens of thousands of scientists world wide are, to a man, lying to the public about global warming.  You use that same nonsensical and achingly ironic premise here - and I know you're too smart to ever believe such claptrap.  You just continue to put it out because you fear the embarrassment that would result were you to admit the mistakes you've made and stuck with all these years.  If I can offer a single piece of advice, imagine how much credit you would accrue if you found the chutzpa to actually say "I was wrong".  You'd be a king.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 20, 2022)

Crick said:


> The term 'existential' is an accurate characterization of the threat global warming mitigation measures pose to the fossil fuel industries.
> 
> That is why it's so blitheringly ignorant of AGW deniers to ignore the possibility that elements within such industries might be spreading falsehoods about the science, particularly when the Number One attack point of the lot of you is the contention that the tens of thousands of scientists world wide are, to a man, lying to the public about global warming.  You use that same nonsensical and achingly ironic premise here - and I know you're too smart to ever believe such claptrap.  You just continue to put it out because you fear the embarrassment that would result were you to admit the mistakes you've made and stuck with all these years.  If I can offer a single piece of advice, imagine how much credit you would accrue if you found the chutzpa to actually say "I was wrong".  You'd be a king.



Green idiocy threatens far more than the fossil fuel industries.

* the Number One attack point of the lot of you is the contention that the tens of thousands of scientists world wide are, to a man, lying to the public about global warming. *

Ridiculous! Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann would never lie.

*If I can offer a single piece of advice, imagine how much credit you would accrue if you found the chutzpa to actually say "I was wrong".  You'd be a king.*

I will, right after the most perfect human I'm aware of, Michael Mann, does the same.
Or after he pays the legal judgments against him. LOL!


----------



## jc456 (Aug 20, 2022)

Crick said:


> The term 'existential' is an accurate characterization of the threat global warming mitigation measures pose to the fossil fuel industries


What threat? Still waiting scrub button


----------



## Crick (Aug 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Green idiocy threatens far more than the fossil fuel industries.
> 
> * the Number One attack point of the lot of you is the contention that the tens of thousands of scientists world wide are, to a man, lying to the public about global warming. *
> 
> ...


Why are your choices not based on the science Todd?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2022)

Crick said:


> Why are your choices not based on the science Todd?



You're right, there is absolutely no reason to mistrust the science.

Or the idiots who want to use it as an excuse to waste tens of trillions of doallrs.
_
The Green New Deal will convert the decaying fossil fuel economy into a new, green economy that is environmentally sustainable, economically secure and socially just.  The Green New Deal starts with transitioning to 100% green renewable energy (no nukes or natural gas) by 2030.  It would immediately halt any investment in fossil fuels (including natural gas) and related infrastructure. The Green New Deal will guarantee full employment and generate up to 20 million new, living-wage jobs, as well as make the government the employer of last resort with a much-needed major public jobs program.









						Green New Deal – Full Language
					






					www.gp.org
				



_
What do you think, Crick?

Good idea? Doable? 

Is cost no object?


----------



## Crick (Aug 25, 2022)

You failed to tell us why your choices are not based on the science Todd.

Such obvious attempt to change/derail/detour the subject makes us think you don't have a good response.  Show us to be wrong about that Todd.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> You failed to tell us why your choices are not based on the science Todd.



I don't think a little warmer is the end of the world.

_The Green New Deal will convert the decaying fossil fuel economy into a new, green economy that is environmentally sustainable, economically secure and socially just. The Green New Deal starts with transitioning to 100% green renewable energy (no nukes or natural gas) by 2030. It would immediately halt any investment in fossil fuels (including natural gas) and related infrastructure. The Green New Deal will guarantee full employment and generate up to 20 million new, living-wage jobs, as well as make the government the employer of last resort with a much-needed major public jobs program._

What do you say, Crick?

Good idea? Doable? Worth the expense?


----------



## Crick (Aug 25, 2022)

You are STILL not telling us why your choices are not based on the science Todd.  I'm not here to talk about AOC or the GND or anything else you want to throw up here for a detour.  You claim that you believe in science, yet your choices say you don't.  Please explain.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> You are STILL not telling us why your choices are not based on the science Todd.  I'm not here to talk about AOC or the GND or anything else you want to throw up here for a detour.  You claim that you believe in science, yet your choices say you don't.  Please explain.



You wouldn't understand the science if we gave it to you ... 

If carbon dioxide concentrations go up, and temperatures go down ... then we don't have correlation ... THAT's the science T'Patriot is using ... do you not understand basic science? ...


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Aug 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> The term 'existential' is an accurate characterization of the threat global warming mitigation measures pose to the fossil fuel industries.
> 
> That is why it's so blitheringly ignorant of AGW deniers to ignore the possibility that elements within such industries might be spreading falsehoods about the science, particularly when the Number One attack point of the lot of you is the contention that the tens of thousands of scientists world wide are, to a man, lying to the public about global warming.  You use that same nonsensical and achingly ironic premise here - and I know you're too smart to ever believe such claptrap.  You just continue to put it out because you fear the embarrassment that would result were you to admit the mistakes you've made and stuck with all these years.  If I can offer a single piece of advice, imagine how much credit you would accrue if you found the chutzpa to actually say "I was wrong".  You'd be a king.



Except your argument has a glaring hole in it......
You forgot the most important question...."Who PAYS all these so called "scientists" ?  (That's right, mostly government grants, a government run by Globalists.  Gee....want to get paid and feed your family? Better be sure your "science" agrees with our agenda.)
And the secondary question.....
Who stands to benefit MOST from all these initiatives (it certainly is not the average human being).
Where are the solar panels produced?  (7 of the top 10 manufacturers are in CHINA.)  Wind turbines?  Same.
Clearly there can be no argument that Communist countries currently benefit MOST from solar panel proliferation.

Do we even need science to understand that......
Solar and wind power both become useless in inclement weather.  Solar production is cut by more than 50% in winter months in Northern climates.   Do you really need someone else to explain that to you?  If so then you have no place in this discussion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> You are STILL not telling us why your choices are not based on the science Todd.  I'm not here to talk about AOC or the GND or anything else you want to throw up here for a detour.  You claim that you believe in science, yet your choices say you don't.  Please explain.



*You are STILL not telling us why your choices are not based on the science Todd. *

Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann's science? Mike's Nature Trick science?
Adjusting US temperature data back to the 1930s science?
Stopping skeptics from getting published science?

Why don't I base my choices on that science? LOL!

*I'm not here to talk about AOC or the GND or anything else you want to throw up here for a detour.* 

But she and the rest of the green twats are basing their ideas on the science. Their ideas
are to outlaw coal and nuclear. Even outlaw natural gas. While putting millions of EVs on
an already strained power grid.

Bunch of fucking morons.

I wonder how many Germans are going to freeze to death this winter because
their stupid green party shut down their nuclear reactors because of a tidal wave in Japan.
Have you heard anything so stupid? Why aren't their choices based on the science Crick?

And then they shut down their coal plants to use natural gas. Gas from Putin.

What could go wrong? But at least their green power is only triple the cost of ours.
Poor people don't need heat anyway, eh comrade? 

"At least I die green!!!"


----------



## Crick (Aug 25, 2022)

Are you now saying that you don't believe in science?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 25, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Why aren’t they installing solar panels around the globe for free?


Crick , so you didn't respond to my question.  If it isn't about money, why aren't they installing free solar panels around the globe?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> Are you now saying that you don't believe in science?


Todd seemed crisp and clear with his answer to you.  Why did you ignore it?


----------



## Crick (Aug 25, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You are STILL not telling us why your choices are not based on the science Todd. *
> 
> Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann's science? Mike's Nature Trick science?
> Adjusting US temperature data back to the 1930s science?
> ...


I am not going to be lured away from this question.  Besides which, none of this crap about AOC, GND or Germany freezing falls under the topic of this dedicated thread.  You said you believe in science, yet your choices indicate that you do not.  Why?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> I am not going to be lured away from this question.  Besides which, none of this crap about AOC, GND or Germany freezing falls under the topic of this dedicated thread.  You said you believe in science, yet your choices indicate that you do not.  Why?



Which choices?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> I am not going to be lured away from this question.  Besides which, none of this crap about AOC, GND or Germany freezing falls under the topic of this dedicated thread.  You said you believe in science, yet your choices indicate that you do not.  Why?


what choices are you referring to?


----------



## Crick (Aug 25, 2022)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Except your argument has a glaring hole in it......
> You forgot the most important question...."Who PAYS all these so called "scientists" ?  (That's right, mostly government grants, a government run by Globalists.  Gee....want to get paid and feed your family? Better be sure your "science" agrees with our agenda.)



You have not demonstrated that the government is run by "Globalists" or that the government has an agenda that would push a false narrative.    So, my argument has no hole in it.  Yours, however has a large cavity.



BasicHumanUnit said:


> And the secondary question.....
> Who stands to benefit MOST from all these initiatives (it certainly is not the average human being).



It certainly IS the average human being.  Global warming and the Earth's climate affect every single human alive and many generations yet to come.



BasicHumanUnit said:


> Where are the solar panels produced?  (7 of the top 10 manufacturers are in CHINA.)  Wind turbines?  Same.



All labor intensive manufacturing tends to move to regions with low pay.  There are many things that could be done about that, but the trend is not evidence of a conspiracy.



BasicHumanUnit said:


> Clearly there can be no argument that Communist countries currently benefit MOST from solar panel proliferation.



Russia is not benefitting from it.  Cuba is not benefitting from it.  Laos is not benefitting from it.  Vietnam has enjoyed a fair bit of technological development, but I could certainly argue that they deserve it.



BasicHumanUnit said:


> Do we even need science to understand that......



We need science to understand that the world is getting warmer and that that is primarily due to the increased level of CO2 and other GHGs from human emissions.  We need science to understand what it will take to end those emissions and to best survive the now unavoidable results that that warming is producing which, under the best of scenarios, will continue for many decades beyond.  That is what is causing this problem, not the liberal/globalist/communist conspiracy your nationalist paranoia creates from whole cloth.



BasicHumanUnit said:


> Solar and wind power both become useless in inclement weather.  Solar production is cut by more than 50% in winter months in Northern climates.   Do you really need someone else to explain that to you?  If so then you have no place in this discussion.



Contemporary solar and wind technology can both withstand substantial inclement weather and still produce power.  The effect of seasonal weather on solar and wind installation is a thoroughly understood factor long before the first dime gets spent on such installations.  It tickles the dog shit out of me when AGW deniers come up with something that a grade schooler could have realized and think that they've come across some formerly unknown show-stopper.  Don't be a fool.


----------



## Crick (Aug 25, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Which choices?


Sorry, I inadvertently mixed my response to you into my response to Mr Basic and then deleted it.  

Your choices to oppose actions aimed at mitigating human GHG emissions.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> Sorry, I inadvertently mixed my response to you into my response to Mr Basic and then deleted it.
> 
> Your choices to oppose actions aimed at mitigating human GHG emissions.



Yeah, I'm against actions greens support that are stupid and expensive.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> You have not demonstrated that the government is run by "Globalists" or that the government has an agenda that would push a false narrative. So, my argument has no hole in it. Yours, however has a large cavity.


he asked you who paid them.  You deflected badly.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> Sorry, I inadvertently mixed my response to you into my response to Mr Basic and then deleted it.
> 
> Your choices to oppose actions aimed at mitigating human GHG emissions.


so why aren't those mitigation steps free?


----------



## Crick (Aug 25, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yeah, I'm against actions greens support that are stupid and expensive.


Would you support actions to reduce or eliminate GHG emissions that were intelligent and economical?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> Would you support actions to reduce or eliminate GHG emissions that were intelligent and economical?



Sure.

Feel free to post some.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> Would you support actions to reduce or *eliminate* GHG emissions that were intelligent and economical?


wouldn't we freeze to death?


----------



## Crick (Aug 25, 2022)

Intelligent is easy but your primary concern has always seemed to be the cost.  Determining what is a more economical solution will require some agreement on what the cost of doing nothing might be.  There are resources - studies - that have examined that precise question and several have been discussed on this board.  But, we can set that aside for a moment and go over a few of the more obvious solutions.

1) Shift away from fossil fuel power generation to renewable alternative sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, OTEC, wave energy, etc.
2) Shift from ICE powered vehicles to EVs
3) Shift away from cement for roads and construction
4) Take measures within existing technologies to reduce soot emissions.
5) Take measures to reduce methane leakage

Can you tell us briefly what you think of these five actions?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> Intelligent is easy but your primary concern has always seemed to be the cost.  Determining what is a more economical solution will require some agreement on what the cost of doing nothing might be.  There are resources - studies - that have examined that precise question and several have been discussed on this board.  But, we can set that aside for a moment and go over a few of the more obvious solutions.
> 
> 1) Shift away from fossil fuel power generation to renewable alternative sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, OTEC, wave energy, etc.
> 2) Shift from ICE powered vehicles to EVs
> ...



*Intelligent is easy *

Not from what I've seen from most greens.

*but your primary concern has always seemed to be the cost. *

Yeah, cost is like really super important.
*
Determining what is a more economical solution will require some agreement on what the cost of doing nothing might be. *

And that's when we run up against really bad green economics.

*Can you tell us briefly what you think of these five actions?*

1) You're missing nuclear.

2) How are you going to add enough new capacity while you're busy eliminating 
coal and natural gas?

3) Using what?

4) China and India should get to work on that.

5) How much would that help?


----------



## Crick (Aug 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Intelligent is easy *
> 
> Not from what I've seen from most greens.
> 
> ...



You are absolutely right.  Let's call that #6



Toddsterpatriot said:


> 2) How are you going to add enough new capacity while you're busy eliminating
> coal and natural gas?



The same way we've been doing it all along.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> 3) Using what?



Chewing gum. Ground coke bottles. Plaster-of-Paris.  This could be where nuclear was supposed to go.

Actually, there are substitutes but they certainly aren't perfect: ferrock, hempcrete, greencrete, timbercrete and rammed earth.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> 4) China and India should get to work on that.



Everyone should.  You know as well as I that the argument "we shouldn't do it till they do" is puerile idiocy.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> 5) How much would that help?



Not much, but every little bit helps.  Like nuclear.

So, we're down to:

1) Nuclear power
2) Wind, solar, geothermal, wave, tide, OTEC and other renewable sources
3) EV vehicles
4) Reduce soot emissions

We were looking for intelligent, economical solutions.  Do you think these qualify?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 26, 2022)

Crick said:


> We were looking for intelligent, economical solutions. Do you think these qualify?


fk no, still waiting on the what we're fixing.


----------



## Crick (Aug 26, 2022)

jc456 said:


> fk no, still waiting on the what we're fixing.


Try holding your breath.  That is certain to make it hurry along.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 26, 2022)

Crick said:


> Try holding your breath.  That is certain to make it hurry along.


So you can’t even define the problem?

And it, whatever, is catastrophic, but you can’t define it! So no it?


----------



## Crick (Aug 26, 2022)

jc456 said:


> So you can’t even define the problem?
> 
> And it, whatever, is catastrophic, but you can’t define it! So no it?


Have you failed to notice that NO ONE that's been here for more than five minutes wants to talk with you?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 26, 2022)

Crick said:


> Have you failed to notice that NO ONE that's been here for more than five minutes wants to talk with you?


their  loss.  Again, so you have nothing on what we're trying to correct?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2022)

Crick said:


> You are absolutely right.  Let's call that #6
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*
The same way we've been doing it all along.*

Poorly and at great expense.

*You know as well as I that the argument "we shouldn't do it till they do" is puerile idiocy.*

Spending trillions to cut 5 while India adds 6 and China adds 10 is idiocy.
Expensive, wasteful idiocy. Which is kind of a liberal specialty.

*We were looking for intelligent, economical solutions.  Do you think these qualify?*

Depends on how much they cost. 
And on how far away we can keep the liberal idiots away from it.


----------



## Crick (Aug 26, 2022)

So, you don't really want to talk about any of this.  Fine.  Have a nice fucking day Todd.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2022)

Crick said:


> So, you don't really want to talk about any of this.  Fine.  Have a nice fucking day Todd.



Good solutions that cost way too much, aren't good.
Spending trillions to reduce projected temps in 2100 by 0.1 degrees, isn't good.
But you keep whining.


----------



## Crick (Aug 28, 2022)

But you never provided a single word about the cost of any of the solutions I listed.  Neither did you make any attempt to compare the cost of these solution versus the cost of doing nothing (your solution).  If you'd like me to stop whining, have the fucking balls to actually put something out for discussion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2022)

Crick said:


> But you never provided a single word about the cost of any of the solutions I listed.  Neither did you make any attempt to compare the cost of these solution versus the cost of doing nothing (your solution).  If you'd like me to stop whining, have the fucking balls to actually put something out for discussion.



*But you never provided a single word about the cost of any of the solutions I listed.*

Neither did you.

But see, I asked........

*We were looking for intelligent, economical solutions. Do you think these qualify?*

Depends on how much they cost.


*Neither did you make any attempt to compare the cost of these solution versus the cost of doing nothing (your solution)*

Neither did you.

Before you started stomping your feet.

* If you'd like me to stop whining, *

That's impossible.


----------



## Crick (Aug 28, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *But you never provided a single word about the cost of any of the solutions I listed.*
> 
> Neither did you.
> 
> ...


Right then, you win.  And everyone loses.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2022)

Crick said:


> Right then, you win.  And everyone loses.



Not stupidly wasting trillions on less reliable energy is a win for everyone.
Our children and grandchildren will thank us for the larger more robust economy 
we leave them.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 28, 2022)

Crick said:


> But you never provided a single word about the cost of any of the solutions I listed


Funny, did you?


----------



## Crick (Aug 29, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Not stupidly wasting trillions on less reliable energy is a win for everyone.
> Our children and grandchildren will thank us for the larger more robust economy
> we leave them.


I bet they don't.  Their won't be enough money to fix what ails them.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2022)

Crick said:


> I bet they don't.  Their won't be enough money to fix what ails them.



More money than if we wasted it all on crappy wind turbines.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 29, 2022)

Crick said:


> I bet they don't.  Their won't be enough money to fix what ails them.


what will ail them?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2022)

jc456 said:


> what will ail them?



Weather.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 29, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Weather.


No way?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2022)

jc456 said:


> No way?



We could stop it, but we need trillions.
It'll all be better. Promise.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 29, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> We could stop it, but we need trillions.
> It'll all be better. Promise.


That doesn’t sound very bright! Don’t we like need water?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2022)

jc456 said:


> That doesn’t sound very bright! Don’t we like need water?



We should probably drink less.......to save the planet.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 29, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> We should probably drink less.......to save the planet.


But when all of our poop ends up on the lawns won’t methane gas increase? Methane is far worse I heard.


----------



## Crick (Sep 14, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> More money than if we wasted it all on crappy wind turbines.


How is it that someone as seemingly interested in financial restraint doesn't see the value in an energy source with zero fuel costs?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 14, 2022)

Crick said:


> How is it that someone as seemingly interested in financial restraint doesn't see the value in an energy source with zero fuel costs?


so these products just exist by a snap of a finger?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2022)

Crick said:


> How is it that someone as seemingly interested in financial restraint doesn't see the value in an energy source with zero fuel costs?



How can someone who "knows" so much about science be so damn clueless when it comes to economics?


----------



## Crick (Sep 14, 2022)

What clue have I missed Todd?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2022)

Crick said:


> What clue have I missed Todd?



Economically, I'd say all of them.


----------



## Crick (Sep 15, 2022)

The cost of the fuel used by a fossil-fueled powerplant during the course of its lifetime dwarfs all other capital expenditures the facility requires.  It is idiocy to claim that an oil or gas powered plant is economically more efficient than solar or wind or any other renewable technology.








						Majority of New Renewables Undercut Cheapest Fossil Fuel on Cost
					

Countries urged to power past coal as new report confirms renewables would bring cost savings of USD 156 billion to emerging economies.




					www.irena.org
				











						Renewable Power Remains Cost-Competitive amid Fossil Fuel Crisis
					

New IRENA report shows almost two-thirds of renewable power added in 2021 had lower costs than the cheapest coal-fired options in G20 countries.




					www.irena.org
				





			https://unfccc.int/news/renewable-power-remains-cost-competitive-amid-fossil-fuel-crisis
		









						Renewable Energy Prices Hit Record Lows: How Can Utilities Benefit From Unstoppable Solar And Wind?
					

If falling prices have made renewable energy unstoppable in the U.S., what does that mean for utilities? If the question is determined by smart policy, the answer may be financial opportunity.




					www.forbes.com
				











						Renewables are increasingly cheaper than coal
					

Renewables are becoming more and more cost-effective than fossil fuels, which means not only are they saving the planet, but saving money too.




					www.weforum.org


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2022)

Crick said:


> The cost of the fuel used by a fossil-fueled powerplant during the course of its lifetime dwarfs all other capital expenditures the facility requires.  It is idiocy to claim that an oil or gas powered plant is economically more efficient than solar or wind or any other renewable technology.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Before we talk about "free fuel", let's take a look at a more simplistic idea 
from one of my favorite simplistic Dims...err...Dems.

AOC wanted to retrofit every building and home in the U.S. so they can be “energy-efficient.”

Is that a good idea?

If you spent $500 to better insulate your house to save $500 a year in fuel, that would be a no-brainer, like AOC.

After 1 year, you'll have replenished that $500 in your bank account and every year after that
you get $500 of "free money" from the savings. That'd be a great idea. Right?

Now, what if the cost was $30,000. Is that still a good idea?


----------



## ReinyDays (Sep 15, 2022)

Crick said:


> How is it that someone as seemingly interested in financial restraint doesn't see the value in an energy source with zero fuel costs?



That's only true for wind mills wholly subsidized by government tax dollars ... especially property tax forgiveness ... on the Oregon side, the Columbia Gorge Wind Farm is paying full taxes on their appraised value, which is based on gross revenue ... add maintenance and margins and wind power isn't free ... it competitive where the wind blows, but not free ...


----------



## jc456 (Sep 15, 2022)

Crick said:


> How is it that someone as seemingly interested in financial restraint doesn't see the value in an energy source with zero fuel costs?


how are they made?  again, you think you snap and there it is like I dream of Jeannie?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2022)

jc456 said:


> how are they made?  again, you think you snap and there it is like I dream of Jeannie?







Jeannie caused all sorts of global warming!


----------



## Crick (Sep 18, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> View attachment 696623
> 
> Jeannie caused all sorts of global warming!


In my personal experience the warming was quite localized, though intense.


----------



## Crick (Sep 20, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> That's only true for wind mills wholly subsidized by government tax dollars ... especially property tax forgiveness ... on the Oregon side, the Columbia Gorge Wind Farm is paying full taxes on their appraised value, which is based on gross revenue ... add maintenance and margins and wind power isn't free ... it competitive where the wind blows, but not free ...


I didn't say the energy was free, but the fuel is and being so is of enormous value.  Besides wind turbines, fuel is free for solar, tidal, wave-powered, hydroelectric and geothermal technologies.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 20, 2022)

Crick said:


> In my personal experience the warming was quite localized, though intense.


did you thank Jeannie?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 20, 2022)

Crick said:


> I didn't say the energy was free, but the fuel is and being so is of enormous value.  Besides wind turbines, fuel is free for solar, tidal, wave-powered, hydroelectric and geothermal technologies.


you said it was cheap and then ran away from defining what you meant by cheap.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2022)

Crick said:


> I didn't say the energy was free, but the fuel is and being so is of enormous value.  Besides wind turbines, fuel is free for solar, tidal, wave-powered, hydroelectric and geothermal technologies.



Solar is free, relatively diffuse and kind of inconsistent.


----------



## Crick (Sep 21, 2022)

Would you like to compare the fuel cost for a 100 MW solar farm to the fuel cost for a 100 MW natural gas power plant over a 20 year lifetime?

According to Gas Consumption per 1 MW - BBN World the gas to produce 1 MWHr would cost $49.  So, our plant would cost $4,900/hour.   There are 8,760 hours in a year, so that's $429,240/year.  Over 20 years that would be $8,584,800.  Fuel costs for the solar farm would be zero.  How's that look to you?  Does it look like something you could ignore because it seems to irk you that we should use anything other than petroleum?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2022)

Crick said:


> Would you like to compare the fuel cost for a 100 MW solar farm to the fuel cost for a 100 MW natural gas power plant over a 20 year lifetime?
> 
> According to Gas Consumption per 1 MW - BBN World the gas to produce 1 MWHr would cost $49.  So, our plant would cost $4,900/hour.   There are 8,760 hours in a year, so that's $429,240/year.  Over 20 years that would be $8,584,800.  Fuel costs for the solar farm would be zero.  How's that look to you?  Does it look like something you could ignore because it seems to irk you that we should use anything other than petroleum?



So when the natural gas plant is producing power at midnight, how is the solar farm producing power? Or do we shut everything down when the sun sets?


----------



## Billo_Really (Sep 21, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> Too many threads are ending up with the same 20 page discussion between a small fraction of the members that read Enviro topics.. Every rule and design of USMB moderation is there to get UNIQUE TOPICAL discussion of specific events and topics as laid out in the Opening Posts. *No one wants to wade thru the same fillibustering arguments that atmospheric physics and the GHouse effect is all wrong.*.  And they violate the "on-topic" rules at USMB..
> 
> That's what this thread is for.. CONTAIN those rodeos in THIS thread or start your own threads on whatever you deny.... *DON'T hijack other specific topics.*.  Members and visitors will appreciate your cooperation...
> 
> Go have your sideline debates about this topic HERE.. The topic is clearly spelled out in the title of this thread...


Arguing against climate change is like saying gravity plays no role in plane crashes. It is that stupid!


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 21, 2022)

Billo_Really said:


> Arguing against climate change is like saying gravity plays no role in plane crashes. It is that stupid!



The purpose of this thread was to call-out folks who were clinging to UNscientific and screwy arguments that violate basic physics and thermodynamics.

But there CERTAINLY IS a very good scientific case for claiming the current and future effects of the OBSERVED and recorded Global Warming are GROSSLY exaggerated by the media, politicians and certain "activists in labcoats" in the scientific community.

How much has the Earth warmed in your lifetime?  Probably a little over 0.6DegC.  Has the RATE of warming drastically increased as predicted 35 years ago?  No. Will the temperature anomaly in 2100 be the 6 to 10DegC that was INITIALLY claimed?  Not likely at all.

There IS a warming trend.  Man plays role in that. But after 35 years of this circus -- the pants peeing predictions have ALL been refined downwards over the years.

This is WHY CC or GW gets little traction in public polls anymore and why you NO LONGER see DAILY or MONTHLY news articles on how we're all gonna die.  THOSE were here DAILY on USMB in this forum up to about 2010.  The Earth is not cooling, but the SCIENCE and heat of the arguments have been cooling for about 10 years now.


----------



## ReinyDays (Sep 21, 2022)

[sigh] ... I had such a witty and clever remark ... but Papa Flacaltenn is right ... this thread is for greenhouse denialism ... 



Spoiler



Gravity is always there pulling the airplane down ... it's the _*lack of lift*_ that causes them to crash ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> [sigh] ... I had such a witty and clever remark ... but Papa Flacaltenn is right ... this thread is for greenhouse denialism ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And backradiation denialism.


----------



## ReinyDays (Sep 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And backradiation denialism.



And gravity denialism ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> And gravity denialism ...



Clairvoyant photons.


----------



## ReinyDays (Sep 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Clairvoyant photons.



Stop ... I'm gonna pee my pants ...


----------



## Leo123 (Sep 21, 2022)

Crick said:


> Would you like to compare the fuel cost for a 100 MW solar farm to the fuel cost for a 100 MW natural gas power plant over a 20 year lifetime?
> 
> According to Gas Consumption per 1 MW - BBN World the gas to produce 1 MWHr would cost $49.  So, our plant would cost $4,900/hour.   There are 8,760 hours in a year, so that's $429,240/year.  Over 20 years that would be $8,584,800.  Fuel costs for the solar farm would be zero.  How's that look to you?  Does it look like something you could ignore because it seems to irk you that we should use anything other than petroleum?


The cost of gas is 0 too, if you ignore the infrastructure to produce it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Stop ... I'm gonna pee my pants ...



It was turtles all the way down.


----------



## ReinyDays (Sep 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It was turtles all the way down.



Goddamit ... I just reupholstered this chair ...


----------



## Crick (Sep 22, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> The cost of gas is 0 too, if you ignore the infrastructure to produce it.


Can I watch while you tell that to your local gas station?  And are you suggesting that infrastructure is required to produce sunlight, wind, tides, waves and the internal heat of the planet?


----------



## Billo_Really (Sep 22, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> The purpose of this thread was to call-out folks who were clinging to UNscientific and screwy arguments that violate basic physics and thermodynamics.
> 
> But there CERTAINLY IS a very good scientific case for claiming the current and future effects of the OBSERVED and recorded Global Warming are GROSSLY exaggerated by the media, politicians and certain "activists in labcoats" in the scientific community.
> 
> ...


My metaphor was right on the money! The mountain of evidence and over 96% of the scientific community, says you're wrong!  This topic is NOT a debatable issue.


----------



## Leo123 (Sep 22, 2022)

Crick said:


> Can I watch while you tell that to your local gas station?  And are you suggesting that infrastructure is required to produce sunlight, wind, tides, waves and the internal heat of the planet?


It costs $$$ for infrastructure.  The fuel is just sitting there in the ground, in the wind, in the water, in the sunlight.  Funny you think energy is free.


----------



## ReinyDays (Sep 22, 2022)

Billo_Really said:


> My metaphor was right on the money! The mountain of evidence and over 96% of the scientific community, says you're wrong!  This topic is NOT a debatable issue.



That leaves the 4% of scientists who actually specialize in fluid mechanics ... why do you think a single degree is a "mountain"? ... is this even perceptable by an individual human being ... or do we need expensive equipment to see any changes at all? ... 

Why do you think 1.8 W/m^2 is enough power for any of these catastrophic predictions? ...


----------



## Billo_Really (Sep 22, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> That leaves the 4% of scientists who actually specialize in fluid mechanics ... why do you think a single degree is a "mountain"? ... is this even perceptable by an individual human being ... or do we need expensive equipment to see any changes at all? ...
> 
> Why do you think 1.8 W/m^2 is enough power for any of these catastrophic predictions? ...


Shut up! Fuck off! Go to hell! This is not a debatable issue.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 22, 2022)

Billo_Really said:


> My metaphor was right on the money! The mountain of evidence and over 96% of the scientific community, says you're wrong!  This topic is NOT a debatable issue.



OF COURSE it's debatable.  Science doesn't have a vote. And by MY COUNT -- the number of GW papers being published revising OLD projections DOWN -- far outnumber those saying "we're killing the planet" by 2100.

Your phony ass consensus is on ONE STUPID QUESTION. *You dont get a consensus on a topic this large and complex by asking ONE QUESTION. ME -- MYSELF probably AGREES  with your "single stupid consensus question *-- but that's FAR from what's necessary to PREDICT future temperature, weather conditions 50 or 100 years out.

And "your consensus" didn't ASK A SCIENTIST a single question.  They read abstracts of studies for key words and then ADDED ALL THE STUDIES THAT DIDN'T CONTAIN ANY to their "positive consensus number".  It's fraud basically.  The dudes pushing this "consensus" shit are former CARTOONISTS and political science majors.

I'll never steer ya wrong. There's no such thing as "settled science".  Not even simple shit like "should I place my baby on their back/side/stomach to sleep"???


----------



## ReinyDays (Sep 22, 2022)

Just to be clear ... the consensus view in the Royal Society of England in 1859 was that God created Man ... and discussion to the contrary was heresy and an imprisonable crime ... Queen Victoria was also Head-of-Church (_de jure_) ... her opinion was the consensus ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 22, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Just to be clear ... the consensus view in the Royal Society of England in 1859 was that God created Man ... and discussion to the contrary was heresy and an imprisonable crime ... Queen Victoria was also Head-of-Church (_de jure_) ... her opinion was the consensus ...



Works for me.


----------



## ReinyDays (Sep 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Works for me.



Consensus is a philosophical conclusion ... and is very useful ... but science requires demonstration ... and as Papa Flacaltenn points out, the experimental data that's been coming in has all pointed to more conservative resolutions of these models ...


----------



## Billo_Really (Sep 23, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> OF COURSE it's debatable.  Science doesn't have a vote. And by MY COUNT -- the number of GW papers being published revising OLD projections DOWN -- far outnumber those saying "we're killing the planet" by 2100.
> 
> Your phony ass consensus is on ONE STUPID QUESTION. *You dont get a consensus on a topic this large and complex by asking ONE QUESTION. ME -- MYSELF probably AGREES  with your "single stupid consensus question *-- but that's FAR from what's necessary to PREDICT future temperature, weather conditions 50 or 100 years out.
> 
> ...


This is a stupid thread and you have a stupid argument.  The only scientists you have on your side are FOSSIL FUEL WHORES!


----------



## ReinyDays (Sep 23, 2022)

Billo_Really said:


> You brought the wrong kind of flowers.



Hey STUPID ... "flowers" is the Biblical term for menstruation ... illiterate much? ...


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 23, 2022)

Billo_Really said:


> This is a stupid thread and you have a stupid argument.  The only scientists you have on your side are FOSSIL FUEL WHORES!



Try me. *But I DOUBT you even KNOW what the "one stupid question" your beloved consensus asked.* GW is a COUPLE HUNDRED questions to verify.  Most inter-disciplinary science on planet.  Everyone from squid experts to tree ring readers are "GW scientists.


----------



## Billo_Really (Sep 24, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> Try me. *But I DOUBT you even KNOW what the "one stupid question" your beloved consensus asked.* GW is a COUPLE HUNDRED questions to verify.  Most inter-disciplinary science on planet.  Everyone from squid experts to tree ring readers are "GW scientists.


If you were right, you wouldn't be making up excuses to silence the opposition.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 24, 2022)

Billo_Really said:


> If you were right, you wouldn't be making up excuses to silence the opposition.



It's the DISSENT that has been muzzled for DECADES.  Virtual BLACKOUT of news, new studies that DOWNGRADE the potency of GW. Authors BLACKBALLED.

Who's silencing the minions of morons SCREAMING about GW?  It's full speed ahead on follies like worldwide ESG programs, killing fossil fuels without having viable alternatives and SCREAMING Scandinavian kidlet --- Greta Thuneberg becoming "person of the year" for YELLING at the world about not doing enough-- fast enough at the UN. 

Are YOU being silenced?  Would be kinda weird since I haven't heard you argue any science here.


----------



## Billo_Really (Sep 25, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> It's the DISSENT that has been muzzled for DECADES.  Virtual BLACKOUT of news, new studies that DOWNGRADE the potency of GW. Authors BLACKBALLED.
> 
> Who's silencing the minions of morons SCREAMING about GW?  It's full speed ahead on follies like worldwide ESG programs, killing fossil fuels without having viable alternatives and SCREAMING Scandinavian kidlet --- Greta Thuneberg becoming "person of the year" for YELLING at the world about not doing enough-- fast enough at the UN.
> 
> Are YOU being silenced?  Would be kinda weird since I haven't heard you argue any science here.


You don't need climate models or experts telling you what is going on, you can see it with your own eyes. Greenland, Alaska, Antarctica, all show you are FOS!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> The cost of the fuel used by a fossil-fueled powerplant during the course of its lifetime dwarfs all other capital expenditures the facility requires.  It is idiocy to claim that an oil or gas powered plant is economically more efficient than solar or wind or any other renewable technology.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Before we talk about "free fuel", let's take a look at a more simplistic idea
from one of my favorite simplistic Dims...err...Dems.

AOC wanted to retrofit every building and home in the U.S. so they can be “energy-efficient.”

Is that a good idea?

If you spent $500 to better insulate your house to save $500 a year in fuel, that would be a no-brainer, like AOC.

After 1 year, you'll have replenished that $500 in your bank account and every year after that
you get $500 of "free money" from the savings. That'd be a great idea. Right?

Now, what if the cost was $30,000. Is that still a good idea?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2022)

Crick said:


> Would you like to compare the fuel cost for a 100 MW solar farm to the fuel cost for a 100 MW natural gas power plant over a 20 year lifetime?
> 
> According to Gas Consumption per 1 MW - BBN World the gas to produce 1 MWHr would cost $49.  So, our plant would cost $4,900/hour.   There are 8,760 hours in a year, so that's $429,240/year.  Over 20 years that would be $8,584,800.  Fuel costs for the solar farm would be zero.  How's that look to you?  Does it look like something you could ignore because it seems to irk you that we should use anything other than petroleum?


what happened in Germany then?









						Germany's 'Green' Energy Disaster Is A Warning To The United States
					

Germany’s energy problems are self-inflicted. Ours will be, as well, if we follow its lead in pursuing 'green' energy.




					thefederalist.com


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> OF COURSE it's debatable.  Science doesn't have a vote. And by MY COUNT -- the number of GW papers being published revising OLD projections DOWN -- far outnumber those saying "we're killing the planet" by 2100.
> 
> Your phony ass consensus is on ONE STUPID QUESTION. *You dont get a consensus on a topic this large and complex by asking ONE QUESTION. ME -- MYSELF probably AGREES  with your "single stupid consensus question *-- but that's FAR from what's necessary to PREDICT future temperature, weather conditions 50 or 100 years out.
> 
> ...


I'm still waiting for Michael Mann to show us his data.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Before we talk about "free fuel", let's take a look at a more simplistic idea
> from one of my favorite simplistic Dims...err...Dems.
> 
> AOC wanted to retrofit every building and home in the U.S. so they can be “energy-efficient.”
> ...


she wanted the tax payer to fund that 30k, and, that 30k is for every building in the nation.  I wonder what Ole Crick thinks that cost is.  I wonder if he'd still say it's free.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 26, 2022)

jc456 said:


> she wanted the tax payer to fund that 30k, and, that 30k is for every building in the nation.  I wonder what Ole Crick thinks that cost is.  I wonder if he'd still say it's free.



Libs aren't very strong when it comes to econ.


----------



## Crick (Sep 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Before we talk about "free fuel", let's take a look at a more simplistic idea
> from one of my favorite simplistic Dims...err...Dems.
> 
> AOC wanted to retrofit every building and home in the U.S. so they can be “energy-efficient.”
> ...


That's a question for a sixth grader Todd.  As I've pointed out here on multiple occasions, we are never going to come to an agreement because I value emission-free energy highly and you couldn't care less.  There's no point to this debate until we come to some understanding.  And it tickles me to see you discussing the shortcomings you claim to perceive among democrats with jc.  That's like getting Donald Trump's opinion on the value of honesty.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 26, 2022)

Crick said:


> That's a question for a sixth grader Todd.  As I've pointed out here on multiple occasions, we are never going to come to an agreement because I value emission-free energy highly and you couldn't care less.  There's no point to this debate until we come to some understanding.  And it tickles me to see you discussing the shortcomings you claim to perceive among democrats with jc.  That's like getting Donald Trump's opinion on the value of honesty.



*That's a question for a sixth grader Todd. *

That's perfect because it was a policy from a sixth grader.

*As I've pointed out here on multiple occasions, we are never going to come to an agreement because I value emission-free energy highly and you couldn't care less. *

If you have one that's cheaper than nat gas or nuclear, post it.

*There's no point to this debate until we come to some understanding. *

As soon as you take those econ classes, we can talk more as equals.

* it tickles me to see you discussing the shortcomings you claim to perceive among democrats with jc*

Well, he seems to have a better grasp of the economics. Then again pretty much everyone does.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 26, 2022)

Billo_Really said:


> You don't need climate models or experts telling you what is going on, you can see it with your own eyes. Greenland, Alaska, Antarctica, all show you are FOS!



Hey Billo -- I'm kinda patient and not easily triggered. Just want you to look up something.

Go read about Antartica and "volcanic fissures" under the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. This is NEW GLOBAL WARNING science since about 2006 or so.  Where they FINALLY MAPPED many ACTIVE underwater fissures at the FOOT of the massive glaciers that are rolling quicker into the sea.

*We COULD see devastation from loss of that coastal glacier support.*  BUT the CAUSE WOULD NOT LIKELY BE from a 1DegC temp rise in 100 years when there is a TOASTER OVEN under the coastal FOOTINGS of those glaciers. 

The science aint settled and there's 20 years or MORE OF BAD SCIENCE that will just hang out like zombies on the web forever.


----------



## Billo_Really (Sep 27, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> Hey Billo -- I'm kinda patient and not easily triggered. Just want you to look up something.
> 
> Go read about Antartica and "volcanic fissures" under the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. This is NEW GLOBAL WARNING science since about 2006 or so.  Where they FINALLY MAPPED many ACTIVE underwater fissures at the FOOT of the massive glaciers that are rolling quicker into the sea.
> 
> ...


Dude, I will concede you present a very good and sincere argument and I applaud you for that.  I will do as you ask and read about "volcanic fissures".  We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this issue, my friend.


----------



## Crick (Sep 28, 2022)

flacaltenn said:


> Hey Billo -- I'm kinda patient and not easily triggered. Just want you to look up something.
> 
> Go read about Antartica and "volcanic fissures" under the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. This is NEW GLOBAL WARNING science since about 2006 or so.  Where they FINALLY MAPPED many ACTIVE underwater fissures at the FOOT of the massive glaciers that are rolling quicker into the sea.
> 
> ...


I'm wondering how, if dozens of such fissures are now melting the WAIS ice shelf, how that ice shelf ever developed in the first place.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 28, 2022)

Crick said:


> I'm wondering how, if dozens of such fissures are now melting the WAIS ice shelf, how that ice shelf ever developed in the first place.


Derp, there weren't fissures then?  I mean, you really aren't very bright.


----------



## Crick (Sep 30, 2022)

Crick said:


> I'm wondering how, if dozens of such fissures are now melting the WAIS ice shelf, how that ice shelf ever developed in the first place.


This was intended as a serious question.  The amount of time necessary for the WAIS ice shelf and the Pine and Thwaites glaciers to develop has to be hundreds of thousands of years.  And while a single volcano can lie dormant for a thousand years, the odds of the dozens or even hundreds of fissures you claim to have been discovered under the ice all remaining dormant for that length of time and now all becoming active just beggars belief.  Do you have a response?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2022)

Crick said:


> This was intended as a serious question.  The amount of time necessary for the WAIS ice shelf and the Pine and Thwaites glaciers to develop has to be hundreds of thousands of years.  And while a single volcano can lie dormant for a thousand years, the odds of the dozens or even hundreds of fissures you claim to have been discovered under the ice all remaining dormant for that length of time and now all becoming active just beggars belief.  Do you have a response?


more evidence you haven't a clue.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2022)

Billo_Really said:


> You don't need climate models or experts telling you what is going on, you can see it with your own eyes. Greenland, Alaska, Antarctica, all show you are FOS!


what is it you think you see?


----------



## Crick (Sep 30, 2022)

Crick said:


> This was intended as a serious question.  The amount of time necessary for the WAIS ice shelf and the Pine and Thwaites glaciers to develop has to be hundreds of thousands of years.  And while a single volcano can lie dormant for a thousand years, the odds of the dozens or even hundreds of fissures you claim to have been discovered under the ice all remaining dormant for that length of time and now all becoming active just beggars belief.  *FCT, Do you have a response?*



jc456, I suspect that you hold the USMB record for the number of people that have you on IGNORE.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2022)

Crick said:


> jc456, I suspect that you hold the USMB record for the number of people that have you on IGNORE.


You act like that would bother me.  That merely says you can't debate.


----------



## Crick (Sep 30, 2022)

jc456 said:


> You act like that would bother me.  That merely says you can't debate.


It's not me fool, I AM debating you.  It's everyone else.  No one wants to talk to you, even those with similar viewpoints.  

So, let's get down to brass tacks.  Do you accept the process of greenhouse warming?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2022)

Crick said:


> It's not me fool, I AM debating you.  It's everyone else.  No one wants to talk to you, even those with similar viewpoints.
> 
> So, let's get down to brass tacks.  Do you accept the process of greenhouse warming?


same goes for them.  I will not sit idly by while idiots poop in here about subjects they can't back up personally.  Can't debate, then I don't need to discuss with them.  If you're going to say something is cheaper, prove how it is.  To date, not one poster has.  Why are all you warmers afraid to back your claims.  Educate me.


----------



## Crick (Sep 30, 2022)

jc456 said:


> same goes for them.  I will not sit idly by while idiots poop in here about subjects they can't back up personally.  Can't debate, then I don't need to discuss with them.  If you're going to say something is cheaper, prove how it is.  To date, not one poster has.  Why are all you warmers afraid to back your claims.  Educate me.


Do you accept the validity of the theory of greenhouse warming?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2022)

Crick said:


> Do you accept the validity of the theory of greenhouse warming?


no, it's never been proven.  When you can tell me how warm 120 PPM of CO2 is then I would ask to show that experiment.  It's called science.


----------



## Billo_Really (Sep 30, 2022)

jc456 said:


> what is it you think you see?


I see a bullshit thread with a bunch of fossil fuel whores arguing about a non-debatable issue!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2022)

Billo_Really said:


> I see a bullshit thread with a bunch of fossil fuel whores arguing about a non-debatable issue!



When did you stop using fossil fuels?


----------



## Crick (Sep 30, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> When did you stop using fossil fuels?


I assume you believe that murder is wrong.  When did you stop killing cockroaches, stepping blithely on ants, eating beef, pork, chicken and fish?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2022)

Crick said:


> I assume you believe that murder is wrong.  When did you stop killing cockroaches, stepping blithely on ants, eating beef, pork, chicken and fish?



When did you hear me say eating beef, pork, chicken and fish was wrong?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2022)

Billo_Really said:


> I see a bullshit thread with a bunch of fossil fuel whores arguing about a non-debatable issue!


Surrender huh?


----------



## Billo_Really (Oct 1, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Surrender huh?


Care to be more succinct?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 1, 2022)

Billo_Really said:


> Care to be more succinct?


You don’t know surrender? Wow


----------



## Crick (Oct 2, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> When did you hear me say eating beef, pork, chicken and fish was wrong?


And the cockroaches?  How about germs?  Think of the mass murder that one antibiotic dose causes.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 2, 2022)

Crick said:


> And the cockroaches?  How about germs?  Think of the mass murder that one antibiotic dose causes.


You got me, now you indeed confuse me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 2, 2022)

Crick said:


> And the cockroaches?  How about germs?  Think of the mass murder that one antibiotic dose causes.



If you and Greta want to eat cockroaches to save the planet, have at it.
And you should definitely stop using antibiotics.


----------



## Crick (Oct 2, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If you and Greta want to eat cockroaches to save the planet, have at it.
> And you should definitely stop using antibiotics.


Let's get back to where this started.  You want to claim that we don't actually believe AGW because we still use fossil fuels.  I was simply pointing out the failure in your logic attempting such a claim.  I appreciate all the witty comebacks, but your logic still fails.  AGW is valid, is very, very widely accepted by climate scientists and scientists in general.  It IS falsifiable but no one has yet done so and until they have, it is the best explanation for the warming observed since 1850.  That warming is a serious threat to the welfare of every human on this planet and we need to act to forestall the worst case scenario that you seem inexplicably intent on experiencing first hand.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 2, 2022)

Crick said:


> Let's get back to where this started.  You want to claim that we don't actually believe AGW because we still use fossil fuels.  I was simply pointing out the failure in your logic attempting such a claim.  I appreciate all the witty comebacks, but your logic still fails.  AGW is valid, is very, very widely accepted by climate scientists and scientists in general.  It IS falsifiable but no one has yet done so and until they have, it is the best explanation for the warming observed since 1850.  That warming is a serious threat to the welfare of every human on this planet and we need to act to forestall the worst case scenario that you seem inexplicably intent on experiencing first hand.



*You want to claim that we don't actually believe AGW because we still use fossil fuels.*

Nope. Let's get back to where this started.  




This idiot says it's a non-debatable issue.

I asked when he stopped using fossil fuels.
And you started asking about murder? LOL!

Was _that_ supposed to be witty?

*That warming is a serious threat to the welfare of every human on this planet *

Every human? Kind of a broad claim. Any evidence?

Would outlawing all fossil fuels, today, threaten the welfare of every human on this planet?


----------



## abu afak (Oct 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *That warming is a serious threat to the welfare of every human on this planet *
> Every human? Kind of a broad claim. Any evidence?
> Would outlawing all fossil fuels, today, threaten the welfare of every human on this planet?


This is the constant/dishonest/disingenuous quipping you do.
Instead of dealing with the issue at hand you strawmanned Crick.
You capitalized on his imperfect superlative "Every" instead of dealing with .. many/most.

You then used another strawman "outlawing all fossil fuels on the planet today," (not suggested) instead of dealing with if merely Reducing them would be helpful in preventing such warming.
Which is also Dishonest strawmanning.

Why can't you just state your position on GW/AGW (or cooling if you think so), and what you would do, or not. and why.
Instead you one-line TROLL people/play wise guy all day every day
Try and be an Adult/Mensch instead of Denis the Menace.
`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 5, 2022)

abu afak said:


> This is the constant/dishonest/disingenuous quipping you do.
> Instead of dealing with the issue at hand you strawmanned Crick.
> You capitalized on his imperfect superlative "Every" instead of dealing with .. many/most.
> 
> ...



*Instead of dealing with the issue at hand you strawmanned Crick.
You capitalized on his imperfect superlative "Every" instead of dealing with .. many/most.*

He said "every human on this planet".
I repeated "every human".
How is that a strawman?
*
You then used another strawman "outlawing all fossil fuels on the planet today," (not suggested) instead of dealing with if merely Reducing them would be helpful in preventing such warming.*

If, as he claimed,  "every human on this planet" is threatened, why isn't he suggesting  "outlawing all fossil fuels on the planet today"?

*Why can't you just state your position on GW/AGW (or cooling if you think so), and what you would do, or not. and why.*


Is the planet warming? Yes. Is it at least partially our fault? Sure.
Do I think we need to outlaw ICE cars and build $76 trillion worth of windmills and solar panels? Nope!

If you want to increase the percentage of "renewable" to 50% to 80%, you
should be pushing for an expansion of nuclear. Because with the unreliability of wind and solar, we're going to need a lot more reliable, large scale power. Not a few tiny, expensive batteries that will give us an hour or two of power.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 5, 2022)

abu afak said:


> This is the constant/dishonest/disingenuous quipping you do.
> Instead of dealing with the issue at hand you strawmanned Crick.
> You capitalized on his imperfect superlative "Every" instead of dealing with .. many/most.
> 
> ...



Funny coming from someone who regularly posts in bad-faith ... strawman is your specialty ... 

The Liar said "every human" ... you say "many/most" ... I challenge you to ID just one person who's been effected by climate change ... better yet, tell us where the person is and how the climate has changed ... we've already seen a single degree temperature raise, what has changed? ... the IPCC predicts just one more degree of temperature rise, how will that change climate? ...

You didn't answer before, you won't answer today ... you will never answer ... I guess you are an expert at dishonest postings, you're one of the best here ...


----------



## Crick (Oct 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You want to claim that we don't actually believe AGW because we still use fossil fuels.*
> 
> Nope. Let's get back to where this started.
> 
> ...


No.  It was supposed to show you the error of your logic.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *That warming is a serious threat to the welfare of every human on this planet *
> 
> Every human? Kind of a broad claim. Any evidence?


Every human.  See https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Would outlawing all fossil fuels, today, threaten the welfare of every human on this planet?



No.  But then, no one is trying to do so.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 5, 2022)

Crick said:


> No. But then, no one is trying to do so


So xiden lied?


----------



## abu afak (Oct 5, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Funny coming from someone who regularly posts in bad-faith ... strawman is your specialty ...
> 
> The Liar said "every human" ... you say "many/most" ... I challenge you to ID just one person who's been effected by climate change ... better yet, tell us where the person is and how the climate has changed ... we've already seen a single degree temperature raise, what has changed? ... the IPCC predicts just one more degree of temperature rise, how will that change climate? ...
> 
> You didn't answer before, you won't answer today ... you will never answer ... I guess you are an expert at dishonest postings, you're one of the best here ...


1. Show me my "regular bad faith posts!"
What!
I pour my brains and sincerity in my posts and I have more of each than anyone here.
*What an effing Lie. No one puts more effort/Meat in his post than me.*

2. I  SAID: ""You capitalized on his imperfect superlative "Every" instead of dealing with .. many/most.""
I admitted he made an error with "everyone" but that doesn't blunt his GIST.
*Superlatives like 'all, 'every,' 'none,' ALMOST 'always' get a poster in trouble.*
Easy strawmanning to shoot them down.

2a. But of course Virtually everyone has been affected and will increasingly be.
Climate is long term [warmer] weather which IS warming the planet.
*You really want me to post the well known 150 year Temp chart to say we've all been definitely affected?*
Winters, ie, are shorter worldwide, etc
I've posted many examples that have happened in just my lifetime.
ie,
Yes there may be "some" places where this isn't true but 150 year of Average Global Temp says it is "Basically" true everywhere
ie, my...





						A Warming Climate Brings New Crops to Frigid Zones
					

This from the Wall Street Journal. Corn and other crops moving North... along with Land Values.  BTW a temporary cyclical cooling due to solar Minimum, does NOT negate AGW, which will make it less severe, and AGW driven by Greenhouse Gases, will continue both along side AND After that Minimum...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				



or again the WSJ





						WSJ: How Extreme Heat is Disrupting the Global Economy.
					

The planet is roasting this summer from USA to Europe to Asia. And globally/the planet Warming for DECADES.  Our Largest Reservoir - Lake Mead - is drying up. London hit 104° last week (shut down the Railways and melted roofs), Portland Oregon will hit 104° Today. UK has little AC. Crops are...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				



or yet again (3rd) from the NOT liberal WSJ






						2020 Ties for Hottest Year on Record, NASA Says (Nullfying 10,000 "it's cold this morning" posts here)
					

Rising temperatures last year capped the world’s warmest decade in modern times, federal climate scientists said Thursday.  In a new climate study, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ranked 2020 in a dead heat with 2016 as the warmest year since official record-keeping began in...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				



"...NASA and NOAA scientists labeled 2020 a year of extremes, *driven by rising levels of Greenhouse Gases such as carbon dioxide and methane that trap heat in the atmosphere. *- At times last year, the Arctic averaged 12 degrees Fahrenheit above normal, with some spots hitting temperatures of up to 100 degrees Fahrenheit. *Record wildfires in the U.S. and Australia burned millions of acres and spewed smoke plumes high into the stratosphere.* There were more named Atlantic storms than ever before. Heat building up...""​​​Or another recent thread of Lesh​







						Time Is Running Out “To Secure A Liveable And Sustainable Future,” Climate Scientists Warn
					

“Scientific evidence is unequivocal: Climate change is a threat to human well-being and planetary health,” concludes the report.




					www.buzzfeednews.com
				


​"...The planet has already warmed 1.1 degrees Celsius compared to preindustrial levels, and the associated climate impacts are already worse than scientists had predicted, even as recently as 2014 when the previous Fifth Assessment Report was published.​This was “one of the most striking conclusions in our report,” said Camille Parmesan of the University of Texas at Austin, a report lead author, in a briefing for reporters. She then went on to list some *things that have already happened but weren’t expected for current warming levels: diseases emerging into new areas, such as forests in North America; the first extinctions of species due to climate change; and the mass mortality of trees and animals with droughts and heat waves...*​
​*3. YOU ARE A LIAR.*​
I CAN and HAVE ANSWERED ANY Good Faith QUESTION PUT TO ME. (not every jc456, ding, toddster one-line troll)​*Call it bravado if you like, but I am proud of my positions and how I arrived at them/why I have them.*​​I use the best sources: oft NASA, NOAA, etc, or other Great ones in ie, *the most Crucial Issue:*​*ie, using NASA, Yale, Columbia, etc.*​




						How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?
					

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural "it goes up, it goes down" but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.  About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds) Search Results Web results  How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				


*as well as explaining it in my own words.*​​Be glad to answer more.​*UNLIKE VIRTUALLY any Cherry-Picking Chart Clown on the other side... of reality.*​​My position is obvious and I have stated it outright.​I believe Human caused 70-120% AGW but due to Political consideration we can't stop it.​*This country is doing a Great Job! *​
*I can hardly believe how strong the move to renewable power and EVs is happening. (because we ARE the most responsive capitalists)*​*It has been AOC's GND withOUT any legislation, mostly, as I've said because Renewables have gotten so much cheaper since I first heard the phrase "GND."*​But internationally I feel it's a lost cause even if we flattened CO2 at 410 PPM, it will keep warming for another century.​​Anything else?​*Just ask.*​*I answer ALL questions to the best of my ability.*​​4. We should have a thread where people like the OP here has to state his position instead of (like you) Snipe from one side at what they see/SNAKE are problems/Exceptions (with the basic truth). The OP could NOT do it when I asked in this very thread!!!!!! The exchange/my attempt is still back there. (he also thought it was cooling since 2008!!!)​*What is your position on GW/AGW/Cooling and why?*​​*5. We Have a Nine Year Thread (or BLOG) 'Skeptics are winning' (even denying GW) when in fact, it's warmed/Record warmed since it started! 2014-2021.*​*The Biggest JOKE on this JOKE of a RW TROLL message board.*​*But No RW mod here will stop that LIE with "this thread has run it's course" as they do to others.*​​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 5, 2022)

Crick said:


> No.  It was supposed to show you the error of your logic.
> 
> 
> Every human.  See https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf
> ...



*It was supposed to show you the error of your logic.*

By posting your own errors. Very sneaky!

*Every human. *

Why do you hate every human?


----------



## abu afak (Oct 5, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> *Funny coming from someone who regularly posts in bad-faith ... strawman is your specialty ...*


Reply #2 just the bad faith:
"Regular Bad Faith" by me???
You provided NO examples when challenged. Zero.
*You (were here) and Whiffed on my Long Post on the last page Lying Boy.*

Let's see how YOU do on response#2. Just Bad Faith.
YOUR Bad Faith. Not to mention impugning NOAA.
*I can only find ONE recent thread start for you and... it IS "Bad Faith." (or partisan stupid)*






						NOAA comes clean ...
					

NOAA has been posting the annual global temperature by late February or early March ... these new turbo-charged computers make this work easy ... so I was genuinely curious as to why they were taking so long this year ... well, now they have and it's bad news folks ...   Posted June 28th, 2022...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				






ReinyDays said:


> (7/4/22) NOAA has been posting the annual global temperature by late February or early March ...
> *This is just a single year drop ... or just a Seven Year Break from climbing temperatures ... if this is inexplicable, then we must admit we don't know very much about the climate system ... because CO2 emissions haven't taken a break ...*


That's odd because one of the highlights on the left side of YOUR LINK says

*The nine years from 2013 through 2021 rank among the 10 warmest years on record.*
What "7 year break"? The fact we had a spike year in 2016 (app matched in 2020) to interrupt basic climb before and after it?

Who posts in "Regular Bad Faith"?
You Hypocrite MFer!

`


----------



## Crick (Oct 18, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *It was supposed to show you the error of your logic.*
> 
> By posting your own errors. Very sneaky!
> 
> ...


Not one of your better repartees Todd.

These data are accepted by almost every scientist on this planet





And, interestingly, at the top of this figure you will see that the CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750 has culminated in approximately 2 Wcm-2 forcing which, all by itself, has produced approximately 1 centigrade degree of global warming.  This sounds like an answer to jc456's incessant whinging.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 18, 2022)

Crick said:


> Not one of your better repartees Todd.
> 
> These data are accepted by almost every scientist on this planet
> View attachment 711990
> ...


Again, there you go, almost every scientist, yet you can’t say how many that is. How could you possibly know that count to make that nonsense comment. I posted 1200 don’t follow your nonsense.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 18, 2022)

Crick said:


> Not one of your better repartees Todd.
> 
> These data are accepted by almost every scientist on this planet
> View attachment 711990
> ...



And?


----------



## Crick (Oct 18, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And?


What can I do for you Todd?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 18, 2022)

Crick said:


> What can I do for you Todd?



More CO2, a bit warmer. And?


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 18, 2022)

Crick said:


> And, interestingly, at the top of this figure you will see that the CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750 has culminated in approximately 2 Wcm-2 forcing which, all by itself, has produced approximately 1 centigrade degree of global warming.  This sounds like an answer to jc456's incessant whinging.



That depends on how the computers are programmed ... 

I'm guessing you're trying to write out 2 W/m^2 ... why do you say this alone produced 1ºC warming ... just a reminder:  we're only reading 1.8 W/m^2 climate forcing from ALL sources ... mainly H2O and some from CO2 ... nothing else registers on our instruments ...

... and we've only seen a single degree warming from all causes ...


----------



## Crick (Oct 19, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> That depends on how the computers are programmed ...


Doesn't everything?


ReinyDays said:


> I'm guessing you're trying to write out 2 W/m^2 ...


Wm-2 is the same unit as W/M^2 but with less characters.  Besides, it keeps out the riff-raff.


ReinyDays said:


> why do you say this alone produced 1ºC warming ... just a reminder:  we're only reading 1.8 W/m^2 climate forcing from ALL sources ...


Have another look at the graph.  It is broken into components having both positive and negative radiative forcing factors and the warming and cooling for each component is provided in isolation.
Additionally, your info is out of date.
From AR6's Technical Summary of The Physical Science Basis, page 67: "The total anthropogenic effective radiative forcing (ERF) in 2019, relative to 1750, was *2.72 [1.96 to 3.48] W m–2* (medium confidence) and has likely been growing at an increasing rate since the 1970s."  Warming since 1850 is 1.1C


ReinyDays said:


> mainly H2O and some from CO2 ... nothing else registers on our instruments ...


Your instruments?  Are you a climate scientist?


ReinyDays said:


> ... and we've only seen a single degree warming from all causes ...


The AR6 data shows 1 centigrade degree of warming between 1750 and 2019 solely from added CO2.  Again, this is in isolation.  Aerosols provide cooling and the net sum is 1.1C of warming.  AR6 updates the values provided in AR5.


----------

