Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[SSDD]

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

makes no difference to the theoretical particle? When you talk about photons, and energy movement as if we actually had a grasp of the topic, it is just sad.

 

[SSDD]

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

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

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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

when they are in the presence of other matter, they radiate according to their own emissivity, area, and the difference between their own temperature and that of their surroundings...

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

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

 

[SSDD]

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

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

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

 

[IanC]

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

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

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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

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

So why do you suppose the S-B equation for matter not alone in a vacuum specifies T1-T2?

Because objects emitting toward each other lose/gain energy according to the T1-T2 formula.

 

[IanC]

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



makes no difference to the theoretical particle? When you talk about photons, and energy movement as if we actually had a grasp of the topic, it is just sad.

Quit imbedding your comments in my quote.

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

 

[IanC]

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

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

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

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

 

[IanC]

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

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

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

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

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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

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

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

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

The "net" energy banter has been fun

More fun than your energy field that prevents cool photons from hitting hotter matter?

From the back and forth in the last few pages nothing has been gained.

Pointing out SSDD's confusion is never a waste.

Mathematical constructs including the Steffan-Boseman equation are flawed.

DERP!

 

[SSDD]

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

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

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

So why do you suppose the S-B equation for matter not alone in a vacuum specifies T1-T2?

Because objects emitting toward each other lose/gain energy according to the T1-T2 formula.

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

 

[SSDD]

[

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

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

 

[SSDD]

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

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

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

 

[SSDD]

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

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

 

[SSDD]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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

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

So why do you suppose the S-B equation for matter not alone in a vacuum specifies T1-T2?

Because objects emitting toward each other lose/gain energy according to the T1-T2 formula.

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

Any observed, measured evidence to support that claim?

Yes.

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

Of course not. But your delusion is strong.

 

[polarbear]

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

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

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

So why do you suppose the S-B equation for matter not alone in a vacuum specifies T1-T2?

Because objects emitting toward each other lose/gain energy according to the T1-T2 formula.

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

Any observed, measured evidence to support that claim?

Yes.

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

Of course not. But your delusion is strong.

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

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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

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

So why do you suppose the S-B equation for matter not alone in a vacuum specifies T1-T2?

Because objects emitting toward each other lose/gain energy according to the T1-T2 formula.

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

Any observed, measured evidence to support that claim?

Yes.

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

Of course not. But your delusion is strong.

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

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

I guess both of you agree that an insulated body looses less heat per time.

Sure.

I also guess that both of you agree that the additional energy to increase the temperature is coming from the sun and not from the layer which insulates the earth.

The energy input is from the Sun, yes.

If not then consider that the barrier which lessens heat loss also acts as a barrier to transmit heat not just from the inside of the system to the outside but also from the outside to the inside (from the sun to the earth surface).

Yes, the atmosphere which slows the loss of IR to space also blocks/reflects some sun light before it reaches the surface.

The other thing is that if you use the StB equation for this layer to calculate the radiated energy and then convert that back to temperature you would be way out of whack with reality:

Not sure what you're trying to say here. Please restate.

 

[IanC]

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

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

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

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