Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes.
Any observed, measured evidence to support your claim that at equilibrium matter stops emitting?
And you have refused to give your 'judgement' on SSDD'S theory that radiation simply ceases to be emitted when two objects are at the same temperature. Do you care to make your opinion known at this time?
Forget about Ian he is too inflexible to ponder a problem from a different view point other than the one where he has cemented his feet. Toddster at least debates it. Tell me now how exactly did they label you with that "intelligent photon" thing. Which post did you make where you supposedly said cooler objects do not emit photons. I looked whenever I had the time but have not found it. The only thing I do find is that you say cooler objects do not warm a hotter one...which is true. The extra heat comes from the third and hotter source, the sun not the cooler object. They keep confusing heat with temperature because that is the only way to "explain" the man made global warming using ...actually mis-using well established physics equations the way they were never intended to be used. Those who want to fake that they do understand go along with it because they fell for that trap being a "denier" of some sort of "established" science...much the same way you can`t say anything about open borders without being a Nazi. Ian thinks you can stack up individual elements of a lower temperature to yield the sum of all individual temperatures because energy can be the sum of individual elements. Then if you ask him why he can`t weld steel if I let him have as many BIC cigarette lighters as he wants he deflects the subject to something else.And you have refused to give your 'judgement' on SSDD'S theory that radiation simply ceases to be emitted when two objects are at the same temperature. Do you care to make your opinion known at this time?
Can you produce any observed, measured, quantified instance of spontaneous two way energy flow? Any at all? All you can provide is what if's and failed mind experiments with no analog in reality.
Yes.
Why lie...there has never been a measurement taken of spontaneous two way energy flow...the only evidence you could produce is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.
Any observed, measured evidence to support your claim that at equilibrium matter stops emitting?
Only every observation ever made.
Forget about Ian he is too inflexible to ponder a problem from a different view point other than the one where he has cemented his feet. Toddster at least debates it. Tell me now how exactly did they label you with that "intelligent photon" thing. Which post did you make where you supposedly said cooler objects do not emit photons. I looked whenever I had the time but have not found it. The only thing I do find is that you say cooler objects do not warm a hotter one...which is true. The extra heat comes from the third and hotter source, the sun not the cooler object. They keep confusing heat with temperature because that is the only way to "explain" the man made global warming using ...actually mis-using well established physics equations the way they were never intended to be used. Those who want to fake that they do understand go along with it because they fell for that trap being a "denier" of some sort of "established" science...much the same way you can`t say anything about open borders without being a Nazi. Ian thinks you can stack up individual elements of a lower temperature to yield the sum of all individual temperatures because energy can be the sum of individual elements. Then if you ask him why he can`t weld steel if I let him have as many BIC cigarette lighters as he wants he deflects the subject to something else.And you have refused to give your 'judgement' on SSDD'S theory that radiation simply ceases to be emitted when two objects are at the same temperature. Do you care to make your opinion known at this time?
Can you produce any observed, measured, quantified instance of spontaneous two way energy flow? Any at all? All you can provide is what if's and failed mind experiments with no analog in reality.
Ian thinks you can stack up individual elements of a lower temperature to yield the sum of all individual temperatures because energy can be the sum of individual elements. Then if you ask him why he can`t weld steel if I let him have as many BIC cigarette lighters as he wants he deflects the subject to something else.
Ignoring the Sun's corona/surface again?
Ignoring downward IR in Earth's atmosphere?
Excellent! List 2 such observations that explicitly back your claim.
Ian thinks you can stack up individual elements of a lower temperature to yield the sum of all individual temperatures because energy can be the sum of individual elements. Then if you ask him why he can`t weld steel if I let him have as many BIC cigarette lighters as he wants he deflects the subject to something else.
What utter fucking bullshit!
Quote one of my posts that led you to make such a ridiculous and incorrect strawman of my position.
You won't because you can't.
On the other hand I can provide examples of where you abandoned threads after being asked pointed questions that would have illustrated your mistakes if you tried to answer.
SSDD said:OK....at long last someone has the cojones required to state the obvious...or more likely, the brains and education required to see the obvious....can you believe 83 posts just to get someone to state what that simple equation is saying?
So here is the point of my thread....we have 239.7 more or less radiating from the surface...and 239.7 more or less radiating down from the atmosphere which combine to give us enough radiation to achieve an approximate of the average global temperature.
At its foundation, the greenhouse effect is based on the claim that if you have two objects radiating at roughly the same temperature, their radiation will combine and they will radiate at a higher temperature....I could, replace the atmosphere with a block of ice radiating at 32 degrees rather than the -18 degrees that the 239.7 equates to...and put it next to another block of ice radiating at 32 degrees and combined, they would radiate at some temperature higher than 32 degrees.
That, my friend, is a thermodynamic impossibility...you could have a swimming pool full of ice blocks and their combined radiation would never result in an effective radiating temperature of more than 32 degrees....now, if you have a thermodynamic impossibility represented in the most basic version of your model....no matter how complicated you make that model, you will never make that thermodynamic impossibility true.
SSDD said:So check this out...using the formula which describes the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect....
239.7 + 239.7 = sigmaT^4
=>T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67x10^-8) = 303K or 29.85C
We can plug in the radiation emitted from a couple of ice cubes....approximately 315.64wm^2 each
315.64 + 315.64 = sigma T^4
=> T + (315.64 + 315.64) / (5.67 x 10^-8) = 324K or 50.85C
Imagine...putting two ice cubes at 32 degrees and getting an output of 631wm^2 or almost 51 degrees C....who would have thought....and this thermodynamic impossibility is the basis for the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.
Ignoring the Sun's corona/surface again?
You got any compelling evidence that that is spontaneous energy flow? Of course not...once again..just a story you tell in an effort to support your belief.
Ignoring downward IR in Earth's atmosphere?
Got any measurements of downward IR in any discrete wavelength in the atmosphere made with an instrument at ambient temperature? Of course not. You have measurements made across the spectrum with instruments at ambient temperature measuring the temperature changes within an internal thermopile...nothing more. Just more evidence of how easily you are fooled by instrumentation...it is like magic tricks to you.
Excellent! List 2 such observations that explicitly back your claim.
Pick any instance...show me a measurement of two radiators at equilibrium absorbing radiation from each other...just one. I can't show you such a measurement because it doesn't happen. You are the one claiming they radiate towards each other and absorb each other's radiation...the onus is upon you to show the measurements to support the claim...You can't because it doesn't happen. And what do two black bodies at equilibrium have to do with the claim of downward radiation, or any other claim made by climate science?
Yes.
Why lie...there has never been a measurement taken of spontaneous two way energy flow...the only evidence you could produce is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.
Any observed, measured evidence to support your claim that at equilibrium matter stops emitting?
Only every observation ever made.
there has never been a measurement taken of spontaneous two way energy flow
Ignoring the Sun's corona/surface again?
Ignoring downward IR in Earth's atmosphere?
Any observed, measured evidence to support your claim that at equilibrium matter stops emitting?
Only every observation ever made.
Excellent! List 2 such observations that explicitly back your claim.
Ian thinks you can stack up individual elements of a lower temperature to yield the sum of all individual temperatures because energy can be the sum of individual elements. Then if you ask him why he can`t weld steel if I let him have as many BIC cigarette lighters as he wants he deflects the subject to something else.
What utter fucking bullshit!
Quote one of my posts that led you to make such a ridiculous and incorrect strawman of my position.
You won't because you can't.
On the other hand I can provide examples of where you abandoned threads after being asked pointed questions that would have illustrated your mistakes if you tried to answer.
Ian, if you accept the 33 degrees warmer with an atmosphere than without an atmosphere argument, then you, in fact, accept adding temperatures together to reach a higher temperature. I already demonstrated that ....so yes, you do believe that you can add temperatures together to get a higher temperature.
The demonstration was at this thread...this post specifically
Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect
It went something like this.
SSDD said:OK....at long last someone has the cojones required to state the obvious...or more likely, the brains and education required to see the obvious....can you believe 83 posts just to get someone to state what that simple equation is saying?
So here is the point of my thread....we have 239.7 more or less radiating from the surface...and 239.7 more or less radiating down from the atmosphere which combine to give us enough radiation to achieve an approximate of the average global temperature.
At its foundation, the greenhouse effect is based on the claim that if you have two objects radiating at roughly the same temperature, their radiation will combine and they will radiate at a higher temperature....I could, replace the atmosphere with a block of ice radiating at 32 degrees rather than the -18 degrees that the 239.7 equates to...and put it next to another block of ice radiating at 32 degrees and combined, they would radiate at some temperature higher than 32 degrees.
That, my friend, is a thermodynamic impossibility...you could have a swimming pool full of ice blocks and their combined radiation would never result in an effective radiating temperature of more than 32 degrees....now, if you have a thermodynamic impossibility represented in the most basic version of your model....no matter how complicated you make that model, you will never make that thermodynamic impossibility true.
And a couple of posts down, I plugged the temperature of a couple of different objects into the equation that is the basis of the greenhouse effect and got a startling result.
Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect
SSDD said:So check this out...using the formula which describes the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect....
239.7 + 239.7 = sigmaT^4
=>T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67x10^-8) = 303K or 29.85C
We can plug in the radiation emitted from a couple of ice cubes....approximately 315.64wm^2 each
315.64 + 315.64 = sigma T^4
=> T + (315.64 + 315.64) / (5.67 x 10^-8) = 324K or 50.85C
Imagine...putting two ice cubes at 32 degrees and getting an output of 631wm^2 or almost 51 degrees C....who would have thought....and this thermodynamic impossibility is the basis for the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.
So yes ian, you believe that you can add temperatures and get a higher temperature...in order to believe the basis of the greenhouse effect, you must also believe that if you put two ice cubes together they will radiate at a little higher than 50 degrees C.
Yes.
Why lie...there has never been a measurement taken of spontaneous two way energy flow...the only evidence you could produce is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.
Any observed, measured evidence to support your claim that at equilibrium matter stops emitting?
Only every observation ever made.
there has never been a measurement taken of spontaneous two way energy flow
Ignoring the Sun's corona/surface again?
Ignoring downward IR in Earth's atmosphere?
Any observed, measured evidence to support your claim that at equilibrium matter stops emitting?
Only every observation ever made.
Excellent! List 2 such observations that explicitly back your claim.
The corona defies our understanding of physics, I don't know why you feel that gives you license to site it as an example of cooler flowing to warmer
Ian thinks you can stack up individual elements of a lower temperature to yield the sum of all individual temperatures because energy can be the sum of individual elements. Then if you ask him why he can`t weld steel if I let him have as many BIC cigarette lighters as he wants he deflects the subject to something else.
What utter fucking bullshit!
Quote one of my posts that led you to make such a ridiculous and incorrect strawman of my position.
You won't because you can't.
On the other hand I can provide examples of where you abandoned threads after being asked pointed questions that would have illustrated your mistakes if you tried to answer.
Ian, if you accept the 33 degrees warmer with an atmosphere than without an atmosphere argument, then you, in fact, accept adding temperatures together to reach a higher temperature. I already demonstrated that ....so yes, you do believe that you can add temperatures together to get a higher temperature.
The demonstration was at this thread...this post specifically
Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect
It went something like this.
SSDD said:OK....at long last someone has the cojones required to state the obvious...or more likely, the brains and education required to see the obvious....can you believe 83 posts just to get someone to state what that simple equation is saying?
So here is the point of my thread....we have 239.7 more or less radiating from the surface...and 239.7 more or less radiating down from the atmosphere which combine to give us enough radiation to achieve an approximate of the average global temperature.
At its foundation, the greenhouse effect is based on the claim that if you have two objects radiating at roughly the same temperature, their radiation will combine and they will radiate at a higher temperature....I could, replace the atmosphere with a block of ice radiating at 32 degrees rather than the -18 degrees that the 239.7 equates to...and put it next to another block of ice radiating at 32 degrees and combined, they would radiate at some temperature higher than 32 degrees.
That, my friend, is a thermodynamic impossibility...you could have a swimming pool full of ice blocks and their combined radiation would never result in an effective radiating temperature of more than 32 degrees....now, if you have a thermodynamic impossibility represented in the most basic version of your model....no matter how complicated you make that model, you will never make that thermodynamic impossibility true.
And a couple of posts down, I plugged the temperature of a couple of different objects into the equation that is the basis of the greenhouse effect and got a startling result.
Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect
SSDD said:So check this out...using the formula which describes the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect....
239.7 + 239.7 = sigmaT^4
=>T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67x10^-8) = 303K or 29.85C
We can plug in the radiation emitted from a couple of ice cubes....approximately 315.64wm^2 each
315.64 + 315.64 = sigma T^4
=> T + (315.64 + 315.64) / (5.67 x 10^-8) = 324K or 50.85C
Imagine...putting two ice cubes at 32 degrees and getting an output of 631wm^2 or almost 51 degrees C....who would have thought....and this thermodynamic impossibility is the basis for the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.
So yes ian, you believe that you can add temperatures and get a higher temperature...in order to believe the basis of the greenhouse effect, you must also believe that if you put two ice cubes together they will radiate at a little higher than 50 degrees C.
Hahahaha. I followed your link to that thread. I am surprised that I did not post until #272. Perhaps I wanted to see what direction it would go without my input.
This is my first post-
"???? SSDD thinks the Sun is -18C? hahahahaha, what a fucking idiot.
I admit I havent read the article that goes with the graph. the graph makes little sense out of context but it appears to be more related to Willis's shell problem than the Earth. it goes from a simple energy in, energy out example to a example where the new added atmosphere is at equilibrium but the surface is not. all changes in surface or atmospheric temperatures are powered by solar input that is not released to space but instead is retained by the system (the amount that would continue to radiate to space if solar input stopped)."
I'll check to see if I made another post that directly responds to this 'addition' claim.
Yes.
Why lie...there has never been a measurement taken of spontaneous two way energy flow...the only evidence you could produce is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.
Any observed, measured evidence to support your claim that at equilibrium matter stops emitting?
Only every observation ever made.
there has never been a measurement taken of spontaneous two way energy flow
Ignoring the Sun's corona/surface again?
Ignoring downward IR in Earth's atmosphere?
Any observed, measured evidence to support your claim that at equilibrium matter stops emitting?
Only every observation ever made.
Excellent! List 2 such observations that explicitly back your claim.
The corona defies our understanding of physics, I don't know why you feel that gives you license to site it as an example of cooler flowing to warmer
The corona defies our understanding of physics
You're looking at it from the wrong direction.
For the sake of this argument, I'm only interested in the ability of the Sun's surface
to emit toward hotter matter. I don't care why the corona is hotter.
I care that SSDD says photons know that they can't be emitted toward hotter matter.
If that were correct, the Sun's surface would be invisible and the only photons we'd see from the Sun
would be those emitted by the corona toward the Earth.
The fact that I don't have to eat 16,000 Calories a day to stay alive demonstrates two-way energy flow.
16,000 Calories a day is how much the S-B equation says my body radiates each day (conduction losses would only add to that tally). Yet I only eat 2,000 Calories a day.
I wonder where the missing 14,000 Calories comes from? Oh, that's right, it comes from the backradiation that I absorb after the environment around me emits it, an environment that is almost always cooler than I am.
Yes.
Why lie...there has never been a measurement taken of spontaneous two way energy flow...the only evidence you could produce is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.
Any observed, measured evidence to support your claim that at equilibrium matter stops emitting?
Only every observation ever made.
there has never been a measurement taken of spontaneous two way energy flow
Ignoring the Sun's corona/surface again?
Ignoring downward IR in Earth's atmosphere?
Any observed, measured evidence to support your claim that at equilibrium matter stops emitting?
Only every observation ever made.
Excellent! List 2 such observations that explicitly back your claim.
The corona defies our understanding of physics, I don't know why you feel that gives you license to site it as an example of cooler flowing to warmer
The corona defies our understanding of physics
You're looking at it from the wrong direction.
For the sake of this argument, I'm only interested in the ability of the Sun's surface
to emit toward hotter matter. I don't care why the corona is hotter.
I care that SSDD says photons know that they can't be emitted toward hotter matter.
If that were correct, the Sun's surface would be invisible and the only photons we'd see from the Sun
would be those emitted by the corona toward the Earth.
In theory, that sounds plausible. It looks like the cooler Sun Surface photons are passing through the corona unmolested. You can say that photons are acting contrary to the laws of physics by passing through an area that defies the laws of physics.
