Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[IanC]

What happens when we take due consideration of emissivities for surface and atmosphere?

At 15 microns the atmosphere is black, all surface 15 micron radiation is absorbed within the first few metres.

At 10 microns the atmosphere is clear, the surface radiation is almost totally transmitted out to space as if the atmosphere was not even there.

Cloud are more like liquid water than a gas so they have more bonds to absorb a variety of photons than does water vapour.

Show me an actual measurement made with an instrument at ambient temperature that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...leave your models at home...show me some actual evidence...something that illustrates more than the already obvious fact that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.

Do you actually believe the instruments are giving the wrong readings? They appear to be thoroughly repeatable. Are you questioning their precision or their accuracy?

 

[SSDD]

Quit ducking.

You said the amount of radiation present in the cavity was a totally different thing than the amount of radiation being measured from the cavity.

Quit changing my statements...I said that an amount of radiation being produced and an amount of radiation present were two different things....nothing more. Anything else you think is there is from your own head.

 

[SSDD]

I find it hard to believe you have ever taken any physics, chemistry or calculus courses if you are unfamiliar with rearranging terms to solve equations.

I am perfectly familiar with rearranging terms...it is fine in math..in fact, it is expected of you. The example you are using with the SB equation however, is unacceptable in physics and in addition, it is just bad math. When would you ever find it necessary to complicate an equation that has already been reduced in order to solve the equation.

Again, in physics, a mathematical equation is a sentence making an explicit statement about something that is happening in reality. When you alter the equation, you alter the statement regardless of what the answer is at the end of the equation.

Tell me ian, since you seem to believe that so long as the answer is correct, that you can alter whatever you want without changing the reality; do you believe you can alter a chemical equation so long as at the bottom line you get the same result? Do you think altering a chemical equation doesn't change the chemical process so long as you end up with the same bottom line? Is that how you think? Well here is a newsflash for you...the language of mathematics is just as explicit as the language of chemistry. It isn't ambigous and it isn't up to be altered unless you can justify the alteration. If you believe you can, then it would seem that you haven't taken any upper level chemistry or physics.

And once again...do explain why you would need to rearrange an equation that has already been reduced to its lowest terms in order to solve it? Under what conditions would that be necessary unless you were trying to perform some slight of hand. You claim the education in mathematics and physics, give me a few examples where you would need to, or where it would be acceptable to complicate an equation that had already been reduced in order to solve it.

Describe a couple of other physical laws where you might find that you need to complicate the equation so that you can claim something about it that the original equation does not say. For example: When would you find it necessary to complicate the equation K=C + 273.15, Or PV=nRT, or p = mv. And I am not talking about rearranging an equation to solve for a different variable, I am talking about complicating an equation that has already been simplified.

Tell me when that might be acceptable to do for no reason other than to be able to change your statement about what physical process is occurring? And if you don't believe that in changing the mathematical statement changes the statement about what physical process is happening, why even bother to do it? Face it ian, your dogma is turning you into a very dishonest person in your attempt to rationalize it.

 

[SSDD]

Do you actually believe the instruments are giving the wrong readings? They appear to be thoroughly repeatable. Are you questioning their precision or their accuracy?

Not at all. I believe the instruments are quite accurate...As I have stated before, and as you have demonstrated with your IR thermometer examples, you don't know what is being measured. You make assumptions that simply are not true. In that hollow sphere experiment, IR is being measured, but there is no measurement being made of two way energy flow. Is the inside of the sphere warmer or cooler than the atmosphere on the outside? Is there any reason that you would be surprised to see energy flow from that warmer inside to the cooler outside? What do you think the fact energy flows from the warmer inside to the cooler outside tells you about what is happening inside the sphere?

 

[IanC]

Let's look at the experiment. A spherical cavity was coated with black carbon to give near perfect blackbody radiation and absorption. The object containing this cavity was heated to various temperatures, and a very small aperture was opened to allow a trivially small amount of radiation to escape and be measured.

SSDD says the simple one object S-B equation is useless unless you measure it in a void berift of matter or extraneous radiation. That it cannot be done and is basically meaningless.

Yet the cavity experiment does measure the amount of radiation produced. The interior is extremely close to a blackbody, there is no extraneous radiation, at least until the aperture is opened and even then the exchange is trivial.

. .

No ian..the cavity experiment measures the amount of radiation present...and then makes assumptions about what it is doing. Measuring the amount of radiation being produced, and the amount of radiation present are two very different things.

Here is my statement and your response.

When I asked for clarification you said 'atomic blast'.

How am I changing your statement?

 

[SSDD]

My statement was very clear...the amount of radiation present and the amount of radiation being produced are two very different things...you are making assumptions about the amount of radiation present that can't be demonstrated with the instrumentation. You live on assumptions. You believe models and their assumptions over reality and every observation and measurement ever made. Ever wonder why?

 

[PredFan]

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

Translation: "He dared tell the truth and those True Believers ran the heretic off."

 

[Billy_Bob]

My statement was very clear...the amount of radiation present and the amount of radiation being produced are two very different things...you are making assumptions about the amount of radiation present that can't be demonstrated with the instrumentation. You live on assumptions. You believe models and their assumptions over reality and every observation and measurement ever made. Ever wonder why?

Both Ian and Todd have been shown there is energy present in the wall sockets of their homes, but they can not parallel this with energy in the atmosphere. Until there is a conductor capable of responding to the energy it can be present but have no effect. They think simply, that if energy is present, there must be an effect. the difference of presence and effect of that presence.. they refuse to separate the two.

This is the same problem with Trenberth's cartoon of earths energy balance. IT is why he always comes up with massive extra energy and demands that something must happen..

 

[IanC]

My statement was very clear...the amount of radiation present and the amount of radiation being produced are two very different things...you are making assumptions about the amount of radiation present that can't be demonstrated with the instrumentation. You live on assumptions. You believe models and their assumptions over reality and every observation and measurement ever made. Ever wonder why?

This is very confusing. You disagree that the cavity experiment gives the right results but you agree with the conclusion about the temperature relationship drawn from the results? As long as the equation is arranged in your preferred order, that is.

You don't seem to be very logical in your thoughts. Could you be more specific in where you think Stefan went wrong?

Why do you keep saying every single observation ever made supports your version? Even the wrong ones? How does that work?

 

[IanC]

My statement was very clear...the amount of radiation present and the amount of radiation being produced are two very different things...you are making assumptions about the amount of radiation present that can't be demonstrated with the instrumentation. You live on assumptions. You believe models and their assumptions over reality and every observation and measurement ever made. Ever wonder why?

Both Ian and Todd have been shown there is energy present in the wall sockets of their homes, but they can not parallel this with energy in the atmosphere. Until there is a conductor capable of responding to the energy it can be present but have no effect. They think simply, that if energy is present, there must be an effect. the difference of presence and effect of that presence.. they refuse to separate the two.

This is the same problem with Trenberth's cartoon of earths energy balance. IT is why he always comes up with massive extra energy and demands that something must happen..

You're a retard. If you really are an atmospheric physicist as you claim, it goes a long way in explaining why climate science is so fucked up.

 

[IanC]

Do you actually believe the instruments are giving the wrong readings? They appear to be thoroughly repeatable. Are you questioning their precision or their accuracy?

Not at all. I believe the instruments are quite accurate...As I have stated before, and as you have demonstrated with your IR thermometer examples, you don't know what is being measured. You make assumptions that simply are not true. In that hollow sphere experiment, IR is being measured, but there is no measurement being made of two way energy flow. Is the inside of the sphere warmer or cooler than the atmosphere on the outside? Is there any reason that you would be surprised to see energy flow from that warmer inside to the cooler outside? What do you think the fact energy flows from the warmer inside to the cooler outside tells you about what is happening inside the sphere?

Sorry, I missed this one.

The spherical cavity is enclosed in an oven. This leads to the unusual state of uniform temperature throughout the object with the spherical cavity.

The aperture is very small compared to the surface area of the cavity, therefore the slight loss of radiation does not affect the equilibrium in any significant way.

The concept of the experiment was very clever. It removed confounding influences and allowed the undisturbed radiation to be measured.

 

[SSDD]

My statement was very clear...the amount of radiation present and the amount of radiation being produced are two very different things...you are making assumptions about the amount of radiation present that can't be demonstrated with the instrumentation. You live on assumptions. You believe models and their assumptions over reality and every observation and measurement ever made. Ever wonder why?

This is very confusing. You disagree that the cavity experiment gives the right results but you agree with the conclusion about the temperature relationship drawn from the results? As long as the equation is arranged in your preferred order, that is.

You don't seem to be very logical in your thoughts. Could you be more specific in where you think Stefan went wrong?

Why do you keep saying every single observation ever made supports your version? Even the wrong ones? How does that work?

The cavity experiment gives a result...it doesn't give the result you claim it does, but by all means explain if you like. What does the amount of radiation escaping from that tiny hole, tell you about what the radiation inside the cavity is doing? What do you think it tells you beyond the fact that the energy is moving from the warmer inside to the cooler outside?

And I don't think Stefan went wrong...His equations are accurate and confined by every observation ever made...your interpretation, your alteration is wrong.

 

[SSDD]

My statement was very clear...the amount of radiation present and the amount of radiation being produced are two very different things...you are making assumptions about the amount of radiation present that can't be demonstrated with the instrumentation. You live on assumptions. You believe models and their assumptions over reality and every observation and measurement ever made. Ever wonder why?

Both Ian and Todd have been shown there is energy present in the wall sockets of their homes, but they can not parallel this with energy in the atmosphere. Until there is a conductor capable of responding to the energy it can be present but have no effect. They think simply, that if energy is present, there must be an effect. the difference of presence and effect of that presence.. they refuse to separate the two.

This is the same problem with Trenberth's cartoon of earths energy balance. IT is why he always comes up with massive extra energy and demands that something must happen..

You're a retard. If you really are an atmospheric physicist as you claim, it goes a long way in explaining why climate science is so fucked up.

No ian, the people who promote the phantasy physics you believe so strongly in are the reason climate science, and physics itself has become so screwed up. Physics has adopted a new language...call it Q speak. I don't know if you ever read 1984, but Q speak is very similar in nature to Newspeak. The field of physics expected that Q speak would replace....call it C speak...that being the language of classical physics by the mid 21st century. Like Newspeak, Q speak was not only formulated to provide a means of passing on information in the quantum view, but to make it impossible to express an idea in any other mode of speech...such as C speak. Once everyone accepts Q speak, then C speak becomes in essence, heretical thought.

When asked ... [about] an underlying quantum world, Bohr would answer: There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about Nature.

As I have stated over and over...you don't have any more knowledge than you did before..all you have is some more interesting stories to tell till such time as we actually learn more. The problem lies with those who actually believe the stories represent reality.

 

[SSDD]

The spherical cavity is enclosed in an oven. This leads to the unusual state of uniform temperature throughout the object with the spherical cavity.

The aperture is very small compared to the surface area of the cavity, therefore the slight loss of radiation does not affect the equilibrium in any significant way.

The concept of the experiment was very clever. It removed confounding influences and allowed the undisturbed radiation to be measured.

All the experiment is showing is that energy moves from the warmer inside to the cooler outside...you are making assumptions about what is happening inside. The only thing the experiment is proving is that energy moves from warmer to cooler as if that needed to be proven in the first place.

 

[IanC]

The spherical cavity is enclosed in an oven. This leads to the unusual state of uniform temperature throughout the object with the spherical cavity.

The aperture is very small compared to the surface area of the cavity, therefore the slight loss of radiation does not affect the equilibrium in any significant way.

The concept of the experiment was very clever. It removed confounding influences and allowed the undisturbed radiation to be measured.

All the experiment is showing is that energy moves from the warmer inside to the cooler outside...you are making assumptions about what is happening inside. The only thing the experiment is proving is that energy moves from warmer to cooler as if that needed to be proven in the first place.

Just to get you down on record, are you saying that there is no radiation present in the cavity until the aperture is opened? A simple 'no radiation present' will suffice but if you say 'yes, radiation is present' then further explanation will be required as that is contrary to your previous statements

 

[SSDD]

Just to get you down on record, are you saying that there is no radiation present in the cavity until the aperture is opened? A simple 'no radiation present' will suffice but if you say 'yes, radiation is present' then further explanation will be required as that is contrary to your previous statements

Excellent question...and a fine opportunity to demonstrate to you the extent to which you are making assumptions based on your belief in models.

1. Is the metal the sphere made of perfectly homogenous in its metallic structure and is it perfectly uniform in its thickness?

2. Is the inside perfectly insulated from the outside?

3. Is the carbon coating on the inside perfectly uniform?

4. Is the sphere heated to precisely the same temperature across its entire inside surface?

If the answer to any of those questions is no then you have temperature gradients, however small within the sphere which would allow the transfer of energy across said gradients.

If you answer yes to any of them, I would ask how you know. What measures were taken to determine that this metal sphere is as perfect as the theoretical structure in the mind experiment. Especially number 4. How exactly would you go about heating a hollow sphere to precisely the same temperature across its entire inside and outside surfaces? I asked a fellow who would know and he said that he is unaware of any method to which you could heat such a sphere...or anything else for that matter, so precisely that every atom was in thermal equilibrium....or test it to assure that it was in fact heated so precisely that every atom was in thermal equilibrium.

Your belief in models has blinded you to everything else. It leads you to be easily fooled by instrumentation, and to assume that the set up of a physical experiment is even capable of achieving the standard necessary to mirror a theoretical mind experiment.

If every atom in the sphere is not in thermal equilibrium, then you have energy transfer going on along the temperature gradients, however small, inside the sphere and opening the aperture within the sphere only allows the radiation that is already moving among the inevitable temperature gradients within the sphere which is warmer than the outside to move from the warmer inside to the cooler outside. Again, all the experiment actually proves is that energy moves from cool to warm..yet one more observation that does nothing but further support my position.

Your faith has made you dull witted...incapable of questioning the very experiments which you want so desperately to support your belief. The first question anyone capable of actually thinking...anyone who is actually interested in the physics, would ask about any experiment set up with the intent to show energy movement at thermal equilibrium would be how exactly are you going to achieve true thermal equilibrium in a structure larger than a couple of atoms? A dullard would not even think to ask but would just run off with an assumption and claim evidence of his belief. Congratulations dullard.

 

[IanC]

1. Is the metal the sphere made of perfectly homogenous in its metallic structure and is it perfectly uniform in its thickness?

2. Is the inside perfectly insulated from the outside?

3. Is the carbon coating on the inside perfectly uniform?

4. Is the sphere heated to precisely the same temperature across its entire inside surface?

1. Only the spherical shape of the cavity matters. The enclosure can be any shape, any thickness. The oven removes the temperature gradient of the enclosure. I have talked about this special case before, in terms of entropy being decreased.

2. I don't understand your question. You haven't specified what inside or what outside. The oven is doing work to keep the enclosure at a specific temperature. Is this what you mean by 'insulation'?

3. The carbon coating is as uniform as the technology can make it. Are you arguing that emmisivity of .999 is not the perfect 1.0 of a blackbody?

4. Yes, the enclosure has been heated to a uniform temperature, therefore the surface of the cavity is also at a uniform temperature. Or are you arguing about the natural variation of kinetic speed between molecules of any substance? Temperature is defined as average speed, no substance has perfectly even motion of all its constituents. This is where you have denied the atomic world in the past. Are you now changing your tune?

To sum up...the enclosure containing the cavity is heated up by the oven to a uniform temperature. The cavity surface is emitting and absorbing perfectly equal amounts of radiation. The amount of radiation released by the aperture is insignificant (<<<) to the amount present.

You appear by your questions to be trying to weasle out a reason for some radiation to be present but not the full amount defined by j=aT^4.

So, answer the question. Is there radiation present before the aperture opens? Or is the cavity just in limbo, with molecular collisions somehow forbidden, or at least the radiation created by the collisions impaired by some unknown mechanism that you found in your insane version of physics?

Edit- for question #1, I am mistaken. The shape of the cavity doesn't matter. If you can see something then it can see you.

 

[SSDD]

1. Only the spherical shape of the cavity matters. The enclosure can be any shape, any thickness. The oven removes the temperature gradient of the enclosure. I have talked about this special case before, in terms of entropy being decreased.

If you believe that, then I am afraid that you have shown yourself to know even less about the real world than I had given you credit for. The fact is that we aren't even close to having the technology to put all of the atoms of any object into perfect equilibrium, which is what would be necessary to prevent energy flow across those temperature gradients. Your models are not real...they are not observable, they are not measurable, and most importantly they are not TESTABLE. If you believe they are then not only are you easily fooled by instrumentation, but by terribly flawed experimental setups as well.

2. I don't understand your question. You haven't specified what inside or what outside. The oven is doing work to keep the enclosure at a specific temperature. Is this what you mean by 'insulation'?

Of course you don't ian...you are willing to accept any experimental set up no matter how flawed if the result, no matter how twisted, or ambiguous allows you to make up a story about it that suits your needs.

3. The carbon coating is as uniform as the technology can make it. Are you arguing that emmisivity of .999 is not the perfect 1.0 of a blackbody?

I asked if it were perfect..the answer is no. The whole point is that the set up of the experiment is not perfect, therefore it does not demonstrate what you want it to demonstrate. All it shows is that energy flows from the warmer inside to the cooler outside.

4. Yes, the enclosure has been heated to a uniform temperature, therefore the surface of the cavity is also at a uniform temperature. Or are you arguing about the natural variation of kinetic speed between molecules of any substance? Temperature is defined as average speed, no substance has perfectly even motion of all its constituents. This is where you have denied the atomic world in the past. Are you now changing your tune?

Here is a question for you ian...perhaps it will get you to actually use your brain. Is "uniform temperature" the same as thermal equilibrium down to the atomic level? Because this experiment claims to demonstrate something happening at the atomic level. A simple yes or no will do...then you might expound on how the experimenters determined that all the atoms in the sphere were at perfect atomic equilibrium if you are stupid enough to claim that the sphere was actually in that state.

To sum up...the enclosure containing the cavity is heated up by the oven to a uniform temperature. The cavity surface is emitting and absorbing perfectly equal amounts of radiation. The amount of radiation released by the aperture is insignificant (<<<) to the amount present.

Perfectly? Really ian? Are you really that uninformed?

You appear by your questions to be trying to weaslel out a reason for some radiation to be present but not the full amount defined by j=aT^4.

I am not weaseling out of anything..I am trying to point out how blind to reality your belief in models has made you. It apparently never even occurred to you to question the experiment or its set up or if it was even capable of demonstrating what you believe it demonstrates.

So, answer the question. Is there radiation present before the aperture opens? Or is the cavity just in limbo, with molecular collisions somehow forbidden, or at least the radiation created by the collisions impaired by some unknown mechanism that you found in your insane version of physics?

Yes ian, radiation is present because all of the atoms in the sphere are not heated to a state of perfect thermal equilibrium...and energy is moving across those temperature gradients, no matter how small they are. So long as you have atoms that are not in PERFECT thermal equilibrium, you have energy movement. One way gross energy movement..but energy movement none the less.

 

[IanC]

1. Only the spherical shape of the cavity matters. The enclosure can be any shape, any thickness. The oven removes the temperature gradient of the enclosure. I have talked about this special case before, in terms of entropy being decreased.

If you believe that, then I am afraid that you have shown yourself to know even less about the real world than I had given you credit for. The fact is that we aren't even close to having the technology to put all of the atoms of any object into perfect equilibrium, which is what would be necessary to prevent energy flow across those temperature gradients. Your models are not real...they are not observable, they are not measurable, and most importantly they are not TESTABLE. If you believe they are then not only are you easily fooled by instrumentation, but by terribly flawed experimental setups as well.

2. I don't understand your question. You haven't specified what inside or what outside. The oven is doing work to keep the enclosure at a specific temperature. Is this what you mean by 'insulation'?

Of course you don't ian...you are willing to accept any experimental set up no matter how flawed if the result, no matter how twisted, or ambiguous allows you to make up a story about it that suits your needs.

3. The carbon coating is as uniform as the technology can make it. Are you arguing that emmisivity of .999 is not the perfect 1.0 of a blackbody?

I asked if it were perfect..the answer is no. The whole point is that the set up of the experiment is not perfect, therefore it does not demonstrate what you want it to demonstrate. All it shows is that energy flows from the warmer inside to the cooler outside.

4. Yes, the enclosure has been heated to a uniform temperature, therefore the surface of the cavity is also at a uniform temperature. Or are you arguing about the natural variation of kinetic speed between molecules of any substance? Temperature is defined as average speed, no substance has perfectly even motion of all its constituents. This is where you have denied the atomic world in the past. Are you now changing your tune?

Here is a question for you ian...perhaps it will get you to actually use your brain. Is "uniform temperature" the same as thermal equilibrium down to the atomic level? Because this experiment claims to demonstrate something happening at the atomic level. A simple yes or no will do...then you might expound on how the experimenters determined that all the atoms in the sphere were at perfect atomic equilibrium if you are stupid enough to claim that the sphere was actually in that state.

To sum up...the enclosure containing the cavity is heated up by the oven to a uniform temperature. The cavity surface is emitting and absorbing perfectly equal amounts of radiation. The amount of radiation released by the aperture is insignificant (<<<) to the amount present.

Perfectly? Really ian? Are you really that uninformed?

You appear by your questions to be trying to weaslel out a reason for some radiation to be present but not the full amount defined by j=aT^4.

I am not weaseling out of anything..I am trying to point out how blind to reality your belief in models has made you. It apparently never even occurred to you to question the experiment or its set up or if it was even capable of demonstrating what you believe it demonstrates.

So, answer the question. Is there radiation present before the aperture opens? Or is the cavity just in limbo, with molecular collisions somehow forbidden, or at least the radiation created by the collisions impaired by some unknown mechanism that you found in your insane version of physics?

Yes ian, radiation is present because all of the atoms in the sphere are not heated to a state of perfect thermal equilibrium...and energy is moving across those temperature gradients, no matter how small they are. So long as you have atoms that are not in PERFECT thermal equilibrium, you have energy movement. One way gross energy movement..but energy movement none the less.

WOOHOO!!!!!!!!!!

SSDD finally caved in! This comment is bookmarked. Hallelujah!

I am too giddy to know where to start...but I will.

 

[SSDD]

WOOHOO!!!!!!!!!!

SSDD finally caved in! This comment is bookmarked. Hallelujah!

I am too giddy to know where to start...but I will.

Apparently you are to dense to understand what I just said...which happens to be what I have been saying all along. The radiation in the sphere is moving from warmer to cooler across temperature gradients within the sphere...since it is impossible to bring all the atoms making up the sphere into perfect thermal equilibrium. Exactly how do you think that is different from what I have been saying all along? What story have you made up in your head to make what I said somehow different from what I have been saying all along?