Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[IanC]

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?

Define temperature, temperature gradients and thermal equilibrium. You obviously do not understand the concepts involved.

 

[IanC]

SSDD- I am actually rather pleased that you are finally taking atomic scale interactions into your worldview of how things work. If you follow the implications through to the logical conclusions you will have a much more mature grasp of physics.

Of course it may just be anthropomorphism on my part to think you are making progress. You may just backslide into your old position.

Let's look at temperature in its simplest case, a gas. If the gas is constrained by an enclosure or even just gravity, then the temperature is derived by how fast the average molecule is moving, how hard the molecules are hitting the walls or each other.

If we examine this same average molecule with the same average speed but isolate it in outer space, does it still have a 'temperature'? No, because it's not bumping into anything. There is no kinetic energy being transferred to a different particle.

The ability of the molecule to absorb or emit a photon would remain unchanged but the likelihood of the molecule becoming excited by collision would drop to practically nil. Even though the molecule has the SAME kinetic energy as when it was a member of a larger cohort.

Temperature is a macroscopic quality that only appears when there are large numbers of particles and interactions present. It represents average conditions not individual ones. There is a wide range of possible speeds, a wide range of possible collision types from head-on to glancing blows.

You have finally acknowledged individual variation within temperature but now you are demanding a perfectly uniform energy distribution across every atom of an object. Absolutely impossible, and no one claims that it is. I said the cavity surface was a uniform temperature, and it is. The constant swapping of radiation back and forth assures this. Any chance variation would be immediately smoothed out again.

 

[SSDD]

Define temperature, temperature gradients and thermal equilibrium. You obviously do not understand the concepts involved.

If two objects are in thermal equilibrium..no energy exchanges between them...if any temperature difference exists, no matter how small, energy exchanges are possible.

Sorry ian, the real world just isn't going to provide you proof for your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD- I am actually rather pleased that you are finally taking atomic scale interactions into your worldview of how things work. If you follow the implications through to the logical conclusions you will have a much more mature grasp of physics.

What a bloviating, bleating ass you are ian...I have always taken atomic scale interactions into account...and still energy does not move from cool to warm...just doesn't happen on any scale.

The ability of the molecule to absorb or emit a photon would remain unchanged but the likelihood of the molecule becoming excited by collision would drop to practically nil. Even though the molecule has the SAME kinetic energy as when it was a member of a larger cohort.

There would be no photon to absorb if the molecule were in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings as there would be no energy exchange taking place...

You have finally acknowledged individual variation within temperature but now you are demanding a perfectly uniform energy distribution across every atom of an object. Absolutely impossible, and no one claims that it is. I said the cavity surface was a uniform temperature, and it is. The constant swapping of radiation back and forth assures this. Any chance variation would be immediately smoothed out again.

I don't demand it...the laws of physics do...so long as objects are not in perfect thermal equilibrium, then energy exchanges take place and they only move in one direction..from warm to cool...objects in perfect thermal equilibrium do not exchange energy...energy is only exchanged from warm to cool.

And since you finally acknowledge that perfect thermal equilibrium is not possible, one would hope that you could realize that the experiment does not show what you assume that it shows because the assumption is perfect thermal equilibrium within the sphere..

 

[IanC]

And since you finally acknowledge that perfect thermal equilibrium is not possible, one would hope that you could realize that the experiment does not show what you assume that it shows because the assumption is perfect thermal equilibrium within the sphere..

Why do you refuse to acknowledge the definition of temperature?

Temperature is the AVERAGE kinetic speed of a very large number of particles that are being observed. There has never been an expectation that all of the particles has the same exact speed, nor is that possible.

The experiment heats an iron enclosure with a spherical cavity inside of it. The enclosure equilibrates to a uniform temperature, but it must be remembered that energy can only enter or leave via the surface exposed to the oven.

The inside cavity has a surface of uniform temperature. There is no possibility of energy entering or leaving.

The cavity surface is radiating photons according to the T^4 relationship. It is not cooling despite losing energy by photon emission because it is absorbing the same amount of radiation. Any radiation produced by the cavity surface is also absorbed by the cavity surface. This is the brilliant idea behind the experiment!

Radiation is produced in response to internal conditions occuring in individual particles. The only way to stop or slow radiation production is to change the internal conditions.

I say any large group of particles will produce a predictable amount of radiation that depends on the average amount of energy available to be converted into photons. This average amount of available energy is also known as temperature.

You say no radiation is ever produced unless it can escape to an area of lower average available energy. That warm areas produce less radiation than S-B suggest by the equation j= aT^4, and that cool areas cannot produce any radiation at all!

When asked how the temperature of the distant cool area controls the internal conditions of an individual particle in a warm area, you respond by saying "how does a rock know which way to fall?".



I think I will stay with the accepted version of physics that says everything radiates according to it's temperature, and that the flow of heat by radiation is the net result of flows going in either direction.

 

[IanC]

temperature
[tem-per-uh-cher, -choo r, -pruh-, -per-cher, -choo r]
noun

1. a measure of the warmth or coldness of an object or substance with reference to some standard value. The temperature of two systems is the same when the systems are in thermal equilibrium.
   

 

[IanC]

thermal equilibrium. The condition under which two substances in physical contact with each other exchange no heat energy. Two substances in thermal equilibrium are said to be at the same temperature. See also thermodynamics. The American Heritage® ScienceDictionary.

 

[IanC]

Heat energy (or thermal energy or simply heat) is a form of energy transfer among particles in a substance (or system) by means of kinetic energy of those particles. In other words, under kinetic theory, the heat is transferred by particles bouncing into each other.

...

HEAT VS. TEMPERATURE
Note this crucial component to the above definition:
Heat always refers to the transfer of energy between systems (or bodies), not to energy contained within the systems (or bodies).

This distinction between heat and temperature is subtle, but very important. Heat refers to the total energy of the molecular motion or kinetic energy of a material. Temperature, on the other hand, is a measure of the average or apparent energy of molecular motion. In other words, heat is energy, while temperature is a measure of energy. Adding heat will increase a body's temperature, while removing heat will lower the temperature. In thermodynamics equations, heat is a quantity of energy which may be transferred between two systems. In contrast, both temperature and internal energy are state functions. Heat is measurable (as temperature), but it is not a material.

 

[IanC]

Heat transfer due to emission of electromagnetic waves is known as thermal radiation. Heat transfer through radiation takes place in form of electromagnetic waves mainly in the infrared region. Radiation emitted by a body is a consequence of thermal agitation of its composing molecules.

 

[IanC]

When I asked you for definitions, these are examples of what I wanted.

Clipping a sentence out of an article on aerogels is not. Aerogels have emissivities approaching zero while we are discussing examples of emissivities approaching one.

 

[SSDD]

The inside cavity has a surface of uniform temperature. There is no possibility of energy entering or leaving.

Look at that statement ian...proof positive that you are simply unable to think past your predetermined beliefs.

No possibility of energy entering or leaving...pure bullshit. The inside of the sphere is warm...where did the energy that heated up the sphere come from?...inside the sphere or outside the sphere? Since the energy clearly came from outside, there is nothing preventing energy from entering or leaving...because?????...A: the whole system is not in perfect thermal equilibrium..therefore there are energy exchanges throughout the system.

Your experiment isn't showing what you believe it to be showing...all you are proving is that energy from the warm system will move to the cooler outside system as if that needed to be proven.

Your belief and bias has made you blind and stupid. So stupid in fact, that you aren't even able to grasp the blatantly obvious fact that the energy that is causing the inside of the sphere to be warm is coming from outside the sphere.

 

[SSDD]

When I asked you for definitions, these are examples of what I wanted.

Clipping a sentence out of an article on aerogels is not. Aerogels have emissivities approaching zero while we are discussing examples of emissivities approaching one.

Grab the one mention out of how many posts that mention aerogels...and it doesn't matter what the material is...so long as an object is not in perfect thermal equilibrium with another object, one way energy exchange from the warmer object to the cooler object will take place..when they are in perfect thermal equilibrium, no energy exchange is possible. So sayeth the real world and every measurement ever taken.

 

[IanC]

The inside cavity has a surface of uniform temperature. There is no possibility of energy entering or leaving.

Look at that statement ian...proof positive that you are simply unable to think past your predetermined beliefs.

No possibility of energy entering or leaving...pure bullshit. The inside of the sphere is warm...where did the energy that heated up the sphere come from?...inside the sphere or outside the sphere? Since the energy clearly came from outside, there is nothing preventing energy from entering or leaving...because?????...A: the whole system is not in perfect thermal equilibrium..therefore there are energy exchanges throughout the system.

Your experiment isn't showing what you believe it to be showing...all you are proving is that energy from the warm system will move to the cooler outside system as if that needed to be proven.

Your belief and bias has made you blind and stupid. So stupid in fact, that you aren't even able to grasp the blatantly obvious fact that the energy that is causing the inside of the sphere to be warm is coming from outside the sphere.

The oven does work to heat the enclosure inside of it. The temperature gradient moves from the outside of the enclosure towards the middle, at which point the enclosure stops absorbing energy from the oven. Even when the oven is turned off, it will take a long time for the new temperature gradient to reach the middle.

So yes, once the enclosure is preheated it is at a stable and uniform temperature, with no ability to gain or lose energy until the oven settings are changed. And even then it will take considerable time for the outside of the enclosure to reach the cavity within.

 

[IanC]

When I asked you for definitions, these are examples of what I wanted.

Clipping a sentence out of an article on aerogels is not. Aerogels have emissivities approaching zero while we are discussing examples of emissivities approaching one.

Grab the one mention out of how many posts that mention aerogels...and it doesn't matter what the material is...so long as an object is not in perfect thermal equilibrium with another object, one way energy exchange from the warmer object to the cooler object will take place..when they are in perfect thermal equilibrium, no energy exchange is possible. So sayeth the real world and every measurement ever taken.

Are you denying that you clipped a sentence out of a paper on aerogels to give a definition that was to your liking?

Why was there even one? Did you do a search for a specific term and then post up the link without reading it for context?

I am getting tired of wasting my time reading your links only to find that they don't say what you claim they say.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When I asked you for definitions, these are examples of what I wanted.

Clipping a sentence out of an article on aerogels is not. Aerogels have emissivities approaching zero while we are discussing examples of emissivities approaching one.

Grab the one mention out of how many posts that mention aerogels...and it doesn't matter what the material is...so long as an object is not in perfect thermal equilibrium with another object, one way energy exchange from the warmer object to the cooler object will take place..when they are in perfect thermal equilibrium, no energy exchange is possible. So sayeth the real world and every measurement ever taken.

Are you denying that you clipped a sentence out of a paper on aerogels to give a definition that was to your liking?

Why was there even one? Did you do a search for a specific term and then post up the link without reading it for context?

I am getting tired of wasting my time reading your links only to find that they don't say what you claim they say.

I am getting tired of wasting my time reading your links only to find that they don't say what you claim they say.

My favorite thing is when he posts something to back up his claim, and it disagrees with him.
It has to be rough when you're the only person in the world with that particular misunderstanding of physics.

 

[IanC]

It has to be rough when you're the only person in the world with that particular misunderstanding of physics.

That is why he can't find links to support his version. No one agrees with him except a few sycophants here on this message board who know even less physics than he does.

 

[SSDD]

You are drowning in models ian...and as such, you have lost touch with reality....the only thing your experiment shows is that energy moves from the warmer sphere to the cooler outside...congratulations.

 

[IanC]

SSDD says we are being fooled by instrumentation.

He doesn't dispute that the results are correct but he says we aren't actually measuring radiation.

If you measure the height of a tree by observing its shadow and the angle of the sun that is also being fooled by instrumentation because you're not actually measuring the tree. Or something like that.

Stefan's experiment produced data that allowed the radiation to be quantified and qualified into a Planck curve for each temperature. The shape for each curve is congruent to the shape of any other curve for temperature.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD says we are being fooled by instrumentation.

Of course you are...it is a demonstrable fact. You believe that an instrument cooled to -80F is measuring back radiation while an instrument at ambient temperature can't because of the amount of noise...all the while believing that backradiation is happening at a magnitude that can alter the global temperature...but can't be measured with an instrument at ambient temperature...of course you are being fooled by instrumentation.

He doesn't dispute that the results are correct but he says we aren't actually measuring radiation.

The result is that energy moves from the warm inside of the sphere to the cooler outside...of course you are measuring radiation moving from the inside to the outside...it is misinterpreting the results, and ignoring obvious flaws in the experiment and believing you are demonstrating something that you aren't that is the problem.

If you measure the height of a tree by observing its shadow and the angle of the sun that is also being fooled by instrumentation because you're not actually measuring the tree. Or something like that.

Of course not, because you can actually measure the height of the tree to check against your trigonometric calculation...you can't actually measure energy moving in two directions because it doesn't happen...energy movement is a one way gross flow from warm to cool.

Stefan's experiment produced data that allowed the radiation to be quantified and qualified into a Planck curve for each temperature. The shape for each curve is congruent to the shape of any other curve for temperature.

The experiment is not showing what you believe it to be showing...you claim that energy can not move from the outside of the sphere to the inside of the sphere when the very energy that is heating the inside came from the outside...and since neither the sphere nor the interior of the oven can ever be brought to perfect thermal equilibrium, there is going to be energy movement across those temperature gradients no matter how small they may be...the experiment doesn't demonstrate what you claim it demonstrates.

You are trying to demonstrate the perfect theoretical conditions of the model with a flawed experiment in reality.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

SSDD says we are being fooled by instrumentation.

Of course you are...it is a demonstrable fact. You believe that an instrument cooled to -80F is measuring back radiation while an instrument at ambient temperature can't because of the amount of noise...all the while believing that backradiation is happening at a magnitude that can alter the global temperature...but can't be measured with an instrument at ambient temperature...of course you are being fooled by instrumentation.

He doesn't dispute that the results are correct but he says we aren't actually measuring radiation.

The result is that energy moves from the warm inside of the sphere to the cooler outside...of course you are measuring radiation moving from the inside to the outside...it is misinterpreting the results, and ignoring obvious flaws in the experiment and believing you are demonstrating something that you aren't that is the problem.

If you measure the height of a tree by observing its shadow and the angle of the sun that is also being fooled by instrumentation because you're not actually measuring the tree. Or something like that.

Of course not, because you can actually measure the height of the tree to check against your trigonometric calculation...you can't actually measure energy moving in two directions because it doesn't happen...energy movement is a one way gross flow from warm to cool.

Stefan's experiment produced data that allowed the radiation to be quantified and qualified into a Planck curve for each temperature. The shape for each curve is congruent to the shape of any other curve for temperature.

The experiment is not showing what you believe it to be showing...you claim that energy can not move from the outside of the sphere to the inside of the sphere when the very energy that is heating the inside came from the outside...and since neither the sphere nor the interior of the oven can ever be brought to perfect thermal equilibrium, there is going to be energy movement across those temperature gradients no matter how small they may be...the experiment doesn't demonstrate what you claim it demonstrates.

You are trying to demonstrate the perfect theoretical conditions of the model with a flawed experiment in reality.

you can't actually measure energy moving in two directions because it doesn't happen...energy movement is a one way gross flow from warm to cool.

Except the Sun.