Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Isn't it odd the way SSDD judges models he likes compared to models he doesn't like? I don't think he even realizes the extent of his double standards.

Very early on I would have thought it very odd, but having seen how his mind works, it no longer surprises me to what lengths he would lie, bluff, misunderstand, and swear at others on this forum.

Double standards? I don't think he has any standards.

His epicycles are very intricate.......

 

[SSDD]

He uses 7 physical variables to define a set of 12 dimensionless variables, as would be required in empirical dimensional analysis, and engages them as models (see Table 5.)

And how many variables do you think drive the climate?

short, the author defined a menu of 12 dimensionless variables to be used to compute 4 parameters to fit the data from 6 planets. That kind of empirical liberty makes good curve-fitting an almost certainty.

Not at all...if you apply the formulae used for the international standard temperature, you also get a damned good fit for every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere at 1 atmosphere....this tells us that the composition of the atmosphere has very little to do with the climate beyond the contribution of its mass.

Sorry guy, but you are just terribly misinformed and a top shelf dupe to boot.

My goal was to look at the alternate view of the paper you cited and understand where the author was coming from. You didn't understand the simplest gist of the paper but still thought it might prove a point you wanted.

Dream on bulwinkle..fact is that you have been just talking out of your ass...anyone who thinks that you can rightly apply the SB law to the atmosphere doesn't have a clue.

 

[SSDD]

You might read this paper as well..

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-ac...-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

I read that reference in detail. Author's quotes are boldfaced.

The author uses curve-fitting models. The word model occurs 152 times throughout the text.

Thus, our working hypothesis was that a general physical model should exist...​

He uses 7 physical variables to define a set of 12 dimensionless variables, as would be required in empirical dimensional analysis, and engages them as models (see Table 5.)

Based on the current state of knowledge we identified seven physical variables of potential relevance to the global surface temperature
...
The second step of DA (after the construction of dimensionless products) is to search for a functional relationship between the [12] variables of each set using regression analysis.
...
The following four-parameter exponential-growth function was found to best meet our criteria:
y = a exp(bx) + c exp(dx)​

In short, the author defined a menu of 12 dimensionless variables to be used to compute 4 parameters to fit the data from 6 planets. That kind of empirical liberty makes good curve-fitting an almost certainty.

After heuristically fitting curves he gets to the physical significance of the formulas starting at the bottom of page 11. He finds a close similarity to the adiabatic Poisson formula derived from the ideal gas law. However his conclusion is quite limited according to his statement,

while qualitatively similar, Equations (10a) [the author's curve fit] and (13) [Poisson formula] are quantitatively rather different. . . .[they] describe qualitatively very similar responses in quantitatively vastly different systems.​

His results, (equation 10a) could neither be analytically deduced from known physical laws nor accurately simulated in a small-scale experiment.​

That is to say it is unreproducable, and unphysical.

His conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first model accurately describing the average surface temperatures of planetary bodies throughout the Solar System ​

I would word it that his model fits the 5 planet data points rather well, but has no further significance. His further conclusions sort of renege his disclaimer of physical significance and more directly relates it to Poisson's formula. Go figure.

The author is quite knowledgeable about physics except for one thing: adiabatic systems are very fleeting in nature and have no long term effect. I have no quarrel with his mathematical technique - what he did and how he did it - but I do think his rampant use of fudge factors in his curve fitting effort did not carry much significance, and as he admits, his result is vastly different than what he physically attempted to show.

.

Isn't it odd the way SSDD judges models he likes compared to models he doesn't like? I don't think he even realizes the extent of his double standards.

Sorry ian...wrong again...I am all for models that can be observed and tested in real life...like the version of the SB law that applies to a radiator emitting into its cooler surroundings...every observation is of one way gross energy movement in accordance to the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings...that is how it became a physical law...it is exquisitely predictable...the same thing happens every time it is observed....

 

[SSDD]

Isn't it odd the way SSDD judges models he likes compared to models he doesn't like? I don't think he even realizes the extent of his double standards.

Very early on I would have thought it very odd, but having seen how his mind works, it no longer surprises me to what lengths he would lie, bluff, misunderstand, and swear at others on this forum.

Double standards? I don't think he has any standards.

Project much....lying and bluffing are your tools in trade, and very low standards...you have made that abundantly clear.

 

[Wuwei]

Dream on bulwinkle..fact is that you have been just talking out of your ass...anyone who thinks that you can rightly apply the SB law to the atmosphere doesn't have a clue.

You have no observed, measurable, testable experiment that says that you can't apply the SB law to the atmosphere.

 

[SSDD]

Dream on bulwinkle..fact is that you have been just talking out of your ass...anyone who thinks that you can rightly apply the SB law to the atmosphere doesn't have a clue.

You have no observed, measurable, testable experiment that says that you can't apply the SB law to the atmosphere.

Only the physical law itself...The SB is applicable to a radiator with a single radiating surface...sorry you didn't know that...and even more sorry that you never will....like your nonsense in believing that a black body has a high heat capacity...what a laugh...an ideal black body absorbs everything and emits everything..it doesn't store jack.... The very fact that the greenhouse hypothesis can only predict the temperature here by using an ad hoc fudge factor should tell you that the physics is wrong and since they rely heavily on the SB law, that should give you the first clue but alas..you remain clueless.

 

[IanC]

You might read this paper as well..

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-ac...-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

I read that reference in detail. Author's quotes are boldfaced.

The author uses curve-fitting models. The word model occurs 152 times throughout the text.

Thus, our working hypothesis was that a general physical model should exist...​

He uses 7 physical variables to define a set of 12 dimensionless variables, as would be required in empirical dimensional analysis, and engages them as models (see Table 5.)

Based on the current state of knowledge we identified seven physical variables of potential relevance to the global surface temperature
...
The second step of DA (after the construction of dimensionless products) is to search for a functional relationship between the [12] variables of each set using regression analysis.
...
The following four-parameter exponential-growth function was found to best meet our criteria:
y = a exp(bx) + c exp(dx)​

In short, the author defined a menu of 12 dimensionless variables to be used to compute 4 parameters to fit the data from 6 planets. That kind of empirical liberty makes good curve-fitting an almost certainty.

After heuristically fitting curves he gets to the physical significance of the formulas starting at the bottom of page 11. He finds a close similarity to the adiabatic Poisson formula derived from the ideal gas law. However his conclusion is quite limited according to his statement,

while qualitatively similar, Equations (10a) [the author's curve fit] and (13) [Poisson formula] are quantitatively rather different. . . .[they] describe qualitatively very similar responses in quantitatively vastly different systems.​

His results, (equation 10a) could neither be analytically deduced from known physical laws nor accurately simulated in a small-scale experiment.​

That is to say it is unreproducable, and unphysical.

His conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first model accurately describing the average surface temperatures of planetary bodies throughout the Solar System ​

I would word it that his model fits the 5 planet data points rather well, but has no further significance. His further conclusions sort of renege his disclaimer of physical significance and more directly relates it to Poisson's formula. Go figure.

The author is quite knowledgeable about physics except for one thing: adiabatic systems are very fleeting in nature and have no long term effect. I have no quarrel with his mathematical technique - what he did and how he did it - but I do think his rampant use of fudge factors in his curve fitting effort did not carry much significance, and as he admits, his result is vastly different than what he physically attempted to show.

.

Isn't it odd the way SSDD judges models he likes compared to models he doesn't like? I don't think he even realizes the extent of his double standards.

Sorry ian...wrong again...I am all for models that can be observed and tested in real life...like the version of the SB law that applies to a radiator emitting into its cooler surroundings...every observation is of one way gross energy movement in accordance to the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings...that is how it became a physical law...it is exquisitely predictable...the same thing happens every time it is observed....

Here we are at the same road block.

I say every object MUST radiate according to its temperature because of the internal conditions controlled by the amount of energy available.

You say the radiation of an object is controlled not by internal conditions of the object, but by the external conditions of its surroundings. You give no plausible mechanism for how this happens.

I say the net flow of heat is simply the radiation of one object less the radiation of the other.

You say the cooler object stops radiating completely, and the warm object throttles down its emissions so that the only radiation produced is the exact amount (and type) that would be left over if you simply subtracted one flow from the other. Again, you give no mechanism.

You refuse to acknowledge entropy. You refuse to explain how an excited molecule can be stopped from dropping back to groundstate and emitting a photon, somehow being controlled by distant conditions rather than internal ones.

I could go on and on. And have in the past. You simply refuse to answer any criticisms of your version of physics, other than to say "how do rocks know which direction to fall".

 

[Wuwei]

The SB is applicable to a radiator with a single radiating surface.

All substances have millions of radiating surfaces. There are many layers of atoms radiating. Lambert's coefficient defines the depth the radiation can penetrate.

.like your nonsense in believing that a black body has a high heat capacity...what a laugh...an ideal black body absorbs everything and emits everything..it doesn't store jack.

A black body emits everything??? Why do you think it is called "black". Please cite a scientific source that says a black body emits everything. That is one of the most self-negating statements I have seen. It says one thing and negates it all in the same sentence.

 

[IanC]

The SB is applicable to a radiator with a single radiating surface.

All substances have millions of radiating surfaces. There are many layers of atoms radiating. Lambert's coefficient defines the depth the radiation can penetrate.

.like your nonsense in believing that a black body has a high heat capacity...what a laugh...an ideal black body absorbs everything and emits everything..it doesn't store jack.

A black body emits everything??? Why do you think it is called "black". Please cite a scientific source that says a black body emits everything. That is one of the most self-negating statements I have seen. It says one thing and negates it all in the same sentence.

A blackbody must be just as good of an emitter as an absorber.

I think the original description of a perfect Blackbody also said it was 'infinitely thin'. Perhaps to get around some of the questions you and SSDD are fighting about.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You might read this paper as well..

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-ac...-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

I read that reference in detail. Author's quotes are boldfaced.

The author uses curve-fitting models. The word model occurs 152 times throughout the text.

Thus, our working hypothesis was that a general physical model should exist...​

He uses 7 physical variables to define a set of 12 dimensionless variables, as would be required in empirical dimensional analysis, and engages them as models (see Table 5.)

Based on the current state of knowledge we identified seven physical variables of potential relevance to the global surface temperature
...
The second step of DA (after the construction of dimensionless products) is to search for a functional relationship between the [12] variables of each set using regression analysis.
...
The following four-parameter exponential-growth function was found to best meet our criteria:
y = a exp(bx) + c exp(dx)​

In short, the author defined a menu of 12 dimensionless variables to be used to compute 4 parameters to fit the data from 6 planets. That kind of empirical liberty makes good curve-fitting an almost certainty.

After heuristically fitting curves he gets to the physical significance of the formulas starting at the bottom of page 11. He finds a close similarity to the adiabatic Poisson formula derived from the ideal gas law. However his conclusion is quite limited according to his statement,

while qualitatively similar, Equations (10a) [the author's curve fit] and (13) [Poisson formula] are quantitatively rather different. . . .[they] describe qualitatively very similar responses in quantitatively vastly different systems.​

His results, (equation 10a) could neither be analytically deduced from known physical laws nor accurately simulated in a small-scale experiment.​

That is to say it is unreproducable, and unphysical.

His conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first model accurately describing the average surface temperatures of planetary bodies throughout the Solar System ​

I would word it that his model fits the 5 planet data points rather well, but has no further significance. His further conclusions sort of renege his disclaimer of physical significance and more directly relates it to Poisson's formula. Go figure.

The author is quite knowledgeable about physics except for one thing: adiabatic systems are very fleeting in nature and have no long term effect. I have no quarrel with his mathematical technique - what he did and how he did it - but I do think his rampant use of fudge factors in his curve fitting effort did not carry much significance, and as he admits, his result is vastly different than what he physically attempted to show.

.

Isn't it odd the way SSDD judges models he likes compared to models he doesn't like? I don't think he even realizes the extent of his double standards.

Sorry ian...wrong again...I am all for models that can be observed and tested in real life...like the version of the SB law that applies to a radiator emitting into its cooler surroundings...every observation is of one way gross energy movement in accordance to the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings...that is how it became a physical law...it is exquisitely predictable...the same thing happens every time it is observed....

Here we are at the same road block.

I say every object MUST radiate according to its temperature because of the internal conditions controlled by the amount of energy available.

You say the radiation of an object is controlled not by internal conditions of the object, but by the external conditions of its surroundings. You give no plausible mechanism for how this happens.

I say the net flow of heat is simply the radiation of one object less the radiation of the other.

You say the cooler object stops radiating completely, and the warm object throttles down its emissions so that the only radiation produced is the exact amount (and type) that would be left over if you simply subtracted one flow from the other. Again, you give no mechanism.

You refuse to acknowledge entropy. You refuse to explain how an excited molecule can be stopped from dropping back to groundstate and emitting a photon, somehow being controlled by distant conditions rather than internal ones.

I could go on and on. And have in the past. You simply refuse to answer any criticisms of your version of physics, other than to say "how do rocks know which direction to fall".

You say the radiation of an object is controlled not by internal conditions of the object, but by the external conditions of its surroundings. You give no plausible mechanism for how this happens.

It's even worse than that.

Cooler matter cannot radiate toward warmer matter, because 2nd Law.
Unless work is done, in which case it can radiate toward warmer matter.

How does the matter know that work was done?

A CO2 molecule at 5000 feet and at 50 F can't radiate toward the 70 F ground,
but if I perform some work and raise the temperature to 50.1 F, suddenly it is allowed
to radiate toward the ground. I wonder how low its temperature is allowed to go by radiating............

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Dream on bulwinkle..fact is that you have been just talking out of your ass...anyone who thinks that you can rightly apply the SB law to the atmosphere doesn't have a clue.

You have no observed, measurable, testable experiment that says that you can't apply the SB law to the atmosphere.

Only the physical law itself...The SB is applicable to a radiator with a single radiating surface...sorry you didn't know that...and even more sorry that you never will....like your nonsense in believing that a black body has a high heat capacity...what a laugh...an ideal black body absorbs everything and emits everything..it doesn't store jack.... The very fact that the greenhouse hypothesis can only predict the temperature here by using an ad hoc fudge factor should tell you that the physics is wrong and since they rely heavily on the SB law, that should give you the first clue but alas..you remain clueless.

an ideal black body absorbs everything and emits everything.

Absorbing and emitting at the same time? According to your theory, that's not allowed.

 

[IanC]

Dream on bulwinkle..fact is that you have been just talking out of your ass...anyone who thinks that you can rightly apply the SB law to the atmosphere doesn't have a clue.

You have no observed, measurable, testable experiment that says that you can't apply the SB law to the atmosphere.

Only the physical law itself...The SB is applicable to a radiator with a single radiating surface...sorry you didn't know that...and even more sorry that you never will....like your nonsense in believing that a black body has a high heat capacity...what a laugh...an ideal black body absorbs everything and emits everything..it doesn't store jack.... The very fact that the greenhouse hypothesis can only predict the temperature here by using an ad hoc fudge factor should tell you that the physics is wrong and since they rely heavily on the SB law, that should give you the first clue but alas..you remain clueless.

an ideal black body absorbs everything and emits everything.

Absorbing and emitting at the same time? According to your theory, that's not allowed.

Hahahaha, good one.

 

[Wuwei]

The SB is applicable to a radiator with a single radiating surface.

All substances have millions of radiating surfaces. There are many layers of atoms radiating. Lambert's coefficient defines the depth the radiation can penetrate.

.like your nonsense in believing that a black body has a high heat capacity...what a laugh...an ideal black body absorbs everything and emits everything..it doesn't store jack.

A black body emits everything??? Why do you think it is called "black". Please cite a scientific source that says a black body emits everything. That is one of the most self-negating statements I have seen. It says one thing and negates it all in the same sentence.

A blackbody must be just as good of an emitter as an absorber.

I think the original description of a perfect Blackbody also said it was 'infinitely thin'. Perhaps to get around some of the questions you and SSDD are fighting about.

Right. But in practice no materials function at an infinitely thin surface.

Theoretically, black bodies can absorb all frequencies, but only emit radiation according to Plank's Law. Thanks for clarifying what you think SSDD is thinking, but to say that it can't store energy is flat-out wrong.

 

[IanC]

You might read this paper as well..

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-ac...-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

I read that reference in detail. Author's quotes are boldfaced.

The author uses curve-fitting models. The word model occurs 152 times throughout the text.

Thus, our working hypothesis was that a general physical model should exist...​

He uses 7 physical variables to define a set of 12 dimensionless variables, as would be required in empirical dimensional analysis, and engages them as models (see Table 5.)

Based on the current state of knowledge we identified seven physical variables of potential relevance to the global surface temperature
...
The second step of DA (after the construction of dimensionless products) is to search for a functional relationship between the [12] variables of each set using regression analysis.
...
The following four-parameter exponential-growth function was found to best meet our criteria:
y = a exp(bx) + c exp(dx)​

In short, the author defined a menu of 12 dimensionless variables to be used to compute 4 parameters to fit the data from 6 planets. That kind of empirical liberty makes good curve-fitting an almost certainty.

After heuristically fitting curves he gets to the physical significance of the formulas starting at the bottom of page 11. He finds a close similarity to the adiabatic Poisson formula derived from the ideal gas law. However his conclusion is quite limited according to his statement,

while qualitatively similar, Equations (10a) [the author's curve fit] and (13) [Poisson formula] are quantitatively rather different. . . .[they] describe qualitatively very similar responses in quantitatively vastly different systems.​

His results, (equation 10a) could neither be analytically deduced from known physical laws nor accurately simulated in a small-scale experiment.​

That is to say it is unreproducable, and unphysical.

His conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first model accurately describing the average surface temperatures of planetary bodies throughout the Solar System ​

I would word it that his model fits the 5 planet data points rather well, but has no further significance. His further conclusions sort of renege his disclaimer of physical significance and more directly relates it to Poisson's formula. Go figure.

The author is quite knowledgeable about physics except for one thing: adiabatic systems are very fleeting in nature and have no long term effect. I have no quarrel with his mathematical technique - what he did and how he did it - but I do think his rampant use of fudge factors in his curve fitting effort did not carry much significance, and as he admits, his result is vastly different than what he physically attempted to show.

.

Isn't it odd the way SSDD judges models he likes compared to models he doesn't like? I don't think he even realizes the extent of his double standards.

Sorry ian...wrong again...I am all for models that can be observed and tested in real life...like the version of the SB law that applies to a radiator emitting into its cooler surroundings...every observation is of one way gross energy movement in accordance to the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings...that is how it became a physical law...it is exquisitely predictable...the same thing happens every time it is observed....

Here we are at the same road block.

I say every object MUST radiate according to its temperature because of the internal conditions controlled by the amount of energy available.

You say the radiation of an object is controlled not by internal conditions of the object, but by the external conditions of its surroundings. You give no plausible mechanism for how this happens.

I say the net flow of heat is simply the radiation of one object less the radiation of the other.

You say the cooler object stops radiating completely, and the warm object throttles down its emissions so that the only radiation produced is the exact amount (and type) that would be left over if you simply subtracted one flow from the other. Again, you give no mechanism.

You refuse to acknowledge entropy. You refuse to explain how an excited molecule can be stopped from dropping back to groundstate and emitting a photon, somehow being controlled by distant conditions rather than internal ones.

I could go on and on. And have in the past. You simply refuse to answer any criticisms of your version of physics, other than to say "how do rocks know which direction to fall".

You say the radiation of an object is controlled not by internal conditions of the object, but by the external conditions of its surroundings. You give no plausible mechanism for how this happens.

It's even worse than that.

Cooler matter cannot radiate toward warmer matter, because 2nd Law.
Unless work is done, in which case it can radiate toward warmer matter.

How does the matter know that work was done?

A CO2 molecule at 5000 feet and at 50 F can't radiate toward the 70 F ground,
but if I perform some work and raise the temperature to 50.1 F, suddenly it is allowed
to radiate toward the ground. I wonder how low its temperature is allowed to go by radiating............

There is another conondrum imbedded in your example.

Air molecules at 5000 feet have much of their total energy stored as potential energy in the gravity field rather than kinetic energy (temperature).

Does this stored potential energy affect radiation physics?

 

[IanC]

The SB is applicable to a radiator with a single radiating surface.

All substances have millions of radiating surfaces. There are many layers of atoms radiating. Lambert's coefficient defines the depth the radiation can penetrate.

.like your nonsense in believing that a black body has a high heat capacity...what a laugh...an ideal black body absorbs everything and emits everything..it doesn't store jack.

A black body emits everything??? Why do you think it is called "black". Please cite a scientific source that says a black body emits everything. That is one of the most self-negating statements I have seen. It says one thing and negates it all in the same sentence.

A blackbody must be just as good of an emitter as an absorber.

I think the original description of a perfect Blackbody also said it was 'infinitely thin'. Perhaps to get around some of the questions you and SSDD are fighting about.

Right. But in practice no materials function at an infinitely thin surface.

Theoretically, black bodies can absorb all frequencies, but only emit radiation according to Plank's Law. Thanks for clarifying what you think SSDD is thinking, but to say that it can't store energy is flat-out wrong.

Yup. CO2 can absorb all the 15 micron radiation emitted from the surface.

CO2 would emit 15 micron radiation according to its temperature if it was not being short circuited by molecular collision, but the impact is still there even though it is shunted into a different pathway.

 

[Wuwei]

Yup. CO2 can absorb all the 15 micron radiation emitted from the surface.

CO2 would emit 15 micron radiation according to its temperature if it was not being short circuited by molecular collision, but the impact is still there even though it is shunted into a different pathway.

Yes. The way I like to think of it is that there are populations of GHG molecules in various rotation, kinetic energy, and internal vibration states according to the equipartition theory. Various GHG molecules can absorb the thermal radiation that they are tuned to, but will probably undergo collisions with air before they re-emit that internal energy. The GHG vibration states can also be excited simply due to collisions with other air molecules. So the easiest and most fruitful way of thinking of CO2 is in terms of what percentages occupy each possible state, what the absorption cross-section is for each state and go from there.

 

[IanC]

There is one important pathway that seems to get ignored here and elsewhere.

Conduction to the atmosphere from the surface, and the atmospheric analogue to the surface.

This is another instance of net energy transfer. It is also the largest pathway, which defines the possible range of temperatures at the surface, with GHGs only making alterations, mostly to energy flow into the atmosphere but also outwards at increased height.

This is the pathway that gives N&Z's theory its limited predictive power.

 

[Wuwei]

I'm not familiar with the term atmospheric analogue.
In the real world I would think convection would also play a very large role. Horizontal wind and rising air warm air being replaced by falling cool air would create turbulence that would be hard to realistically model.

 

[IanC]

I'm not familiar with the term atmospheric analogue.
In the real world I would think convection would also play a very large role. Horizontal wind and rising air warm air being replaced by falling cool air would create turbulence that would be hard to realistically model.

Heat conduction in solids is different than in gases. That was the point I was trying to make.

Air movement would be dramatically reduced without the water cycle but that is just redistribution of energy in the lower atmosphere rather than passage of energy at the boundaries.

 

[SSDD]

Dream on bulwinkle..fact is that you have been just talking out of your ass...anyone who thinks that you can rightly apply the SB law to the atmosphere doesn't have a clue.

You have no observed, measurable, testable experiment that says that you can't apply the SB law to the atmosphere.

Only the physical law itself...The SB is applicable to a radiator with a single radiating surface...sorry you didn't know that...and even more sorry that you never will....like your nonsense in believing that a black body has a high heat capacity...what a laugh...an ideal black body absorbs everything and emits everything..it doesn't store jack.... The very fact that the greenhouse hypothesis can only predict the temperature here by using an ad hoc fudge factor should tell you that the physics is wrong and since they rely heavily on the SB law, that should give you the first clue but alas..you remain clueless.

an ideal black body absorbs everything and emits everything.

Absorbing and emitting at the same time? According to your theory, that's not allowed.

When did I ever suggest that? Maybe you cold provide a quote from me saying that....or we could just chalk it up to just one more lie on your part.