Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[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.

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.

When did I ever suggest that?

When you said that objects cease emitting when warmer objects are nearby.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Been through it all before and you lost then also. Set Tc to a lower temperature than T...which is assumed by the SB law...and watch P change...what is the underlying mechanism? who knows...we don't even have a grasp on the underlying mechanism of energy transfer...

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

Yeah..you say net....but neither the second law of thermodynamics, nor the SB law say net...all the equations describe a gross one way flow of energy and every observation and measurement ever made show us a one way energy movement from warm to cool.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Been through it all before and you lost then also. Set Tc to a lower temperature than T...which is assumed by the SB law...and watch P change...what is the underlying mechanism? who knows...we don't even have a grasp on the underlying mechanism of energy transfer...

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

Yeah..you say net....but neither the second law of thermodynamics, nor the SB law say net...all the equations describe a gross one way flow of energy and every observation and measurement ever made show us a one way energy movement from warm to cool.

all the equations describe a gross one way flow of energy and every observation and measurement ever made show us a one way energy movement from warm to cool.

Have you ever provided any sources that agree with this one-way only flow?

I mean besides your unique, confused misinterpretation of SB?

 

[SSDD]

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.

Keep talking...at this point, I have to wonder how much bullshit Ian will listen to from you before he corrects you...or perhaps there is no limit so long as you support his position...

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.

And the crazy talk just goes on and on...a black body is a perfect radiator...what do you think that means? Here...from the science dictionary...

A theoretically perfect absorber and emitter of every frequency of electromagnetic radiation. The radiation emitted by a blackbody is a function only of its temperature.

Also look up perfect emitter, you will be referenced to black body...what...you think that because it is called a black body it absorbs and holds on to energy like a black Chevrolet? you get more laughable all the time...keep talking...

 

[Wuwei]

Keep talking...at this point, I have to wonder how much bullshit Ian will listen to from you before he corrects you...or perhaps there is no limit so long as you support his position...

Invectives, but no science.

A theoretically perfect absorber and emitter of every frequency of electromagnetic radiation. The radiation emitted by a blackbody is a function only of its temperature.

That function of temperature is Planck's Law. Look it up.

Do you think a black body at room temperature emits gamma rays? If so how much?

Please cite a source that says a black body doesn't store any energy. Nobody else believes that.

 

[IanC]

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.

Been through it all before and you lost then also. Set Tc to a lower temperature than T...which is assumed by the SB law...and watch P change...what is the underlying mechanism? who knows...we don't even have a grasp on the underlying mechanism of energy transfer...

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

Yeah..you say net....but neither the second law of thermodynamics, nor the SB law say net...all the equations describe a gross one way flow of energy and every observation and measurement ever made show us a one way energy movement from warm to cool.

Okay, I'll try again in yet a different way.

Your favorite S-B equation is describing the power radiated from the warm object to the cool object. That is all it is describing, with an emphasis on the relationship to the temperature difference.

The equation can be easily rearranged to emphasize the radiation being emitted by either object, and the power being simply the difference between the two.

The two variations of the equation both give the same answer. There is no reason to choose one over the other. They are equivalent.

The original equation is j = sigmaT^4. Which describes the relationship between radiation and temperature. If anything the radiation is emphasized because it stands alone. But it would be equally correct to isolate sigma, or the temperature. All the variations give the same answer. All are correct. The arrangement you prefer has no special meaning. There is no mathematical difference.

Your arrangement is correct but so is mine. There is no such thing as a corrupt version of the S-B laws.

 

[SSDD]

The equation can be easily rearranged to emphasize the radiation being emitted by either object, and the power being simply the difference between the two.

You mean complicate an already reduced equation as if applying the distributive property to an equation would actually change what is happening in the physical world? Like that you mean?

The two variations of the equation both give the same answer. There is no reason to choose one over the other. They are equivalent.

The original equation is describing a physical process...a real physical process...the second equation is describing a fantasy process that can not be observed...so no, they are not equivalent...they may provide the same answer, but the processes they describe are very different. When you are using math to describe a physical reality...altering the equation is no different than altering the story line of a narrative. Even if you have the same ending...by altering the narrative, you have told a different story.

The original equation is j = sigmaT^4. Which describes the relationship between radiation and temperature. If anything the radiation is emphasized because it stands alone. But it would be equally correct to isolate sigma, or the temperature. All the variations give the same answer. All are correct. The arrangement you prefer has no special meaning. There is no mathematical difference.

NO.

Your arrangement is correct but so is mine. There is no such thing as a corrupt version of the S-B laws.

If all you are concerned with is the answer at the end, then they are both the same although yours reflects terrible mathematics...and exhibits the use of a property when there is no valid reason to use it...and I remember asking you of some other instance when you might apply the distributive property to an equation that was already reduced and you could come up with nothing...in physics, however, it isn't just the number after the equals sign that matters..the equation is describing a physical process...change the equation and you change the description of the physical process...do you have any observations, or measurements to support your alteration of the description of the physical process?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The equation can be easily rearranged to emphasize the radiation being emitted by either object, and the power being simply the difference between the two.

You mean complicate an already reduced equation as if applying the distributive property to an equation would actually change what is happening in the physical world? Like that you mean?

The two variations of the equation both give the same answer. There is no reason to choose one over the other. They are equivalent.

The original equation is describing a physical process...a real physical process...the second equation is describing a fantasy process that can not be observed...so no, they are not equivalent...they may provide the same answer, but the processes they describe are very different. When you are using math to describe a physical reality...altering the equation is no different than altering the story line of a narrative. Even if you have the same ending...by altering the narrative, you have told a different story.

The original equation is j = sigmaT^4. Which describes the relationship between radiation and temperature. If anything the radiation is emphasized because it stands alone. But it would be equally correct to isolate sigma, or the temperature. All the variations give the same answer. All are correct. The arrangement you prefer has no special meaning. There is no mathematical difference.

NO.

Your arrangement is correct but so is mine. There is no such thing as a corrupt version of the S-B laws.

If all you are concerned with is the answer at the end, then they are both the same although yours reflects terrible mathematics...and exhibits the use of a property when there is no valid reason to use it...and I remember asking you of some other instance when you might apply the distributive property to an equation that was already reduced and you could come up with nothing...in physics, however, it isn't just the number after the equals sign that matters..the equation is describing a physical process...change the equation and you change the description of the physical process...do you have any observations, or measurements to support your alteration of the description of the physical process?

You mean complicate an already reduced equation as if applying the distributive property to an equation would actually change what is happening in the physical world?

Your one-way misinterpretation is the complication.
It leads to matter ceasing radiating when near warmer matter and requires smart photons
and future predicting emitters.

 

[IanC]

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.

Been through it all before and you lost then also. Set Tc to a lower temperature than T...which is assumed by the SB law...and watch P change...what is the underlying mechanism? who knows...we don't even have a grasp on the underlying mechanism of energy transfer...

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

Yeah..you say net....but neither the second law of thermodynamics, nor the SB law say net...all the equations describe a gross one way flow of energy and every observation and measurement ever made show us a one way energy movement from warm to cool.

The (T^4-Tc^4) term in your equation is where the 'net' result comes from. Temperature is a real property of reality. But what the fuck is temperature to the fourth power? That is not an actual thing. T^4 is useful as a mathematical concept to derive the radiation (an actual thing) coming off an object (an actual thing) according to temperature (an actual thing).

i is a useful mathematical concept to derive relationships but the square root of negative one does not actually exist. It is an imaginary number.

Why do you choose T^4, an imaginary thing, over j, a real amount of radiation?

Your favorite S-B equation can be rearranged as net power = power of the warm object minus power of the cool object. Three real things. Yet you choose T^4, an imaginary concept over real things.

And then have the audacity to say I am being unrealistic.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Been through it all before and you lost then also. Set Tc to a lower temperature than T...which is assumed by the SB law...and watch P change...what is the underlying mechanism? who knows...we don't even have a grasp on the underlying mechanism of energy transfer...

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

Yeah..you say net....but neither the second law of thermodynamics, nor the SB law say net...all the equations describe a gross one way flow of energy and every observation and measurement ever made show us a one way energy movement from warm to cool.

The (T^4-Tc^4) term in your equation is where the 'net' result comes from. Temperature is a real property of reality. But what the fuck is temperature to the fourth power? That is not an actual thing. T^4 is useful as a mathematical concept to derive the radiation (an actual thing) coming off an object (an actual thing) according to temperature (an actual thing).

i is a useful mathematical concept to derive relationships but the square root of negative one does not actually exist. It is an imaginary number.

Why do you choose T^4, an imaginary thing, over j, a real amount of radiation?

Your favorite S-B equation can be rearranged as net power = power of the warm object minus power of the cool object. Three real things. Yet you choose T^4, an imaginary concept over real things.

And then have the audacity to say I am being unrealistic.

You assume net in every example...and you assume it based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models and your faith in them...there is no expression there from which to derive net...with the expression T - Tc you can only derive the gross change.

 

[IanC]

You assume net in every example...and you assume it based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models and your faith in them...there is no expression there from which to derive net...with the expression T - Tc you can only derive the gross change

First, there is no expression T - Tc in the equation.

Second, any time you subtract one value from another you are implying a net value from two gross values. Subtracting 25 dollars from 100 dollars gives you a net value of 75 dollars.

If two people start with $1000 and $500 respectively, then give 10% of their money to the other every minute, then after an hour they will each have $750 and no more change in total will happen.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You assume net in every example...and you assume it based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models and your faith in them...there is no expression there from which to derive net...with the expression T - Tc you can only derive the gross change

First, there is no expression T - Tc in the equation.

Second, any time you subtract one value from another you are implying a net value from two gross values. Subtracting 25 dollars from 100 dollars gives you a net value of 75 dollars.

If two people start with $1000 and $500 respectively, then give 10% of their money to the other every minute, then after an hour they will each have $750 and no more change in total will happen.

He never has posted reputable sources backing his one-way only flow of energy.
Weird.
It's almost as though he's the only person with that misinterpretation of SB and the 2nd Law.

 

[Wuwei]

If two people start with $1000 and $500 respectively, then give 10% of their money to the other every minute, then after an hour they will each have $750 and no more change in total will happen.

That monetary example should explain it so that a 10 year old can understand equilibrium. I once cited about a dozen references that said that at equilibrium two objects will exchange the same thermal energy. They were from two Nobel prize winners and professors at elite universities, but he changed the subject and refused to respond to that.

 

[IanC]

If two people start with $1000 and $500 respectively, then give 10% of their money to the other every minute, then after an hour they will each have $750 and no more change in total will happen.

That monetary example should explain it so that a 10 year old can understand equilibrium. I once cited about a dozen references that said that at equilibrium two objects will exchange the same thermal energy. They were from two Nobel prize winners and professors at elite universities, but he changed the subject and refused to respond to that.

I actually used an Einstein quote from that comment once. SSDD casually dismissed Einstein as being wrong.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You assume net in every example...and you assume it based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models and your faith in them...there is no expression there from which to derive net...with the expression T - Tc you can only derive the gross change

First, there is no expression T - Tc in the equation.

Second, any time you subtract one value from another you are implying a net value from two gross values. Subtracting 25 dollars from 100 dollars gives you a net value of 75 dollars.

If two people start with $1000 and $500 respectively, then give 10% of their money to the other every minute, then after an hour they will each have $750 and no more change in total will happen.

That sounds clever, but that's not how energy flows. If you wanted to inflate a flat tire, starting at 0 pressure by hooking it to an air pump that generated 32psi per minute, it would take 1 minute to pressurize the tire. In your example it would take much longer, perhaps infinity, as the pressure in the tire approached 32psi.

Do you see why you're wrong and SSDD is correctly explaining the phenomenon?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If two people start with $1000 and $500 respectively, then give 10% of their money to the other every minute, then after an hour they will each have $750 and no more change in total will happen.

That monetary example should explain it so that a 10 year old can understand equilibrium. I once cited about a dozen references that said that at equilibrium two objects will exchange the same thermal energy. They were from two Nobel prize winners and professors at elite universities, but he changed the subject and refused to respond to that.

I actually used an Einstein quote from that comment once. SSDD casually dismissed Einstein as being wrong.

I think he said Einstein didn't use any actual experimental info.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You assume net in every example...and you assume it based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models and your faith in them...there is no expression there from which to derive net...with the expression T - Tc you can only derive the gross change

First, there is no expression T - Tc in the equation.

Second, any time you subtract one value from another you are implying a net value from two gross values. Subtracting 25 dollars from 100 dollars gives you a net value of 75 dollars.

If two people start with $1000 and $500 respectively, then give 10% of their money to the other every minute, then after an hour they will each have $750 and no more change in total will happen.

That sounds clever, but that's not how energy flows. If you wanted to inflate a flat tire, starting at 0 pressure by hooking it to an air pump that generated 32psi per minute, it would take 1 minute to pressurize the tire. In your example it would take much longer, perhaps infinity, as the pressure in the tire approached 32psi.

Do you see why you're wrong and SSDD is correctly explaining the phenomenon?

That sounds clever, but that's not how energy flows

Energy doesn't flow in all directions? Why not?

Do you see why you're wrong and SSDD is correctly explaining the phenomenon?

SSDD is a moron. His only redeeming feature is he's against wasting trillions on windmills.

 

[SSDD]

You assume net in every example...and you assume it based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models and your faith in them...there is no expression there from which to derive net...with the expression T - Tc you can only derive the gross change

First, there is no expression T - Tc in the equation.

Second, any time you subtract one value from another you are implying a net value from two gross values. Subtracting 25 dollars from 100 dollars gives you a net value of 75 dollars.

If two people start with $1000 and $500 respectively, then give 10% of their money to the other every minute, then after an hour they will each have $750 and no more change in total will happen.

So one way energy flow from warm to cool is the new "net"...laughable ian...absolutely laughable. At least you admit that there is no expression that suggests that energy is moving two ways.

 

[SSDD]

If two people start with $1000 and $500 respectively, then give 10% of their money to the other every minute, then after an hour they will each have $750 and no more change in total will happen.

That monetary example should explain it so that a 10 year old can understand equilibrium. I once cited about a dozen references that said that at equilibrium two objects will exchange the same thermal energy. They were from two Nobel prize winners and professors at elite universities, but he changed the subject and refused to respond to that.

I actually used an Einstein quote from that comment once. SSDD casually dismissed Einstein as being wrong.

Anyone who suggests that energy is moving spontaneously from cool to warm is wrong..it doesn't matter who they are.

 

[SSDD]

You assume net in every example...and you assume it based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models and your faith in them...there is no expression there from which to derive net...with the expression T - Tc you can only derive the gross change

First, there is no expression T - Tc in the equation.

Second, any time you subtract one value from another you are implying a net value from two gross values. Subtracting 25 dollars from 100 dollars gives you a net value of 75 dollars.

If two people start with $1000 and $500 respectively, then give 10% of their money to the other every minute, then after an hour they will each have $750 and no more change in total will happen.

That sounds clever, but that's not how energy flows. If you wanted to inflate a flat tire, starting at 0 pressure by hooking it to an air pump that generated 32psi per minute, it would take 1 minute to pressurize the tire. In your example it would take much longer, perhaps infinity, as the pressure in the tire approached 32psi.

Do you see why you're wrong and SSDD is correctly explaining the phenomenon?

He will never see it...he has been completely bamboozled by the models to the point that he is unable to separate them from reality...they are his reality and it doesn't matter a whit to him that the energy movement he describes remains unobservable, untestable, and unmeasurable, even though he claims the energy movement is happening at a magnitude that can actually alter the global climate...he believes and his faith is strong.