Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[Wuwei]

And the second law still states that energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm...and that is all that I have said...the rest of the stuff like photons being forbidden to do this or that is all made up by you wack jobs...my position is only, and has always been that energy will not move spontaneously from cool to warm..nothing more.

all the rest of that crap is nothing more than straw men you guys erected to rail against.

You should know by now that you have mischaracterized the argument against you. Science tells us that there is a two way flow of thermal energy. It's the net energy that does not move spontaneously from cool to warm.

You have always said there is a one way flow. But you have never given a scientifically valid reason forbidding two way flow.

 

[SSDD]

You should know by now that you have mischaracterized the argument against you. Science tells us that there is a two way flow of thermal energy. It's the net energy that does not move spontaneously from cool to warm.

Science, through the years has told us all sorts of nonsense, and as the ability to experiment and observe improve, their nonsense was exposed as nonsense. This is just one more example and poor self depreciating dupes such as yourself who, I can only suppose, will buy any line of nonsense from anyone whom you perceive as more intelligent than yourself just eat it up and by some strange mental gymnastics, convert unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models into reality within your brain.

Who gives a shit what someone told you...when the claims can't be either observed, measured, or tested...are you really that gullible?

”

You have always said there is a one way flow. But you have never given a scientifically valid reason forbidding two way flow.

Considering that a two way net flow of energy has never been observed, or measured, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm..and makes no mention of net anything, all the sources and observation support me...the only support you have is unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical models...

Net energy flow is nothing more than an unsupported assumption....let me know when they change the 2nd law of thermodynamics to state that energy moves spontaneously in two directions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You should know by now that you have mischaracterized the argument against you. Science tells us that there is a two way flow of thermal energy. It's the net energy that does not move spontaneously from cool to warm.

Science, through the years has told us all sorts of nonsense, and as the ability to experiment and observe improve, their nonsense was exposed as nonsense. This is just one more example and poor self depreciating dupes such as yourself who, I can only suppose, will buy any line of nonsense from anyone whom you perceive as more intelligent than yourself just eat it up and by some strange mental gymnastics, convert unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models into reality within your brain.

Who gives a shit what someone told you...when the claims can't be either observed, measured, or tested...are you really that gullible?

”

You have always said there is a one way flow. But you have never given a scientifically valid reason forbidding two way flow.

Considering that a two way net flow of energy has never been observed, or measured, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm..and makes no mention of net anything, all the sources and observation support me...the only support you have is unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical models...

Net energy flow is nothing more than an unsupported assumption....let me know when they change the 2nd law of thermodynamics to state that energy moves spontaneously in two directions.

Considering that a two way net flow of energy has never been observed, or measured,

You should post your favorite source that explicitly backs up your claim.

 

[Wuwei]

Science tells us that there is a two way flow of thermal energy. Net energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm. Give us a scientifically valid reason forbidding two way flow.

 

[SSDD]

Science tells us that there is a two way flow of thermal energy. Net energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm. Give us a scientifically valid reason forbidding two way flow.

Science tells you...science tells you...science tells you. If that is all you have, then you have exactly jack squat...Science shows us that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...science shows us that PV=nRT...science shows us that pressure = force / area...science shows us that speed = distance/time...science shows us that an objects weight is directly proportional to its mass....science shows us that work = force x distance...science shows us that resistance = voltage / current...

Science has shown us all sorts of things and repeatable experiment has demonstrated those things to be true...if all you have is science telling you but science can't demonstrate the claim then you have nothing but faith...I prefer empirical evidence before I jump on a bandwagon....people who believe without evidence are faithful, or gullible, or marks, or suckers..or any number of adjectives for people who believe with no actual evidence in support of their belief...

I don't care to hear what anyone has "told" you as I am by nature a critical thinker and skeptical of what people go about saying...I favor empirical, hard, repeatable evidence along with what am being "told"...

 

[Wuwei]

Science tells you...science tells you...science tells you. If that is all you have, then you have exactly jack squat...Science shows us that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...science shows us that PV=nRT...science shows us that pressure = force / area...science shows us that speed = distance/time...science shows us that an objects weight is directly proportional to its mass....science shows us that work = force x distance...science shows us that resistance = voltage / current...

Science has shown us all sorts of things and repeatable experiment has demonstrated those things to be true...if all you have is science telling you but science can't demonstrate the claim then you have nothing but faith...I prefer empirical evidence before I jump on a bandwagon....people who believe without evidence are faithful, or gullible, or marks, or suckers..or any number of adjectives for people who believe with no actual evidence in support of their belief...

I don't care to hear what anyone has "told" you as I am by nature a critical thinker and skeptical of what people go about saying...I favor empirical, hard, repeatable evidence along with what am being "told"...

What I hear you saying is that you do believe in old classical physics before QM, but you don't believe in modern science. That is your problem.

 

[SSDD]

Science tells you...science tells you...science tells you. If that is all you have, then you have exactly jack squat...Science shows us that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...science shows us that PV=nRT...science shows us that pressure = force / area...science shows us that speed = distance/time...science shows us that an objects weight is directly proportional to its mass....science shows us that work = force x distance...science shows us that resistance = voltage / current...

Science has shown us all sorts of things and repeatable experiment has demonstrated those things to be true...if all you have is science telling you but science can't demonstrate the claim then you have nothing but faith...I prefer empirical evidence before I jump on a bandwagon....people who believe without evidence are faithful, or gullible, or marks, or suckers..or any number of adjectives for people who believe with no actual evidence in support of their belief...

I don't care to hear what anyone has "told" you as I am by nature a critical thinker and skeptical of what people go about saying...I favor empirical, hard, repeatable evidence along with what am being "told"...

What I hear you saying is that you do believe in old classical physics before QM, but you don't believe in modern science. That is your problem.

Believing in what someone you perceive as smarter than you when they can't even begin to demonstrate what they are saying is true is a problem...asking for empirical evidence to support a claim is science...believing because someone told you is far from science...and saying a thing that you can't prove with the intent of fooling dupes isn't science...

 

[Wuwei]

Believing in what someone you perceive as smarter than you when they can't even begin to demonstrate what they are saying is true is a problem...asking for empirical evidence to support a claim is science...believing because someone told you is far from science...and saying a thing that you can't prove with the intent of fooling dupes isn't science...

What scientists know is that there is no possible physical concept that would prevent objects at the same temperature from radiating equal amounts of energy toward each other. And you can't come up with a concept either. But still, you believe in that unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable one-way energy flow. That's weird.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no greenhouse effect as claimed by cliamte science...calculating the heat content of a carbon ball isn't going to get you any closer to supporting a hypothesis that has already failed so miserably

I don't agree with the explanation given by consensus climate science either. But just because some parts are wrong that doesn't mean every part is wrong.

When your hypothesis is flawed at its foundation, everything that comes after is flawed as well.

I don't agree with anything until it makes sense to me. When I am exposed to new information I incorporate it into my worldview. Sometimes it strengthens my position, sometimes it weakens it, sometimes it alters it.

The problem with that statement, in your case, is that energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm makes sense to you...and everything you build on that flawed assumption will be wrong.

The problem with that statement, in your case, is that energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm makes sense to you...


Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

Is the energy moving from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings.....spontaneous?

Absolute bullshit...they are calculating a human radiating in a vacuum devoid of other matter...apply the SB equation for a radiator radiating into cooler surroundings and look for P...if you are unable to do the math, under the circumstances described above, the human body would be radiating about 134 watts...there is no back radiation...there is no net energy flow..

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

if you are unable to do the math, under the circumstances described above, the human body would be radiating about 134 watts...there is no back radiation...there is no net energy flow..

You've said radiation can move from cooler matter to warmer matter, only if work was done.

if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings,

How do you think the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings got up to 296 K?

 

[SSDD]

What scientists know is that there is no possible physical concept that would prevent objects at the same temperature from radiating equal amounts of energy toward each other. And you can't come up with a concept either. But still, you believe in that unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable one-way energy flow. That's weird.

No possible concept? Are you kidding? At this point, we have almost no understanding whatsoever of how, or why energy transfers...we can detect its movement, we can measure how much moves, and we can predict its effects, but how, or why it transfers?...we are still damned near totally ignorant. And you claim that there is no possible concept as if we even began to know the concepts...

You really are quite far removed from reality and clearly have almost no inkling of how much science doesn't know...at this point, we don't even know what we don't know...

And since all observations and measurements of energy movement are gross one way movements, your attempt at using my request for actual evidence of your position falls flat...unless of course, you are unaware that all measurements and ovbservations of energy movement are one way...in which case you are just ignorant.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Years ago when I was learning the basics of fiber-optic transmission we applied a laser to each end of the 1 mile long spool, at the same frequency, and measured the output of the ends. There was a drop of about 67% of the optical power. When a single laser was used it emitted 94% of the input optical power.

When we used a higher transmission power on one end, the lower transmission power dropped by 83% while the higher power dropped by 51%. using 1.3 and 1.9 lasers (offset wave lengths) resulted in the same losses. (the experiment was deigned to show that bi-directional communications in fiber will not function)

Either the photons collided and caused scattering attenuation or there is still a very low understanding of photon energy process. Given that the QAM transmission was totally destroyed, for either end, its a good bet that it is a collision related event.

QM theory shown extremely questionable by observable experiment. Even if all matter radiates in all directions the temperature (power-output) of the matter, matters. The energy of a colder object reaching the other hotter object is also very questionable.

 

[Wuwei]

No possible concept? Are you kidding? At this point, we have almost no understanding whatsoever of how, or why energy transfers

What you mean is that you have no understanding.

You really are quite far removed from reality and clearly have almost no inkling of how much science doesn't know...at this point, we don't even know what we don't know.

You are far removed; you have no inkling; you don't know what you don't know.

And since all observations and measurements of energy movement are gross one way movements, your attempt at using my request for actual evidence of your position falls flat...unless of course, you are unaware that all measurements and ovbservations of energy movement are one way...in which case you are just ignorant.

You are repeating again that you have no evidence.

Science knows much more than you can ever imagine. Science agrees with QM experiments with an accuracy of parts per billion or trillion. And you say science has no understanding? Think again.

 

[IanC]

Years ago when I was learning the basics of fiber-optic transmission we applied a laser to each end of the 1 mile long spool, at the same frequency, and measured the output of the ends. There was a drop of about 67% of the optical power. When a single laser was used it emitted 94% of the input optical power.

When we used a higher transmission power on one end, the lower transmission power dropped by 83% while the higher power dropped by 51%. using 1.3 and 1.9 lasers (offset wave lengths) resulted in the same losses. (the experiment was deigned to show that bi-directional communications in fiber will not function)

Either the photons collided and caused scattering attenuation or there is still a very low understanding of photon energy process. Given that the QAM transmission was totally destroyed, for either end, its a good bet that it is a collision related event.

QM theory shown extremely questionable by observable experiment. Even if all matter radiates in all directions the temperature (power-output) of the matter, matters. The energy of a colder object reaching the other hotter object is also very questionable.

Photons don't interact with each other. Photons do interact with matter.

Fiber optics do constrain light by internal reflection, although not perfectly. There is obviously a chance that two photons hitting the fiber optic matter simultaneously will result in a different outcome than simple reflection.

Someone here posted up an interesting experiment showing two laser beams coming off a surface as one reasonably coherent stream of light that was a different colour than the original two lasers.

Weird stuff happens when you play with light, so what? General principles are seldom seen in reality without confounding factors obscuring them..

 

[IanC]

No possible concept? Are you kidding? At this point, we have almost no understanding whatsoever of how, or why energy transfers

What you mean is that you have no understanding.

You really are quite far removed from reality and clearly have almost no inkling of how much science doesn't know...at this point, we don't even know what we don't know.

You are far removed; you have no inkling; you don't know what you don't know.

And since all observations and measurements of energy movement are gross one way movements, your attempt at using my request for actual evidence of your position falls flat...unless of course, you are unaware that all measurements and ovbservations of energy movement are one way...in which case you are just ignorant.

You are repeating again that you have no evidence.

Science knows much more than you can ever imagine. Science agrees with QM experiments with an accuracy of parts per billion or trillion. And you say science has no understanding? Think again.

Yes indeed. Not only that but QM has made many predictions that led to understanding the previously unexplainable.

Fission and fusion can't happen under classical physics. Then those probability density function results showed that electrons have a faint possibility of existing on that side of the barrier even though they arrived from this side.

Some wag said that anything not expressly forbidden by QM must happen, no matter how improbable. So far that seems to be holding up.

 

[SSDD]

What you mean is that you have no understanding.

No...I mean that science has almost no understanding..but if you believe that they do grasp the underlying mechanism of energy transfer, by all means, reference a paper that I might read. My bet is that like all claims that science grasps such things, you will only prove that you don't even grasp the difference between being able to observe, and measure a thing and actually understanding how it works.

So lets see a paper that describes the fundamental mechanism of energy exchange.

You

are far removed; you have no inkling; you don't know what you don't know.

Sorry guy, but I have quite a firm grasp on what science knows and what it doesn't. Do you think it is just coincidence that I keep asking for data that you can't provide? Does it surprise you that you can't provide it? Does the fact that you can't provide it, even though you believe science knows it even register in your brain?

You are repeating again that you have no evidence.

Thanks for proving my point...all the evidence supports me and you are completely unable to grasp that...there are no measurements of spontaneous two way energy movement...No measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a radiator to an object and then back to the radiator...no measurements of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object at all...it is a very sad comment on your education that you are still asking for measurements to support my position when EVERY MEASUREMENT supports my position.

Science knows much more than you can ever imagine. Science agrees with QM experiments with an accuracy of parts per billion or trillion. And you say science has no understanding? Think again.

And yet, you can't provide a single observed, measured example to support what you believe science knows...you have deified science...you are a religious zealot..you believe that because a thing is hypothesized, that it must be true...again, you are completely unable to differentiate between what is real and what is imagined.

 

[SSDD]

Photons don't interact with each other. Photons do interact with matter.

Never fails to make me smile when you start talking as if you know what these theoretical particles are doing..what they can and can't do..talking as if you actually had some concrete evidence that they exist.

 

[Wuwei]

What you mean is that you have no understanding.

No...I mean that science has almost no understanding..but if you believe that they do grasp the underlying mechanism of energy transfer, by all means, reference a paper that I might read. My bet is that like all claims that science grasps such things, you will only prove that you don't even grasp the difference between being able to observe, and measure a thing and actually understanding how it works.

So lets see a paper that describes the fundamental mechanism of energy exchange.

You

are far removed; you have no inkling; you don't know what you don't know.

Sorry guy, but I have quite a firm grasp on what science knows and what it doesn't. Do you think it is just coincidence that I keep asking for data that you can't provide? Does it surprise you that you can't provide it? Does the fact that you can't provide it, even though you believe science knows it even register in your brain?

You are repeating again that you have no evidence.

Thanks for proving my point...all the evidence supports me and you are completely unable to grasp that...there are no measurements of spontaneous two way energy movement...No measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a radiator to an object and then back to the radiator...no measurements of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object at all...it is a very sad comment on your education that you are still asking for measurements to support my position when EVERY MEASUREMENT supports my position.

Science knows much more than you can ever imagine. Science agrees with QM experiments with an accuracy of parts per billion or trillion. And you say science has no understanding? Think again.

And yet, you can't provide a single observed, measured example to support what you believe science knows...you have deified science...you are a religious zealot..you believe that because a thing is hypothesized, that it must be true...again, you are completely unable to differentiate between what is real and what is imagined.

I hear you saying that your hubris trumps all of science. Sorry that doesn't work for me nor any scientist.

In physics there is no possible physical concept that would prevent objects at the same temperature from radiating equal amounts of energy toward each other. And you can't come up with a concept either. But still, you believe in that unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable phenomenon.

Here is why a body at any temperature above zero must radiate energy. The atoms at and near the surface are vibrating with a wide spectrum of wavelengths (Plank's radiation law.) When charges vibrate, they must radiate energy. There is nothing outside that body that can stop atoms from vibrating. There is nothing outside that body that can stop the vibrating atoms from radiating EM energy.

 

[IanC]

Photons don't interact with each other. Photons do interact with matter.

Never fails to make me smile when you start talking as if you know what these theoretical particles are doing..what they can and can't do..talking as if you actually had some concrete evidence that they exist.

So now you deny that light exists?

 

[SSDD]

I hear you saying that your hubris trumps all of science. Sorry that doesn't work for me nor any scientist.

I hear you talking but you still aren't saying anything at all.

In physics there is no possible physical concept that would prevent objects at the same temperature from radiating equal amounts of energy toward each other. And you can't come up with a concept either. But still, you believe in that unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable phenomenon.

In order for that claim to have any credibility at all, you must know what the fundamental mechanism driving energy exchange is...lets hear it. Describe the how and why of energy exchange. If you can't do that..and we all know that you can't since science doesn't know, then your statement regarding no possible physical concept is just another bullshit statement by a religious zealot.

 

[SSDD]

Photons don't interact with each other. Photons do interact with matter.

Never fails to make me smile when you start talking as if you know what these theoretical particles are doing..what they can and can't do..talking as if you actually had some concrete evidence that they exist.

So now you deny that light exists?

Of course not..light exists as a wave, and that wave exists with properties that we as yet don't understand..photons are just a place holding story that we use till such time as we understand all the properties of the wave.