Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[IanC]

I have a hard time understanding how a lot of the guys on this board think. Some are steeped in trollism. That would easily explain their quest. But you are right. Their tenacious cling to gut-feel science is to the point where you would think they have no self-esteem whatsoever.

I remember a physics prof correcting me in a blunt and somewhat derisive way. I had come at the problem from a different direction, and he had gently reframed it several times. Finally he had to be abrupt to stop my faulty but clever reasoning from tainting the rest of the class.

Unfortunately no one seems to have the scientific authority that would cause SSDD to re-examine his faulty framing of the questions here, or his narrow mindless when deciding what loosely defined terminology actually means in the context that it was written.

SSDD could learn, if he wanted to. Billyboob and jc are simply incapable of understanding higher order concepts.

 

[Wuwei]

Add Frank to that list. I think a number of people posting here have a good scientific and intuitive grasp of the issues involved, but the trollers and minions don't want to admit that.

 

[SSDD]

That's the current theory.

It was also directly observed.

Really? Someone observed a photon? You mean that they are no longer theoretical particles? Where is the paper?

Refer to not being able to differentiate between what is real and what is not.

 

[SSDD]

Again, you are letting your anger and frustration get the best of you.

OK. You admit that you don't know how radiation can be stopped by hotter bodies. But vibrating charges have been observed to radiate time and again. Simple science covers that in detail. But science has no theory on how a distant warmer body could possibly stop radiation. However radiation exchange is consistent with the second law. So it is an obvious deduction that radiation exchange is the only viable mechanism of the behavior of radiant energy in the SLoT.

Just because you can't see or imagine something does not mean it doesn't exist. You hold sacred the words of the SLoT, but you don't understand what those words actually mean. Laws often start by experimental observation that codify the law. But the next important endeavor is to understand the mechanism behind the law through a theory. You have never gotten past the original statement of a law to understand how the law falls in line with the rest of scientific knowledge. That is not science.

About the only thing more tedious than a root canal is talking to a weasel...someone who tries so desperately to pretend that he knows something that he does not...

And between us, I am afraid that the misunderstanding quotient lies far more heavily on you...you have exhibited gross misunderstanding on far to many basics to even bother to pretend that you grasp this topic.

 

[SSDD]

Unfortunately no one seems to have the scientific authority that would cause SSDD to re-examine his faulty framing of the questions here, or his narrow mindless when deciding what loosely defined terminology actually means in the context that it was written.

I never got corrected for trying to outthink the laws of physics...alas ian, it is you who needs to re-examine your faulty thinking...it is you who needs to stop interpreting, adding, and subtracting the items from the laws of physics that don't agree with your beliefs.

 

[SSDD]

Add Frank to that list. I think a number of people posting here have a good scientific and intuitive grasp of the issues involved, but the trollers and minions don't want to admit that.

The very idea of you suggesting that someone else is unable to learn is laughable...still want to argue that potential energy is not a topic that falls under the domain of the 2nd law of thermodynamics...what a goob...

 

[Wuwei]

That's the current theory.

It was also directly observed.

Really? Someone observed a photon? You mean that they are no longer theoretical particles? Where is the paper?

Refer to not being able to differentiate between what is real and what is not.

Einstein's general theory of relativity. Tod was referring to old experiments of seeing stars shifted during a solar eclipse.

 

[Wuwei]

Again, you are letting your anger and frustration get the best of you.

OK. You admit that you don't know how radiation can be stopped by hotter bodies. But vibrating charges have been observed to radiate time and again. Simple science covers that in detail. But science has no theory on how a distant warmer body could possibly stop radiation. However radiation exchange is consistent with the second law. So it is an obvious deduction that radiation exchange is the only viable mechanism of the behavior of radiant energy in the SLoT.

Just because you can't see or imagine something does not mean it doesn't exist. You hold sacred the words of the SLoT, but you don't understand what those words actually mean. Laws often start by experimental observation that codify the law. But the next important endeavor is to understand the mechanism behind the law through a theory. You have never gotten past the original statement of a law to understand how the law falls in line with the rest of scientific knowledge. That is not science.

About the only thing more tedious than a root canal is talking to a weasel...someone who tries so desperately to pretend that he knows something that he does not...

And between us, I am afraid that the misunderstanding quotient lies far more heavily on you...you have exhibited gross misunderstanding on far to many basics to even bother to pretend that you grasp this topic.

Yes, root canals are tedious aren't they.

You still haven't responded how you think radiation is stopped by a hotter body.

 

[Wuwei]

Add Frank to that list. I think a number of people posting here have a good scientific and intuitive grasp of the issues involved, but the trollers and minions don't want to admit that.

The very idea of you suggesting that someone else is unable to learn is laughable...still want to argue that potential energy is not a topic that falls under the domain of the 2nd law of thermodynamics...what a goob...

Sure if you want to argue that a motionless rock has anything to do with thermodynamics.

 

[Wuwei]

You still haven't responded how you think radiation is stopped by a hotter body.

Oops, never mind. I forgot you already said that you didn't know.

What I meant to say is that you still haven't responded to how you think a cold gas adjacent to a hotter surface can draw heat from the surface since you said that the molecules in the gas do not give any energy to that surface.

 

[SSDD]

That's the current theory.

It was also directly observed.

Really? Someone observed a photon? You mean that they are no longer theoretical particles? Where is the paper?

Refer to not being able to differentiate between what is real and what is not.

Einstein's general theory of relativity. Tod was referring to old experiments of seeing stars shifted during a solar eclipse.

So no one observed a photon...and you were once again having a problem differentiating between reality and fiction. got it.

 

[SSDD]

Add Frank to that list. I think a number of people posting here have a good scientific and intuitive grasp of the issues involved, but the trollers and minions don't want to admit that.

The very idea of you suggesting that someone else is unable to learn is laughable...still want to argue that potential energy is not a topic that falls under the domain of the 2nd law of thermodynamics...what a goob...

Sure if you want to argue that a motionless rock has anything to do with thermodynamics.

More tedium from a top shelf goob.

 

[SSDD]

Oops, never mind. I forgot you already said that you didn't know.

And no one else does either even though that is what is observed every time we look.

What I meant to say is that you still haven't responded to how you think a cold gas adjacent to a hotter surface can draw heat from the surface since you said that the molecules in the gas do not give any energy to that surface.

Draw heat? Now cold objects operate like a vacuum cleaner. Energy radiates from warm to cool...where do you get "drawing" from that? Once more...you don't have a clue and the more you talk, the more clueless you appear.

 

[Wuwei]

So no one observed a photon...and you were once again having a problem differentiating between reality and fiction. got it.

You are observing photons as you read this.

 

[Wuwei]

Add Frank to that list. I think a number of people posting here have a good scientific and intuitive grasp of the issues involved, but the trollers and minions don't want to admit that.

The very idea of you suggesting that someone else is unable to learn is laughable...still want to argue that potential energy is not a topic that falls under the domain of the 2nd law of thermodynamics...what a goob...

Sure if you want to argue that a motionless rock has anything to do with thermodynamics.

More tedium from a top shelf goob.

I accept your concession.

 

[Wuwei]

Oops, never mind. I forgot you already said that you didn't know.

And no one else does either even though that is what is observed every time we look.

What I meant to say is that you still haven't responded to how you think a cold gas adjacent to a hotter surface can draw heat from the surface since you said that the molecules in the gas do not give any energy to that surface.

Draw heat? Now cold objects operate like a vacuum cleaner. Energy radiates from warm to cool...where do you get "drawing" from that? Once more...you don't have a clue and the more you talk, the more clueless you appear.

I am trying to make it simple for you but you keep stalling. You should have seen from context the word "draw" could be replaced by the word "get". Here I will restate it more clearly:

How do you think a cold gas adjacent to a hotter surface can get heat from that surface since you said that the molecules in the gas just bounce. (I'm assuming by "bounce" you mean an elastic collision where atoms neither give nor receive any energy when contacting that surface.)

 

[SSDD]

So no one observed a photon...and you were once again having a problem differentiating between reality and fiction. got it.

You are observing photons as you read this.

Really? Got any conclusive evidence that photons even exist?...I am sure that the scientific world would be very interested to see it since as far as they are concerned, photons are still theoretical particles...

Refer to not being able to differentiate between what is real...and what is not.

 

[SSDD]

Add Frank to that list. I think a number of people posting here have a good scientific and intuitive grasp of the issues involved, but the trollers and minions don't want to admit that.

The very idea of you suggesting that someone else is unable to learn is laughable...still want to argue that potential energy is not a topic that falls under the domain of the 2nd law of thermodynamics...what a goob...

Sure if you want to argue that a motionless rock has anything to do with thermodynamics.

More tedium from a top shelf goob.

I accept your concession.

Typical....bore your opponent to tears then puff your chicken breast up and claim with all the machismo that you can muster that you made him cry...

 

[SSDD]

I am trying to make it simple for you but you keep stalling. You should have seen from context the word "draw" could be replaced by the word "get". Here I will restate it more clearly:

Not bright enough to say what you mean.

How do you think a cold gas adjacent to a hotter surface can get heat from that surface since you said that the molecules in the gas just bounce. (I'm assuming by "bounce" you mean an elastic collision where atoms neither give nor receive any energy when contacting that surface.)

Since infrared radiation can not warm air, then conduction would be the only means...

 

[Wuwei]

Really? Got any conclusive evidence that photons even exist?...I am sure that the scientific world would be very interested to see it since as far as they are concerned, photons are still theoretical particles...

Refer to not being able to differentiate between what is real...and what is not.

If you can't see photons, maybe your seeing eye dog can.