Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[Billy_Bob]

Are you able to read? The radiative greenhouse effect is all about the troposphere...and I clearly stated that I was talking about the troposphere.

At that altitude of the atmosphere, no molecule which can radiate LWIR will hit the surface to rewarm it. It one, does not have the energy to do so and two, will be absorbed by other molecules.

The absence of a 'hot spot' proves that no heat retention is occurring and convection downward is not heating anything.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not at all ian...energy passing through hardly notices the CO2 molecule...it passes through like it wasn't even there.

You are correct that radiation in the Atmospheric Window bands escapes freely to space, almost as if the air was not there. But our topic is the bands where GHGs do absorb radiation. And then what happens to that absorbed energy.

Makes no difference...any energy that makes it through a so called greenhouse gas molecule in the form of IR is still moving freely into space...energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area.

IR does not warm the air...the air is warmed via conduction..therefore, the greenhouse effect, and all that you attribute to it is nothing more than model based fantasy.

And by the way...energy does not move back towards the earth via conduction either. Energy, in all its forms can only move towards a more disorganized state...never in the other direction...unless, of course, you are providing work to make movement towards a more organized state happen. No back radiation, no back convection, no back conduction..

energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area.

Because smart photons!

 

[Wuwei]

energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area

Not according to all scientists for the last 100 years.

 

[Wuwei]

Here, I will save us all some time and anticipate the dialogs for the remainder of the year:

energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area.
Because smart photons!
Not according to all scientists for the last 100 years.

energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area.
Because smart photons!
Not according to all scientists for the last 100 years.

energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area.
Because smart photons!
Not according to all scientists for the last 100 years.

energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area.
Because smart photons!
Not according to all scientists for the last 100 years.


energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area.
Because smart photons!
Not according to all scientists for the last 100 years.

I hope that covers it, but I kind of doubt it.

 

[SSDD]

energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area

Not according to all scientists for the last 100 years.

Yeah..only according to every observation and measurement ever made.....who needs reality when you have scientists willing to jump on a bandwagon...of course, that explains why post modern science is in such deep trouble.

 

[SSDD]

Here, I will save us all some time and anticipate the dialogs for the remainder of the year:

energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area.
Because smart photons!
Not according to all scientists for the last 100 years.

energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area.
Because smart photons!
Not according to all scientists for the last 100 years.

energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area.
Because smart photons!
Not according to all scientists for the last 100 years.

energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area.
Because smart photons!
Not according to all scientists for the last 100 years.


energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area.
Because smart photons!
Not according to all scientists for the last 100 years.

I hope that covers it, but I kind of doubt it.

So now you believe that theoretical particles must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics? Do you believe everything must be intelligent in order to obey those laws? Do chemicals have to be smart in order to know what to react to and how much reaction they are allowed? Does everything that obeys the law of gravity need to be intelligent? Is there anything that simply obeys the laws of physics because it must, or is everything making decisions on whether to obey or not?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here, I will save us all some time and anticipate the dialogs for the remainder of the year:

energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area.
Because smart photons!
Not according to all scientists for the last 100 years.

energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area.
Because smart photons!
Not according to all scientists for the last 100 years.

energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area.
Because smart photons!
Not according to all scientists for the last 100 years.

energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area.
Because smart photons!
Not according to all scientists for the last 100 years.


energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area.
Because smart photons!
Not according to all scientists for the last 100 years.

I hope that covers it, but I kind of doubt it.

So now you believe that theoretical particles must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics? Do you believe everything must be intelligent in order to obey those laws? Do chemicals have to be smart in order to know what to react to and how much reaction they are allowed? Does everything that obeys the law of gravity need to be intelligent? Is there anything that simply obeys the laws of physics because it must, or is everything making decisions on whether to obey or not?

So now you believe that theoretical particles must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics?

Intelligent in order to obey your confused version of the laws of physics.
I'm just glad we can all agree that energy can move from the Sun's surface to the hotter corona because.......WORK!

 

[Wuwei]

energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area

Not according to all scientists for the last 100 years.

Yeah..only according to every observation and measurement ever made.....who needs reality when you have scientists willing to jump on a bandwagon...of course, that explains why post modern science is in such deep trouble.

Well, you certainly need a dose of reality. Yeah, yeah, we heard you say a million times you don't understand or want to believe in modern science. You don't even know what science is.

 

[Wuwei]

So now you believe that theoretical particles must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics? Do you believe everything must be intelligent in order to obey those laws? Do chemicals have to be smart in order to know what to react to and how much reaction they are allowed? Does everything that obeys the law of gravity need to be intelligent? Is there anything that simply obeys the laws of physics because it must, or is everything making decisions on whether to obey or not?

So many questions. Here are my answers to your questions in the order they were asked: no, no, no, no, and no. However, in the past you have answered some of them as yes.

 

[SSDD]

energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area

Not according to all scientists for the last 100 years.

Yeah..only according to every observation and measurement ever made.....who needs reality when you have scientists willing to jump on a bandwagon...of course, that explains why post modern science is in such deep trouble.

Well, you certainly need a dose of reality. Yeah, yeah, we heard you say a million times you don't understand or want to believe in modern science. You don't even know what science is.

So show me the observation and measurement of energy moving in both directions...show me a measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cool object to a warmer object...if you can't provide evidence, then upon what, exactly, are you basing your belief?

 

[SSDD]

So now you believe that theoretical particles must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics? Do you believe everything must be intelligent in order to obey those laws? Do chemicals have to be smart in order to know what to react to and how much reaction they are allowed? Does everything that obeys the law of gravity need to be intelligent? Is there anything that simply obeys the laws of physics because it must, or is everything making decisions on whether to obey or not?

So many questions. Here are my answers to your questions in the order they were asked: no, no, no, no, and no. However, in the past you have answered some of them as yes.

Nope...I never did...it is you guys who believe that inanimate objects make decisions and decide whether to obey the laws of physics or not...I have stated that they behave as they do because they must...energy always moves spontaneously from a condition of more order to a condition of less order...never the other way...unless of course you can show me some actual observed, measured evidence of it.

 

[SSDD]

energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area

Not according to all scientists for the last 100 years.

Yeah..only according to every observation and measurement ever made.....who needs reality when you have scientists willing to jump on a bandwagon...of course, that explains why post modern science is in such deep trouble.

Well, you certainly need a dose of reality. Yeah, yeah, we heard you say a million times you don't understand or want to believe in modern science. You don't even know what science is.

So show me the observation and measurement of energy moving in both directions...show me a measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cool object to a warmer object...if you can't provide evidence, then upon what, exactly, are you basing your belief?

Science is defined as :
the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based onobservation, experiment, and measurement, andthe formulation of laws to describe these facts ingeneral terms..

So lets see observation, and measurement, and or experiment that validates your belief that energy moves in two directions at once...from warm to cool and from cool back to warm. If you can't, and we both know that you can't, then perhaps this definition more closely fits your position.

faith: strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence.

You have no observations of energy moving from a less ordered state to a more ordered state...you have no measurements of energy moving from a less ordered state to a more ordered state....in short you have nothing other than an unshakeable belief in a thing without proof, or evidence...that is not the definition of science.

 

[Wuwei]

So show me the observation and measurement of energy moving in both directions...show me a measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cool object to a warmer object...if you can't provide evidence, then upon what, exactly, are you basing your belief?

So show me the observation and measurement of energy moving in both directions...show me a measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cool object to a warmer object...if you can't provide evidence, then upon what, exactly, are you basing your belief?

It's not only my belief, its based on the theory of quantum mechanics.

You sound like this guy. Your argument is no better than his.
Did SpaceX put a Tesla in orbit? Florida Flat Earthers say space travel doesn’t exist

“I know the Earth is not a ball. ...” said Jeffrey Main, 49, a Flat Earther living in Palm Harbor, Florida. “If it’s not observable, it’s not science. It’s theory.”

 

[IanC]

According to your bizarre version of physics, then yes radiation from the CO2 molecule would only be allowed to radiate to space. But you are forgetting the other part of your theory. The CO2 molecule would cause the surface to radiate less.

Not at all ian...energy passing through hardly notices the CO2 molecule...it passes through like it wasn't even there.

Either both the surface and the CO2 radiate freely, or they both are throttled down. Either way you get the same answer.

...

Why are you denying your bizarre interpretation of the S-B equations and the SLoT?

You say the 15 micron surface radiation is controlled by the temperature of the CO2 molecule it is being absorbed by. And that the CO2 molecule is then prohibited from radiating back to the surface. Therefore both the surface and CO2 have been throttled down.

It's your crazy theory, have I gotten something wrong? The mean free path for 15 micron energy at the surface is about 2 metres, the temperature differential between the surface and the air at 2m is small so most of the surface 15 micron radiation has been throttled down to almost nothing compared to what it would be if it escaped freely to space.

The surface has been deprived of most of its ability to cool via the 15 micron band.

Like I said, it is your crazy theory. If it's true then much of the radiation never leaves the surface.

I say all the radiation leaves the surface but some gets rerouted back to the surface.

Either way the surface has shed less energy and cooled less.

 

[Wuwei]

Science is defined as :
the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based onobservation, experiment, and measurement, andthe formulation of laws to describe these facts ingeneral terms..

So lets see observation, and measurement, and or experiment that validates your belief that energy moves in two directions at once...from warm to cool and from cool back to warm. If you can't, and we both know that you can't, then perhaps this definition more closely fits your position.

faith: strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence.

You have no observations of energy moving from a less ordered state to a more ordered state...you have no measurements of energy moving from a less ordered state to a more ordered state....in short you have nothing other than an unshakeable belief in a thing without proof, or evidence...that is not the definition of science.

Observable experiments in thermodynamics can only determine net energy flow from a cool to warm object. You have to dig deeper into quantum mechanics to understand the details. And the details dictate two way energy flow.

 

[Wuwei]

Nope...I never did...it is you guys who believe that inanimate objects make decisions and decide whether to obey the laws of physics or not.

Don't be silly. You are the one who believes cold objects can violate Planck's radiation law when a hotter body is nearby.

 

[IanC]

You have no observations of energy moving from a less ordered state to a more ordered state...you have no measurements of energy moving from a less ordered state to a more ordered state....in short you have nothing other than an unshakeable belief in a thing without proof, or evidence...that is not the definition of science.

Every day at dawn we see disordered states becoming more ordered. At dusk that stops until the new day begins.

 

[IanC]

So you really do need to have things drawn out for you in crayon? When that energy is transported to the upper atmosphere via ice crystals, it then radiates into

So that is the missing link. Ice crystals.

Post up a link referencing ice crystals as the major radiative factor in atmospheric radiation.

 

[SSDD]

So show me the observation and measurement of energy moving in both directions...show me a measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cool object to a warmer object...if you can't provide evidence, then upon what, exactly, are you basing your belief?

So show me the observation and measurement of energy moving in both directions...show me a measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cool object to a warmer object...if you can't provide evidence, then upon what, exactly, are you basing your belief?

It's not only my belief, its based on the theory of quantum mechanics.

Ahhh...so it is theoretical, but you accept it as reality. Still sounds like faith to me. Pick any religion you like...their dogma is in large part theoretical as well, but in order to be an accepted member of the religion, you really must accept the theoretical dogma as being real.

You sound like this guy. Your argument is no better than his.

No..I think I sound more like Scott Aronson...and many others who can actually see that QM is in a crisis state. Here it is 100 years on and there still isn't even an agreement on the interpretation of QM. Aronson says:

"As for Copenhagen, I’ve described it as “shut-up and calculate except without ever shutting up about it”! I regard Bohr’s writings on the subject as barely comprehensible, and Copenhagen as less of an interpretation than a self-conscious anti-interpretation: a studied refusal to offer any account of the actual constituents of the world, and—most of all—an insistence that if you insist on such an account, then that just proves that you cling naïvely to a classical worldview, and haven’t grasped the enormity of the quantum revolution."

I readily accept actual science...repeatable experiment, observation, measurement, quantification...you know..real science. I have seen no reason to jump on the QM bandwagon. You go on about the parts per billion accuracy, but that means nothing...it is a buzzphrase. Tell me what you believe that means...and how is it determined...and what application does it have in the actual world?

And if name calling is all you have a this point, then you have indeed lost the argument. Clearly, you have no actual evidence in support of your beliefs, therefore, they are faith. The point is mine and has been since the first time I said it. The best you can do is tell me that some other people who you perceive as smarter than yourself believe it also....I respond...none of you have the first piece of actual evidence in support of your belief.

 

[SSDD]

Why are you denying your bizarre interpretation of the S-B equations and the SLoT?

You say the 15 micron surface radiation is controlled by the temperature of the CO2 molecule it is being absorbed by. And that the CO2 molecule is then prohibited from radiating back to the surface. Therefore both the surface and CO2 have been throttled down.

Since energy only moves spontaneously from a more ordered state to a less ordered state..in this case from warm to cool, where else do you think it goes? You think that energy moves from cool to warm? You think it moves in that direction to such a degree that it alters the climate of the earth? And yet, it can not be measured without an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere.

And alas ian, it is you who has the crazy theory..you believe that by increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere, you decrease its ability to radiatively cool itself.