Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[SSDD]

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.

So observation and experiment tell us that energy only moves from a cool object to a warm object...if you want it to go the other way, then you must delve into voodoo, reading goat entrails, cutting the heads off chickens, reading tea leaves, divining with forked sticks, or any of a thousand other beliefs...because actual experimental, observational science can't provide it for you. You must accept the writings of the book of QM and believe that which is unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable is real. You must have faith.

Yeah....what I said.

 

[SSDD]

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.

God any observation and measurement of energy moving from cool to warm? Didn't think so.

And Planck's law and the SB law have been known for a very long time to accurately predict one way emission from a black body in a vacuum. Neither basic equation requires...or even has an expression by which to determine the temperature of another body receiving the emitted radiation. When you put the black body in the presence of other matter, then the equations change.

So again..got any actual observation and measurement of energy moving from cool to warm? Or am I expected, like you, to just take it on faith and quash down my innate skepticism? Must I be able to speak to the glorious colors and wonderful style of the emperor's new clothes in order to have credibility among the members of your faith?

 

[SSDD]

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.

No ian...you see an injection of new energy...which immediately begins to degrade into a more disordered state. Are you really that intellectually weak?

 

[SSDD]

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.

How much CO2 and other so called greenhouse gases are found in the upper reaches of the atmosphere relative to ice crystals? If conduction rules the troposphere and radiation doesn't really play a major part till the energy reaches the upper atmosphere, what exactly do you think is radiating the energy out to space?

 

[IanC]

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.

Hahahaha, I have never said that, and you know it.

On the other hand, you have repeatedly stated that increasing the emmisivity of the air does not cause warming by absorption from the nearby heat source.

Same coin, different sides. The absorption is greater than the emission because of the temperature difference between where the absorption takes place and where the emission takes place.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Hahahaha, I have never said that, and you know it.

On the other hand, you have repeatedly stated that increasing the emmisivity of the air does not cause warming by absorption from the nearby heat source.

Same coin, different sides. The absorption is greater than the emission because of the temperature difference between where the absorption takes place and where the emission takes place.

Can you name a single other instance where you believe increasing the emissivity of a thing causes it to warm...or do you think that it is true in the case of the atmosphere because of the magical properties of CO2 that you so fervently believe in.

 

[Wuwei]

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."

Your choice of quotes really does not support your viewpoint. You really did not understand your quote. Scott Aronson was deep into the theory of QM, and eschewed the earlier attempts for an intuitive understandings.

He was talking directly to you in his disdain for your type of thinking.
if you insist on such an account, then that just proves that you cling naïvely to a classical worldview

Yes, you live in the classic worldview of early physics and disparage modern science.

He was talking to you when he said, you
haven’t grasped the enormity of the quantum revolution

He told you to, "shut-up and calculate."

That is what a theorist in QM is telling you . But you refuse to believe the QM calculations that show that there is a two way radiant energy flow between all objects.

Don''t tell Scott Aronson, who is in the field of quantum computers, that you think QM is in a crisis state. Don't tell him you think "part's per billion" is just a buzz name.

 

[Wuwei]

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.

So observation and experiment tell us that energy only moves from a cool object to a warm object...if you want it to go the other way, then you must delve into voodoo, reading goat entrails, cutting the heads off chickens, reading tea leaves, divining with forked sticks, or any of a thousand other beliefs...because actual experimental, observational science can't provide it for you. You must accept the writings of the book of QM and believe that which is unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable is real. You must have faith.

Yeah....what I said.

I repeat:

Observable experiments in thermodynamics can only determine net energy flow from a cool to warm object.
​

You cannot say otherwise. Your only retort is this?

if you want it to go the other way, then you must delve into voodoo, reading goat entrails, cutting the heads off chickens, reading tea leaves, divining with forked sticks, or any of a thousand other beliefs.

How do you expect to have any science argument if that's all you can come up with.

 

[SSDD]

Your choice of quotes really does not support your viewpoint. You really did not understand your quote. Scott Aronson was deep into the theory of QM, and eschewed the earlier attempts for an intuitive understandings.

I knew you had a problem comprehending what you read..thanks for confirming.

 

[Wuwei]

God any observation and measurement of energy moving from cool to warm? Didn't think so.

And Planck's law and the SB law have been known for a very long time to accurately predict one way emission from a black body in a vacuum. Neither basic equation requires...or even has an expression by which to determine the temperature of another body receiving the emitted radiation. When you put the black body in the presence of other matter, then the equations change.

So again..got any actual observation and measurement of energy moving from cool to warm? Or am I expected, like you, to just take it on faith and quash down my innate skepticism? Must I be able to speak to the glorious colors and wonderful style of the emperor's new clothes in order to have credibility among the members of your faith?

Got any measurement that says this is wrong?
Observable experiments in thermodynamics can only determine net energy flow from a cool to warm object.

 

[SSDD]

Yeah....what I said.

I repeat:

Observable experiments in thermodynamics can only determine net energy flow from a cool to warm object.
​

You cannot say otherwise. Your only retort is this?[/quote]

So the real world tells us that energy only moves from warm to cool...you must have faith in the unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable...that it can move in the other direction... that's what I said.

Science is observation, measurement, quantification, and experiment...lets see some of that which confirms that energy can move spontaneously from a less ordered state to a more ordered state.. got any? Of course not. So what are you left with?...belief in a thing to which there is no proof...ie...faith.

 

[Wuwei]

Your choice of quotes really does not support your viewpoint. You really did not understand your quote. Scott Aronson was deep into the theory of QM, and eschewed the earlier attempts for an intuitive understandings.

I knew you had a problem comprehending what you read..thanks for confirming.

No argument? Just a trollish retort?

 

[SSDD]

God any observation and measurement of energy moving from cool to warm? Didn't think so.

And Planck's law and the SB law have been known for a very long time to accurately predict one way emission from a black body in a vacuum. Neither basic equation requires...or even has an expression by which to determine the temperature of another body receiving the emitted radiation. When you put the black body in the presence of other matter, then the equations change.

So again..got any actual observation and measurement of energy moving from cool to warm? Or am I expected, like you, to just take it on faith and quash down my innate skepticism? Must I be able to speak to the glorious colors and wonderful style of the emperor's new clothes in order to have credibility among the members of your faith?

Got any measurement that says this is wrong?
Observable experiments in thermodynamics can only determine net energy flow from a cool to warm object.

As you admit...all experiments show and say that energy moves from a more ordered state to a less ordered state...

Asking for evidence of a negative is idiotic. Got any evidence that there are no leprechauns, fairies, halflings, minotaurs, etc? Either you can support your belief with actual observation or measurement, or it remains a matter of faith.

 

[SSDD]

Your choice of quotes really does not support your viewpoint. You really did not understand your quote. Scott Aronson was deep into the theory of QM, and eschewed the earlier attempts for an intuitive understandings.

I knew you had a problem comprehending what you read..thanks for confirming.

No argument? Just a trollish retort?

the man was thumbing his nose at the lack of interpretation for QM 100 years on and pointing out that to people of faith like you, those of us who remember that science is about experiment, observation, and measurement must be wrong because we don't hold your faith. You are find with proclamations about reality which have no basis in reality...you are find with accepting faith as if it were derived from observation and measurement....that is what he said...if you read anything else into it, it was of your own making and nothing to do with what he said. Must we break his statement down sentence by sentence in order to help you comprehend what was said?

 

[Wuwei]

So the real world tells us that energy only moves from warm to cool

All an experiment can do is determine that net energy moves from warmer to colder objects. Do you have an experiment that says otherwise.

[QUOTE="SSDD, post: 19279251, member: 40906"...lets see some of that which confirms that energy can move spontaneously from a less ordered state to a more ordered state.. got any? Of course not. So what are you left with?...belief in a thing to which there is no proof...ie...faith.[/QUOTE]
A strawman. I never said that. Another trollish diversion.

 

[Wuwei]

As you admit...all experiments show and say that energy moves from a more ordered state to a less ordered state...

I referred to net energy.

Asking for evidence of a negative is idiotic. Got any evidence that there are no leprechauns, fairies, halflings, minotaurs, etc? Either you can support your belief with actual observation or measurement, or it remains a matter of faith.

You can't support your belief with another trollish retort.

 

[Wuwei]

the man was thumbing his nose at the lack of interpretation for QM 100 years on and pointing out that to people of faith like you, those of us who remember that science is about experiment, observation, and measurement must be wrong because we don't hold your faith. You are find with proclamations about reality which have no basis in reality...you are find with accepting faith as if it were derived from observation and measurement....that is what he said...if you read anything else into it, it was of your own making and nothing to do with what he said. Must we break his statement down sentence by sentence in order to help you comprehend what was said?

You still don't understand what he said. Go ahead break it down. Maybe you will understand him.

 

[IanC]

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.

Hahahaha, I have never said that, and you know it.

On the other hand, you have repeatedly stated that increasing the emmisivity of the air does not cause warming by absorption from the nearby heat source.

Same coin, different sides. The absorption is greater than the emission because of the temperature difference between where the absorption takes place and where the emission takes place.

Can you name a single other instance where you believe increasing the emissivity of a thing causes it to warm...or do you think that it is true in the case of the atmosphere because of the magical properties of CO2 that you so fervently believe in.

The available source of energy is what does the warming.

Emmisivity is the description of how effective the substance is at using the available energy. Emmisivity describes how a substance either absorbs, transmits or reflects radiation.

Shine a spotlight on a black piece of cardboard, a window pane, or a mirror. Which one will warm up more? Obviously the one which absorbs rather than transmits or reflects.

 

[SSDD]

[
All an experiment can do is determine that net energy moves from warmer to colder objects. Do you have an experiment that says otherwise.

Interesting....we can measure discrete wavelengths of energy moving from a warm object to a cold object...and measure those wavelengths being absorbed by the cool object...but we can't measure energy moving in the other direction...we have to just believe that it is happening.

Why do you find it so hard to admit that your position is one of faith when it is clearly faith...a belief in something with no evidence in support. My position certainly isn't one of faith....observation and measurement support it...energy moves one way...demonstrable, observable, measurable, quantifiable fact....you believe it moves in two directions but no evidence exists to support that belief......that is called FAITH.

 

[SSDD]

As you admit...all experiments show and say that energy moves from a more ordered state to a less ordered state...

I referred to net energy.

Trying to count the number of angels that can stand on the head of a pin now? You said that experiment can only show gross energy flow...only gross energy flow can be observed and measured...then you claim that actually, something is happening other than what can be observed and measured...you claim that it is something real that is happing but we just can't see it or detect it...it is unobservable, unmeasurable, unprovable..but it is real...we just have to believe it is real even though there is no evidence of it. We must have faith.

You can't support your belief with another trollish retort.

My position is that energy movement is a gross, one way proposition..you acknowledge that experiment, observation, and measurement support my position...Therefore, my position, by definition is not one of belief....then you go on to say that what is really happening is invisible...undetectable...but real none the less and that I should believe it...I should give up my position which is supported by actual observation and measurement in favor of your position which is supported by nothing..in short, I should share your faith. Is that about the size of it?