Grand Solar Minimum.... And Cooling....

[SSDD]

Basic physics principles are expressed highly accurately in mathematical models.

Except that your "highly accurate" mathematical models don't model observable, measurable reality. It is very unfortunate that you are unable to see that.

Models attempting to replicate complex physical systems are called simulations which use the basic models. Simulations depend on finding and expressing all influences on the system. These are not as accurate, and certainly would have larger error bars. Often the error bars are found by considering the extrema of each influence. That is why when you see future projections they will have a wide variation.

And models attempting to simulate the climate and energy movement through the atmosphere invariably fail miserably...and why? Simple, because they are based upon an "interpretation" of the physics of energy movement that simply is not real...When you base a model on flawed physics, the model is bound to fail. If you based a flight simulator on flawed physics, you wouldn't get off the ground, or you might gain enough altitude to kill yourself...but you would not get an accurate representation, or simulation of flight....climate models don't give an accurate simulation of the climate because they are based on flawed physics.

One example is hurricane path prediction where the influences would be hard to project accurately.

.

If, we had a more complete understanding of how energy moves through the atmosphere, what effect it has on systems and how those systems effect other systems, we could probably not only predict the path of hurricanes, we could probably predict their development, and have a pretty good idea of how strong they would be before the clouds even begun to form. The FACTt that we can't predict with any real accuracy where they are going and the FACT that we routinely get surprised by what they do is evidence that we have little idea of how the energy is moving through the system...and the FACT that we can't even predict with any real degree of accuracy where a structure as organized as a hurricane is going to go, and how powerful it will be should clue you in to how far we are away from understanding something as complicated and chaotic as the global climate. We essentially know JACK, and you are living under the delusion that we understand it all and have it all in hand. We can't predict the path and strength of an organized entity like a hurricane, but we can predict and simulate the global climate?

In which institution for the bewildered do you reside?

 

[SSDD]

Precision tests of QED - Wikipedia

I would say that kind of experimental accuracy really does reflect reality.
Do you think QED is "fairy dust"? Your friend SSDD does.

.

So tie QED to the radiative greenhouse hypothesis and its bastard stepchild, AGW and tell me precisely how and why energy moves through the troposphere. You keep bringing up QED as if it somehow proves the greenhouse hypothesis I haven't seen anything in the literature attempting to use QED to prove either AGW of the greenhouse hypothesis. So do explain why you keep bringing it up in the context of the climate...is it just a diversion from the fact that you can't provide observed measured evidence to support your claims.

So QED is a fine predictor...it doesn't go much into underlying mechanisms beyond making some wild assed guesses...it is possible to have yourself a fine method of predicting but be completely wrong about why your predictions are so accurate. I will wait to see what the theory of QM looks like when it becomes physical law....maybe I will see it in my next life...or the one after that...or maybe the one after that...certainly not in this one. I mean, they have been at it for a good long time now and can't even agree on what QM means.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Basic physics principles are expressed highly accurately in mathematical models.

To bad those models fail to reflect reality... And that is the problem..

Not like cooling photons? LOL!

All matter has a temperature.. All matter looses energy...

Basic physics you ignore and climastrologists ignore..

 

[Billy_Bob]

So tie QED to the radiative greenhouse hypothesis and its bastard stepchild, AGW and tell me precisely how and why energy moves through the troposphere.

I deal with global circulation models every day and not one of them can accurately predict energy movement let alone pressure and temperature changes..

The whole thing is bogus... SWAG (and I shudder to call it 'scientific')

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Basic physics principles are expressed highly accurately in mathematical models.

To bad those models fail to reflect reality... And that is the problem..

Not like cooling photons? LOL!

All matter has a temperature.. All matter looses energy...

Basic physics you ignore and climastrologists ignore..

All matter has a temperature.. All matter looses energy...

Exactly. No smart emitters in sight.

 

[Wuwei]

Except that your "highly accurate" mathematical models don't model observable, measurable reality. It is very unfortunate that you are unable to see that.

That is self contradictory. The phrase "highly accurate" means that deviations of theory from observed measured experiments is statistically zero. Then you immediately say they don't model observable, measurable reality. That really is weird.

 

[Wuwei]

You keep bringing up QED as if it somehow proves the greenhouse hypothesis I haven't seen anything in the literature attempting to use QED to prove either AGW of the greenhouse hypothesis. So do explain why you keep bringing it up in the context of the climate...is it just a diversion from the fact that you can't provide observed measured evidence to support your claims.

Quantum Electrodynamics has been observed and measured to high accuracy.

QED demands that all objects on earth radiate EM energy.

QED demands that if EM radiation traverses near nuclei, atoms, or molecules that radiation will be absorbed with a probability depending on the Q factor, cross section and frequency. The particle will then be in a less stable excited state. (Look up the physics definitions if you don't know them.)

QED says that if the relaxation time is long enough (as it is in the atmosphere) a molecule will re-radiate isotropically if it is in an excited state. (all directions with equal probability)

QED demands that nothing on earth can can affect a photon energy or trajectory except an interaction with matter.

These principles of QED together show that back radiation of GHGs is allowed to happen from the colder atmosphere to the warmer earth.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You keep bringing up QED as if it somehow proves the greenhouse hypothesis I haven't seen anything in the literature attempting to use QED to prove either AGW of the greenhouse hypothesis. So do explain why you keep bringing it up in the context of the climate...is it just a diversion from the fact that you can't provide observed measured evidence to support your claims.

Quantum Electrodynamics has been observed and measured to high accuracy.

QED demands that all objects on earth radiate EM energy.

QED demands that if EM radiation traverses near nuclei, atoms, or molecules that radiation will be absorbed with a probability depending on the Q factor, cross section and frequency. The particle will then be in a less stable excited state. (Look up the physics definitions if you don't know them.)

QED says that if the relaxation time is long enough (as it is in the atmosphere) a molecule will re-radiate isotropically if it is in an excited state. (all directions with equal probability)

QED demands that nothing on earth can can affect a photon energy or trajectory except an interaction with matter.

These principles of QED together show that back radiation of GHGs is allowed to happen from the colder atmosphere to the warmer earth.

And yet the GCM's that are based on QED FAIL... Without exception.

So what is it that fails empirical review? Knowing it fails why do you want to derive policy from them?

 

[Wuwei]

And yet the GCM's that are based on QED FAIL... Without exception.

It is not the fault of QED.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And yet the GCM's that are based on QED FAIL... Without exception.

It is not the fault of QED.

Try again... QED is unsettled science and I personally do not trust it.. Not one of their models reflect reality. Yet you want to use it to force your political ideology onto to others... No Thanks...

 

[Billy_Bob]

QED demands that nothing on earth can can affect a photon energy or trajectory except an interaction with matter.

This is one that shows just how out of touch with observed science it is..

Tell me, A photon is sucked into a black hole, right? If your premise were true then a photon would not be pulled by gravity... You lose! QED shown falsified by simple OBSERVATION..

 

[Wuwei]

QED demands that nothing on earth can can affect a photon energy or trajectory except an interaction with matter.

This is one that shows just how out of touch with observed science it is..

Tell me, A photon is sucked into a black hole, right? If your premise were true then a photon would not be pulled by gravity... You lose! QED shown falsified by simple OBSERVATION..

Reread it.
"QED demands that nothing on earth can can affect a photon energy or trajectory except an interaction with matter."

 

[Wuwei]

Try again... QED is unsettled science and I personally do not trust it.. Not one of their models reflect reality. Yet you want to use it to force your political ideology onto to others... No Thanks...

I get it. Just like sunsetommy, and SSDD. If you don't believe in modern physics I'm not going to try to talk you into it.
Precision tests of QED - Wikipedia

 

[Old Rocks]

Now that is some cooling

 

[SSDD]

Except that your "highly accurate" mathematical models don't model observable, measurable reality. It is very unfortunate that you are unable to see that.

That is self contradictory. The phrase "highly accurate" means that deviations of theory from observed measured experiments is statistically zero. Then you immediately say they don't model observable, measurable reality. That really is weird.

Maybe you don't know what one means when one puts quotation marks around a word in that context. In case you are that ignorant, the quotation marks denote sarcasm...SARCASM... It is like talking to a very small child.

 

[SSDD]

And yet the GCM's that are based on QED FAIL... Without exception.

It is not the fault of QED.

Sure it is...what else might you blame it on other than an abject lack of understanding of how energy moves through the atmosphere, how that energy effects climate, and how that energy may interact with unknown, or poorly understood factors and how those factors may affect the climate or affect each other and how those effects between unknown or poorly understood factors may affect the climate...

 

[SSDD]

QED demands that nothing on earth can can affect a photon energy or trajectory except an interaction with matter.

This is one that shows just how out of touch with observed science it is..

Tell me, A photon is sucked into a black hole, right? If your premise were true then a photon would not be pulled by gravity... You lose! QED shown falsified by simple OBSERVATION..

Reread it.
"QED demands that nothing on earth can can affect a photon energy or trajectory except an interaction with matter."

Can QED provide evidence that photons even exist...remember, they are theoretical particles...they are a story we use as a place holder to explain properties of light that we don't really understand...talking about what a theory demands of a theoretical particle is hardly short of the ravings of a mad man...or someone who is so deluded by science that he literally views it as a religion...

 

[SSDD]

Try again... QED is unsettled science and I personally do not trust it.. Not one of their models reflect reality. Yet you want to use it to force your political ideology onto to others... No Thanks...

I get it. Just like sunsetommy, and SSDD. If you don't believe in modern physics I'm not going to try to talk you into it.
Precision tests of QED - Wikipedia

Still waiting on the observed, measured evidence...still waiting.....still waiting....still waiting.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Try again... QED is unsettled science and I personally do not trust it.. Not one of their models reflect reality. Yet you want to use it to force your political ideology onto to others... No Thanks...

I get it. Just like sunsetommy, and SSDD. If you don't believe in modern physics I'm not going to try to talk you into it.
Precision tests of QED - Wikipedia

PSEUDO SCIENCE... A kin to witch-doctoring... They have the same level of proof.

Tell me, Which MODEL have they proven by empirical review and solid empirical evidence? NONE! A mathematical construct is only as valid as its input and knowledge of the system it is OBSERVED to mimic. IF it fails to mirror the system it was designed for it is considered FAILED and unreliable.. Now why would we place faith in that? Did you stick the pin in the Voodoo doll in the right p[lace?

 

[Billy_Bob]

QED demands that nothing on earth can can affect a photon energy or trajectory except an interaction with matter.

This is one that shows just how out of touch with observed science it is..

Tell me, A photon is sucked into a black hole, right? If your premise were true then a photon would not be pulled by gravity... You lose! QED shown falsified by simple OBSERVATION..

Reread it.
"QED demands that nothing on earth can can affect a photon energy or trajectory except an interaction with matter."

Way to go... SO earth has no gravity? Good to know..

Again you cherry pick your point of view in the hopes you can fool someone...