No Evidence

[IanC]

Nothing coming back, not been observed

Observed right here. Is the graph too complicated for you?
Never used graphs before you dropped out of school?

It’s fake

Prove it.

LOL you prove it’s observed name the device that read it

A few years ago I posted up a similar graph to Todd. It named the instrument used so I found the manual. It explained how the instrument worked, ie. no cooling. Then I found an industrial paper comparing and rating the various instruments, which gave the precision and accuracy throughout the range of wavelengths being measured.

You ignored the evidence then and you are ignoring Todd's evidence now.

If you think it is fake then present some actual reasons, with data and discussion that supports your reasoning.

Your instrument was measuring temperature changes in an internal thermopile...it wasn't measuring back radiation....again...so easily fooled by instrumentation...not surprising you believe in a radiative greenhouse effect in a troposphere that is totally dominated by conduction and pressure.

You keep talking about being fooled by instrumentation but you never get around to saying what the discrepancies are.

If the instruments are calibrated against a known source of radiation, what difference does it make whether it is a change in thermopile temperature or voltage potentials or anything else?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It’s fake

Prove it.

LOL you prove it’s observed name the device that read it

A few years ago I posted up a similar graph to Todd. It named the instrument used so I found the manual. It explained how the instrument worked, ie. no cooling. Then I found an industrial paper comparing and rating the various instruments, which gave the precision and accuracy throughout the range of wavelengths being measured.

You ignored the evidence then and you are ignoring Todd's evidence now.

If you think it is fake then present some actual reasons, with data and discussion that supports your reasoning.

Your instrument was measuring temperature changes in an internal thermopile...it wasn't measuring back radiation....again...so easily fooled by instrumentation...not surprising you believe in a radiative greenhouse effect in a troposphere that is totally dominated by conduction and pressure.

You keep talking about being fooled by instrumentation but you never get around to saying what the discrepancies are.

If the instruments are calibrated against a known source of radiation, what difference does it make whether it is a change in thermopile temperature or voltage potentials or anything else?

The difference is, "back radiation" means he's a stupid liar.
A warm instrument radiating less to the cooler atmosphere because "dimmer switch!", means he's a lonely pioneer, correcting hundreds of years of physics errors. All alone.

 

[jc456]

Yep, let’s hear how they read the lwir. Cold probe? LOL

Technology, it's a thing now.

Still no backup for any of your erroneous claims?

Weird.

Still nothing observed per OP. You asking for links of something that doesn’t exist is funny!

Still nothing observed

You asking for links of something that doesn’t exist is funny!

I agree, asking for links to back up your erroneous claims is funny.

Still nothing observed

DERP!

You’re excused.

 

[jc456]

It’s fake

Prove it.

LOL you prove it’s observed name the device that read it

A few years ago I posted up a similar graph to Todd. It named the instrument used so I found the manual. It explained how the instrument worked, ie. no cooling. Then I found an industrial paper comparing and rating the various instruments, which gave the precision and accuracy throughout the range of wavelengths being measured.

You ignored the evidence then and you are ignoring Todd's evidence now.

If you think it is fake then present some actual reasons, with data and discussion that supports your reasoning.

Your instrument was measuring temperature changes in an internal thermopile...it wasn't measuring back radiation....again...so easily fooled by instrumentation...not surprising you believe in a radiative greenhouse effect in a troposphere that is totally dominated by conduction and pressure.

You keep talking about being fooled by instrumentation but you never get around to saying what the discrepancies are.

If the instruments are calibrated against a known source of radiation, what difference does it make whether it is a change in thermopile temperature or voltage potentials or anything else?

He has, you don’t understand the answer!

 

[SSDD]

Nothing coming back, not been observed

Observed right here. Is the graph too complicated for you?
Never used graphs before you dropped out of school?

It’s fake

Prove it.

LOL you prove it’s observed name the device that read it

A few years ago I posted up a similar graph to Todd. It named the instrument used so I found the manual. It explained how the instrument worked, ie. no cooling. Then I found an industrial paper comparing and rating the various instruments, which gave the precision and accuracy throughout the range of wavelengths being measured.

You ignored the evidence then and you are ignoring Todd's evidence now.

If you think it is fake then present some actual reasons, with data and discussion that supports your reasoning.

Your instrument was measuring temperature changes in an internal thermopile...it wasn't measuring back radiation....again...so easily fooled by instrumentation...not surprising you believe in a radiative greenhouse effect in a troposphere that is totally dominated by conduction and pressure.

I just told you....sorry that you are so thoroughly baffled by instruments that you can't work it out. An instrument measuring internal temperature changes can not be said to be measuring anything other than those temperature changes...you have no idea what caused the changes and not the first bit of evidence that it was measuring anything coming from the atmosphere....if you want to measure backradiation,, and be sure that is what you are measuring, you need to be measuring discrete frequencies of radiation and you need to be doing it with an instrument at ambient temperature...not an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the source you are trying to measure. Of course, you can't do that because energy doesn't move from cooler objects to warmer objects any more than rocks fall up when dropped.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It’s fake

Prove it.

LOL you prove it’s observed name the device that read it

A few years ago I posted up a similar graph to Todd. It named the instrument used so I found the manual. It explained how the instrument worked, ie. no cooling. Then I found an industrial paper comparing and rating the various instruments, which gave the precision and accuracy throughout the range of wavelengths being measured.

You ignored the evidence then and you are ignoring Todd's evidence now.

If you think it is fake then present some actual reasons, with data and discussion that supports your reasoning.

Your instrument was measuring temperature changes in an internal thermopile...it wasn't measuring back radiation....again...so easily fooled by instrumentation...not surprising you believe in a radiative greenhouse effect in a troposphere that is totally dominated by conduction and pressure.

I just told you....sorry that you are so thoroughly baffled by instruments that you can't work it out. An instrument measuring internal temperature changes can not be said to be measuring anything other than those temperature changes...you have no idea what caused the changes and not the first bit of evidence that it was measuring anything coming from the atmosphere....if you want to measure backradiation,, and be sure that is what you are measuring, you need to be measuring discrete frequencies of radiation and you need to be doing it with an instrument at ambient temperature...not an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the source you are trying to measure. Of course, you can't do that because energy doesn't move from cooler objects to warmer objects any more than rocks fall up when dropped.

Of course, you can't do that because energy doesn't move from cooler objects to warmer objects any more than rocks fall up when dropped.

 

[SSDD]

Prove it.

LOL you prove it’s observed name the device that read it

A few years ago I posted up a similar graph to Todd. It named the instrument used so I found the manual. It explained how the instrument worked, ie. no cooling. Then I found an industrial paper comparing and rating the various instruments, which gave the precision and accuracy throughout the range of wavelengths being measured.

You ignored the evidence then and you are ignoring Todd's evidence now.

If you think it is fake then present some actual reasons, with data and discussion that supports your reasoning.

Your instrument was measuring temperature changes in an internal thermopile...it wasn't measuring back radiation....again...so easily fooled by instrumentation...not surprising you believe in a radiative greenhouse effect in a troposphere that is totally dominated by conduction and pressure.

I just told you....sorry that you are so thoroughly baffled by instruments that you can't work it out. An instrument measuring internal temperature changes can not be said to be measuring anything other than those temperature changes...you have no idea what caused the changes and not the first bit of evidence that it was measuring anything coming from the atmosphere....if you want to measure backradiation,, and be sure that is what you are measuring, you need to be measuring discrete frequencies of radiation and you need to be doing it with an instrument at ambient temperature...not an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the source you are trying to measure. Of course, you can't do that because energy doesn't move from cooler objects to warmer objects any more than rocks fall up when dropped.

Of course, you can't do that because energy doesn't move from cooler objects to warmer objects any more than rocks fall up when dropped.

Got any observed measured evidence to the contrary? Didn't think so.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

LOL you prove it’s observed name the device that read it

A few years ago I posted up a similar graph to Todd. It named the instrument used so I found the manual. It explained how the instrument worked, ie. no cooling. Then I found an industrial paper comparing and rating the various instruments, which gave the precision and accuracy throughout the range of wavelengths being measured.

You ignored the evidence then and you are ignoring Todd's evidence now.

If you think it is fake then present some actual reasons, with data and discussion that supports your reasoning.

Your instrument was measuring temperature changes in an internal thermopile...it wasn't measuring back radiation....again...so easily fooled by instrumentation...not surprising you believe in a radiative greenhouse effect in a troposphere that is totally dominated by conduction and pressure.

I just told you....sorry that you are so thoroughly baffled by instruments that you can't work it out. An instrument measuring internal temperature changes can not be said to be measuring anything other than those temperature changes...you have no idea what caused the changes and not the first bit of evidence that it was measuring anything coming from the atmosphere....if you want to measure backradiation,, and be sure that is what you are measuring, you need to be measuring discrete frequencies of radiation and you need to be doing it with an instrument at ambient temperature...not an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the source you are trying to measure. Of course, you can't do that because energy doesn't move from cooler objects to warmer objects any more than rocks fall up when dropped.

Of course, you can't do that because energy doesn't move from cooler objects to warmer objects any more than rocks fall up when dropped.

Got any observed measured evidence to the contrary? Didn't think so.

Any real sources that agree with your one way claims?
Or are you all alone, still?

 

[Wuwei]

You never answered the question in this thread asked many times.
The evidence that the air heats up is given by these simple steps:

1. Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
2. That loss of EM energy to the GHGs is random vibrational energy.
3. The vibrating GHG will most likely hit a random air molecule.
4. Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
5. That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
6. The conservation of energy requires the above.

That simple physics shows a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

If you disagree, which step do you think is wrong?
Why are you afraid to answer this question?

 

[IanC]

So the heat that radiates from the cooler ice cube to the warmer coffee must be smart heat and here's why. Say the ice is 32F and the coffee is 120F, say 1F travels from the ice to the coffee, wouldn't that cause the ice to drop to 31 and coffee to rise to 121? Surely, this must be "smart heat" that realizes its traveling from a cooler gradient and simply lacks the mojo to lower the temp of the and raise the coffee temperature. So that's why we never observe cooler lower and heat increasing

Let's assign some easy numbers and assumptions to your example. At time equals zero the ice cube radiates 240w/s, the coffee cup 480w/s. The common face is 1/6th the area, so 40w/s is going from cool to warm; and 80 w/s from warm to cool.

During the first second the NET movement of energy between the two objects is 40 watts absorbed by the ice cube. Can we tell if either object warmed or cooled? No, not really because we don't have the necessary information on the environment that the other five faces are emitting to and absorbing from.

If the environment was radiating 232w/s then the ice cube would be balanced (-8, -8, -8, -8, -8, +40) and the coffee cup would be cooling. If the environment was radiating 488w/s then the coffee cup would be balanced (-40, +8, +8, +8, +8, +8) and the ice cube would be warming.

If the environment is 489w or higher both objects are warming.
Between 487 and 233 the coffee is cooling and the ice is warming.
Below 231, both objects are cooling.

Next we go to the time interval of (n+1 to n+2). Depending on the environment we will have to adjust the temperature of the two objects for cooling or warming and then redo he calculations. Etc.

Of course we are ignoring the temperature gradients that are developing in the objects because of uneven radiation balance in the various directions but just how complex should we get?


Obviously it is foolish to consider the one way flow from one object to another as warming or cooling when even the net flow between then is insufficient to define that.

 

[SSDD]

You never answered the question in this thread asked many times.
The evidence that the air heats up is given by these simple steps:

1. Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
2. That loss of EM energy to the GHGs is random vibrational energy.
3. The vibrating GHG will most likely hit a random air molecule.
4. Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
5. That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
6. The conservation of energy requires the above.

That simple physics shows a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

If you disagree, which step do you think is wrong?
Why are you afraid to answer this question?

More models...no actual observed, measured evidence. The request was for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...sorry..another swing...another miss...

Ever figure out how to read an equation?

 

[Wuwei]

You never answered the question in this thread asked many times.
The evidence that the air heats up is given by these simple steps:

1. Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
2. That loss of EM energy to the GHGs is random vibrational energy.
3. The vibrating GHG will most likely hit a random air molecule.
4. Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
5. That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
6. The conservation of energy requires the above.

That simple physics shows a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

If you disagree, which step do you think is wrong?
Why are you afraid to answer this question?

More models...no actual observed, measured evidence. The request was for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...sorry..another swing...another miss...

Ever figure out how to read an equation?

If you disagree, which step do you think is wrong?
Why are you afraid to answer the question?

 

[jc456]

FYI for everyone in here:

The Fraud of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Part 6: The Stupidity of Backradiation

"So in climate science, back-radiation from the atmosphere is said to provide twice the heating power of the Sun, even though the atmosphere is colder than the surface of the Earth, and even more colder than the input sunshine. This sequence is described in Part 4 of this series, so please read that post again if you would like to refresh your memory.

Now let’s make one thing very clear here: the atmosphere has a temperature. Of course it has a temperature. An ice-cube has a temperature. Everything has a temperature (except for outer-space itself). But just because something has a temperature, does not mean that it is causing or providing heating power. Heat, of course, only flows from hot to cold. Anything with a temperature is holding internal heat energy, but that temperature does not cause heating on any other object unless an object is colder. And a temperature never causes heating upon itself! A temperature can not increase its own temperature."

 

[jc456]

and I found this:

The 41% Fraud. Carbon Dioxide Propaganda Requires it.

"The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant

There is a constant for determining the amount of radiation given off by surfaces at any particular temperature. It's called the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. It is total fraud, as I show on the web page titled The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant.

It indicates that the amount of radiation given off by matter at the global average temperature of 15°C is 390 watts per square meter, which is 39% as much as the sun's energy at maximum. It isn't happening. A dark, cold basement is not giving off 39% as much energy as the maximum sunshine striking the earth's surface.

Infrared Detectors

Police sometimes use infrared cameras in helicopters at night to determine who is growing marijuana in their home. Growing indoors requires a large amount of light, which leaves a telltale signature of infrared energy being emitted by the structure.

If normal temperature matter were giving off 39% as much radiation as sunlight, it would swamp infrared cameras making them useless. For example, if you turn on a flashlight outdoors during the day, you can't tell whether it is on by looking at it, because surrounding sunlight totally overwhelms such a small amount of light.

The same thing would be true for all outdoor infrared detectors—they would be swamped by surrounding infrared radiation, it the surroundings were giving off such a massive amount of radiation as claimed."

 

[jc456]

You never answered the question in this thread asked many times.
The evidence that the air heats up is given by these simple steps:

1. Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
2. That loss of EM energy to the GHGs is random vibrational energy.
3. The vibrating GHG will most likely hit a random air molecule.
4. Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
5. That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
6. The conservation of energy requires the above.

That simple physics shows a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

If you disagree, which step do you think is wrong?
Why are you afraid to answer this question?

More models...no actual observed, measured evidence. The request was for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...sorry..another swing...another miss...

Ever figure out how to read an equation?

If you disagree, which step do you think is wrong?
Why are you afraid to answer the question?

Emission Prevents Trapping of Heat.

"When a molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs fingerprint radiation (the only thing in question) it increases in vibratory motion, which is heat. As it bumps into surrounding molecules (mostly nitrogen gas), it imparts some motion, which reduces its own motion, while increasing the motion of the other molecule.

The vibrating motion of molecules sends out waves of infrared radiation. As the molecular motion decreases, the intensity of the radiation and its frequency get lower.

The amount of such bumping and re-emitting that must occur to lose the energy gained by absorption depends upon how strong the radiation is that is absorbed, which is determined by the temperature of the emitting molecules. Emissions from the surface of the earth into the atmosphere would go from warmer to colder. For short distances in the atmosphere, the emitting temperature would be about the same as the absorbing temperature."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

and I found this:

The 41% Fraud. Carbon Dioxide Propaganda Requires it.

"The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant

There is a constant for determining the amount of radiation given off by surfaces at any particular temperature. It's called the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. It is total fraud, as I show on the web page titled The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant.

It indicates that the amount of radiation given off by matter at the global average temperature of 15°C is 390 watts per square meter, which is 39% as much as the sun's energy at maximum. It isn't happening. A dark, cold basement is not giving off 39% as much energy as the maximum sunshine striking the earth's surface.

Infrared Detectors

Police sometimes use infrared cameras in helicopters at night to determine who is growing marijuana in their home. Growing indoors requires a large amount of light, which leaves a telltale signature of infrared energy being emitted by the structure.

If normal temperature matter were giving off 39% as much radiation as sunlight, it would swamp infrared cameras making them useless. For example, if you turn on a flashlight outdoors during the day, you can't tell whether it is on by looking at it, because surrounding sunlight totally overwhelms such a small amount of light.

The same thing would be true for all outdoor infrared detectors—they would be swamped by surrounding infrared radiation, it the surroundings were giving off such a massive amount of radiation as claimed."

Where did you find that clown? He's funny.
Dumber than SSDD, but funny!

 

[jc456]

and I found this:

The 41% Fraud. Carbon Dioxide Propaganda Requires it.

"The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant

There is a constant for determining the amount of radiation given off by surfaces at any particular temperature. It's called the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. It is total fraud, as I show on the web page titled The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant.

It indicates that the amount of radiation given off by matter at the global average temperature of 15°C is 390 watts per square meter, which is 39% as much as the sun's energy at maximum. It isn't happening. A dark, cold basement is not giving off 39% as much energy as the maximum sunshine striking the earth's surface.

Infrared Detectors

Police sometimes use infrared cameras in helicopters at night to determine who is growing marijuana in their home. Growing indoors requires a large amount of light, which leaves a telltale signature of infrared energy being emitted by the structure.

If normal temperature matter were giving off 39% as much radiation as sunlight, it would swamp infrared cameras making them useless. For example, if you turn on a flashlight outdoors during the day, you can't tell whether it is on by looking at it, because surrounding sunlight totally overwhelms such a small amount of light.

The same thing would be true for all outdoor infrared detectors—they would be swamped by surrounding infrared radiation, it the surroundings were giving off such a massive amount of radiation as claimed."

Where did you find that clown? He's funny.
Dumber than SSDD, but funny!

just post the observed measurements where he's wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

and I found this:

The 41% Fraud. Carbon Dioxide Propaganda Requires it.

"The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant

There is a constant for determining the amount of radiation given off by surfaces at any particular temperature. It's called the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. It is total fraud, as I show on the web page titled The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant.

It indicates that the amount of radiation given off by matter at the global average temperature of 15°C is 390 watts per square meter, which is 39% as much as the sun's energy at maximum. It isn't happening. A dark, cold basement is not giving off 39% as much energy as the maximum sunshine striking the earth's surface.

Infrared Detectors

Police sometimes use infrared cameras in helicopters at night to determine who is growing marijuana in their home. Growing indoors requires a large amount of light, which leaves a telltale signature of infrared energy being emitted by the structure.

If normal temperature matter were giving off 39% as much radiation as sunlight, it would swamp infrared cameras making them useless. For example, if you turn on a flashlight outdoors during the day, you can't tell whether it is on by looking at it, because surrounding sunlight totally overwhelms such a small amount of light.

The same thing would be true for all outdoor infrared detectors—they would be swamped by surrounding infrared radiation, it the surroundings were giving off such a massive amount of radiation as claimed."

Where did you find that clown? He's funny.
Dumber than SSDD, but funny!

just post the observed measurements where he's wrong.

Did you see, besides deciding that Stefan-Boltzmann is wrong, be also thinks E=MC^2 is wrong.

Hilarious!!!

How did you find him?

 

[jc456]

and I found this:

The 41% Fraud. Carbon Dioxide Propaganda Requires it.

"The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant

There is a constant for determining the amount of radiation given off by surfaces at any particular temperature. It's called the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. It is total fraud, as I show on the web page titled The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant.

It indicates that the amount of radiation given off by matter at the global average temperature of 15°C is 390 watts per square meter, which is 39% as much as the sun's energy at maximum. It isn't happening. A dark, cold basement is not giving off 39% as much energy as the maximum sunshine striking the earth's surface.

Infrared Detectors

Police sometimes use infrared cameras in helicopters at night to determine who is growing marijuana in their home. Growing indoors requires a large amount of light, which leaves a telltale signature of infrared energy being emitted by the structure.

If normal temperature matter were giving off 39% as much radiation as sunlight, it would swamp infrared cameras making them useless. For example, if you turn on a flashlight outdoors during the day, you can't tell whether it is on by looking at it, because surrounding sunlight totally overwhelms such a small amount of light.

The same thing would be true for all outdoor infrared detectors—they would be swamped by surrounding infrared radiation, it the surroundings were giving off such a massive amount of radiation as claimed."

Where did you find that clown? He's funny.
Dumber than SSDD, but funny!

just post the observed measurements where he's wrong.

Did you see, besides deciding that Stefan-Boltzmann is wrong, be also thinks E=MC^2 is wrong.

Hilarious!!!

How did you find him?

you didn't read his piece then. he never said the Stefan-Boltzmann is wrong, he said it was being used wrong based on the atmosphere make up. Again, nothing that challenges what he actually said. Go figure from you.

"Here's the problem with the Stefan-Boltzmann constant: Satellite measurements indicate that the sun's energy approaching the earth is 1366 watts per square meter. The amount reflected away is said to be 26%. The amount absorbed into the atmosphere is said to be 16%. (See NASA chart). That's 1366 minus 26% minus 16% = 792 W/m2. That's how much radiation would fall on a black asphalt surface at the equator at noon. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant indicates that in a dark basement, a concrete wall at 59°F (the global average temperature) would emit 390 W/m2. That's 49% as much radiation emitted from a dark, cold basement as falls on a black surface at the equator. It isn't happening."

explain how he's saying e=mc^2 is wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

and I found this:

The 41% Fraud. Carbon Dioxide Propaganda Requires it.

"The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant

There is a constant for determining the amount of radiation given off by surfaces at any particular temperature. It's called the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. It is total fraud, as I show on the web page titled The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant.

It indicates that the amount of radiation given off by matter at the global average temperature of 15°C is 390 watts per square meter, which is 39% as much as the sun's energy at maximum. It isn't happening. A dark, cold basement is not giving off 39% as much energy as the maximum sunshine striking the earth's surface.

Infrared Detectors

Police sometimes use infrared cameras in helicopters at night to determine who is growing marijuana in their home. Growing indoors requires a large amount of light, which leaves a telltale signature of infrared energy being emitted by the structure.

If normal temperature matter were giving off 39% as much radiation as sunlight, it would swamp infrared cameras making them useless. For example, if you turn on a flashlight outdoors during the day, you can't tell whether it is on by looking at it, because surrounding sunlight totally overwhelms such a small amount of light.

The same thing would be true for all outdoor infrared detectors—they would be swamped by surrounding infrared radiation, it the surroundings were giving off such a massive amount of radiation as claimed."

Where did you find that clown? He's funny.
Dumber than SSDD, but funny!

just post the observed measurements where he's wrong.

Did you see, besides deciding that Stefan-Boltzmann is wrong, be also thinks E=MC^2 is wrong.

Hilarious!!!

How did you find him?

you didn't read his piece then. he never said the Stefan-Boltzmann is wrong, he said it was being used wrong based on the atmosphere make up. Again, nothing that challenges what he actually said. Go figure from you.

"Here's the problem with the Stefan-Boltzmann constant: Satellite measurements indicate that the sun's energy approaching the earth is 1366 watts per square meter. The amount reflected away is said to be 26%. The amount absorbed into the atmosphere is said to be 16%. (See NASA chart). That's 1366 minus 26% minus 16% = 792 W/m2. That's how much radiation would fall on a black asphalt surface at the equator at noon. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant indicates that in a dark basement, a concrete wall at 59°F (the global average temperature) would emit 390 W/m2. That's 49% as much radiation emitted from a dark, cold basement as falls on a black surface at the equator. It isn't happening."

explain how he's saying e=mc^2 is wrong.

Look around on his site, he's just like SSDD.
He's right and all the rest of the world is wrong. Hilarious!!