No Evidence

[Toddsterpatriot]

You don't stutter, but you might as well.
Post your own numbers in the equation.
Can't wait to see your results.

please, post the figures you think ought to be there. Please show how smart you are. come on dude.

It's your experiment, knock yourself out.

it's your equation, let's see the numbers? afraid of it eh? LOL

You don't know the numbers for your coffee and your freezer?
I'll be right over.

I don't need numbers. I put two cups of coffee next to one another, one with Ice over the cup and one with none. Two thermometers that read each of the two cups the same 160 degrees warm, placed the ice over one and left the thermometers in the coffee. they cooled at the same rate until room temperature at the same time. hmmmmm dude, prove me wrong.

BTW, I bet the first minute in the freezer would cool at the same rate.

I don't need numbers.

Especially when they make you feel sad...….

 

[jc456]

please, post the figures you think ought to be there. Please show how smart you are. come on dude.

It's your experiment, knock yourself out.

it's your equation, let's see the numbers? afraid of it eh? LOL

You don't know the numbers for your coffee and your freezer?
I'll be right over.

I don't need numbers. I put two cups of coffee next to one another, one with Ice over the cup and one with none. Two thermometers that read each of the two cups the same 160 degrees warm, placed the ice over one and left the thermometers in the coffee. they cooled at the same rate until room temperature at the same time. hmmmmm dude, prove me wrong.

BTW, I bet the first minute in the freezer would cool at the same rate.

I don't need numbers.

Especially when they make you feel sad...….

not sad at all. I proved your IR is nothing. the ice melted due to the heat, no IR made the coffee cool off any faster with the ice. So your entire theory I proved was useless. now, you can prove me wrong by posting an observed measured occurrence of LWIR causing the planet to hold heat. still waiting.

 

[SSDD]

You are acting as a dumb troll. You have been told that the cold 2.7 K cosmic EM radiation hits a much warmer antenna. That shows radiation energy from a cold source can hit a warmer object. That in turn shows back radiation happens. That invalidates your claim about CO2 not being a back-radiating GHG.

You have "told" me all sorts of things...very few of which you could provide any actual evidence to support. In the OP I said:

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.

So which one of those statements would your mistaken belief on CMB challenge? I believe you are so stupid that you really don't even know what the conversation is about..

Now you are lying through your teeth. I showed it was not my opinion since it was explicitly in the Dartmouth and Hyperphysics sites. Not only do you disbelieve basic science, but you are lying about what you think it is.

Sorry guy, but you are the liar here...but here, I will repost the equation again...do state precisely what it says in plain language...

Again...I will help you get started....Power equals the emissivity of the radiator, times the S-B constant, times the area of the object times.......You take it from there and do be prepared to point to the expression in the equation that says what you claim.

You don't understand the physics. Venus is illustrating an important aspect of radiation physics. If you don't understand the concentrated GHG on Venus, and where it's surface radiation goes, you can't possibly understand what is happening on earth. The premise of the OP is based on fallacy.

You believe CO2 is, by itself, in a quantity representing 18 doublings here on earth is creating energy representing energy that would take thousands of doublings on venus...and you think I don't understand physics? I understand physics...what I don't understand is how you managed to get so terribly duped.

I see you are still afraid to state why you think irradiated CO2 can't warm the air. Each step is a fundamental law or aspect of basic physics which you despise.

I have already said...and offered up a million hours of testing, development, observation, and measurement from the infrared heating industry....sorry you can't accept reality.

And you still don't have the first piece of evidence to support your beliefs, while I have a whole damned industry and tens of thousands of working systems in this country alone which support my position.

The models of QM that you scorn very accurately describe behavior at atomic scales. You have never disproved the accuracy of those models. Never.

Unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models support your position...reality and every observation and measurement ever made supports mine...I will stick with reality rather than believe in magic.

 

[Crick]

What a fucking idiot

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217751X92003082

 

[Wuwei]

So which one of those statements would your mistaken belief on CMB challenge? I believe you are so stupid that you really don't even know what the conversation is about..

Asked and answered. Several times.

Sorry guy, but you are the liar here...but here, I will repost the equation again...do state precisely what it says in plain language...

A configuration of several objects in an environment can very complex to the extent that the equation isn't complete, for example if there are several objects, all at different temperatures. The configuration where that equation is unequivocal is when an object at one temperature is completely surrounded by an enclosure at another temperature.

I really don't know how you look at that equation so you will have to define what each variable, P, T, and Tc signify and what the physical configuration is. If you can't do that then there is no point in continuing.

I have already said...and offered up a million hours of testing, development, observation, and measurement from the infrared heating industry....sorry you can't accept reality.

And you still don't have the first piece of evidence to support your beliefs, while I have a whole damned industry and tens of thousands of working systems in this country alone which support my position.

How about a fundamental physics source and not a bunch of heating company sales pitches, or heating engineers opinions.

Unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models support your position...reality and every observation and measurement ever made supports mine...I will stick with reality rather than believe in magic.

Au contraire. The mathematics was developed by countless experimental measurements and completely describes behavior at the atomic level. You hide behind your insistence that every phenomenon be measured. It is a defense mechanism to protect you from facing the realities of physics that contradict your bias.

Science doesn't spurn models like you do because the atomic physics of gases quite adequately describes the kinematic and radiation behavior very successfully. You have shown time after time that you don't know how to interpret the laws and equations that scientists clearly define. That is why you can't say where Venus's 15,700 W/m² radiation goes.

.
.

 

[SSDD]

What a fucking idiot

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217751X92003082

So what do you think of the color of the emperor's cape?

You look at a title of a paper and assume that the answers to the meaning of life are there? Laughable skid mark...absolutely laughable.

 

[SSDD]

Asked and answered. Several times.

So that's a dodge because you have no answer. If you did, you would happily rub it in my face...you choose not to say, because you know that it would be an embarrassing experience for you.

A configuration of several objects in an environment can very complex to the extent that the equation isn't complete, for example if there are several objects, all at different temperatures.

Nope...that isn't what the equation says. Care to try again? Do you have any idea how stupid you look refusing to simply state what the equation representing a physical law says?

Again...I will help you get started....Power equals the emissivity of the radiator, times the S-B constant, times the area of the object times.......

I really don't know how you look at that equation so you will have to define what each variable, P, T, and Tc signify and what the physical configuration is. If you can't do that then there is no point in continuing.

Then you really are stupid...I look at the equation for what it is...It is as plain, and elegant as is possible...I don't feel a need to interpret it, to alter it, to do anything at all other than accept what it says since it became a law by accurately predicting reality over and over and over and over...that is how things become physical law.

Here...let me help you out..

hypothesis - A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. It's a prediction of cause and effect.

theory - A theory
summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it.

law - A scientific law generalizes a body of observations and no exceptions have been found to a law

The equation representing the law says Power equals the emissivity of the radiator, times the S-B constant, times the area of the radiator times......come on..you can do it. It is the description of a physical law and NO EXCEPTIONS HAVE EVER BEEN FOUND TO QUESTION IT.

How about a fundamental physics source and not a bunch of heating company sales pitches, or heating engineers opinions.

So you are attempting to hold up a model and attempt to dispute reality with it? Your model says this and it must be true regardless of how many tests, observations, and measurements refute it? Refer back to what made the dark ages dark...

Au contraire. The mathematics was developed by countless experimental measurements and completely describes behavior at the atomic level.

Again...failure to differentiate between reality and fiction...since we have no way of looking into the sub atomic level and actually seeing what is happening there..much less getting to the nuts and bolts of the fundamental mechanisms at work, the model is nothing more than a compilation of our limited observations arranged so as to attempt to predict what little we have seen.

Again, you don't seem to be able to understand the basic fact that observing behavior, doesn't give you any real insight into the fundamental nature of what is happening...Our knowledge is like watching one frame out of every 10,000 frames of a movie and then trying to describe what is going on....if you watch that frame out of 10,000 enough times, you will then be able to predict what is coming next, but in so far as what is actually happening, how it is happening, what is causing it to happen, etc, you still only have the story you made up in an attempt to fill in the other 9,999 frames that come before and after the one you saw.

You hide behind your insistence that every phenomenon be measured. It is a defense mechanism to protect you from facing the realities of physics that contradict your bias.

I have no bias..yet another word you apparently don't know the meaning of. As it applies here, bias is mental tendency or inclination.

I accept the physical laws as they are stated...I accept them as real with no need to add to them, subtract from them, or question them. You, on the other hand, can't accept them as they are written, you find that you need to add to them, place caveats upon them, alter what they say in some fashion in an attempt to make them jibe with what you believe...you are the one who is biased...and you prove it every time you refuse to simply state, in plain english what that S-B equation actually says. To do so, would run contrary to what you believe.

 

[Crick]

What a fucking idiot

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217751X92003082

So what do you think of the color of the emperor's cape?

You look at a title of a paper and assume that the answers to the meaning of life are there? Laughable skid mark...absolutely laughable.

That paper reviews numerous methods of experimental proof of QM. Read it and weep fool.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's your experiment, knock yourself out.

it's your equation, let's see the numbers? afraid of it eh? LOL

You don't know the numbers for your coffee and your freezer?
I'll be right over.

I don't need numbers. I put two cups of coffee next to one another, one with Ice over the cup and one with none. Two thermometers that read each of the two cups the same 160 degrees warm, placed the ice over one and left the thermometers in the coffee. they cooled at the same rate until room temperature at the same time. hmmmmm dude, prove me wrong.

BTW, I bet the first minute in the freezer would cool at the same rate.

I don't need numbers.

Especially when they make you feel sad...….

not sad at all. I proved your IR is nothing. the ice melted due to the heat, no IR made the coffee cool off any faster with the ice. So your entire theory I proved was useless. now, you can prove me wrong by posting an observed measured occurrence of LWIR causing the planet to hold heat. still waiting.

So your entire theory I proved was useless.

My theory?
Stefan-Boltzmann is useless?
Alert the media!!!

 

[jc456]

it's your equation, let's see the numbers? afraid of it eh? LOL

You don't know the numbers for your coffee and your freezer?
I'll be right over.

I don't need numbers. I put two cups of coffee next to one another, one with Ice over the cup and one with none. Two thermometers that read each of the two cups the same 160 degrees warm, placed the ice over one and left the thermometers in the coffee. they cooled at the same rate until room temperature at the same time. hmmmmm dude, prove me wrong.

BTW, I bet the first minute in the freezer would cool at the same rate.

I don't need numbers.

Especially when they make you feel sad...….

not sad at all. I proved your IR is nothing. the ice melted due to the heat, no IR made the coffee cool off any faster with the ice. So your entire theory I proved was useless. now, you can prove me wrong by posting an observed measured occurrence of LWIR causing the planet to hold heat. still waiting.

So your entire theory I proved was useless.

My theory?
Stefan-Boltzmann is useless?
Alert the media!!!

yep your theory!! afraid to own it now?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You don't know the numbers for your coffee and your freezer?
I'll be right over.

I don't need numbers. I put two cups of coffee next to one another, one with Ice over the cup and one with none. Two thermometers that read each of the two cups the same 160 degrees warm, placed the ice over one and left the thermometers in the coffee. they cooled at the same rate until room temperature at the same time. hmmmmm dude, prove me wrong.

BTW, I bet the first minute in the freezer would cool at the same rate.

I don't need numbers.

Especially when they make you feel sad...….

not sad at all. I proved your IR is nothing. the ice melted due to the heat, no IR made the coffee cool off any faster with the ice. So your entire theory I proved was useless. now, you can prove me wrong by posting an observed measured occurrence of LWIR causing the planet to hold heat. still waiting.

So your entire theory I proved was useless.

My theory?
Stefan-Boltzmann is useless?
Alert the media!!!

yep your theory!! afraid to own it now?

No, I'm not afraid to "own" modern physics.

How does your dimmer switch theory work?
Any links?
Besides that comedian you posted?

 

[jc456]

I don't need numbers. I put two cups of coffee next to one another, one with Ice over the cup and one with none. Two thermometers that read each of the two cups the same 160 degrees warm, placed the ice over one and left the thermometers in the coffee. they cooled at the same rate until room temperature at the same time. hmmmmm dude, prove me wrong.

BTW, I bet the first minute in the freezer would cool at the same rate.

I don't need numbers.

Especially when they make you feel sad...….

not sad at all. I proved your IR is nothing. the ice melted due to the heat, no IR made the coffee cool off any faster with the ice. So your entire theory I proved was useless. now, you can prove me wrong by posting an observed measured occurrence of LWIR causing the planet to hold heat. still waiting.

So your entire theory I proved was useless.

My theory?
Stefan-Boltzmann is useless?
Alert the media!!!

yep your theory!! afraid to own it now?

No, I'm not afraid to "own" modern physics.

How does your dimmer switch theory work?
Any links?
Besides that comedian you posted?

still don't have any observed measured data to support your goofy theory of back radiation. none, zip, nadda. I take observation over models or mathematics any day of the week.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't need numbers.

Especially when they make you feel sad...….

not sad at all. I proved your IR is nothing. the ice melted due to the heat, no IR made the coffee cool off any faster with the ice. So your entire theory I proved was useless. now, you can prove me wrong by posting an observed measured occurrence of LWIR causing the planet to hold heat. still waiting.

So your entire theory I proved was useless.

My theory?
Stefan-Boltzmann is useless?
Alert the media!!!

yep your theory!! afraid to own it now?

No, I'm not afraid to "own" modern physics.

How does your dimmer switch theory work?
Any links?
Besides that comedian you posted?

still don't have any observed measured data to support your goofy theory of back radiation. none, zip, nadda. I take observation over models or mathematics any day of the week.

still don't have any observed measured data to support your goofy theory of back radiation.

What was this again?

 

[jc456]

not sad at all. I proved your IR is nothing. the ice melted due to the heat, no IR made the coffee cool off any faster with the ice. So your entire theory I proved was useless. now, you can prove me wrong by posting an observed measured occurrence of LWIR causing the planet to hold heat. still waiting.

So your entire theory I proved was useless.

My theory?
Stefan-Boltzmann is useless?
Alert the media!!!

yep your theory!! afraid to own it now?

No, I'm not afraid to "own" modern physics.

How does your dimmer switch theory work?
Any links?
Besides that comedian you posted?

still don't have any observed measured data to support your goofy theory of back radiation. none, zip, nadda. I take observation over models or mathematics any day of the week.

still don't have any observed measured data to support your goofy theory of back radiation.

View attachment 235759

What was this again?

garbage?

 

[Wuwei]

Nope...that isn't what the equation says. Care to try again? Do you have any idea how stupid you look refusing to simply state what the equation representing a physical law says?

Again...I will help you get started....Power equals the emissivity of the radiator, times the S-B constant, times the area of the object times.......


Then you really are stupid...I look at the equation for what it is...It is as plain, and elegant as is possible...I don't feel a need to interpret it, to alter it, to do anything at all other than accept what it says since it became a law by accurately predicting reality over and over and over and over...that is how things become physical law.

Here...let me help you out..

hypothesis - A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. It's a prediction of cause and effect.

theory - A theory
summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it.

law - A scientific law generalizes a body of observations and no exceptions have been found to a law

The equation representing the law says Power equals the emissivity of the radiator, times the S-B constant, times the area of the radiator times......come on..you can do it. It is the description of a physical law and NO EXCEPTIONS HAVE EVER BEEN FOUND TO QUESTION IT.

It's obvious you never attended a physics class. You would know that writing down a general equation is useless unless you specify what the variables mean for a specific configuration. Each temperature refers to matter in some configuration. The hyperphysics site has the same notation you use and refers to T being the temperature of an object surrounded by a cooler background Tc. If that is what you mean let me know then we can continue. Otherwise you are the one who is stalling.

So you are attempting to hold up a model and attempt to dispute reality with it? Your model says this and it must be true regardless of how many tests, observations, and measurements refute it? Refer back to what made the dark ages dark...

Again...failure to differentiate between reality and fiction...since we have no way of looking into the sub atomic level and actually seeing what is happening there..much less getting to the nuts and bolts of the fundamental mechanisms at work, the model is nothing more than a compilation of our limited observations arranged so as to attempt to predict what little we have seen.

Again, you don't seem to be able to understand the basic fact that observing behavior, doesn't give you any real insight into the fundamental nature of what is happening...Our knowledge is like watching one frame out of every 10,000 frames of a movie and then trying to describe what is going on....if you watch that frame out of 10,000 enough times, you will then be able to predict what is coming next, but in so far as what is actually happening, how it is happening, what is causing it to happen, etc, you still only have the story you made up in an attempt to fill in the other 9,999 frames that come before and after the one you saw.

Ah, metaphysics again.

I have no bias..yet another word you apparently don't know the meaning of. As it applies here, bias is mental tendency or inclination.

I accept the physical laws as they are stated...I accept them as real with no need to add to them, subtract from them, or question them. You, on the other hand, can't accept them as they are written, you find that you need to add to them, place caveats upon them, alter what they say in some fashion in an attempt to make them jibe with what you believe...you are the one who is biased...and you prove it every time you refuse to simply state, in plain english what that S-B equation actually says. To do so, would run contrary to what you believe.

Nonsense. Caveats must be placed on many laws such as the ideal gas law, Newton's laws of gravity, the laws of motion.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So your entire theory I proved was useless.

My theory?
Stefan-Boltzmann is useless?
Alert the media!!!

yep your theory!! afraid to own it now?

No, I'm not afraid to "own" modern physics.

How does your dimmer switch theory work?
Any links?
Besides that comedian you posted?

still don't have any observed measured data to support your goofy theory of back radiation. none, zip, nadda. I take observation over models or mathematics any day of the week.

still don't have any observed measured data to support your goofy theory of back radiation.

View attachment 235759

What was this again?

garbage?

Don't you worry, it's science.

 

[jc456]

yep your theory!! afraid to own it now?

No, I'm not afraid to "own" modern physics.

How does your dimmer switch theory work?
Any links?
Besides that comedian you posted?

still don't have any observed measured data to support your goofy theory of back radiation. none, zip, nadda. I take observation over models or mathematics any day of the week.

still don't have any observed measured data to support your goofy theory of back radiation.

View attachment 235759

What was this again?

garbage?

Don't you worry, it's science.

garbage science at that. BTW, in your science, does LWIR emit from the surface upward?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, I'm not afraid to "own" modern physics.

How does your dimmer switch theory work?
Any links?
Besides that comedian you posted?

still don't have any observed measured data to support your goofy theory of back radiation. none, zip, nadda. I take observation over models or mathematics any day of the week.

still don't have any observed measured data to support your goofy theory of back radiation.

View attachment 235759

What was this again?

garbage?

Don't you worry, it's science.

garbage science at that. BTW, in your science, does LWIR emit from the surface upward?

Of course, detecting radiation is garbage science. Of course.

BTW, in your science, does LWIR emit from the surface upward?

In science, all matter above 0K emits.
Up, down, sideways. It's a random thing.
Even ice cubes radiate.

But don't worry your pretty little head.

 

[jc456]

still don't have any observed measured data to support your goofy theory of back radiation. none, zip, nadda. I take observation over models or mathematics any day of the week.

still don't have any observed measured data to support your goofy theory of back radiation.

View attachment 235759

What was this again?

garbage?

Don't you worry, it's science.

garbage science at that. BTW, in your science, does LWIR emit from the surface upward?

Of course, detecting radiation is garbage science. Of course.

BTW, in your science, does LWIR emit from the surface upward?

In science, all matter above 0K emits.
Up, down, sideways. It's a random thing.
Even ice cubes radiate.

But don't worry your pretty little head.

surface radiates but one direction, up!!!

Any time you want to show ice radiating, post it up..

 

[jc456]

I'm not sure if this document has been posted in the forum before, but I'll add it here. Author: Ferenc Miskolczi

Development in Earth Science

"The Wien temperature of the all-sky emission spectrum is locked closely to the thermo-dynamic triple point of the water assuring the maximum radiation entropy. The stability and natural fluctuations of the global average surface temperature of the heterogeneous system are ultimately determined by the phase changes of water. Many authors have proposed a greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. The present analysis shows that such an effect is impossible."