No Evidence

[Toddsterpatriot]

But we all know that energy exchange is the means of coming to equilibrium...and some of us know that all natural processes are irreversible....natural processes like energy moving spontaneously from warm to cool....irreversible...do you know what that means?

Yes, I know what that means, but do you? Your statement, "But we all know that energy exchange is the means of coming to equilibrium." indicates two way exchange of radiation.

And the fact of one way radiation between objects is precisely what the physical laws predict...there is no physical law that predicts two way energy flow...but do feel free to name them since you believe that it violates several....this should be good,.. As always, you provide at least a chuckle.

No laws predict one-way energy flow. The law of Entropy does not forbid it during any process.
Otherwise the BB radiation law would be violated The SB law would be violated. The fact that accelerating charges must radiate would be violated. You already know that and are just being a troll now.

indicates two way exchange of radiation.

no it doesn't. what the fk?

SSDD said "But we all know that energy exchange is the means of coming to equilibrium.."

Exchange means one-way?

why wouldn't it? If I hand you something, I have exchanged my something with you. I gave you something that I now have less of.

If I hand you something, I have exchanged my something with you.

Nope. Giving is not exchanging.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Planck's Law. Stefan Boltzmann Law. Both tell us that all matter radiates proportionally to it temperature. ALL MATTER RADIATES

too funny. no one said that all matter doesn't radiate. what we said was that the warmer object radiates to the cooler object. If the cooler object is exposed to a cooler object, it will radiate at that time. You all have lost your brains.

no one said that all matter doesn't radiate. what we said was that the warmer object radiates to the cooler object.

You said, here, the cooler object can't radiate. It's matter is somehow stopped from radiating.
Why are you so confused?

well let me clarify my statement then. a cool object will radiate when near a cooler object. if a cool object is in the presence of a warmer object it will absorb the energy from that object and won't radiate until it is at equilibrium and around a cooler object.

BTW, I'm still waiting for the two way flow observation. you know where an object is absorbing and emitting at the same time.

if a cool object is in the presence of a warmer object it will absorb the energy from that object and won't radiate

If you could only prove it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'll remind myself to say energy transfer or movement from now on....funny when you play word games rather than support your claims with actual evidence...always good for a chuckle...

funny when you play word games rather than support your claims with actual evidence

But enough about you.

 

[jc456]

Planck's Law. Stefan Boltzmann Law. Both tell us that all matter radiates proportionally to it temperature. ALL MATTER RADIATES

too funny. no one said that all matter doesn't radiate. what we said was that the warmer object radiates to the cooler object. If the cooler object is exposed to a cooler object, it will radiate at that time. You all have lost your brains.

no one said that all matter doesn't radiate. what we said was that the warmer object radiates to the cooler object.

You said, here, the cooler object can't radiate. It's matter is somehow stopped from radiating.
Why are you so confused?

well let me clarify my statement then. a cool object will radiate when near a cooler object. if a cool object is in the presence of a warmer object it will absorb the energy from that object and won't radiate until it is at equilibrium and around a cooler object.

BTW, I'm still waiting for the two way flow observation. you know where an object is absorbing and emitting at the same time.

if a cool object is in the presence of a warmer object it will absorb the energy from that object and won't radiate

If you could only prove it.

So all you have to do is show an object emitting while it is absorbing! I’m happy with my understanding, you believe it does both, onus is on you

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Planck's Law. Stefan Boltzmann Law. Both tell us that all matter radiates proportionally to it temperature. ALL MATTER RADIATES

too funny. no one said that all matter doesn't radiate. what we said was that the warmer object radiates to the cooler object. If the cooler object is exposed to a cooler object, it will radiate at that time. You all have lost your brains.

no one said that all matter doesn't radiate. what we said was that the warmer object radiates to the cooler object.

You said, here, the cooler object can't radiate. It's matter is somehow stopped from radiating.
Why are you so confused?

well let me clarify my statement then. a cool object will radiate when near a cooler object. if a cool object is in the presence of a warmer object it will absorb the energy from that object and won't radiate until it is at equilibrium and around a cooler object.

BTW, I'm still waiting for the two way flow observation. you know where an object is absorbing and emitting at the same time.

if a cool object is in the presence of a warmer object it will absorb the energy from that object and won't radiate

If you could only prove it.

So all you have to do is show an object emitting while it is absorbing! I’m happy with my understanding, you believe it does both, onus is on you

All objects emit and absorb infrared radiation. The hotter an object is the more energy it radiates per second.

Infrared Radiation – electromagnetic waves, absorb, emit, infra red, PIR

Be sure to post your sources that say otherwise.

 

[jc456]

too funny. no one said that all matter doesn't radiate. what we said was that the warmer object radiates to the cooler object. If the cooler object is exposed to a cooler object, it will radiate at that time. You all have lost your brains.

no one said that all matter doesn't radiate. what we said was that the warmer object radiates to the cooler object.

You said, here, the cooler object can't radiate. It's matter is somehow stopped from radiating.
Why are you so confused?

well let me clarify my statement then. a cool object will radiate when near a cooler object. if a cool object is in the presence of a warmer object it will absorb the energy from that object and won't radiate until it is at equilibrium and around a cooler object.

BTW, I'm still waiting for the two way flow observation. you know where an object is absorbing and emitting at the same time.

if a cool object is in the presence of a warmer object it will absorb the energy from that object and won't radiate

If you could only prove it.

So all you have to do is show an object emitting while it is absorbing! I’m happy with my understanding, you believe it does both, onus is on you

All objects emit and absorb infrared radiation. The hotter an object is the more energy it radiates per second.

Infrared Radiation – electromagnetic waves, absorb, emit, infra red, PIR

Be sure to post your sources that say otherwise.

I never said I disagree with that! I said that obects radiate warm to cool. While the cool object absorbs, it is not emitting. And vice a versa the warm emitting object won’t absorb. When the cool object stops absorbing, it can then emit as long as a cooler object is near. I never said the cool object won’t ever radiate!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

no one said that all matter doesn't radiate. what we said was that the warmer object radiates to the cooler object.

You said, here, the cooler object can't radiate. It's matter is somehow stopped from radiating.
Why are you so confused?

well let me clarify my statement then. a cool object will radiate when near a cooler object. if a cool object is in the presence of a warmer object it will absorb the energy from that object and won't radiate until it is at equilibrium and around a cooler object.

BTW, I'm still waiting for the two way flow observation. you know where an object is absorbing and emitting at the same time.

if a cool object is in the presence of a warmer object it will absorb the energy from that object and won't radiate

If you could only prove it.

So all you have to do is show an object emitting while it is absorbing! I’m happy with my understanding, you believe it does both, onus is on you

All objects emit and absorb infrared radiation. The hotter an object is the more energy it radiates per second.

Infrared Radiation – electromagnetic waves, absorb, emit, infra red, PIR

Be sure to post your sources that say otherwise.

I never said I disagree with that! I said that obects radiate warm to cool. While the cool object absorbs, it is not emitting. And vice a versa the warm emitting object won’t absorb. When the cool object stops absorbing, it can then emit as long as a cooler object is near. I never said the cool object won’t ever radiate!

While the cool object absorbs, it is not emitting

Yes, I remember your error.

 

[Wuwei]

Really? How do they "know" this...clearly there is no observed, measured evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow...Upon what actual empirical evidence do you base the claim that they "know"?

Do you not believe in entropy now? Two way flow is not only allowed by entropy, it is demanded by quantum mechanics - tested and verified many times. .... Yes, I know. You think that's fairy dust. So you are left alone in the cold with your fake science.

 

[Wuwei]

So you are saying that thousands of scientists can't differentiate between difference and gross? They are well known mathematical terms..and their definitions have not changed. They still mean what they have always meant..and simple subtraction of two numbers gives you a gross change...not a net change

You got net and gross backwards.

.

 

[jc456]

well let me clarify my statement then. a cool object will radiate when near a cooler object. if a cool object is in the presence of a warmer object it will absorb the energy from that object and won't radiate until it is at equilibrium and around a cooler object.

BTW, I'm still waiting for the two way flow observation. you know where an object is absorbing and emitting at the same time.

if a cool object is in the presence of a warmer object it will absorb the energy from that object and won't radiate

If you could only prove it.

So all you have to do is show an object emitting while it is absorbing! I’m happy with my understanding, you believe it does both, onus is on you

All objects emit and absorb infrared radiation. The hotter an object is the more energy it radiates per second.

Infrared Radiation – electromagnetic waves, absorb, emit, infra red, PIR

Be sure to post your sources that say otherwise.

I never said I disagree with that! I said that obects radiate warm to cool. While the cool object absorbs, it is not emitting. And vice a versa the warm emitting object won’t absorb. When the cool object stops absorbing, it can then emit as long as a cooler object is near. I never said the cool object won’t ever radiate!

While the cool object absorbs, it is not emitting

Yes, I remember your error.

Which puts the onus on you to prove me wrong! I’ll wait

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

if a cool object is in the presence of a warmer object it will absorb the energy from that object and won't radiate

If you could only prove it.

So all you have to do is show an object emitting while it is absorbing! I’m happy with my understanding, you believe it does both, onus is on you

All objects emit and absorb infrared radiation. The hotter an object is the more energy it radiates per second.

Infrared Radiation – electromagnetic waves, absorb, emit, infra red, PIR

Be sure to post your sources that say otherwise.

I never said I disagree with that! I said that obects radiate warm to cool. While the cool object absorbs, it is not emitting. And vice a versa the warm emitting object won’t absorb. When the cool object stops absorbing, it can then emit as long as a cooler object is near. I never said the cool object won’t ever radiate!

While the cool object absorbs, it is not emitting

Yes, I remember your error.

Which puts the onus on you to prove me wrong! I’ll wait

All objects emit and absorb infrared radiation.

No mention of, "unless warmer matter is nearby".

if a cool object is in the presence of a warmer object it will absorb the energy from that object and won't radiate

Still no proof of your claim? I'll wait.

 

[jc456]

So all you have to do is show an object emitting while it is absorbing! I’m happy with my understanding, you believe it does both, onus is on you

All objects emit and absorb infrared radiation. The hotter an object is the more energy it radiates per second.

Infrared Radiation – electromagnetic waves, absorb, emit, infra red, PIR

Be sure to post your sources that say otherwise.

I never said I disagree with that! I said that obects radiate warm to cool. While the cool object absorbs, it is not emitting. And vice a versa the warm emitting object won’t absorb. When the cool object stops absorbing, it can then emit as long as a cooler object is near. I never said the cool object won’t ever radiate!

While the cool object absorbs, it is not emitting

Yes, I remember your error.

Which puts the onus on you to prove me wrong! I’ll wait

All objects emit and absorb infrared radiation.

No mention of, "unless warmer matter is nearby".

if a cool object is in the presence of a warmer object it will absorb the energy from that object and won't radiate

Still no proof of your claim? I'll wait.

still can't prove your two way hypothesis. in SB, T is always greater than Tc. you need more memory, cause you keep asking me to provide that same comment.

BTW, if Tc is hotter than T, then the flow is still warm to cool. You get that right?

In turn, I will wait for you two way proof. SB and 2nd law are all I need to make my point. now show me which law is your evidence. still waiting.

 

[sealybobo]

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 burins 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.


I have been asking for just a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the claims of climate alarmists for decades now and have never received the first piece.

I see alarmists claiming that such evidence exists all the time...sometimes they even post what passes for evidence in their minds like THIS. There is certainly observed, and measured data there, but none of it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, and none of it even begins to establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...those things are certainly assumed in the example linked to, but there certainly is no evidence to support the assumption. And there is no paper there in which the hypothesized warming due to our production of CO2 has been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called greenhouse gasses. Again, it is assumed, but assumptions based on lose correlation over a very short period of geological time are less than worthless in any scientific examination of an entity as large, variable, and chaotic as the global climate.

So there you go...I have stuck my chin out...I have made 3 very deliberate, and concise statements regarding the state of climate science and the evidence that mankind is having an effect on the global climate.

It is the complete absence of evidence challenging the 3 statements above that explain why I am a skeptic.

Prove me wrong. Don't tell me about the evidence that exists......don't tell me about the evidence you might believe you have produced...Step up to the plate and produce the evidence that I have quite clearly declared does not exist...

And when you can't, ask yourself why it is that you believe what you do regarding man made climate change.

You must be an idiot
Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

[SSDD]

Do you not believe in entropy now? Two way flow is not only allowed by entropy, it is demanded by quantum mechanics - tested and verified many times. .... Yes, I know. You think that's fairy dust. So you are left alone in the cold with your fake science.

Sorry guy...but as usual...your misinterpretation of whatever topic you are looking at has left you ass backwards...when you see the topic of entropy...regardless of whether it is energy flow, movement through time, biological processes, or economics...it always points out that the law of entropy demands a one way flow of whatever...from a more useful, to a less useful state...by definition, entropy is a one way street...as indicated below in the discussion of Clausius, who introduced the term entropy...

Cosmic Spirals

It was Clausius's depressive Second Law of Thermodynamics that caused an uproar. His First Law of Energy Conservation was an instant success and he was offered a professorship at the Ecole Polytechnicum in Zurich, Switzerland. Here, he began to formulate his Second Law of Entropy Nonconservation. Entropy was a definition he invented for a larger more comprehensive natural phenomenon than energy, a one way flow or asymmetry of least resistance that directs the flow of energy. Entropy encompassed the natural behavior of heat as it flows one-way from hot to cold (it takes addition energy to create a refrigerator which keeps temperatures inside cold while heating up the surrounding area) and the conversion of mechanical energy into heat through friction, such as putting on the brakes to slow a mechanism down and the brakes become hot.

Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

The balance equation of the second law, expressed as S > 0, says that in all natural processes the entropy of the world always increases, and thus whereas with the first law there is no time, and the past, present, and future are indistinguishable, the second law, with its one-way flow, introduces the basis for telling the difference.

 

[SSDD]

You must be an idiot
[URL='https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/']Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet[/URL]

ge: Vital Signs of the Planet[/QUOTE]

By all means...please point out anything in that steaming pile that even comes close to challenging any of the statements I made....

 

[SSDD]

So you are saying that thousands of scientists can't differentiate between difference and gross? They are well known mathematical terms..and their definitions have not changed. They still mean what they have always meant..and simple subtraction of two numbers gives you a gross change...not a net change

You got net and gross backwards.

.

Chalk up one more thing you got wrong...

Here....from the math dictionary...

difference - The result of subtracting one number from another. How much one number differs from another.

Net - What is left after all deductions have been made.

 

[Wuwei]

Do you not believe in entropy now? Two way flow is not only allowed by entropy, it is demanded by quantum mechanics - tested and verified many times. .... Yes, I know. You think that's fairy dust. So you are left alone in the cold with your fake science.

Sorry guy...but as usual...your misinterpretation of whatever topic you are looking at has left you ass backwards...when you see the topic of entropy...regardless of whether it is energy flow, movement through time, biological processes, or economics...it always points out that the law of entropy demands a one way flow of whatever...from a more useful, to a less useful state...by definition, entropy is a one way street...as indicated below in the discussion of Clausius, who introduced the term entropy...

Cosmic Spirals

It was Clausius's depressive Second Law of Thermodynamics that caused an uproar. His First Law of Energy Conservation was an instant success and he was offered a professorship at the Ecole Polytechnicum in Zurich, Switzerland. Here, he began to formulate his Second Law of Entropy Nonconservation. Entropy was a definition he invented for a larger more comprehensive natural phenomenon than energy, a one way flow or asymmetry of least resistance that directs the flow of energy. Entropy encompassed the natural behavior of heat as it flows one-way from hot to cold (it takes addition energy to create a refrigerator which keeps temperatures inside cold while heating up the surrounding area) and the conversion of mechanical energy into heat through friction, such as putting on the brakes to slow a mechanism down and the brakes become hot.

Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

The balance equation of the second law, expressed as S > 0, says that in all natural processes the entropy of the world always increases, and thus whereas with the first law there is no time, and the past, present, and future are indistinguishable, the second law, with its one-way flow, introduces the basis for telling the difference.

My my, real confusion.
There is a difference between one way flow of entropy, (which is true)
and one way flow of radiation, (which is false.)
How could you even think your post made any sense !

.

 

[Wuwei]

Chalk up one more thing you got wrong...

Here....from the math dictionary...

difference - The result of subtracting one number from another. How much one number differs from another.

Net - What is left after all deductions have been made.

Now you got net right. In the case of the SB law it is a difference of just two numbers.

 

[SSDD]

Do you not believe in entropy now? Two way flow is not only allowed by entropy, it is demanded by quantum mechanics - tested and verified many times. .... Yes, I know. You think that's fairy dust. So you are left alone in the cold with your fake science.

Sorry guy...but as usual...your misinterpretation of whatever topic you are looking at has left you ass backwards...when you see the topic of entropy...regardless of whether it is energy flow, movement through time, biological processes, or economics...it always points out that the law of entropy demands a one way flow of whatever...from a more useful, to a less useful state...by definition, entropy is a one way street...as indicated below in the discussion of Clausius, who introduced the term entropy...

Cosmic Spirals

It was Clausius's depressive Second Law of Thermodynamics that caused an uproar. His First Law of Energy Conservation was an instant success and he was offered a professorship at the Ecole Polytechnicum in Zurich, Switzerland. Here, he began to formulate his Second Law of Entropy Nonconservation. Entropy was a definition he invented for a larger more comprehensive natural phenomenon than energy, a one way flow or asymmetry of least resistance that directs the flow of energy. Entropy encompassed the natural behavior of heat as it flows one-way from hot to cold (it takes addition energy to create a refrigerator which keeps temperatures inside cold while heating up the surrounding area) and the conversion of mechanical energy into heat through friction, such as putting on the brakes to slow a mechanism down and the brakes become hot.

Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

The balance equation of the second law, expressed as S > 0, says that in all natural processes the entropy of the world always increases, and thus whereas with the first law there is no time, and the past, present, and future are indistinguishable, the second law, with its one-way flow, introduces the basis for telling the difference.

My my, real confusion.
There is a difference between one way flow of entropy, (which is true)
and one way flow of radiation, (which is false.)
How could you even think your post made any sense !

.

And your bullshit continues...
It was Clausius's depressive Second Law of Thermodynamics that caused an uproar. His First Law of Energy Conservation was an instant success and he was offered a professorship at the Ecole Polytechnicum in Zurich, Switzerland. Here, he began to formulate his Second Law of Entropy Nonconservation. Entropy was a definition he invented for a larger more comprehensive natural phenomenon than energy, a one way flow or asymmetry of least resistance that directs the flow of energy.

 

[Wuwei]

And your bullshit continues...
It was Clausius's depressive Second Law of Thermodynamics that caused an uproar. His First Law of Energy Conservation was an instant success and he was offered a professorship at the Ecole Polytechnicum in Zurich, Switzerland. Here, he began to formulate his Second Law of Entropy Nonconservation. Entropy was a definition he invented for a larger more comprehensive natural phenomenon than energy, a one way flow or asymmetry of least resistance that directs the flow of energy.

Non sequitur. Read it again. The phrase one way refers to asymmetry of entropy. It does not refer to the energy involved in equilibrium radiation exchange.