No Evidence

[Crick]

You certainly worry about movement in the glass tubes used in demonstrations we've all watched lately. And I assure the air in my scuba tank moves. All of it undergoes Brownian motion appropriate to its absolute temperature and the tank is often subject to uneven heating, from sun shining on parts, from immersion in cold water, exposure to hot decks and engine wells. Your contention is nonsense.

Gas does heat when it is compressed. But guess what happens when it is decompressed you fucking idiot?

You have claimed that the Earth's atmosphere has been heated by compression since it formed ~4 billion years ago. My scuba tank and a thousand other common observations clearly show your contention to be absolute nonsense. You are either a complete idiot or a dedicated troll. There are no other options.

So you do think that that brownian motion in a gas bottle is analagous to the chaotic movement of air in the atmosphere? The two are the same to you? Really? The more you talk, the reasons you are a dupe become more clear.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Deep inside the clouds of jupiter, the temperatures reach upwards of 40,000F...rationalize that with your greenhouse hypothesis...it is due to pressure which you claim can't produce heat even though the ideal gas LAW says that it can...

What the gas law tells us is that if you compress gas, it becomes hotter than when it started. It does NOT say that being in a compressed state, or being in ANY state, will cause the gase to somehow maintain that temperature. The compression provides the energy that heats the gas. Once the pressure change is complete, no new energy is added to the system. If the gas were perfectly insulated, it could remain hot for some time. If it was not - as in an atmosphere for instance - the heat of compression will radiate/convect/conduct away and will become irrelevant to its temperature in the future. If we wanted to believe you, we would have to wonder why all our scuba tanks or acetylene tanks or nitrogren tanks weren't all roasting away. You are creating energy just as in other places you believe you can destroy energy. You cannot.

Because in your scuba tanks, the gas is static...no movement...in an atmosphere, that is not so...the gas heats due to compression then the warm air moves upwards and is replaced with depending cold air..which is compressed and moves upward...interesting that you believe that a scuba tank is analogous to the atmosphere...first the atmosphere is like a greenhouse...now it is like a scuba tank...good enough to fool you...right?

The fact is that on those planets, there is no greenhouse effect and yet, the temperatures are higher than here...and like it or not...the temperatures are due to pressure...

the gas heats due to compression then the warm air moves upwards and is replaced with depending cold air..which is compressed and moves upward...

All heating and no cooling?
Perpetual motion!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Deep inside the clouds of jupiter, the temperatures reach upwards of 40,000F...rationalize that with your greenhouse hypothesis...it is due to pressure which you claim can't produce heat even though the ideal gas LAW says that it can...

What the gas law tells us is that if you compress gas, it becomes hotter than when it started. It does NOT say that being in a compressed state, or being in ANY state, will cause the gase to somehow maintain that temperature. The compression provides the energy that heats the gas. Once the pressure change is complete, no new energy is added to the system. If the gas were perfectly insulated, it could remain hot for some time. If it was not - as in an atmosphere for instance - the heat of compression will radiate/convect/conduct away and will become irrelevant to its temperature in the future. If we wanted to believe you, we would have to wonder why all our scuba tanks or acetylene tanks or nitrogren tanks weren't all roasting away. You are creating energy just as in other places you believe you can destroy energy. You cannot.

Because in your scuba tanks, the gas is static...no movement...in an atmosphere, that is not so...the gas heats due to compression then the warm air moves upwards and is replaced with depending cold air..which is compressed and moves upward...interesting that you believe that a scuba tank is analogous to the atmosphere...first the atmosphere is like a greenhouse...now it is like a scuba tank...good enough to fool you...right?

The fact is that on those planets, there is no greenhouse effect and yet, the temperatures are higher than here...and like it or not...the temperatures are due to pressure...

The fact is that on those planets, there is no greenhouse effect and yet, the temperatures are higher than here.

Not at the surface, dolt.

 

[Wuwei]

The SB equations say nothing about Pnet....that is a fabrication based on your nutty version of the equation where the cooler background becomes the radiator.....

It's not my version. Textbooks use that equation to express net power flow.
You and polarbear do not interpret the text book version correctly.

Do you agree with polarbear that there is a reason to take the fourth root of the equation
Pnet = e sigma A(T⁴ - Tc⁴) ?

 

[polarbear]

That you can't handle a negative response tells me you never set foot in school after the 8th grade.

What a retarded dope you are. Why don`t you show me how you "handle " getting the 4th root of a negative number!

 

[Crick]

Why would you want to do that?

 

[Wuwei]

That you can't handle a negative response tells me you never set foot in school after the 8th grade.

What a retarded dope you are. Why don`t you show me how you "handle " getting the 4th root of a negative number!

If you ever went through a class in calculus you would know that the 4th root would be i times the 4th root of the absolute value of N.
But that evades the question, why would you ever want to take the 4th root of Pnet = e sigma A(T⁴ - Tc⁴) ?

 

[polarbear]

"Wuwei" who comes up with negative numbers for energy that can not be computed.

It's not my equation. It is in physics text books that derive the net power. You never answered this post. It already addressed your current question.

Because your nut job equation makes it possible for you to need the 4th power of a negative number..

This is like talking to a fence post. By now it should have dawned on you how idiotic it is to calculate P for a negative T difference and get a negative P....which in turn can not be resolved for T.
You had to check your own calculator to see if it can?.....Hahaha anybody with just a minimal math ed would have known that it can`t.

Isn`t it funny though how this guy is deluding himself that his refusal to acknowledge the stupidity of his negative power concept is preventing anyone from seeing right through his lame attempts to grand stand as some sort of science guy. He would have no idea how to solve any real world heat exchange problem unless its been an example posted on some sort of physics for dummies web site.
People like Wuwei and his clickers are of no consequence and leave no legacy beyond their digital chicken tracks on the internet. While I had to come up with real solutions for real (engineering) problems that better were 100% correct or else....,.to make a living these kind of people lived of my taxes which paid for the dope they use to "chill out".

Why would you ever want to take the fourth root of this equation
Pnet = e sigma A(T⁴ - Tc⁴)

You can take the fourth root of this equation to get emission temperature
P = e sigma A T⁴

You get total nonsense if you take the fourth root of this equation which is the power absorbed.
Pc = e sigma A Tc⁴
That is because the SB law refers to emission NOT absorption. Yes it will give you something in units of temperature, but that "temperature" is meaningless. The "Power absorbed" could be identical with a warm source up close compared to a very hot source further away.

You get even more nonsense if you take the fourth root of this equation even if T > Tc.
Pnet = e sigma A(T⁴ - Tc⁴)
The idea of the fourth root is to get the emission power from a known temperature. This equation will not give you anything that is meaningful.

If you think the fourth root of equations that include absorption means something, tell me what you think it is.

Given the power emitted from an object you can take the fourth root of this equation to get emission temperature
P = e sigma A T⁴

Why would you ever think the fourth root of the power in this equation has any meaning? It simply doesn't.
Pnet = e sigma A(T⁴ - Tc⁴)
If you think it has meaning tell me what it is.

.

Now the little worm wiggles and has it T^4 - Tcolder^4 instead of the other way around which avoids the negative Pnet. Why the 4th root of the power? If you can`t get it then there is no way to ever get the temperature or temperature difference.....and no there are no TEXTBOOKS with your screwy version of the StB equation, only internet web sites authored by AGW activists have it so. Even if you don`t want to resolve for T there is no such thing as a negative power. Dopeheads like you say there is and call it absorption while any sane person would not even need to reverse the position of the 2 temperatures to specify the amount of power that is absorbed, since it is always the colder body that absorbs the energy, getting warmed from the hotter one.
There is no such system where a hotter body gets warmed by a colder one. At any time the temperature of the hotter one will decrease the only thing that changes is the time it takes to do so.
As if that would mean that the colder body does not emit photons which is the hyperbola you freaks resort to in order to validate your giggle smoke inspired "physics".
But that`s typical for all you libtards. You morph a statement into something else that has not been stated and insist it has been said.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Wuwei" who comes up with negative numbers for energy that can not be computed.

It's not my equation. It is in physics text books that derive the net power. You never answered this post. It already addressed your current question.

Because your nut job equation makes it possible for you to need the 4th power of a negative number..

This is like talking to a fence post. By now it should have dawned on you how idiotic it is to calculate P for a negative T difference and get a negative P....which in turn can not be resolved for T.
You had to check your own calculator to see if it can?.....Hahaha anybody with just a minimal math ed would have known that it can`t.

Isn`t it funny though how this guy is deluding himself that his refusal to acknowledge the stupidity of his negative power concept is preventing anyone from seeing right through his lame attempts to grand stand as some sort of science guy. He would have no idea how to solve any real world heat exchange problem unless its been an example posted on some sort of physics for dummies web site.
People like Wuwei and his clickers are of no consequence and leave no legacy beyond their digital chicken tracks on the internet. While I had to come up with real solutions for real (engineering) problems that better were 100% correct or else....,.to make a living these kind of people lived of my taxes which paid for the dope they use to "chill out".

Why would you ever want to take the fourth root of this equation
Pnet = e sigma A(T⁴ - Tc⁴)

You can take the fourth root of this equation to get emission temperature
P = e sigma A T⁴

You get total nonsense if you take the fourth root of this equation which is the power absorbed.
Pc = e sigma A Tc⁴
That is because the SB law refers to emission NOT absorption. Yes it will give you something in units of temperature, but that "temperature" is meaningless. The "Power absorbed" could be identical with a warm source up close compared to a very hot source further away.

You get even more nonsense if you take the fourth root of this equation even if T > Tc.
Pnet = e sigma A(T⁴ - Tc⁴)
The idea of the fourth root is to get the emission power from a known temperature. This equation will not give you anything that is meaningful.

If you think the fourth root of equations that include absorption means something, tell me what you think it is.

Given the power emitted from an object you can take the fourth root of this equation to get emission temperature
P = e sigma A T⁴

Why would you ever think the fourth root of the power in this equation has any meaning? It simply doesn't.
Pnet = e sigma A(T⁴ - Tc⁴)
If you think it has meaning tell me what it is.

.

Now the little worm wiggles and has it T^4 - Tcolder^4 instead of the other way around which avoids the negative Pnet. Why the 4th root of the power? If you can`t get it then there is no way to ever get the temperature or temperature difference.....and no there are no TEXTBOOKS with your screwy version of the StB equation, only internet web sites authored by AGW activists have it so. Even if you don`t want to resolve for T there is no such thing as a negative power. Dopeheads like you say there is and call it absorption while any sane person would not even need to reverse the position of the 2 temperatures to specify the amount of power that is absorbed, since it is always the colder body that absorbs the energy, getting warmed from the hotter one.
There is no such system where a hotter body gets warmed by a colder one. At any time the temperature of the hotter one will decrease the only thing that changes is the time it takes to do so.
As if that would mean that the colder body does not emit photons which is the hyperbola you freaks resort to in order to validate your giggle smoke inspired "physics".
But that`s typical for all you libtards. You morph a statement into something else that has not been stated and insist it has been said.

There is no such system where a hotter body gets warmed by a colder one.

Who ever said that there was? Link?

As if that would mean that the colder body does not emit photons which is the hyperbola you freaks resort to

That's the claim of SSDD. Because he's an idiot and has to claim that to show that the atmosphere can't send
LWIR back toward the surface. Ask him, he'll say the Second Law and Stefan-Boltzmann show that photons only go from hotter matter to cooler matter.

 

[IanC]

Polar bear is the king of straw man argument.

Todd just called his bluff and now PB will just retreat back to the frozen North until the next time he wants to insult someone.

 

[IanC]

Does the SB equation cover the surface/atmosphere problem? Not Really, for several reasons.

But if it did then it would have to be capable for giving an answer for three scenarios. When the surface is warmer than, the same temperature as, or cooler than the atmosphere .

How should we rearrange the formula when the surface is cooler? What about the transition point when both are the same temperature? Does all radiation cease to occur like SSDD claims? Hahahahaha.

 

[IanC]

The concept of intrinsic and extrinsic properties is difficult to explain but extremely important to avoid logical incongruity like we have with the SB equation for two objects.

There is no such thing as negative energy but there is such a thing as negative net energy when you have defined the direction and origin you are interested in.

 

[polarbear]

Polar bear is the king of straw man argument.

Todd just called his bluff and now PB will just retreat back to the frozen North until the next time he wants to insult someone.

Hahaha now it is a "straw man argument" because it became too obvious that it`s a matter of a reduced cooling rate rather than back radiation from gas in the air "heating" the ground below....which you just said yesterday. Something like at night heat radiates down to warm the ground, but I am in no mood to waste my time looking for it. You know full well what you said and how you and everyone else that chimes in here jumped on the "Yes Virgina a cold object can make a warmer one even warmer"....the very foundation of man made global warming "physics".
Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still « Roy Spencer, PhD
Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Polar bear is the king of straw man argument.

Todd just called his bluff and now PB will just retreat back to the frozen North until the next time he wants to insult someone.

Hahaha now it is a "straw man argument" because it became too obvious that it`s a matter of a reduced cooling rate rather than back radiation from gas in the air "heating" the ground below....which you just said yesterday. Something like at night heat radiates down to warm the ground, but I am in no mood to waste my time looking for it. You know full well what you said and how you and everyone else that chimes in here jumped on the "Yes Virgina a cold object can make a warmer one even warmer"....the very foundation of man made global warming "physics".
Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still « Roy Spencer, PhD
Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still

" because it became too obvious that it`s a matter of a reduced cooling rate rather than back radiation from gas in the air "heating" the ground below.

Reduced cooling rate because of SSDD's dimmer switch theory of emissions or because the atmosphere
radiates toward the surface?

 

[polarbear]

Ps I am not "retreating from Todd who called my bluff". What bluff? In contrast to the rest of you I have better things to do than responding to a troll like Todd all day long every day. I just bought a lathe and a milling machine to amuse myself instead of responding to an idiot like that whenever he demands "Link" etc. Is he too stupid to look it up himself or what?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ps I am not "retreating from Todd who called my bluff". What bluff? In contrast to the rest of you I have better things to do than responding to a troll like Todd all day long every day. I just bought a lathe and a milling machine to amuse myself instead of responding to an idiot like that whenever he demands "Link" etc. Is he too stupid to look it up himself or what?

Yes, I'm too stupid to find your claimed post where someone here said that.
Why would I look for something you manufactured?

 

[polarbear]

Ps I am not "retreating from Todd who called my bluff". What bluff? In contrast to the rest of you I have better things to do than responding to a troll like Todd all day long every day. I just bought a lathe and a milling machine to amuse myself instead of responding to an idiot like that whenever he demands "Link" etc. Is he too stupid to look it up himself or what?

Yes, I'm too stupid to find your claimed post where someone here said that.
Why would I look for something you manufactured?

Ah here he goes again, the dimwit who invented the dimmer switch as the only explanation. And I just gave you the mother of all links for the "colder body warming the hotter one". I guess you spend all your time here mouthing off because you got slapped around a lot in the real world mouthing off the way you do. But hey I don`t care how and with what you waste your time or get your jollies. I got mine just now with good news from the hospital where my grand daughter just gave birth....which of course means to libtards like you that "I have to retreat from you because you called my bluff"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ps I am not "retreating from Todd who called my bluff". What bluff? In contrast to the rest of you I have better things to do than responding to a troll like Todd all day long every day. I just bought a lathe and a milling machine to amuse myself instead of responding to an idiot like that whenever he demands "Link" etc. Is he too stupid to look it up himself or what?

Yes, I'm too stupid to find your claimed post where someone here said that.
Why would I look for something you manufactured?

Ah here he goes again, the dimwit who invented the dimmer switch as the only explanation. And I just gave you the mother of all links for the "colder body warming the hotter one". I guess you spend all your time here mouthing off because you got slapped around a lot in the real world mouthing off the way you do. But hey I don`t care how and with what you waste your time or get your jollies. I got mine just now with good news from the hospital where my grand daughter just gave birth....which of course means to libtards like you that "I have to retreat from you because you called my bluff"

Ah here he goes again, the dimwit who invented the dimmer switch as the only explanation.

You're right, SSDD is a dimwit.

which of course means to libtards like you

Sorry Charlie, arch-conservative here.

 

[IanC]

But that`s typical for all you libtards. You morph a statement into something else that has not been stated and insist it has been said.

I have argued with you before and you refuse to address my words directly. You always reinterpret them into something else and then attack your version.

When there is an input of energy then the ability to shed energy will affect the equilibrium temperature. (Whether that temperature is actually achieved or not). Reducing the ability of the surface to expel IR directly to space will increase the equilibrium temperature that the surface is headed for when the Sun shines. Got that?

At night there is no energy input. Now everything cools. The surface is solid or liquid and is close to a blackbody so it loses energy by radiation quickly. The atmosphere is a gas and only has some GHG bands to produce radiation so it is not even close to being a blackbody. The atmosphere cools slowly.

At some point during the night the surface becomes cooler than the atmosphere because the surface cools quicker by radiation, which is the only way to cool the system. Conduction and convection only move energy around within the system.

Once the surface is cooler than the atmosphere then the net energy transfer by conduction and radiation goes in the direction of back to the surface. This energy reduces the rate of surface cooling. Is it correct to say that it 'warms' the surface? I dunno. Language is often imprecise.

Does CO2 cause acidification of the oceans? No. They are no where near acid. CO2 is causing some neutralization. Is the distinction necessary? I don't know.

 

[IanC]

I just bought a lathe and a milling machine to amuse myself instead of responding to an idiot like that whenever he demands "Link" etc. Is he too stupid to look it up himself or what?

What an asshole you are. You accuse Todd of making a statement, when he disavows it and asks for proof that he said it, you just run away.

Just like you have run away from my direct questions, dozens of times.