Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[SSDD]

We both know that you can't because there is no such observation...it only happens in models...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...

We showed you observable and measured examples many times from Stefan on out. Your problem is that you don't understand the physics behind the observations and measurements. You don't understand black body radiation nor the physics concept of spontaneity. You should read more about physics first. It's fun, and you will be surprised. Maybe you should take some community college classes.

.

Sorry, but you didn't...all you managed to do was to show how easily you are fooled...but since your tedium knows no bounds...feel free to post your MEASURED examples...I am not interested in your made up spontaneous processes, or your goofy mind experiments....but if you want to show an actual measured example or two, by all means...or don't and prove that you never provided them in the first place and are just lying again in an effort to avoid the embarrassment of not having any evidence to support your beliefs...

 

[Wuwei]

We both know that you can't because there is no such observation...it only happens in models...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...

We showed you observable and measured examples many times from Stefan on out. Your problem is that you don't understand the physics behind the observations and measurements. You don't understand black body radiation nor the physics concept of spontaneity. You should read more about physics first. It's fun, and you will be surprised. Maybe you should take some community college classes.

.

Sorry, but you didn't...all you managed to do was to show how easily you are fooled...but since your tedium knows no bounds...feel free to post your MEASURED examples...I am not interested in your made up spontaneous processes, or your goofy mind experiments....but if you want to show an actual measured example or two, by all means...or don't and prove that you never provided them in the first place and are just lying again in an effort to avoid the embarrassment of not having any evidence to support your beliefs...

As requested we showed you many observable and measured examples involving the corona, the CMB, luminescence, downward atmospheric radiation, and Stefan's original paper. It all involves PHYSICS. But you deny the fundamental tenets of physics and call the scientists idiots. You don't believe thermodynamics. You don't believe quantum mechanics. You don't believe the mathematics. You even violate logic with the lack of self-consistency of your own flat-earth science dogma.

Just what do you expect from this thread? Interminable tedious arguments with the people here showing you science and you calling them idiots? That is just being a troll. People here have held you to the same standards as you hold science. But you have shown no "observed, measured, tested" examples of your "physics", and you never will.

.

 

[jc456]

Sorry guy...net zero and zero are not the same thing...net zero indicates exchanges with an end result that is the same as zero....

Zero indicates no change whatsoever....

P=0 describes a gross change and does not describe the same physical process as P=(X+Y)-(X+Y) which describes a net change

That is total garbage.

.

Of course it isn't...sorry that you don't grasp the difference...this isn't about the answer on the other side of the equals sign..it is about the process that it describes...the SB equation essentially describes a process of P=sigma (T^4 -Tc^4) not P=sigma T^4 - sigma Tc^4

You are still playing meaningless games with simple arithmetic and still evading the simple well known well accepted derivation. The two middle terms are the essence of the derivation, but you have absolutely no understanding of the science and prefer self-contradiction instead. Which step of the derivation do you disagree with?

Pₑ = AƐơ T₁⁴ . . . . . Black body radiation to surround
Pₐ = AƐơ T₂⁴ . . . . . Black body absorption from surround

The net flow is the difference:
Pnet = Pₑ – Pₐ
= AƐơ T₁⁴ - AƐơ T₂⁴
= AƐơ (T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

.

Funny that you think that the simple act of reducing an equation to its lowest terms equals an equation from which you can derive net.....there is no net...but again...feel free to provide an observed, measured example of a discrete wavelength of energy spontaneously moving between objects of different temperatures...

We both know that you can't because there is no such observation...it only happens in models...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...

Any observations of your magic dimmer switch?

and there it is, still no observable evidence. way to go Mr. Ricochet!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That is total garbage.

.

Of course it isn't...sorry that you don't grasp the difference...this isn't about the answer on the other side of the equals sign..it is about the process that it describes...the SB equation essentially describes a process of P=sigma (T^4 -Tc^4) not P=sigma T^4 - sigma Tc^4

You are still playing meaningless games with simple arithmetic and still evading the simple well known well accepted derivation. The two middle terms are the essence of the derivation, but you have absolutely no understanding of the science and prefer self-contradiction instead. Which step of the derivation do you disagree with?

Pₑ = AƐơ T₁⁴ . . . . . Black body radiation to surround
Pₐ = AƐơ T₂⁴ . . . . . Black body absorption from surround

The net flow is the difference:
Pnet = Pₑ – Pₐ
= AƐơ T₁⁴ - AƐơ T₂⁴
= AƐơ (T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

.

Funny that you think that the simple act of reducing an equation to its lowest terms equals an equation from which you can derive net.....there is no net...but again...feel free to provide an observed, measured example of a discrete wavelength of energy spontaneously moving between objects of different temperatures...

We both know that you can't because there is no such observation...it only happens in models...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...

Any observations of your magic dimmer switch?

and there it is, still no observable evidence. way to go Mr. Ricochet!

Durr….SB is wrong.....DERP!

 

[jc456]

Of course it isn't...sorry that you don't grasp the difference...this isn't about the answer on the other side of the equals sign..it is about the process that it describes...the SB equation essentially describes a process of P=sigma (T^4 -Tc^4) not P=sigma T^4 - sigma Tc^4

You are still playing meaningless games with simple arithmetic and still evading the simple well known well accepted derivation. The two middle terms are the essence of the derivation, but you have absolutely no understanding of the science and prefer self-contradiction instead. Which step of the derivation do you disagree with?

Pₑ = AƐơ T₁⁴ . . . . . Black body radiation to surround
Pₐ = AƐơ T₂⁴ . . . . . Black body absorption from surround

The net flow is the difference:
Pnet = Pₑ – Pₐ
= AƐơ T₁⁴ - AƐơ T₂⁴
= AƐơ (T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

.

Funny that you think that the simple act of reducing an equation to its lowest terms equals an equation from which you can derive net.....there is no net...but again...feel free to provide an observed, measured example of a discrete wavelength of energy spontaneously moving between objects of different temperatures...

We both know that you can't because there is no such observation...it only happens in models...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...

Any observations of your magic dimmer switch?

and there it is, still no observable evidence. way to go Mr. Ricochet!

Durr….SB is wrong.....DERP!

t=tc is zero. nothing wrong with SB!!! durr

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are still playing meaningless games with simple arithmetic and still evading the simple well known well accepted derivation. The two middle terms are the essence of the derivation, but you have absolutely no understanding of the science and prefer self-contradiction instead. Which step of the derivation do you disagree with?

Pₑ = AƐơ T₁⁴ . . . . . Black body radiation to surround
Pₐ = AƐơ T₂⁴ . . . . . Black body absorption from surround

The net flow is the difference:
Pnet = Pₑ – Pₐ
= AƐơ T₁⁴ - AƐơ T₂⁴
= AƐơ (T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

.

Funny that you think that the simple act of reducing an equation to its lowest terms equals an equation from which you can derive net.....there is no net...but again...feel free to provide an observed, measured example of a discrete wavelength of energy spontaneously moving between objects of different temperatures...

We both know that you can't because there is no such observation...it only happens in models...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...

Any observations of your magic dimmer switch?

and there it is, still no observable evidence. way to go Mr. Ricochet!

Durr….SB is wrong.....DERP!

t=tc is zero. nothing wrong with SB!!! durr

t=tc is zero.

Net is zero. And?

nothing wrong with SB!!!

When you claim objects don't emit when near warmer objects, you're saying SB is wrong.

 

[jc456]

Funny that you think that the simple act of reducing an equation to its lowest terms equals an equation from which you can derive net.....there is no net...but again...feel free to provide an observed, measured example of a discrete wavelength of energy spontaneously moving between objects of different temperatures...

We both know that you can't because there is no such observation...it only happens in models...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...

Any observations of your magic dimmer switch?

and there it is, still no observable evidence. way to go Mr. Ricochet!

Durr….SB is wrong.....DERP!

t=tc is zero. nothing wrong with SB!!! durr

t=tc is zero.

Net is zero. And?

nothing wrong with SB!!!

When you claim objects don't emit when near warmer objects, you're saying SB is wrong.

how is it net, there is but one calculation. t= tc = zero is the output of the object t. I gave you the definition of SB is radiation, durr

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Any observations of your magic dimmer switch?

and there it is, still no observable evidence. way to go Mr. Ricochet!

Durr….SB is wrong.....DERP!

t=tc is zero. nothing wrong with SB!!! durr

t=tc is zero.

Net is zero. And?

nothing wrong with SB!!!

When you claim objects don't emit when near warmer objects, you're saying SB is wrong.

how is it net, there is but one calculation. t= tc = zero is the output of the object t. I gave you the definition of SB is radiation, durr

how is it net,

In the real world, both objects radiate all the time.
Only in SSDD's fantasy do the objects somehow, magically, determine the other's temperature for purposes
of dialing down their radiation.

 

[jc456]

and there it is, still no observable evidence. way to go Mr. Ricochet!

Durr….SB is wrong.....DERP!

t=tc is zero. nothing wrong with SB!!! durr

t=tc is zero.

Net is zero. And?

nothing wrong with SB!!!

When you claim objects don't emit when near warmer objects, you're saying SB is wrong.

how is it net, there is but one calculation. t= tc = zero is the output of the object t. I gave you the definition of SB is radiation, durr

how is it net,

In the real world, both objects radiate all the time.
Only in SSDD's fantasy do the objects somehow, magically, determine the other's temperature for purposes
of dialing down their radiation.

no they don't, not all the time, been through that already. the warm object radiates to the cold object t to tc when they're equal nothing radiates, zero. SB law, it isn't net, you can't prove it's net, the definition doesn't say it's net. Just you on a message board says that. So it's you who believes the SB is wrong.

 

[SSDD]

As requested we showed you many observable and measured examples involving the corona, the CMB, luminescence, downward atmospheric radiation, and Stefan's original paper. It all involves PHYSICS. But you deny the fundamental tenets of physics and call the scientists idiots. You don't believe thermodynamics. You don't believe quantum mechanics. You don't believe the mathematics. You even violate logic with the lack of self-consistency of your own flat-earth science dogma.

Like I said...all you managed was to show how easily you are fooled by instrumentation.. The original discovery of CMB was due to a resonant radio signal..and even that instrument was cooled...Luminescence...been though it..just another of your goofy misunderstandings...downward radiation? Really? That is a big example of being fooled by instrumentation..

Pyrogeometers which are the only instrument recognized by the meteorological society to measure downward radiation don't measure downward radiation...their programming simply assumes downward radiation to exist and that it is equal to surface radiation.. Not that I would ever expect you to actually check, since making it up is more your style, but if you look at the manual for the pyrogeometers being used, (Eppley and Kipp & Zonen type) regarding the energy balance...it doesn't account for radiation from the surroundings to the internal thermopile...by the time you go through the whole formula you end up with something like backradiation =f x voltage where f is a calibration factor. When the sun goes down, the voltage is negative as the thermopile cools down and back radiation ceases to be measured.... The 340w/m2 simply does not exist. It is simply assumed in the instrument's programming. No one ever measured back radiation...

I asked you for a measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy spontaneously from a cool object to a warmer object made with an instrument that is not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the object being measured...we both know that no such measurements exist...one of us knows that no measurements exist because energy simply does not move in that direction..

Why not just admit that you have no such measurements rather than the incessant weaseling?

 

[SSDD]

Any observations of your magic dimmer switch?

and there it is, still no observable evidence. way to go Mr. Ricochet!

Durr….SB is wrong.....DERP!

t=tc is zero. nothing wrong with SB!!! durr

t=tc is zero.

Net is zero. And?

nothing wrong with SB!!!

When you claim objects don't emit when near warmer objects, you're saying SB is wrong.

how is it net, there is but one calculation. t= tc = zero is the output of the object t. I gave you the definition of SB is radiation, durr

The dogma assumes net...and only heretics dare question the dogma

 

[jc456]

and there it is, still no observable evidence. way to go Mr. Ricochet!

Durr….SB is wrong.....DERP!

t=tc is zero. nothing wrong with SB!!! durr

t=tc is zero.

Net is zero. And?

nothing wrong with SB!!!

When you claim objects don't emit when near warmer objects, you're saying SB is wrong.

how is it net, there is but one calculation. t= tc = zero is the output of the object t. I gave you the definition of SB is radiation, durr

The dogma assumes net...and only heretics dare question the dogma

Agree, it doesn't say net in the definition. just doesn't. Some schmuck said net and they all ran with it.

 

[SSDD]

Durr….SB is wrong.....DERP!

t=tc is zero. nothing wrong with SB!!! durr

t=tc is zero.

Net is zero. And?

nothing wrong with SB!!!

When you claim objects don't emit when near warmer objects, you're saying SB is wrong.

how is it net, there is but one calculation. t= tc = zero is the output of the object t. I gave you the definition of SB is radiation, durr

The dogma assumes net...and only heretics dare question the dogma

Agree, it doesn't say net in the definition. just doesn't. Some schmuck said net and they all ran with it.

They have to run with it...to question would make them outcast....such is the power of groupthink...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Durr….SB is wrong.....DERP!

t=tc is zero. nothing wrong with SB!!! durr

t=tc is zero.

Net is zero. And?

nothing wrong with SB!!!

When you claim objects don't emit when near warmer objects, you're saying SB is wrong.

how is it net, there is but one calculation. t= tc = zero is the output of the object t. I gave you the definition of SB is radiation, durr

how is it net,

In the real world, both objects radiate all the time.
Only in SSDD's fantasy do the objects somehow, magically, determine the other's temperature for purposes
of dialing down their radiation.

no they don't, not all the time, been through that already. the warm object radiates to the cold object t to tc when they're equal nothing radiates, zero. SB law, it isn't net, you can't prove it's net, the definition doesn't say it's net. Just you on a message board says that. So it's you who believes the SB is wrong.

no they don't, not all the time, been through that already.

Post your proof that SB is wrong...…….anytime.

the warm object radiates to the cold object t to tc when they're equal nothing radiates, zero.

Funny.

SB law, it isn't net,

because the equation is single-body.

you can't prove it's net, the definition doesn't say it's net.

No matter how many times you contradict yourself......still funny.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

As requested we showed you many observable and measured examples involving the corona, the CMB, luminescence, downward atmospheric radiation, and Stefan's original paper. It all involves PHYSICS. But you deny the fundamental tenets of physics and call the scientists idiots. You don't believe thermodynamics. You don't believe quantum mechanics. You don't believe the mathematics. You even violate logic with the lack of self-consistency of your own flat-earth science dogma.

Like I said...all you managed was to show how easily you are fooled by instrumentation.. The original discovery of CMB was due to a resonant radio signal..and even that instrument was cooled...Luminescence...been though it..just another of your goofy misunderstandings...downward radiation? Really? That is a big example of being fooled by instrumentation..

Pyrogeometers which are the only instrument recognized by the meteorological society to measure downward radiation don't measure downward radiation...their programming simply assumes downward radiation to exist and that it is equal to surface radiation.. Not that I would ever expect you to actually check, since making it up is more your style, but if you look at the manual for the pyrogeometers being used, (Eppley and Kipp & Zonen type) regarding the energy balance...it doesn't account for radiation from the surroundings to the internal thermopile...by the time you go through the whole formula you end up with something like backradiation =f x voltage where f is a calibration factor. When the sun goes down, the voltage is negative as the thermopile cools down and back radiation ceases to be measured.... The 340w/m2 simply does not exist. It is simply assumed in the instrument's programming. No one ever measured back radiation...

I asked you for a measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy spontaneously from a cool object to a warmer object made with an instrument that is not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the object being measured...we both know that no such measurements exist...one of us knows that no measurements exist because energy simply does not move in that direction..

Why not just admit that you have no such measurements rather than the incessant weaseling?

The original discovery of CMB was due to a resonant radio signal..

The old "we detected a signal that didn't hit the antenna" trick.

I love that one!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

and there it is, still no observable evidence. way to go Mr. Ricochet!

Durr….SB is wrong.....DERP!

t=tc is zero. nothing wrong with SB!!! durr

t=tc is zero.

Net is zero. And?

nothing wrong with SB!!!

When you claim objects don't emit when near warmer objects, you're saying SB is wrong.

how is it net, there is but one calculation. t= tc = zero is the output of the object t. I gave you the definition of SB is radiation, durr

The dogma assumes net...and only heretics dare question the dogma

The dogma assumes net...and only heretics dare question the dogma

Well, when Einstein, Planck, really everyone is the dogma and you're the lone, evidence-free heretic, who are we gonna believe?

 

[jc456]

Durr….SB is wrong.....DERP!

t=tc is zero. nothing wrong with SB!!! durr

t=tc is zero.

Net is zero. And?

nothing wrong with SB!!!

When you claim objects don't emit when near warmer objects, you're saying SB is wrong.

how is it net, there is but one calculation. t= tc = zero is the output of the object t. I gave you the definition of SB is radiation, durr

The dogma assumes net...and only heretics dare question the dogma

The dogma assumes net...and only heretics dare question the dogma

Well, when Einstein, Planck, really everyone is the dogma and you're the lone, evidence-free heretic, who are we gonna believe?

you have quotes from the two?

 

[jc456]

t=tc is zero. nothing wrong with SB!!! durr

t=tc is zero.

Net is zero. And?

nothing wrong with SB!!!

When you claim objects don't emit when near warmer objects, you're saying SB is wrong.

how is it net, there is but one calculation. t= tc = zero is the output of the object t. I gave you the definition of SB is radiation, durr

how is it net,

In the real world, both objects radiate all the time.
Only in SSDD's fantasy do the objects somehow, magically, determine the other's temperature for purposes
of dialing down their radiation.

no they don't, not all the time, been through that already. the warm object radiates to the cold object t to tc when they're equal nothing radiates, zero. SB law, it isn't net, you can't prove it's net, the definition doesn't say it's net. Just you on a message board says that. So it's you who believes the SB is wrong.

no they don't, not all the time, been through that already.

Post your proof that SB is wrong...…….anytime.

the warm object radiates to the cold object t to tc when they're equal nothing radiates, zero.

Funny.

SB law, it isn't net,

because the equation is single-body.

you can't prove it's net, the definition doesn't say it's net.

No matter how many times you contradict yourself......still funny.

Funny.

And yet you can't post observed radiation off of two objects at the same temperature. it's fking hilarious.

just so I understand you correctly, if I were wearing night vision goggles and everything was the same temperature, I'd see unique images?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

t=tc is zero.

Net is zero. And?

nothing wrong with SB!!!

When you claim objects don't emit when near warmer objects, you're saying SB is wrong.

how is it net, there is but one calculation. t= tc = zero is the output of the object t. I gave you the definition of SB is radiation, durr

how is it net,

In the real world, both objects radiate all the time.
Only in SSDD's fantasy do the objects somehow, magically, determine the other's temperature for purposes
of dialing down their radiation.

no they don't, not all the time, been through that already. the warm object radiates to the cold object t to tc when they're equal nothing radiates, zero. SB law, it isn't net, you can't prove it's net, the definition doesn't say it's net. Just you on a message board says that. So it's you who believes the SB is wrong.

no they don't, not all the time, been through that already.

Post your proof that SB is wrong...…….anytime.

the warm object radiates to the cold object t to tc when they're equal nothing radiates, zero.

Funny.

SB law, it isn't net,

because the equation is single-body.

you can't prove it's net, the definition doesn't say it's net.

No matter how many times you contradict yourself......still funny.

Funny.

And yet you can't post observed radiation off of two objects at the same temperature. it's fking hilarious.

The "body is absorbing and emitting at the same rate"

Your own quote isn't good enough for you? Hilarious indeed.

 

[jc456]

how is it net, there is but one calculation. t= tc = zero is the output of the object t. I gave you the definition of SB is radiation, durr

how is it net,

In the real world, both objects radiate all the time.
Only in SSDD's fantasy do the objects somehow, magically, determine the other's temperature for purposes
of dialing down their radiation.

no they don't, not all the time, been through that already. the warm object radiates to the cold object t to tc when they're equal nothing radiates, zero. SB law, it isn't net, you can't prove it's net, the definition doesn't say it's net. Just you on a message board says that. So it's you who believes the SB is wrong.

no they don't, not all the time, been through that already.

Post your proof that SB is wrong...…….anytime.

the warm object radiates to the cold object t to tc when they're equal nothing radiates, zero.

Funny.

SB law, it isn't net,

because the equation is single-body.

you can't prove it's net, the definition doesn't say it's net.

No matter how many times you contradict yourself......still funny.

Funny.

And yet you can't post observed radiation off of two objects at the same temperature. it's fking hilarious.

The "body is absorbing and emitting at the same rate"

Your own quote isn't good enough for you? Hilarious indeed.

if it isn't absorbing it isn't emitting it is zero. you've got a screw loose.