Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[Toddsterpatriot]

T-tc = not zero, 2nd Law still confirmed.

T=tc= 0 in my math class

If T≠ tc, T-tc ≠ 0, 2nd Law still confirmed.

But t=tc=0. No negative 2nd law

Whether they're equal or not equal, there is no violation of the 2nd law.

And cool doesn’t flow to warm

No one ever said it did.

 

[SSDD]

The greenhouse effect as described by climate science valid if, and only if radiation is the primary mode of energy transport through the troposphere ...

Climate science like they teach in trade schools and community colleges? ... I think that's required to get an Environmental Science certificate ... have no idea what they teach there ... apparently not much, enough to work in an Environment Science job? ...

And yet, it is that "science" which politicians are using to increase the cost of everything you purchase...

Wait ... What ?!? ... which part of the 9.1 x10^13 watts of Earth's emissions doesn't enter outer space in it's radiative form? ...

Did you miss the part where I said that radiation plays a minor part in the energy movement through the TROPOSPHERE? The greenhouse effect, as described by climate science is a tropospheric phenomenon... What is it with you guys...I speak in perfectly understandable english..I say what I mean to say and take care to be clear...and either you don't understand what is being said, or you interpret it to mean something else then argue, or comment against something I never said.

P = eoAT^4 is the greybody form of an ideal radiator, notice no concern about what makes it grey, strictly immaterial the to surface of our greybody and our only concern is how grey it is, as expressed by the dimensionless emissivity ratio ... the lower the emissivity, the higher the temperature of the surface ... AGW Theory predicts that more carbon dioxide lowers e, thus increasing T on the Earth's surface (just how much is still unclear) ..

Which would be pseudoscience even if radiation were the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...it isn't..energy movement through the troposphere is completely dominated by conduction and convection...do describe how a radiative greenhouse effect might operate in a troposphere that is completely dominated by conduction and convection...I always like a good story....

You would need to talk to some of the cult guys about dimmer switches and sentient photons...they believe that everything must possess intelligence in order to obey the laws of physics....rocks need to know that they are to fall down when dropped and also be willing to do it...etc...

 

[SSDD]

This may be the heart of our disagreement ... radiation is emitted radially ... in all directions ... that what we mean by a radiator, something that emits energy radially ...

That may be what you mean by a radiator...but that is not what we mean by radiator, nor is that how the word is defined...the science dictionary defines a radiator as a body that emits radiation...the radial emission part is an assumption.

Unfortunately assumption has become an accepted means of logic in physics...it is rampant and becoming more rampant all the time.

CAUTION: HERETICAL SPEECH AHEAD. THE NATURE OF THIS SPEECH WILL CHALLENGE THINKING MINDS BUT WILL ONLY OFFEND THOSE HOLDING QUASI RELIGIOUS FAITH IN THE OMNIPOTENCE OF SCIENCE..IF YOU FALL INTO THE SECOND CATEGORY, TURN BACK NOW FOR YOU WILL SURELY BE OFFENDED....AND POSSIBLY OUTRAGED.

Now that my due diligence has been done.

Assumption. It has become part and parcel of physics and has led to a necessity of circular reasoning in which assumptions are accepted and lauded as true facts.

For example:

Suppose we make the assumption that a proton is made of three quarks. We can then theoretically derive a formula for the observed mass of a proton...therefore, a proton is made up of three quarks. It must be a true fact.

Suppose we make the assumption that light is made up of particles...lets call them photons. We can then theoretically derive a formula for photoelectricity which just happens to agree with certain observations that we have made...therefore light is made of photons. It must be a true fact.

Suppose we make the assumption that space time is curved. We can then theoretically explain observations of gravitation. Therefore space time is curved....It must be a true fact.

Suppose we make the assumption that there was a big bang. We can then theorize about the observed expansion of the universe. Therefore there was a big bang. It must be a true fact.

Suppose we make the assumption that there is a big old black hole at the center of a galaxy. Now we can theorize about the observation of the shape of a galaxy. Therefore there is a big old black hole at the center of a galaxy. It must be true fact.

Suppose we assume that the space time observations of different observers are connected by the Lorentz transformation of special relativity. Now we can theorize about the observation that the speed of light is the same for all observers. Therefore, all space time observations of different observers are connected by the Lorentz transformation.

Suppose we assume that the earth is sitting on the back of 4 invisible turtles. Now we can theorize about why the earth does not fall down even though everything else that is not supported falls down. Therefore, the earth sits on the backs of 4 big invisible turtles. It must be true fact.

A thinking person sees the possibility of flawed logic in those assumptions immediately. A thinking person sees that sort of thinking as pseudoscience...not actual science.

There is the fact that a particular phenomenon was observed...and the observation can be theoretically explained if certain assumptions are made. The fact that an observation was made is then used to support the claim that the assumption is not mere assumption, but true fact. Protons ARE made up of 3 quarks....light IS made up of photons.....space time IS curved...there WAS a big bang.....the Lorentz transformation MUST connect different observations....the earth IS sitting on the backs of 4 invisible turtles. CO2 IS a critical greenhouse gas....

In all of the examples above, it is not possible to directly check to see if the assumption is valid which is the pseudoscientific beauty of post modern physics...The assumption is exempt from direct experimentation and validation...it can only be tested indirectly. The assumption is correct because the theorized explanation of the observation supports the theorized cause for the observation...The assumption must be true because it is the only way the theoretical explanation seems to be possible...The inability to come up with a plausible alternative explanation is then presented as evidence ..and the more we restrict our creativity and perspective, the more sure we get that we are right...circular thinking at its best.

There are no direct observations and measurements of energy exchange between objects at equilibrium, nor are there observations and measurements of energy moving back and forth spontaneously between objects at different temperatures..

So without that ... then ... you say it's impossible for the cold Earth to transfer energy to the warm atmospheric gases through IR radiation...

Actually, I have never said that...I have said that the cold atmospheric gasses can not warm the warmer earth earth....except, of course in rare instances of temperature inversion where the atmosphere is warmer than the surface...

thus the greenhouse effect is non-existent ... you'll need to be more clever on how you algebraically manipulate SB than what you've posted ...

I have not manipulated anything...I only stated in plain english the energy exchange that the equation describes....You assume net, so you see net in an equation from which net can not be derived...therefore net must be a true fact...

And there can be no radiative greenhouse effect in a troposphere which is so completely dominated by convection and conduction..rare indeed, is the greenhouse gas molecule that actually gets to emit radiation...

In the troposphere, the mean time between molecular collisions through which an excited greenhouse molecule can trans for its energy to another gas molecule ) most often N2 is about a nanosecond. The mean decay time for an excited molecule in the atmosphere to emit that energy is about a second.

So when a greenhouse gas molecule absorbs some IR radiation, about 99.9999999% of the time, it will lose that energy via collision also known as conduction...

Therefore conduction and convection are the primary modes of energy movement through the troposphere..radiation is such a small player in the troposphere that it is hardly worth mentioning...and yet, we theorized about observations of energy in the atmosphere, and came up with one that seemingly explains the observations and therefore, by fiat, it must be true...even though observation with more and more sensitive instrumentation over the years have shown the original theorization to have been incorrect.

There is certainly a "greenhouse" effect if you like that term that keeps us warm at night, and from burning up in the day, but it is not radiative in nature.

I showed you how easy it is to demonstrate the equation you give is for net power ... try setting T(c) to 3 K ... see if that makes a difference ...

Actually, you theorized...you didn't show me anything..and you completely ignored the fact that you have your iron bar laying in the hot coals...and the underside of the bar, which is in contact with the coals is not radiating anything...AGAIN...the laws of physics state that there can be no radiation between objects that are in intimate contact...the underside of the bar is in intimate contact with the bed of coals...the iron bar is conducting energy through the side that is in intimate contact with the coals and radiating energy out into the cooler atmosphere precisely as both the second law and the SB law predict..

I guess I'm just a pansy for the past century's finest minds ...

I appreciate fine minds...but am acutely aware of the fact that even the finest minds can be wrong...and have been wrong throughout the evolution of science...there is no reason whatsoever to suspect that the minds of the present are the finest and that future fine minds won't find our notions on physics as quaint as we find the thinking of the finest minds of the past. It is arrogant in the extreme to believe that we have learned it all and are mistaken about nothing.....especially when physical evidence is lacking to support most of the true facts we accept today...as has always been the case, improvements in instrumentation, and the ability to look more deeply that those improvements provide will inevitably show us that the finest minds of today were certainly creative, but alas, wrong in far more cases than they will have been right.

We are constrained by what we can imagine...and nature has shown us over and over that our imaginations are very dim bulbs indeed when contrasted with the realities of nature....

Unfortunately assumption has become an accepted means of logic in physics...it is rampant and becoming more rampant all the time.

What follows is the reason that is not true.
Suppose we make the assumption that a proton is made of three quarks...
Quarks were not assumed willy nilly.
Historically a plethora of around 100 "elementary" particles had interaction properties that fell into a pattern. That pattern was found to follow group theory. The patterns of group theory enabled prediction of other particles that were sought and found. The last particle recently found was the Higgs Boson. Quarks came out of patterns in group theory. They were not assumed. The Standard Model encapsulates all the basics of these particles.

Suppose we make the assumption that light is made up of particles...
Photons were not assumed, but came out of the math.
Initially Pauli found that radiation by discrete energy levels would make black body radiation follow experiment. That was shortly followed by Shrodingers equation which showed that solutions to the wave equation in bound states only allowed discrete energy levels. The release of light at those energy levels were called photons which are not much more than a name for electromagnetic discreteness.

Suppose we make the assumption that space time is curved...
That was not assumed. What was assumed by Einstein is that experiments in an accelerating system would be identical to an experiment in a stationary system in a gravitational field. In other words the force you feel by acceleration is the same entity as the force by gravitation. That lead to the extraordinary result of curved space-time.

Suppose we make the assumption that there was a big bang. We can then theorize about the observed expansion of the universe...
The expanding universe was observed first. There was a theory by Fred Hoyle that did not have a big bang origin. George Gamow promoted an origin of expansion. The big bang was a derogatory term for Gamow's idea, but it stuck. It was resolved around 1950.

Suppose we make the assumption that there is a big old black hole at the center of a galaxy. Now we can theorize about the observation of the shape of a galaxy ...
The shape of the galaxy was known to be spiral well before the assumption of a black hole.

Suppose we assume that the space time observations of different observers are connected by the Lorentz transformation of special relativity. Now we can theorize about the observation that the speed of light is the same for all observers...
Your observation of this is mostly correct. The Lorentz transformation originally came as an ad hoc addition to form consistency in Maxwell's equations -- the speed of light is invariant for local systems. Einstein with Lorentz expanded it by assuming all physics laws are invariant with respect to inertial reference frames.

Assumption. It has become part and parcel of physics and has led to a necessity of circular reasoning in which assumptions are accepted and lauded as true facts....

In all of the examples above, it is not possible to directly check to see if the assumption is valid which is the pseudoscientific beauty of post modern physics...
The only reason you came to this erroneous conclusion is that you got the sequence of assumption-result inverted.

In the troposphere, the mean time between molecular collisions through which an excited greenhouse molecule can trans for its energy to another gas molecule ) most often N2 is about a nanosecond. The mean decay time for an excited molecule in the atmosphere to emit that energy is about a second.

So when a greenhouse gas molecule absorbs some IR radiation, about 99.9999999% of the time, it will lose that energy via collision also known as conduction...

You have that backwards.
The vast majority of molecular collisions will simply bounce off without changing the molecular vibration state because the velocities are way too slow. The probability that a collision will not quench the CO2 vibration is 0.999999815. Because of that, almost all CO2 molecules will keep their energy until they emit 15 micron radiation into the atmosphere.

We are constrained by what we can imagine...and nature has shown us over and over that our imaginations are very dim bulbs indeed when contrasted with the realities of nature....

That is only true for the most esoteric aspects of physics such as the relation of quantum mechanics and general relativity, the possibility of the black hole singularities, dark matter and dark energy. None of these areas impact the physics knowledge needed for earthly problems.

.

When you follow circular thinking in reverse...it is still circular...congratulations.

 

[SSDD]

Talking to you is a useless exercise...you completely fail to understand even the basics...

Planck's law deals with theoretical black bodies...which are always assumed to be within perfect vacuums...If your understanding doesn't come from that basic fact, then everything after is nothing more than your nut job interpretation...and is meaningless...

Planck's law applies to any surround. Who says it doesn't?

Planck's law itself...Ever look at the equation? Actually look at it. Note the "C" it denotes the speed of light in a vacuum.

All theoretical perfect black bodies are surrounded by theoretically perfect vacuums...the formulae change when matter is present..this is basic stuff and you don't get it...as a result, everything that comes after your failure to grasp the basics is flawed...

If you want to disagree with all physicists over the past hundred years, so be it.
If you want to say they all fail to grasp the basics, then you don't grasp the basics.

.

The physicists of the past 100 years all freely admitted that they were dealing with theory...you believe it to be true fact in all cases even though they remain theory....

 

[ReinyDays]

Did you miss the part where I said that radiation plays a minor part in the energy movement through the TROPOSPHERE? The greenhouse effect, as described by climate science is a tropospheric phenomenon... What is it with you guys...I speak in perfectly understandable english..I say what I mean to say and take care to be clear...and either you don't understand what is being said, or you interpret it to mean something else then argue, or comment against something I never said.

No, I just didn't think you knew what "troposphere" means ... there's very little atmosphere outside of the troposphere, thus the top is generally considered our arbitrary top-of-atmosphere ...

And please keep in mind we're discussing this in the context of your own special and unique form of physics ... some of these big long sciency words may actually mean something different in lamestream physics ...

Which would be pseudoscience even if radiation were the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...it isn't..energy movement through the troposphere is completely dominated by conduction and convection...do describe how a radiative greenhouse effect might operate in a troposphere that is completely dominated by conduction and convection...I always like a good story....

You would need to talk to some of the cult guys about dimmer switches and sentient photons...they believe that everything must possess intelligence in order to obey the laws of physics....rocks need to know that they are to fall down when dropped and also be willing to do it...etc...

Oh, I know exactly where you're going with this ... quivering with excitement to hear what wuwei and jc456 have to say ... unfortunately, you have already declared that you won't spend any time learning about lamestream physics, and it's obvious you haven't yet, and as such you haven't been presented with the physical evidence that confirms much of the lamestream ... just because you haven't observed something doesn't mean it's unobservable ... but I like the way you think, question everything, but we do have to be humble enough to accept good answers ... as long as you maintain that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, folks will focus on that, happily, they want to avoid embarrassing questions at all costs ... they know exactly where you're going too ...

First and foremost, you and I have to admit that we don't know how much energy is transferred through radiation and how much through convection ... scientists are just now trying to figure out how to measure this ... we can largely ignore conduction as air is an insulator, roughly R-4 per inch ... I'm not saying energy doesn't conduct, I'm just saying this amount is safety ignored ...

Convection in our atmosphere is a complex subject and (unfortunately for you) it's intimately tied to the greenhouse effect ... if you hold fast your claim the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, I dare not brooch such ... and the Alarmists win ...

 

[Wuwei]

When you follow circular thinking in reverse...it is still circular...congratulations.

You don't understand what you are saying.
All the concepts you mentioned started with experiments and observations or holes in theories that could not be explained by the physics of the day. That is how new science starts. Hypotheses were made that might explain those observations.

In all the cases you mentioned, the hypotheses led to concepts that were unknown and outside the original experimental observations. That led to surprising conclusions in all the cases you mentioned that were actually verified by new experiments.

Again, discovery is not circular. It is linear. It starts with unexplained phenomena. Then to a new hypothesis, then to a prediction of new phenomena, then to experimental verification of the new phenomena.

You got it backwards in history of discovery. You said science started with the surprising conclusions and worked backwards in history to the hypothesis.

.

 

[Wuwei]

The physicists of the past 100 years all freely admitted that they were dealing with theory...you believe it to be true fact in all cases even though they remain theory....

Not exactly. The physicists started with puzzling observations and experiments. Then they dealt with new hypotheses which led to theory which was accepted only after it agreed with the experiments. I don't think in terms of "true fact". The "truth" in physics is when a mathematical model agrees with observation and experiments at the most detailed level. New more accurate experiments may change things. But the old theory remains useful in the domains where it is accurate enough. For example Einstein's relativistic gravity is not used in planning a mission to Jupiter. Newton's laws are simpler and work fine.

.

 

[SSDD]

No, I just didn't think you knew what "troposphere" means ... there's very little atmosphere outside of the troposphere, thus the top is generally considered our arbitrary top-of-atmosphere ...

Which is why conduction and convection no longer play much of a part in energy transfer beyond the top of the troposphere...

And please keep in mind we're discussing this in the context of your own special and unique form of physics ... some of these big long sciency words may actually mean something different in lamestream physics ...

I have no "special" or "unique" form of physics....I simply don't feel the need to interpret the actual physical laws in order to conform to the dictates of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

So have we reached a point where impotent insult is going to be your main mode of communication? If so, say so now and we can dispense with the tedium of that sort of discourse...

and it's obvious you haven't yet, and as such you haven't been presented with the physical evidence that confirms much of the lamestream...

Being that there is none, I am not surprised.

... just because you haven't observed something doesn't mean it's unobservable ...

Going to propose another thought experiment and present it as "evidence"?

as long as you maintain that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, folks will focus on that, happily, they want to avoid embarrassing questions at all costs ... they know exactly where you're going too ...

Again...I said that a greenhouse effect as described by climate science doesn't exist...That is not to say that I think there is no atmospheric thermal effect.

First and foremost, you and I have to admit that we don't know how much energy is transferred through radiation and how much through convection{/quote]

We can know approximately how many collisions between molecules happen and we can know approximately how much energy absorbed by so called greenhouse gas molecules actually gets transferred to other molecules via conduction.

... scientists are just now trying to figure out how to measure this ...

It is far easier to figure out than trying to explain away the fatal flaws contained within the proposed radiative greenhouse effect described by climate science...and why would they bother to try and figure it out? The science of climate is settled is it not?

we can largely ignore conduction as air is an insulator, roughly R-4 per inch ... I'm not saying energy doesn't conduct, I'm just saying this amount is safety ignored ...

Sorry...but conduction is the primary mode of energy movement through the troposphere...were it radiation, the energy would be out into space at the speed of light...it is the cumbersome nature of conduction that keeps the energy in the troposphere long enough to provide warmth.

Convection in our atmosphere is a complex subject and (unfortunately for you) it's intimately tied to the greenhouse effect ...

The radiative greenhouse effect that doesn't exist?

if you hold fast your claim the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, I dare not brooch such ... and the Alarmists win ...

That will be just one more time that I have been right while the worlds scientists wallowed in their group think inspired error. I don't feel like I need to have people agree with me....it isn't a requirement to being right while most of those around you are wrong.

In real science, a single predictive failure is often enough to result in a hypothesis being tossed out...and if not tossed out, at least heavily modified so as to try and prevent future predictive failures...the greenhouse hypothesis, and its bastard stepchild the AGW hypothesis have literally littered the scientific landscape of the past 3 decades with predictive failures...and the only modification to the hypothesis has been to increase the margin of error so that as its predictions deviate further and further from reality, the pseudoscientists can claim that their predictions were within the margin of error...

If that passes as science in your mind, then what else is there to say?

 

[SSDD]

The physicists of the past 100 years all freely admitted that they were dealing with theory...you believe it to be true fact in all cases even though they remain theory....

Not exactly. The physicists started with puzzling observations and experiments. Then they dealt with new hypotheses which led to theory which was accepted only after it agreed with the experiments. I don't think in terms of "true fact". The "truth" in physics is when a mathematical model agrees with observation and experiments at the most detailed level. New more accurate experiments may change things. But the old theory remains useful in the domains where it is accurate enough. For example Einstein's relativistic gravity is not used in planning a mission to Jupiter. Newton's laws are simpler and work fine.

.

Precisely what I said...the fact that a particular phenomenon is observed, (which can then be explained if you make a certain assumption) is then used to prompt the belief that the assumption is not an assumption but is a true fact...the experiment is designed with the intent of proving the hypothesis...

And therein lies the failure of post modern sceince...the experiment is supposed to be designed with the explicit goal of disproving the hypothesis...It is only after the hypothesis has survived every attempt at proving it wrong that it gains merit...and alas, that isn't how post modern science works...all work is geared towards proving the hypothesis and make the assumption into a true fact...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, I just didn't think you knew what "troposphere" means ... there's very little atmosphere outside of the troposphere, thus the top is generally considered our arbitrary top-of-atmosphere ...

Which is why conduction and convection no longer play much of a part in energy transfer beyond the top of the troposphere...

And please keep in mind we're discussing this in the context of your own special and unique form of physics ... some of these big long sciency words may actually mean something different in lamestream physics ...

I have no "special" or "unique" form of physics....I simply don't feel the need to interpret the actual physical laws in order to conform to the dictates of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

So have we reached a point where impotent insult is going to be your main mode of communication? If so, say so now and we can dispense with the tedium of that sort of discourse...

and it's obvious you haven't yet, and as such you haven't been presented with the physical evidence that confirms much of the lamestream...

Being that there is none, I am not surprised.

... just because you haven't observed something doesn't mean it's unobservable ...

Going to propose another thought experiment and present it as "evidence"?

as long as you maintain that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, folks will focus on that, happily, they want to avoid embarrassing questions at all costs ... they know exactly where you're going too ...

Again...I said that a greenhouse effect as described by climate science doesn't exist...That is not to say that I think there is no atmospheric thermal effect.

First and foremost, you and I have to admit that we don't know how much energy is transferred through radiation and how much through convection{/quote]

We can know approximately how many collisions between molecules happen and we can know approximately how much energy absorbed by so called greenhouse gas molecules actually gets transferred to other molecules via conduction.

... scientists are just now trying to figure out how to measure this ...

It is far easier to figure out than trying to explain away the fatal flaws contained within the proposed radiative greenhouse effect described by climate science...and why would they bother to try and figure it out? The science of climate is settled is it not?

we can largely ignore conduction as air is an insulator, roughly R-4 per inch ... I'm not saying energy doesn't conduct, I'm just saying this amount is safety ignored ...

Sorry...but conduction is the primary mode of energy movement through the troposphere...were it radiation, the energy would be out into space at the speed of light...it is the cumbersome nature of conduction that keeps the energy in the troposphere long enough to provide warmth.

Convection in our atmosphere is a complex subject and (unfortunately for you) it's intimately tied to the greenhouse effect ...

The radiative greenhouse effect that doesn't exist?

if you hold fast your claim the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, I dare not brooch such ... and the Alarmists win ...

That will be just one more time that I have been right while the worlds scientists wallowed in their group think inspired error. I don't feel like I need to have people agree with me....it isn't a requirement to being right while most of those around you are wrong.

In real science, a single predictive failure is often enough to result in a hypothesis being tossed out...and if not tossed out, at least heavily modified so as to try and prevent future predictive failures...the greenhouse hypothesis, and its bastard stepchild the AGW hypothesis have literally littered the scientific landscape of the past 3 decades with predictive failures...and the only modification to the hypothesis has been to increase the margin of error so that as its predictions deviate further and further from reality, the pseudoscientists can claim that their predictions were within the margin of error...

If that passes as science in your mind, then what else is there to say?

I have no "special" or "unique" form of physics...

 

[Wuwei]

The physicists of the past 100 years all freely admitted that they were dealing with theory...you believe it to be true fact in all cases even though they remain theory....

Not exactly. The physicists started with puzzling observations and experiments. Then they dealt with new hypotheses which led to theory which was accepted only after it agreed with the experiments. I don't think in terms of "true fact". The "truth" in physics is when a mathematical model agrees with observation and experiments at the most detailed level. New more accurate experiments may change things. But the old theory remains useful in the domains where it is accurate enough. For example Einstein's relativistic gravity is not used in planning a mission to Jupiter. Newton's laws are simpler and work fine.

.

Precisely what I said...the fact that a particular phenomenon is observed, (which can then be explained if you make a certain assumption) is then used to prompt the belief that the assumption is not an assumption but is a true fact...the experiment is designed with the intent of proving the hypothesis...

And therein lies the failure of post modern sceince...the experiment is supposed to be designed with the explicit goal of disproving the hypothesis...It is only after the hypothesis has survived every attempt at proving it wrong that it gains merit...and alas, that isn't how post modern science works...all work is geared towards proving the hypothesis and make the assumption into a true fact...

Precisely what I said.​

You said no such thing.

And therein lies the failure of post modern sceince...the experiment is supposed to be designed with the explicit goal of disproving the hypothesis.​

That's not true either. Experiments are designed to resolve several possible hypotheses in many cases. Many experiments are designed to get more precision than past experiments to see if the theory still holds. The explicit goal of disproving a hypothesis is not applicable in many cases. For example, when an experiment searches for a hypothetical particle, failure does not prove the particle does not exist. Finally by designing the experiment to resolve a hypothesis, disproof is often a fundamental part of the experiment whether designed for it or not, such as the many experiments on Bell's Theorem.

.

 

[Wuwei]

I have no "special" or "unique" form of physics....I simply don't feel the need to interpret the actual physical laws in order to conform to the dictates of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

For you I would use the term "fake physics" rather than "special" or "unique". Mathematical models give precision to physics. You throw away the precise meaning of the models and substitute colloquial meanings. In your quest to reinterpret actual physics you continually create self contradiction.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have no "special" or "unique" form of physics....I simply don't feel the need to interpret the actual physical laws in order to conform to the dictates of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

For you I would use the term "fake physics" rather than "special" or "unique". Mathematical models give precision to physics. You throw away the precise meaning of the models and substitute colloquial meanings. In your quest to reinterpret actual physics you continually create self contradiction.

.

Yeah, but every scientist in the world is wrong about equilibrium, because SSDD, on his own,
realized that the 2nd Law was misunderstood.

He's a delicate genius.

The only one, "not fooled by instrumentation".

 

[Wuwei]

Yeah, but every scientist in the world is wrong about equilibrium, because SSDD, on his own,
realized that the 2nd Law was misunderstood.

He's a delicate genius.

The only one, "not fooled by instrumentation".

He seems to be content in his own little self contradictory world. To hell with the rest of the world.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, but every scientist in the world is wrong about equilibrium, because SSDD, on his own,
realized that the 2nd Law was misunderstood.

He's a delicate genius.

The only one, "not fooled by instrumentation".

He seems to be content in his own little self contradictory world. To hell with the rest of the world.

.

When every single source he posts contradicts his claims, he has to go it alone.

Our brave little soldier.

We knew him when...…..

 

[ReinyDays]

Well ... SSDD does make a good point about convection ... energy that leaves the Earth's surface as kinetic energy to be released in it's radiative form above 80% of the atmosphere ... it experiences the greenhouse effect but substantially less ... how much energy transitions the atmosphere in this form appears to be unknown, and doesn't look like it can be safely ignored ... we just can't assume yet that all energy transits all the atmosphere in it's radiative form, and predictions based on the assumption need to be dialed back ...

Stupid question: Does the greenhouse effect work on inbourd energy? ...

 

[SSDD]

Stupid question: Does the greenhouse effect work on inbourd energy? ...

Is the atmosphere warmed by incoming short wave radiation?

And speaking of radiation, my thoughts regarding the nature of radiation are really not much more than a straw man in the climate change discussion. Since radiation plays a very small part in the movement of energy through the troposphere the transfer of radiation is a very minor part of the discussion...

And there is the fact that the SB law is irrelevant as well. The SB law can't rightly be applied to a gas. The SB law uses the area of the radiator to determine how much energy said radiator is emitting. Air has no area. one of the locals believes that it is fine to use a cubic meter of air in place of area, but exactly what is the area of a cubic meter of air...and then there is the fact that the SB law assumes that the entire area is radiating. Even if you could use a cubic meter of air, exactly how much of that cubic meter is even capable of radiating...the vast bulk of any cubic meter of air is composed of N2 and O2 molecules with a very small part being CO2...

Then there is the whole energy being conducted rom greenhouse gas molecules to other molecules (mostly N2 and O2) via the multiple collisions with other molecules in the time between energy is absorbed and energy is emitted thing to consider, Of the total number of CO2 molecules in a cubic meter of air, if it had an area, how many would actually possess any energy to radiate at any given time? About 1 in a billion according to Dr. William Happer.

And there is one other thing spoiling the notion of a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate sceince...there is the inconvenient fact that near infrared radiation can not, and does not warm the air. The infrared heating industry has about a million hours of design, testing, observation, and commercial and residential installations that demonstrate this fact pretty well. Their whole features and benefits argument for using their product revolves around the demonstrable fact that near infrared radiation, (the sort emitted by the earth) does not warm the air...and since their heaters do not waste energy trying to warm the air...but only solid objects, their products are more efficient and less expensive to use than traditional air exchanger types of heating that does warm air via conduction before it is pumped into the area to be warmed. .Of course IR can warm water vapor but that is a special case being that it can change phases at atmospheric temperatures and pressures.

 

[ReinyDays]

And speaking of radiation, my thoughts regarding the nature of radiation are really not much more than a straw man in the climate change discussion. Since radiation plays a very small part in the movement of energy through the troposphere the transfer of radiation is a very minor part of the discussion...

This is based on your flawed notion of what the second law says ... the part you ignore is that if energy is to flow, it will flow in all possible ways ... the amounts are based in part on the magnitude of the force ... and in this context, electromagnetism is overwhelmingly dominate over gravity ... your lack of understanding in these matters isn't a strawman ... it's a very real and palatable argument against everything you post ...

You're wrong ... and you refuse to see what is plain before your eyes ... I can't help the blind ...

 

[jc456]

I have no "special" or "unique" form of physics....I simply don't feel the need to interpret the actual physical laws in order to conform to the dictates of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

For you I would use the term "fake physics" rather than "special" or "unique". Mathematical models give precision to physics. You throw away the precise meaning of the models and substitute colloquial meanings. In your quest to reinterpret actual physics you continually create self contradiction.

.

Yeah, but every scientist in the world is wrong about equilibrium, because SSDD, on his own,
realized that the 2nd Law was misunderstood.

He's a delicate genius.

The only one, "not fooled by instrumentation".

again, if T=Tc the answer will always be Zero. It's amazing you don't understand zero.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have no "special" or "unique" form of physics....I simply don't feel the need to interpret the actual physical laws in order to conform to the dictates of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

For you I would use the term "fake physics" rather than "special" or "unique". Mathematical models give precision to physics. You throw away the precise meaning of the models and substitute colloquial meanings. In your quest to reinterpret actual physics you continually create self contradiction.

.

Yeah, but every scientist in the world is wrong about equilibrium, because SSDD, on his own,
realized that the 2nd Law was misunderstood.

He's a delicate genius.

The only one, "not fooled by instrumentation".

again, if T=Tc the answer will always be Zero. It's amazing you don't understand zero.

again, if T=Tc the answer will always be Zero.

Yup, net power will be zero. Never denied it.