Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[SSDD]

That's an interesting philosophy you have there ... maybe the confusion is you haven't stated the underlying principles that you're basing these ideas on ... is this just a personal thing or are you part of a larger group? ... anything published? ... there's nothing here that I can tell is part of any of the larger religions or philosophic schools, if that's a mistake then please enlighten me ... sounds like some of the New Age stuff that came out of Berserkley back in the 1970's to be honest ...

You're entitled to ignore how the state-of-matter affects conduction ... this is philosophy after all ... we can dispense with the details if there's a greater truth to be had ...

Nothing but insults...how unsurprising is that?

Is it that you don't believe energy can be transferred from a molecule that has absorbed energy to another molecule via collision....or is it that you don't believe that molecules actually collide?

Actually, the "physics" you believe in if they can be called physics that create that mythical radiative greenhouse effect only predict the temperature on earth..and only then with the application of an ad hoc fudge factor...they don't eve get close to predicting the temperature on any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...hell, they don't even accurately predict the temperature of the moon, with no atmosphere...

 

[Wuwei]

You gave Nikolov and Zeller as a reference that they have the best explanation and that the greenhouse effect has a fudge factor. Here:

Refer to Nikolov and Zeller...they have probably the best explanation of why the temperature of earth is what it is...in addition, their explanation works on every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere..unlike the greenhouse effect which only predicts the temperature here..and then only with the application of an ad hoc fudge factor..

I read their paper and replied that all they did was curve fitting with four fudge factors, and gave no explanation of the science. Here:

New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model
Nikolov and Zellar gave no explanation. All they did was curve fitting of temperature and atmosphere to a formula with these four fudge factors in their equation 12(b):
0.174222, 0.150275, 5.25043 10⁻¹⁵, 3.32375. That looks pretty fudgy..

Now you are saying,

Yet another model...when will you guys wake up to the fact that models are not empirical evidence? Garbage in...garbage out...magic in....magic out..

Just why did you give that reference and now denigrate it as garbage??? I already told you it was garbage!!

Either you are
being a troll,
can't understand the subject matter,
you didn't read your own paper, or
your brain isn't functioning logically.

It is really hard to fathom what goes on in your head anymore. I stick with well proven science. You don't seem to know what you think anymore.

.

 

[Wuwei]

Is it that you don't believe energy can be transferred from a molecule that has absorbed energy to another molecule via collision....or is it that you don't believe that molecules actually collide?

You forgot a third reason, and were already told this.
There are lots of collisions, but the probability of quenching the 15 micron mode radiation of CO2 is vanishingly small. I gave a reference.
The reason is that at 15C the velocities of the air molecules are too slow to disrupt the CO2 15 micron bending mode state.
.

 

[ReinyDays]

With philosophy, we can ignore laboratory results ... it's in these laboratories where we can demonstrate iron conducts energy 4000 times faster than air at normal environmental temperatures ... both conduct energy, but at different rates, usually explained by the tightly packed nature of solids and the diffuse nature of gases ... but that's using lamestream physics that you haven't bothered to learn anything about yet ... has Halliday/Resnick been in print over 50 years already? ... talk about lame ...

Actually, we can use Wein's Law to predict surface temperatures ... the problem is getting thermometers to last more than 5 minutes on the surfaces of many of these other planets ... the surface of the Jovian planets remain completely unexplored ... all the other are at best trivially explored ... so we haven't been able to confirm these predictions ... but that's only a concern if we're responsible to demonstrate our claims, you said "I have no responsibility to demonstrate anything", and that's irresponsible by definition ...

 

[ReinyDays]

It is really hard to fathom what goes on in your head anymore ...

It looks like cherry-picking ... but all I see in his basket is road apples ...

 

[Wuwei]

With philosophy, we can ignore laboratory results ... it's in these laboratories where we can demonstrate iron conducts energy 4000 times faster than air at normal environmental temperatures ... both conduct energy, but at different rates, usually explained by the tightly packed nature of solids and the diffuse nature of gases ... but that's using lamestream physics that you haven't bothered to learn anything about yet ... has Halliday/Resnick been in print over 50 years already? ... talk about lame ...

Yes, air is a very poor conductor of heat.
Thermal conductivity of air is 0.026 W/(m ℃ ).
The atmospheric lapse rate is 0.0098 ℃ / m
So the energy flow of heat due to conduction is the product of the above measurements:
0.000255 Watts per square meter
That is much much less than radiation which is a few dozen watts.

SSDD is wrong. The bulk of energy leaving the surface is carried by convection and radiation, not conduction.

[I read Halliday-Resnick decades ago. I didn't know it was still in print. ]

.

 

[Wuwei]

It looks like cherry-picking ... but all I see in his basket is road apples ...

SSDD does that a lot: He chooses a reference to attempt to prove his point, but it does just the opposite.

.

 

[SSDD]

With philosophy, we can ignore laboratory results ... it's in these laboratories where we can demonstrate iron conducts energy 4000 times faster than air at normal environmental temperatures ... both conduct energy, but at different rates, usually explained by the tightly packed nature of solids and the diffuse nature of gases ... but that's using lamestream physics that you haven't bothered to learn anything about yet ... has Halliday/Resnick been in print over 50 years already? ... talk about lame ...

Yes, air is a very poor conductor of heat.
Thermal conductivity of air is 0.026 W/(m ℃ ).
The atmospheric lapse rate is 0.0098 ℃ / m
So the energy flow of heat due to conduction is the product of the above measurements:
0.000255 Watts per square meter
That is much much less than radiation which is a few dozen watts.

SSDD is wrong. The bulk of energy leaving the surface is carried by convection and radiation, not conduction.

[I read Halliday-Resnick decades ago. I didn't know it was still in print. ]

.

Sorry guy...but radiation is barely a bit player in the movement of energy through the troposphere...If you must believe in magic...at least you could believe in more interesting magic...

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy...but radiation is barely a bit player in the movement of energy through the troposphere...If you must believe in magic...at least you could believe in more interesting magic...

It's not magic. It is science. In each cubic meter there is 95 W of energy available for energy movement by radiation near the earth surface.

Conduction is a bit player and can only move 0.000255 Watts. Do the calculation. It's simple.

.

 

[ReinyDays]

What philosophical truth are you trying to advance? ... "The greenhouse effect doesn't exist, therefore [fill in the blank]" ... obviously this is important to you and I'm not sure you're too far off the mark ... if we can get away from the details and focus on the point we're trying to make? ...

 

[SSDD]

Sorry guy...but radiation is barely a bit player in the movement of energy through the troposphere...If you must believe in magic...at least you could believe in more interesting magic...

It's not magic. It is science. In each cubic meter there is 95 W of energy available for energy movement by radiation near the earth surface.

Conduction is a bit player and can only move 0.000255 Watts. Do the calculation. It's simple.

.

We have been through your math.....more fantasy... You can't use the SB law to determine radiation per volume...the A represents area and exactly what is the area of a cubic meter of atmosphere?

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy...but radiation is barely a bit player in the movement of energy through the troposphere...If you must believe in magic...at least you could believe in more interesting magic...

It's not magic. It is science. In each cubic meter there is 95 W of energy available for energy movement by radiation near the earth surface.

Conduction is a bit player and can only move 0.000255 Watts. Do the calculation. It's simple.

We have been through your math.....more fantasy... You can't use the SB law to determine radiation per volume...the A represents area and exactly what is the area of a cubic meter of atmosphere?

What on earth are you talking about. Since when did I mention the SB law? I am not talking about the SB law. I simply told you that CO2 in the atmosphere is teeming with the 15 micron bending mode of excitation and is radiating it and collisions lack the energy to quench it at surface temperatures. That has nothing to do with the SB law, unless you tell me how you are thinking.

.

 

[ReinyDays]

[raises hand] ... I'm the one who brought up Planck and SB ... ask me anything ...

 

[gfm7175]

There is no such thing as "net flow"...

A 10C object is prohibited from radiating toward a 20C object? Why?
Force fields? Smart photons? What?

A colder body cannot warm a hotter body.

While the 10C object radiates toward the 20C object, the 20C object radiates MORE toward the 10C object.

They BOTH radiate, but the cooler object warms while the warmer object cools.
Because "net flow".

dude, it's been explained to you over an over again, 2nd law thing you just can't seem to absorb. get it? absorbed? hahahaahaha what a boob you are.

anyway, you still haven't presented observed empirical evidence that it does what you said. you have been losing this battle for over three years now.

Hey you still trying to warm the sun with your flashlight?

dude, it's been explained to you over an over again

So which is it?

2nd law thing you just can't seem to absorb.

Stefan-Boltzmann thing you just can't seem to absorb.

Hey you still trying to warm the sun with your flashlight?

If you ever pull your head out of your ass, by all means link where I said anything about "heating" the sun.

that 2nd law thing still has you bamboozled I see. it's ok, all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object. I've asked too many times to count. you still haven't. why not?

and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun like your 10C object at the 20C object is doing? is that what you meant?

all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object.

Stefan-Boltzmann says they both radiate.
Feel free to post your proof that they don't.

and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun

Sorry that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is too complex for you.
If you understood it, you wouldn't make AOC level comments when discussing it.

again, I agree they both radiate. I've always said that. your analogy is the issue, not the object radiating.

Only a fool would say they don't. what isn't true is that the 10C will radiate at the 20C object when they are next to each other. And I've asked you for the experiment that shows it. fk dude, how hard can that be for you to post?

Heat flows to cold and that's it. Radiate = heat, another thing you can't seem to grasp. 20C radiates at 10C and that's it.

He simply doesn't get it... If heat COULD flow from 10C to 20C, then that would be decreasing entropy, as colder areas would be getting colder and warmer areas would be getting warmer... That denies thermodynamics. Heat ONLY flows from hot to cold. Entropy increases. Hotter areas cool off and colder areas warm up...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

dude, it's been explained to you over an over again, 2nd law thing you just can't seem to absorb. get it? absorbed? hahahaahaha what a boob you are.

anyway, you still haven't presented observed empirical evidence that it does what you said. you have been losing this battle for over three years now.

Hey you still trying to warm the sun with your flashlight?

dude, it's been explained to you over an over again

So which is it?

2nd law thing you just can't seem to absorb.

Stefan-Boltzmann thing you just can't seem to absorb.

Hey you still trying to warm the sun with your flashlight?

If you ever pull your head out of your ass, by all means link where I said anything about "heating" the sun.

that 2nd law thing still has you bamboozled I see. it's ok, all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object. I've asked too many times to count. you still haven't. why not?

and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun like your 10C object at the 20C object is doing? is that what you meant?

all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object.

Stefan-Boltzmann says they both radiate.
Feel free to post your proof that they don't.

and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun

Sorry that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is too complex for you.
If you understood it, you wouldn't make AOC level comments when discussing it.

again, I agree they both radiate. I've always said that. your analogy is the issue, not the object radiating.

Only a fool would say they don't. what isn't true is that the 10C will radiate at the 20C object when they are next to each other. And I've asked you for the experiment that shows it. fk dude, how hard can that be for you to post?

Heat flows to cold and that's it. Radiate = heat, another thing you can't seem to grasp. 20C radiates at 10C and that's it.

He simply doesn't get it... If heat COULD flow from 10C to 20C, then that would be decreasing entropy, as colder areas would be getting colder and warmer areas would be getting warmer... That denies thermodynamics. Heat ONLY flows from hot to cold. Entropy increases. Hotter areas cool off and colder areas warm up...

If heat COULD flow from 10C to 20C, then that would be decreasing entropy,

What about photons flowing from 10C to 20C? Is that allowed?

 

[ReinyDays]

We'll need a bit of space between the two objects ... what's the temperature of space these days? ...

 

[mamooth]

Poor SSDD always has his cause and effect reversed. The ideal gas law is the result of other forces, not the cause. The second law is a result of the statistical behavior of molecules, and not a cause of anything.

If he had ever taken an undergrad physics course in statistical mechanics and advanced thermodynamics, he'd understand that. But he hasn't. He's been educated at Conspiracy U., where all mainstream science is defined as an evil socialist plot.

 

[jc456]

dude, it's been explained to you over an over again

So which is it?

2nd law thing you just can't seem to absorb.

Stefan-Boltzmann thing you just can't seem to absorb.

Hey you still trying to warm the sun with your flashlight?

If you ever pull your head out of your ass, by all means link where I said anything about "heating" the sun.

that 2nd law thing still has you bamboozled I see. it's ok, all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object. I've asked too many times to count. you still haven't. why not?

and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun like your 10C object at the 20C object is doing? is that what you meant?

all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object.

Stefan-Boltzmann says they both radiate.
Feel free to post your proof that they don't.

and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun

Sorry that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is too complex for you.
If you understood it, you wouldn't make AOC level comments when discussing it.

again, I agree they both radiate. I've always said that. your analogy is the issue, not the object radiating.

Only a fool would say they don't. what isn't true is that the 10C will radiate at the 20C object when they are next to each other. And I've asked you for the experiment that shows it. fk dude, how hard can that be for you to post?

Heat flows to cold and that's it. Radiate = heat, another thing you can't seem to grasp. 20C radiates at 10C and that's it.

He simply doesn't get it... If heat COULD flow from 10C to 20C, then that would be decreasing entropy, as colder areas would be getting colder and warmer areas would be getting warmer... That denies thermodynamics. Heat ONLY flows from hot to cold. Entropy increases. Hotter areas cool off and colder areas warm up...

If heat COULD flow from 10C to 20C, then that would be decreasing entropy,

What about photons flowing from 10C to 20C? Is that allowed?

Got that demo?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

that 2nd law thing still has you bamboozled I see. it's ok, all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object. I've asked too many times to count. you still haven't. why not?

and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun like your 10C object at the 20C object is doing? is that what you meant?

all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object.

Stefan-Boltzmann says they both radiate.
Feel free to post your proof that they don't.

and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun

Sorry that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is too complex for you.
If you understood it, you wouldn't make AOC level comments when discussing it.

again, I agree they both radiate. I've always said that. your analogy is the issue, not the object radiating.

Only a fool would say they don't. what isn't true is that the 10C will radiate at the 20C object when they are next to each other. And I've asked you for the experiment that shows it. fk dude, how hard can that be for you to post?

Heat flows to cold and that's it. Radiate = heat, another thing you can't seem to grasp. 20C radiates at 10C and that's it.

He simply doesn't get it... If heat COULD flow from 10C to 20C, then that would be decreasing entropy, as colder areas would be getting colder and warmer areas would be getting warmer... That denies thermodynamics. Heat ONLY flows from hot to cold. Entropy increases. Hotter areas cool off and colder areas warm up...

If heat COULD flow from 10C to 20C, then that would be decreasing entropy,

What about photons flowing from 10C to 20C? Is that allowed?

Got that demo?

 

[jc456]

all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object.

Stefan-Boltzmann says they both radiate.
Feel free to post your proof that they don't.

and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun

Sorry that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is too complex for you.
If you understood it, you wouldn't make AOC level comments when discussing it.

again, I agree they both radiate. I've always said that. your analogy is the issue, not the object radiating.

Only a fool would say they don't. what isn't true is that the 10C will radiate at the 20C object when they are next to each other. And I've asked you for the experiment that shows it. fk dude, how hard can that be for you to post?

Heat flows to cold and that's it. Radiate = heat, another thing you can't seem to grasp. 20C radiates at 10C and that's it.

He simply doesn't get it... If heat COULD flow from 10C to 20C, then that would be decreasing entropy, as colder areas would be getting colder and warmer areas would be getting warmer... That denies thermodynamics. Heat ONLY flows from hot to cold. Entropy increases. Hotter areas cool off and colder areas warm up...

If heat COULD flow from 10C to 20C, then that would be decreasing entropy,

What about photons flowing from 10C to 20C? Is that allowed?

Got that demo?

View attachment 285803

Chocolate pudding? Weird!