Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[MPS777]

Yup. Net to or away.

yep no cold flow to the sensor, just like we said. so still waiting on you jethro.

A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux, i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object.

It's not my fault that your source says net.

I don't care what it says, it says nothing in all coming out. warm reaching out to cold, input minus output. No input all output. I know, just like I said.

The source says all objects with a temperature emit thermal radiation. That’s the input to the sensor (even if the object is colder than the sensor). That’s why it talks about net flow, because as long as the object is above absolute zero, there’s always an input.

Got any observations, or measurements of spontaneous two way energy flow? Got anything other than the output of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models? Didn't think so.

I have the output of sensors, and the sensors’ output matches the two-way energy exchange model. Do you have proof that the output of the mathematical model doesn’t match the output of the sensor? If the theory involved purely one-way energy flow to predict the output of the sensor, then I might be more inclined to believe you, but it doesn’t:
["A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux, i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object." (Handbook of Modern Sensors, 4th Edition, sec 3.12.3.1)]
http://www.realtechsupport.org/UB/SR/sensors/Fraden_Sensors_2010.pdf

The mathematical model is merely a formal description of what happens in reality, with quantifiable inputs yielding quantifiable results. Using words and math to explain reality is what science is about. If you have your own formal description of reality that can do the same but never involves thermal radiation from an object striking a warmer object, you should write it all down, and send it out for peer review. Until then, nobody of any consequence is going to take you seriously.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I did......

great picture of the sun, now post an observed cool moving to warmth spontaneously.

You can't see the cool surface emitting through the hotter corona?
Have you been blind as long as you've been forgetful?

not spontaneously nope.

Why isn't it spontaneous?

it's a working system that's why.

Why is the corona hotter than the surface? oh yeah, mystery. LOL

it's a working system that's why.

No fusion on the surface....where is the work?

 

[jc456]

great picture of the sun, now post an observed cool moving to warmth spontaneously.

You can't see the cool surface emitting through the hotter corona?
Have you been blind as long as you've been forgetful?

not spontaneously nope.

Why isn't it spontaneous?

it's a working system that's why.

Why is the corona hotter than the surface? oh yeah, mystery. LOL

it's a working system that's why.

No fusion on the surface....where is the work?

again you think the sun is solid funny

What is the Sun made of? - The Sun's vital statistics - The Sun as a Star - Sun|trek


"The Sun is a big ball of gas and plasma. Most of the gas is hydrogen or helium, but there are also small amounts of other elements such as oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, magnesium and iron."

a giant fireball.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You can't see the cool surface emitting through the hotter corona?
Have you been blind as long as you've been forgetful?

not spontaneously nope.

Why isn't it spontaneous?

it's a working system that's why.

Why is the corona hotter than the surface? oh yeah, mystery. LOL

it's a working system that's why.

No fusion on the surface....where is the work?

again you think the sun is solid funny

What is the Sun made of? - The Sun's vital statistics - The Sun as a Star - Sun|trek


"The Sun is a big ball of gas and plasma. Most of the gas is hydrogen or helium, but there are also small amounts of other elements such as oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, magnesium and iron."

a giant fireball.

again you think the sun is solid funny

I don't, not at all.

So now that we agree the Sun is made of mostly hydrogen gas, where is the work taking place on the emitting surface?

Unless you're claiming that work done thousands of miles away for some reason means the cooler surface is allowed to emit toward the hotter corona?

If that's your claim, you'll have to explain the mechanism that transports that "work" to the surface.

 

[jc456]

not spontaneously nope.

Why isn't it spontaneous?

it's a working system that's why.

Why is the corona hotter than the surface? oh yeah, mystery. LOL

it's a working system that's why.

No fusion on the surface....where is the work?

again you think the sun is solid funny

What is the Sun made of? - The Sun's vital statistics - The Sun as a Star - Sun|trek


"The Sun is a big ball of gas and plasma. Most of the gas is hydrogen or helium, but there are also small amounts of other elements such as oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, magnesium and iron."

a giant fireball.

again you think the sun is solid funny

I don't, not at all.

So now that we agree the Sun is made of mostly hydrogen gas, where is the work taking place on the emitting surface?

Unless you're claiming that work done thousands of miles away for some reason means the cooler surface is allowed to emit toward the hotter corona?

If that's your claim, you'll have to explain the mechanism that transports that "work" to the surface.

again, it isn't spontaneous as I've stated over and over and you ignore and ignore. LOL,

When you can tell us why the corona is hotter than the surface, maybe we can do some more chatting about the energy of the sun.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why isn't it spontaneous?

it's a working system that's why.

Why is the corona hotter than the surface? oh yeah, mystery. LOL

it's a working system that's why.

No fusion on the surface....where is the work?

again you think the sun is solid funny

What is the Sun made of? - The Sun's vital statistics - The Sun as a Star - Sun|trek


"The Sun is a big ball of gas and plasma. Most of the gas is hydrogen or helium, but there are also small amounts of other elements such as oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, magnesium and iron."

a giant fireball.

again you think the sun is solid funny

I don't, not at all.

So now that we agree the Sun is made of mostly hydrogen gas, where is the work taking place on the emitting surface?

Unless you're claiming that work done thousands of miles away for some reason means the cooler surface is allowed to emit toward the hotter corona?

If that's your claim, you'll have to explain the mechanism that transports that "work" to the surface.

again, it isn't spontaneous as I've stated over and over and you ignore and ignore. LOL,

When you can tell us why the corona is hotter than the surface, maybe we can do some more chatting about the energy of the sun.

again, it isn't spontaneous as I've stated over and over

Another claim with no backup.
Are you SSDD? LOL!

 

[jc456]

it's a working system that's why.

Why is the corona hotter than the surface? oh yeah, mystery. LOL

it's a working system that's why.

No fusion on the surface....where is the work?

again you think the sun is solid funny

What is the Sun made of? - The Sun's vital statistics - The Sun as a Star - Sun|trek


"The Sun is a big ball of gas and plasma. Most of the gas is hydrogen or helium, but there are also small amounts of other elements such as oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, magnesium and iron."

a giant fireball.

again you think the sun is solid funny

I don't, not at all.

So now that we agree the Sun is made of mostly hydrogen gas, where is the work taking place on the emitting surface?

Unless you're claiming that work done thousands of miles away for some reason means the cooler surface is allowed to emit toward the hotter corona?

If that's your claim, you'll have to explain the mechanism that transports that "work" to the surface.

again, it isn't spontaneous as I've stated over and over and you ignore and ignore. LOL,

When you can tell us why the corona is hotter than the surface, maybe we can do some more chatting about the energy of the sun.

again, it isn't spontaneous as I've stated over and over

Another claim with no backup.
Are you SSDD? LOL!

Prove me wrong

 

[SSDD]

Science requires? Really? Without regard to observable, measurable reality? That sounds more like a religious proclamation than a scientific one....religion requires belief without physical evidence.....science requires observable, measurable, repeatable observation...the only thing science "requires" is evidence.

Are you saying that molecules of a cold gas must not hit an adjacent warm surface?
A yes or no answer will suffice.

You are an idiot...you know that? We are talking about radiative energy transfer.....cold molecules hitting a warm surface would not constitute radiative energy transfer...that would be conduction...in which energy from the warm object would be transferred to the cooler gas molecules...there is no back conduction either...

 

[SSDD]

...must be frustrating to believe something so fervently and want others to believe as well but be completely unable to provide even one observed, measured instance of it actually happening..

Nope. I find it highly amusing.

Not surprising...If you found it anything other then you would look to reality rather than models.

 

[SSDD]

I have the output of sensors, and the sensors’ output matches the two-way energy exchange model. Do you have proof that the output of the mathematical model doesn’t match the output of the sensor? If the theory involved purely one-way energy flow to predict the output of the sensor, then I might be more inclined to believe you, but it doesn’t:

What you have is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation...That sensor array is measuring nothing more than its own temperature change..then converting that change to an electrical charge which is then translated to form an image...it has no idea what is causing the change, nor does it care...all it does is measure how much and how fast its temperature is changing.

Your claim that you know what it is responding to is once again, nothing more than the output of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model. Point the sensor at a cold object and it cools off...that doesn't suggest two way flux...that suggests one way gross energy movement from the sensor to the object. Point it at a warm object and it warms up...again, that doesn't suggest two way flux, it suggests one way gross energy movement from the object to the sensor. There is nothing there that would suggest two way energy movement because the sensor is not capable of measuring any such thing...it is only capable of measuring its own temperature change.

The only evidence you have is that you are easily fooled by instrumentation....you believe you know what is happening so you project it onto an instrument which has no ability to determine whether your belief is true or not.

The mathematical model is merely a formal description of what happens in reality, with quantifiable inputs yielding quantifiable results. Using words and math to explain reality is what science is about. If you have your own formal description of reality that can do the same but never involves thermal radiation from an object striking a warmer object, you should write it all down, and send it out for peer review. Until then, nobody of any consequence is going to take you seriously.

The mathematical model is nothing more than fiction till such time as observation and measurement bear it out. At this point in time, there are no observations or measurements of spontaneously two way energy flow...there are however any number of instances where people are fooled by instrumentation into believing that evidence for what they believe exists... You just provided a prime example...projecting an ability to observe, and measure two way energy flow onto an instrument that can measure nothing more than the amount of, and rate of its own temperature change. Don't worry though, you certainly aren't the only one...ian once claimed that pyrogeometers were measuring back radiation when in fact, the only thing a pyrogeometer can measure is the amount of and rate of temperature change in an internal thermopile...he had it being able to detect discrete frequencies of radiation coming down from the cooler atmosphere such was his desire to have evidence to support his belief in a mathematical model..

We can of course measure discrete frequencies of radiation coming down from the cool atmosphere, but only if we cool the instrument to a temperature cooler than that of the atmosphere...in which case, we aren't measuring energy moving from a cool atmosphere to a warm object, we are measuring energy moving from the cool atmosphere to a colder instrument...let the instrument warm to ambient temperature and you can no longer measure discrete frequencies coming from an atmosphere that is cooler than the instrument.

 

[Wuwei]

Science requires? Really? Without regard to observable, measurable reality? That sounds more like a religious proclamation than a scientific one....religion requires belief without physical evidence.....science requires observable, measurable, repeatable observation...the only thing science "requires" is evidence.

Are you saying that molecules of a cold gas must not hit an adjacent warm surface?
A yes or no answer will suffice.

You are an idiot...you know that? We are talking about radiative energy transfer.....cold molecules hitting a warm surface would not constitute radiative energy transfer...that would be conduction...in which energy from the warm object would be transferred to the cooler gas molecules...there is no back conduction either...

Right. The SLoT holds for conduction too.

Are you saying that molecules of a cold gas must not hit an adjacent warm surface?
A yes or no answer will suffice.

 

[jc456]

Science requires? Really? Without regard to observable, measurable reality? That sounds more like a religious proclamation than a scientific one....religion requires belief without physical evidence.....science requires observable, measurable, repeatable observation...the only thing science "requires" is evidence.

Are you saying that molecules of a cold gas must not hit an adjacent warm surface?
A yes or no answer will suffice.

You are an idiot...you know that? We are talking about radiative energy transfer.....cold molecules hitting a warm surface would not constitute radiative energy transfer...that would be conduction...in which energy from the warm object would be transferred to the cooler gas molecules...there is no back conduction either...

Right. The SLoT holds for conduction too.

Are you saying that molecules of a cold gas must not hit an adjacent warm surface?
A yes or no answer will suffice.

do you have evidence to support that question?

 

[Wuwei]

Not surprising...If you found it anything other then you would look to reality rather than models.

Your problem is that you are incapable of abstract thinking.

By that I mean definition #2 in freedictionary.com.

the process of formulating generalized ideas or concepts by extracting common qualities from specific examples​

Your inability forces you to think only in terms of things you can observe and measure. You have a disdain for mathematical models, which require forming general ideas from specific examples. Mathematical models are the essence that ties together all of physics.

I have also noticed that you are incapable of understanding analogies. For example in post 2143, IanC had an analogy with early experiments with sound and how it lead to a concepts in thermal radiation.

Your response in post 2154 was totally confused into thinking that IanC was conflating sound and light as one thing, even though that analogy was one sentence in seven paragraphs.

You exclaimed over and over about taking science laws at “face value” without understanding that there is a deeper structure, mathematical models, that relates the separate laws of physics. You eschew all of modern science which has abstracted countless phenomena into deeper overarching models. You are very literal in trying to understanding nature, which absolutely requires abstract thinking.

Your inability to accept mathematical models, understand analogies, and go beyond a literal “face value” interpretation of science means you are very incapable of abstract thinking.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have the output of sensors, and the sensors’ output matches the two-way energy exchange model. Do you have proof that the output of the mathematical model doesn’t match the output of the sensor? If the theory involved purely one-way energy flow to predict the output of the sensor, then I might be more inclined to believe you, but it doesn’t:

What you have is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation...That sensor array is measuring nothing more than its own temperature change..then converting that change to an electrical charge which is then translated to form an image...it has no idea what is causing the change, nor does it care...all it does is measure how much and how fast its temperature is changing.

Your claim that you know what it is responding to is once again, nothing more than the output of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model. Point the sensor at a cold object and it cools off...that doesn't suggest two way flux...that suggests one way gross energy movement from the sensor to the object. Point it at a warm object and it warms up...again, that doesn't suggest two way flux, it suggests one way gross energy movement from the object to the sensor. There is nothing there that would suggest two way energy movement because the sensor is not capable of measuring any such thing...it is only capable of measuring its own temperature change.

The only evidence you have is that you are easily fooled by instrumentation....you believe you know what is happening so you project it onto an instrument which has no ability to determine whether your belief is true or not.

The mathematical model is merely a formal description of what happens in reality, with quantifiable inputs yielding quantifiable results. Using words and math to explain reality is what science is about. If you have your own formal description of reality that can do the same but never involves thermal radiation from an object striking a warmer object, you should write it all down, and send it out for peer review. Until then, nobody of any consequence is going to take you seriously.

The mathematical model is nothing more than fiction till such time as observation and measurement bear it out. At this point in time, there are no observations or measurements of spontaneously two way energy flow...there are however any number of instances where people are fooled by instrumentation into believing that evidence for what they believe exists... You just provided a prime example...projecting an ability to observe, and measure two way energy flow onto an instrument that can measure nothing more than the amount of, and rate of its own temperature change. Don't worry though, you certainly aren't the only one...ian once claimed that pyrogeometers were measuring back radiation when in fact, the only thing a pyrogeometer can measure is the amount of and rate of temperature change in an internal thermopile...he had it being able to detect discrete frequencies of radiation coming down from the cooler atmosphere such was his desire to have evidence to support his belief in a mathematical model..

We can of course measure discrete frequencies of radiation coming down from the cool atmosphere, but only if we cool the instrument to a temperature cooler than that of the atmosphere...in which case, we aren't measuring energy moving from a cool atmosphere to a warm object, we are measuring energy moving from the cool atmosphere to a colder instrument...let the instrument warm to ambient temperature and you can no longer measure discrete frequencies coming from an atmosphere that is cooler than the instrument.

Point the sensor at a cold object and it cools off...that doesn't suggest two way flux...

It doesn't disprove two way flux.

And it's interesting that the Handbook of Modern Sensors says net thermal flux.
And you have no source, no source at all, that agrees with your claim that
the flux is always and everywhere strictly one way.

No source. Weird.

let the instrument warm to ambient temperature and you can no longer measure discrete frequencies coming from an atmosphere that is cooler than the instrument.

An instrument on the ground at 20C can't measure the frequencies coming from the cooler atmosphere because of interference from itself, or can't measure frequencies that aren't allowed (smart photons) to travel from cold air toward the warmer ground?

 

[SSDD]

Science requires? Really? Without regard to observable, measurable reality? That sounds more like a religious proclamation than a scientific one....religion requires belief without physical evidence.....science requires observable, measurable, repeatable observation...the only thing science "requires" is evidence.

Are you saying that molecules of a cold gas must not hit an adjacent warm surface?
A yes or no answer will suffice.

You are an idiot...you know that? We are talking about radiative energy transfer.....cold molecules hitting a warm surface would not constitute radiative energy transfer...that would be conduction...in which energy from the warm object would be transferred to the cooler gas molecules...there is no back conduction either...

Right. The SLoT holds for conduction too.

Are you saying that molecules of a cold gas must not hit an adjacent warm surface?
A yes or no answer will suffice.

How does what molecules hit have anything to do with radiative energy movement....of course molecules of a cold substance can tough a warm surface...it happens 80 million times every morning when a cold egg is dropped into a hot frying pan...that egg, does not impart energy to the frying pan...the frying pan loses energy VIA CONDUCTION to the egg....

Talking about conduction does not prove two way radiative energy movement...

 

[SSDD]

Not surprising...If you found it anything other then you would look to reality rather than models.

Your problem is that you are incapable of abstract thinking.

Actually, I am great at abstract thinking...my job requires it in abundance and folks who are not good at it probably would not be very successful, or even enjoy the work...but hell, you are wrong about everything else...may as well be mistaken in your assessment of someones thought processes whom you have never met...

And I am fine with mathematical models...In fact I love them...but they are nothing more than a basis for further research...and they mean nothing till reality bears them out....which has not happened in the case of spontaneous two way energy movement...it is still just a fiction...you seem to lack the ability to differentiate between what is real..and what is not.

 

[Wuwei]

How does what molecules hit have anything to do with radiative energy movement....of course molecules of a cold substance can tough a warm surface...it happens 80 million times every morning when a cold egg is dropped into a hot frying pan...that egg, does not impart energy to the frying pan...the frying pan loses energy VIA CONDUCTION to the egg....

Talking about conduction does not prove two way radiative energy movement...

It should be obvious by now that I'm not talking about radiation. I am giving a counter example to your misunderstanding of the SLoT, where I illustrate that energy from a cold substance can hit a warmer substance I am giving a well-known example of conduction – how molecular kinetic energy from a cold gas can move toward and hit a warmer surface. Of course the kinetic energy flow is two-way, and the warm surface always imparts more energy to the cold gas than the gas to the surface.

You are avoiding the question. I'm not talking about an egg and frying pan.

Are you saying that molecules of a cold gas must not hit an adjacent warm surface?
A yes or no answer will suffice.

 

[Wuwei]

Actually, I am great at abstract thinking...my job requires it in abundance and folks who are not good at it probably would not be very successful, or even enjoy the work...but hell, you are wrong about everything else...may as well be mistaken in your assessment of someones thought processes whom you have never met...

And I am fine with mathematical models...In fact I love them...but they are nothing more than a basis for further research...and they mean nothing till reality bears them out....which has not happened in the case of spontaneous two way energy movement...it is still just a fiction...you seem to lack the ability to differentiate between what is real..and what is not.

I don't believe you one bit. My subject was physics models. You ridicule them. You are incapable of abstract thinking in physics.

 

[SSDD]

It should be obvious by now that I'm not talking about radiation. I am giving a counter example to your misunderstanding of the SLoT, where I illustrate that energy from a cold substance can hit a warmer substance I am giving a well-known example of conduction – how molecular kinetic energy from a cold gas can move toward and hit a warmer surface. Of course the kinetic energy flow is two-way, and the warm surface always imparts more energy to the cold gas than the gas to the surface.

Tell me wacko...what, exactly is spontaneous about a cold egg being dropped into a hot frying pan? Spontaneous is the key word. And the energy flow is one way from warm to cool...I keep asking for some measured example of spontaneous two way energy movement and you keep not providing it because there are no examples because it simply does not happen.

You are avoiding the question. I'm not talking about an egg and frying pan.

Are you saying that molecules of a cold gas must not hit an adjacent warm surface?
A yes or no answer will suffice.

And the stupid just never stops with you does it? Of course molecules from a cold gas can come into contact with a warm surface...it happens every time you open the refrigerator..cold air pours out onto your warm floor...but again, no energy is imparted from that cold gas to the warm floor...the floor loses energy to the gas...the gas gains energy from the floor... and still you are talking about conduction, not radiation...and with conduction as with radiation, it is a one way gross energy movement from warm to cool...

And just to be clear you f'ing idiot...cold molecules hitting a warm surface is not energy from a cold object moving to a warm object...it is simply one physical entity hitting another object...molecules are not energy...and when a molecule from a cold gas impacts a warm surface, the only energy that gets transferred is energy from the warm surface to the cooler gas.

 

[SSDD]

Actually, I am great at abstract thinking...my job requires it in abundance and folks who are not good at it probably would not be very successful, or even enjoy the work...but hell, you are wrong about everything else...may as well be mistaken in your assessment of someones thought processes whom you have never met...

And I am fine with mathematical models...In fact I love them...but they are nothing more than a basis for further research...and they mean nothing till reality bears them out....which has not happened in the case of spontaneous two way energy movement...it is still just a fiction...you seem to lack the ability to differentiate between what is real..and what is not.

I don't believe you one bit. My subject was physics models. You ridicule them. You are incapable of abstract thinking in physics.

Excuse me if I don't place much value on the opinion of an idiot. And I don't ridicule models...I am all for models...the more models the merrier. What I ridicule is people who accept unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models over observable, measurable, testable reality....and until such time as physical observation and measurement bear out the predictions of a model is fiction since it can be nothing else...I ridicule people like you because you knowingly accept fiction over reality...or...considering how often you are fooled by instrumentation, maybe you don't knowingly accept fiction over reality...maybe you only do it in abject ignorance.

The very definition of fiction describes unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models to a T...fiction: an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argumentor explanation.

Since there is no physical evidence of spontaneous two way energy movement, to think it happens is an act of imagination...the fact that it is claimed but can not be observed means that it is postulated...not that it actually happens. Again.. you fail to recognize the difference between what is real, and what is not.