Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[jc456]

Why not simply state that we really don't grasp the underlying mechanism for energy flow rather than bore us with your attempt at bullshitting what we do know into what we don't know? Is bullshitting the only tool at your disposal?

Insults? That is your only response?

You don't grasp the underlying mechanism for energy flow? Science does. I tried to make it as simple as possible. There are many kinds of energy flow. Just which ones do you think science does not grasp, and what more is needed to “grasp” the mathematical codification of observed experimental knowledge?

Science knows that energy flows...it really doesn't know how or why it flows. Science sees the effect of energy flow...science has learned to manipulate energy flow to do work...but the how and why remain unknown.

Clearly you don't grasp the concept of an underlying mechanism. Rather than go through the painful process of trying to describe to you the difference between having a grasp (no matter how tenuous) of what is happening and understanding why it is happening, I will just ask you a few very basic questions about energy and its movement which you will not be able to answer because there are no answers. Perhaps from that exercise you may grasp that we really don't know that much about energy, or how it moves...or maybe not. Anyone who would view models as reality might have a difficult time recognizing the reality of the very large gaps in our knowledge. I doubt that you even grasp that energy itself is an indirectly observed quantity...Hell, you probably don't even know what that means. So, without further adieu...I look forward to seeing your attempts to answer these very basic questions about energy and its movement.

1. Why can energy not be created?

2. Why can energy not be destroyed?

3. How can a photon be present at every point along its path simultaneously?

5. What is the mechanism by which a vibration is translated to radiation?

6. How is it that energy can exist (not to be confused with simply transferring through) a vacuum?

These are just a couple of basic questions that arise from our observation of the effects of energy...they go straight to things we are a very long way from understanding. But your answers should be entertaining. I enjoy watching you wackos pretending to know things that at present are unknowable.

Science knows that energy flows...

Science knows that energy flows...both ways. Except for you.

yet you can't show it.

Showed it dozens of times.
Why don't you show some sources that say, "radiation only flows one way"?

nope, never saw one post. You must be using invisible print, or, maybe you forget to hit the post reply button.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Insults? That is your only response?

You don't grasp the underlying mechanism for energy flow? Science does. I tried to make it as simple as possible. There are many kinds of energy flow. Just which ones do you think science does not grasp, and what more is needed to “grasp” the mathematical codification of observed experimental knowledge?

Science knows that energy flows...it really doesn't know how or why it flows. Science sees the effect of energy flow...science has learned to manipulate energy flow to do work...but the how and why remain unknown.

Clearly you don't grasp the concept of an underlying mechanism. Rather than go through the painful process of trying to describe to you the difference between having a grasp (no matter how tenuous) of what is happening and understanding why it is happening, I will just ask you a few very basic questions about energy and its movement which you will not be able to answer because there are no answers. Perhaps from that exercise you may grasp that we really don't know that much about energy, or how it moves...or maybe not. Anyone who would view models as reality might have a difficult time recognizing the reality of the very large gaps in our knowledge. I doubt that you even grasp that energy itself is an indirectly observed quantity...Hell, you probably don't even know what that means. So, without further adieu...I look forward to seeing your attempts to answer these very basic questions about energy and its movement.

1. Why can energy not be created?

2. Why can energy not be destroyed?

3. How can a photon be present at every point along its path simultaneously?

5. What is the mechanism by which a vibration is translated to radiation?

6. How is it that energy can exist (not to be confused with simply transferring through) a vacuum?

These are just a couple of basic questions that arise from our observation of the effects of energy...they go straight to things we are a very long way from understanding. But your answers should be entertaining. I enjoy watching you wackos pretending to know things that at present are unknowable.

Science knows that energy flows...

Science knows that energy flows...both ways. Except for you.

yet you can't show it.

Showed it dozens of times.
Why don't you show some sources that say, "radiation only flows one way"?

nope, never saw one post. You must be using invisible print, or, maybe you forget to hit the post reply button.

nope, never saw one post

You think solar flares are fire, so I'm not surprised you don't remember the dozens of posts that
illustrate 2 way flow of energy.

 

[jc456]

Science knows that energy flows...it really doesn't know how or why it flows. Science sees the effect of energy flow...science has learned to manipulate energy flow to do work...but the how and why remain unknown.

Clearly you don't grasp the concept of an underlying mechanism. Rather than go through the painful process of trying to describe to you the difference between having a grasp (no matter how tenuous) of what is happening and understanding why it is happening, I will just ask you a few very basic questions about energy and its movement which you will not be able to answer because there are no answers. Perhaps from that exercise you may grasp that we really don't know that much about energy, or how it moves...or maybe not. Anyone who would view models as reality might have a difficult time recognizing the reality of the very large gaps in our knowledge. I doubt that you even grasp that energy itself is an indirectly observed quantity...Hell, you probably don't even know what that means. So, without further adieu...I look forward to seeing your attempts to answer these very basic questions about energy and its movement.

1. Why can energy not be created?

2. Why can energy not be destroyed?

3. How can a photon be present at every point along its path simultaneously?

5. What is the mechanism by which a vibration is translated to radiation?

6. How is it that energy can exist (not to be confused with simply transferring through) a vacuum?

These are just a couple of basic questions that arise from our observation of the effects of energy...they go straight to things we are a very long way from understanding. But your answers should be entertaining. I enjoy watching you wackos pretending to know things that at present are unknowable.

Science knows that energy flows...

Science knows that energy flows...both ways. Except for you.

yet you can't show it.

Showed it dozens of times.
Why don't you show some sources that say, "radiation only flows one way"?

nope, never saw one post. You must be using invisible print, or, maybe you forget to hit the post reply button.

nope, never saw one post

You think solar flares are fire, so I'm not surprised you don't remember the dozens of posts that
illustrate 2 way flow of energy.

And, you never posted two way energy flow. I understand you think you did, but we’re now on a third post and nothing

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Science knows that energy flows...

Science knows that energy flows...both ways. Except for you.

yet you can't show it.

Showed it dozens of times.
Why don't you show some sources that say, "radiation only flows one way"?

nope, never saw one post. You must be using invisible print, or, maybe you forget to hit the post reply button.

nope, never saw one post

You think solar flares are fire, so I'm not surprised you don't remember the dozens of posts that
illustrate 2 way flow of energy.

And, you never posted two way energy flow. I understand you think you did, but we’re now on a third post and nothing

^
Just the most recent.

Let me know when you find anyone who agrees with SSDD about one-way only flow.

Years of claiming it doesn't make it so. No one agrees with him. Not even his own links.

Weird.

 

[jc456]

yet you can't show it.

Showed it dozens of times.
Why don't you show some sources that say, "radiation only flows one way"?

nope, never saw one post. You must be using invisible print, or, maybe you forget to hit the post reply button.

nope, never saw one post

You think solar flares are fire, so I'm not surprised you don't remember the dozens of posts that
illustrate 2 way flow of energy.

And, you never posted two way energy flow. I understand you think you did, but we’re now on a third post and nothing

^
Just the most recent.

Let me know when you find anyone who agrees with SSDD about one-way only flow.

Years of claiming it doesn't make it so. No one agrees with him. Not even his own links.

Weird.

that isn't evidence, that's a book. no, no, you said you evidence. let's see it. you keep confusing theory with observation. I get it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Showed it dozens of times.
Why don't you show some sources that say, "radiation only flows one way"?

nope, never saw one post. You must be using invisible print, or, maybe you forget to hit the post reply button.

nope, never saw one post

You think solar flares are fire, so I'm not surprised you don't remember the dozens of posts that
illustrate 2 way flow of energy.

And, you never posted two way energy flow. I understand you think you did, but we’re now on a third post and nothing

^
Just the most recent.

Let me know when you find anyone who agrees with SSDD about one-way only flow.

Years of claiming it doesn't make it so. No one agrees with him. Not even his own links.

Weird.

that isn't evidence, that's a book. no, no, you said you evidence. let's see it. you keep confusing theory with observation. I get it.

that isn't evidence, that's a book.

A book about sensors that was first referenced by SSDD as a source that backed up
his one way only flow of energy.

you keep confusing theory with observation.

And you keep confusing knowledgeable sources that all disagree with SSDD as
somehow helping his claim.

Weird.

 

[jc456]

nope, never saw one post. You must be using invisible print, or, maybe you forget to hit the post reply button.

nope, never saw one post

You think solar flares are fire, so I'm not surprised you don't remember the dozens of posts that
illustrate 2 way flow of energy.

And, you never posted two way energy flow. I understand you think you did, but we’re now on a third post and nothing

^
Just the most recent.

Let me know when you find anyone who agrees with SSDD about one-way only flow.

Years of claiming it doesn't make it so. No one agrees with him. Not even his own links.

Weird.

that isn't evidence, that's a book. no, no, you said you evidence. let's see it. you keep confusing theory with observation. I get it.

that isn't evidence, that's a book.

A book about sensors that was first referenced by SSDD as a source that backed up
his one way only flow of energy.

you keep confusing theory with observation.

And you keep confusing knowledgeable sources that all disagree with SSDD as
somehow helping his claim.

Weird.

and still nothing showing observed two way energy flow.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

nope, never saw one post

You think solar flares are fire, so I'm not surprised you don't remember the dozens of posts that
illustrate 2 way flow of energy.

And, you never posted two way energy flow. I understand you think you did, but we’re now on a third post and nothing

^
Just the most recent.

Let me know when you find anyone who agrees with SSDD about one-way only flow.

Years of claiming it doesn't make it so. No one agrees with him. Not even his own links.

Weird.

that isn't evidence, that's a book. no, no, you said you evidence. let's see it. you keep confusing theory with observation. I get it.

that isn't evidence, that's a book.

A book about sensors that was first referenced by SSDD as a source that backed up
his one way only flow of energy.

you keep confusing theory with observation.

And you keep confusing knowledgeable sources that all disagree with SSDD as
somehow helping his claim.

Weird.

and still nothing showing observed two way energy flow.

Did you always think solar flares were fire?
Or is that a recent thing for you?

 

[jc456]

And, you never posted two way energy flow. I understand you think you did, but we’re now on a third post and nothing

^
Just the most recent.

Let me know when you find anyone who agrees with SSDD about one-way only flow.

Years of claiming it doesn't make it so. No one agrees with him. Not even his own links.

Weird.

that isn't evidence, that's a book. no, no, you said you evidence. let's see it. you keep confusing theory with observation. I get it.

that isn't evidence, that's a book.

A book about sensors that was first referenced by SSDD as a source that backed up
his one way only flow of energy.

you keep confusing theory with observation.

And you keep confusing knowledgeable sources that all disagree with SSDD as
somehow helping his claim.

Weird.

and still nothing showing observed two way energy flow.

Did you always think solar flares were fire?
Or is that a recent thing for you?

still no observation eh?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

^
Just the most recent.

Let me know when you find anyone who agrees with SSDD about one-way only flow.

Years of claiming it doesn't make it so. No one agrees with him. Not even his own links.

Weird.

that isn't evidence, that's a book. no, no, you said you evidence. let's see it. you keep confusing theory with observation. I get it.

that isn't evidence, that's a book.

A book about sensors that was first referenced by SSDD as a source that backed up
his one way only flow of energy.

you keep confusing theory with observation.

And you keep confusing knowledgeable sources that all disagree with SSDD as
somehow helping his claim.

Weird.

and still nothing showing observed two way energy flow.

Did you always think solar flares were fire?
Or is that a recent thing for you?

still no observation eh?

Tons of them.

Here's another that agrees with me. Disagrees with SSDD.
You'll ignore it, of course.



Now tell me more about your "fire on the Sun" theory.

 

[jc456]

that isn't evidence, that's a book. no, no, you said you evidence. let's see it. you keep confusing theory with observation. I get it.

that isn't evidence, that's a book.

A book about sensors that was first referenced by SSDD as a source that backed up
his one way only flow of energy.

you keep confusing theory with observation.

And you keep confusing knowledgeable sources that all disagree with SSDD as
somehow helping his claim.

Weird.

and still nothing showing observed two way energy flow.

Did you always think solar flares were fire?
Or is that a recent thing for you?

still no observation eh?

Tons of them.

Here's another that agrees with me. Disagrees with SSDD.
You'll ignore it, of course.



Now tell me more about your "fire on the Sun" theory.

still no observed two way energy flow.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

that isn't evidence, that's a book.

A book about sensors that was first referenced by SSDD as a source that backed up
his one way only flow of energy.

you keep confusing theory with observation.

And you keep confusing knowledgeable sources that all disagree with SSDD as
somehow helping his claim.

Weird.

and still nothing showing observed two way energy flow.

Did you always think solar flares were fire?
Or is that a recent thing for you?

still no observation eh?

Tons of them.

Here's another that agrees with me. Disagrees with SSDD.
You'll ignore it, of course.



Now tell me more about your "fire on the Sun" theory.

still no observed two way energy flow.

DERP!

 

[jc456]

and still nothing showing observed two way energy flow.

Did you always think solar flares were fire?
Or is that a recent thing for you?

still no observation eh?

Tons of them.

Here's another that agrees with me. Disagrees with SSDD.
You'll ignore it, of course.



Now tell me more about your "fire on the Sun" theory.

still no observed two way energy flow.

DERP!

still no observed two way energy flow

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did you always think solar flares were fire?
Or is that a recent thing for you?

still no observation eh?

Tons of them.

Here's another that agrees with me. Disagrees with SSDD.
You'll ignore it, of course.



Now tell me more about your "fire on the Sun" theory.

still no observed two way energy flow.

DERP!

still no observed two way energy flow

All you have to do is ignore the dozens of examples given.

Have you really never realized that solar flares have nothing to do with fire? LOL!

You know, you should really argue against the AGW idiocy from a political or economic standpoint.

When you try, and fail, to argue the science, you hurt our side.

 

[jc456]

still no observation eh?

Tons of them.

Here's another that agrees with me. Disagrees with SSDD.
You'll ignore it, of course.



Now tell me more about your "fire on the Sun" theory.

still no observed two way energy flow.

DERP!

still no observed two way energy flow

All you have to do is ignore the dozens of examples given.

Have you really never realized that solar flares have nothing to do with fire? LOL!

You know, you should really argue against the AGW idiocy from a political or economic standpoint.

When you try, and fail, to argue the science, you hurt our side.

dude, all you have to do is post observed two way energy flow. And I don't have a side. Sorry. I have my view based on my observations and experiences. I challenge any of your scientists to prove two way energy flow. any of them. just post someone who has observed it and recorded without having to doctor the instruments to get their readings.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tons of them.

Here's another that agrees with me. Disagrees with SSDD.
You'll ignore it, of course.



Now tell me more about your "fire on the Sun" theory.

still no observed two way energy flow.

DERP!

still no observed two way energy flow

All you have to do is ignore the dozens of examples given.

Have you really never realized that solar flares have nothing to do with fire? LOL!

You know, you should really argue against the AGW idiocy from a political or economic standpoint.

When you try, and fail, to argue the science, you hurt our side.

dude, all you have to do is post observed two way energy flow. And I don't have a side. Sorry. I have my view based on my observations and experiences. I challenge any of your scientists to prove two way energy flow. any of them. just post someone who has observed it and recorded without having to doctor the instruments to get their readings.

dude, all you have to do is post observed two way energy flow.

How many more times?
What format would satisfy?

just post someone who has observed it and recorded without having to doctor the instruments to get their readings

Instruments were doctored? Prove it.

 

[jc456]

jk

still no observed two way energy flow.

DERP!

still no observed two way energy flow

All you have to do is ignore the dozens of examples given.

Have you really never realized that solar flares have nothing to do with fire? LOL!

You know, you should really argue against the AGW idiocy from a political or economic standpoint.

When you try, and fail, to argue the science, you hurt our side.

dude, all you have to do is post observed two way energy flow. And I don't have a side. Sorry. I have my view based on my observations and experiences. I challenge any of your scientists to prove two way energy flow. any of them. just post someone who has observed it and recorded without having to doctor the instruments to get their readings.

dude, all you have to do is post observed two way energy flow.

How many more times?
What format would satisfy?

just post someone who has observed it and recorded without having to doctor the instruments to get their readings

Instruments were doctored? Prove it.

still no observed two way flow. you sure like to deflect from the conversation don't you? LOL

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

jk

DERP!

still no observed two way energy flow

All you have to do is ignore the dozens of examples given.

Have you really never realized that solar flares have nothing to do with fire? LOL!

You know, you should really argue against the AGW idiocy from a political or economic standpoint.

When you try, and fail, to argue the science, you hurt our side.

dude, all you have to do is post observed two way energy flow. And I don't have a side. Sorry. I have my view based on my observations and experiences. I challenge any of your scientists to prove two way energy flow. any of them. just post someone who has observed it and recorded without having to doctor the instruments to get their readings.

dude, all you have to do is post observed two way energy flow.

How many more times?
What format would satisfy?

just post someone who has observed it and recorded without having to doctor the instruments to get their readings

Instruments were doctored? Prove it.

still no observed two way flow. you sure like to deflect from the conversation don't you? LOL

How many more times?
What format would satisfy?​

 

[jc456]

jk

still no observed two way energy flow

All you have to do is ignore the dozens of examples given.

Have you really never realized that solar flares have nothing to do with fire? LOL!

You know, you should really argue against the AGW idiocy from a political or economic standpoint.

When you try, and fail, to argue the science, you hurt our side.

dude, all you have to do is post observed two way energy flow. And I don't have a side. Sorry. I have my view based on my observations and experiences. I challenge any of your scientists to prove two way energy flow. any of them. just post someone who has observed it and recorded without having to doctor the instruments to get their readings.

dude, all you have to do is post observed two way energy flow.

How many more times?
What format would satisfy?

just post someone who has observed it and recorded without having to doctor the instruments to get their readings

Instruments were doctored? Prove it.

still no observed two way flow. you sure like to deflect from the conversation don't you? LOL

How many more times?
What format would satisfy?​

an observation. measured using instruments not doctored. Told you that.

post that one with the girl eating ice cream again and explain why her cold breath isn't seen.

 

[jc456]

jk

All you have to do is ignore the dozens of examples given.

Have you really never realized that solar flares have nothing to do with fire? LOL!

You know, you should really argue against the AGW idiocy from a political or economic standpoint.

When you try, and fail, to argue the science, you hurt our side.

dude, all you have to do is post observed two way energy flow. And I don't have a side. Sorry. I have my view based on my observations and experiences. I challenge any of your scientists to prove two way energy flow. any of them. just post someone who has observed it and recorded without having to doctor the instruments to get their readings.

dude, all you have to do is post observed two way energy flow.

How many more times?
What format would satisfy?

just post someone who has observed it and recorded without having to doctor the instruments to get their readings

Instruments were doctored? Prove it.

still no observed two way flow. you sure like to deflect from the conversation don't you? LOL

How many more times?
What format would satisfy?​

an observation. measured using instruments not doctored. Told you that.

post that one with the girl eating ice cream again and explain why her cold breath isn't seen.

show me CO2 emitting. I've scoured the internet and not one experiment that shows that.