Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[SSDD]

Where on earth is 160Wm2 hitting the earth 24 hours a day?

Nowhere. What's your point?

The total surface of the Earth absorbs an amount of solar radiation that averages out to be 160w/m2.

It is models all the way down with you, isn't it?...even when they are failures, you prefer models over reality.

Why do you consider math to be a model?

Why would you not consider it to be a model? It is nothing but the manipulation of ideas...ideas that may or may not pan out in the real world.

 

[IanC]

According to your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...while every observation and measurement ever made is of one way gross energy movement from warm to cool. Again, failure to differentiate between what is real and what is the output of a model. When the 2nd law is changed to state that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm and it is fine so long as the net is from warm to cool, you be sure to let me know...till then, I am afraid that the 2nd law doesn't agree with you.

Nope. Two-way net flow is consistent with every observation and the 2nd law.
It's not just me you disagree with. It's all scientists for the last 100 years or so.

Sorry guy, but it isn't...but do feel free to show me an observed measured example of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object made with an instrument at ambient temperature.

Of course, no such measurement will be forthcoming because no such measurement has ever been made....and why? Because it doesn't happen outside the realm of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models. Energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm. Again, let me know when the 2nd law is changed to say that it can.

We have given you many examples of radiation being measured with ambient temperature instruments.

You then say we are being fooled instrumentation. But you also say the measurements are accurate.

You can only infer the quantity and quality of radiation by its affect on matter. Asking to 'see' it directly is impossible.

 

[IanC]

Where on earth is 160Wm2 hitting the earth 24 hours a day?

Nowhere. What's your point?

The total surface of the Earth absorbs an amount of solar radiation that averages out to be 160w/m2.

It is models all the way down with you, isn't it?...even when they are failures, you prefer models over reality.

Why do you consider math to be a model?

Why would you not consider it to be a model? It is nothing but the manipulation of ideas...ideas that may or may not pan out in the real world.

So you reject math and logic.

By what method do you come to a conclusion yourself? Are you like that falling rock? You just automatically know what's right or wrong?

 

[SSDD]

All heat is energy but not all energy is heat.

But all heat is energy and energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm.

The original SLoT described macroscopic movement of heat (not all forms of energy), and did not have an explanation for why the behavior emerged.

the original SloT? Are you kidding? There is, and only has been one SloT...There is no other...there is a fantasy version based on fantasy science which remains unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable. You believe the fantasy over the one supported by al the empirical evidence in the universe..I know already.

The SLoT is now described in terms of entropy, and the reasons for heat movement are explained.

The SLoT is talked about in such terms by some people..the SLoT however still states that neither energy nor heat can move spontaneously from cool to warm.

Both versions give the same answers but only one gives the mechanism behind why it happens.

One version is real...one version is fantasy based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

 

[SSDD]

We have given you many examples of radiation being measured with ambient temperature instruments.

No..you have given examples of the temperature change of an internal thermopile being measured by instruments at ambient temperature...none of those is even remotely capable of measuring a discrete frequency of radiation...they simply measure temperature change within the instrument.

You then say we are being fooled instrumentation. But you also say the measurements are accurate.

When you believe that an instrument which is actually measuring (very accurately) the temperature changes within an internal thermopile is actually measuring radiation, then you are being fooled by the instrument...you are assigning it a capability that it does not have...it does what it does very accurately but it does not do what you claim it to be doing.

 

[SSDD]

So you reject math and logic.

Of course not. You can use a model to design and predict the performance of a bridge, or an aircraft wing, or most any other thing..the models are based on math...you then build the design in reality and test it...it either passes or fails. If it fails, then there is something wrong within the model and you correct the model so that what it predicts will happen in reality actually happens.

Those models produce results that are observable, measurable, and testable..in short, you know they work because you can test them. Not so with the models you believe so fervently in and in fact they routinely make predictions which are never, and can never be observed in reality.

 

[IanC]

Sorry guy, but it isn't...but do feel free to show me an observed measured example of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object made with an instrument at ambient temperature.

Of course, no such measurement will be forthcoming because no such measurement has ever been made....and why? Because it doesn't happen outside the realm of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models. Energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm. Again, let me know when the 2nd law is changed to say that it can.

I asked four times for you to give a mechanism that prevents thermal photons from hitting a warmer object. You never did and you never can because none exists. Your model of photons shunning hotter object is totally fraudulent.

Your killing me...

A photon vibrating at a lower rate, than an object it hits, has no positive effect. QM 101

This is like telling me a car going 100mph will gain speed if a car at 50mph strikes it. When it strikes there is a net energy loss as the mass must warm it to its resonating frequency before it is capable of re-emission..

Photons always travel at the speed of light. A particle travelling at 99.99% of the speed of light (relative to us) interacts with light exactly the same way as any other similar particle.

 

[Wuwei]

Actually every measurement is consistent with the one way gross energy movement from warm to cool that the 2nd amendment describes...claiming two way net energy movement when it can't be observed or measured and appears only in models is just silly.

And yes, scientists can be stupid...look at history...how often have new hypotheses been wrong when everyone thought this is it?

So you are claiming all physical science and all physical scientists are stupid and silly. Well, that certainly is a reflection of the integrity of your abysmal models of physics.

 

[IanC]

We have given you many examples of radiation being measured with ambient temperature instruments.

No..you have given examples of the temperature change of an internal thermopile being measured by instruments at ambient temperature...none of those is even remotely capable of measuring a discrete frequency of radiation...they simply measure temperature change within the instrument.

You then say we are being fooled instrumentation. But you also say the measurements are accurate.

When you believe that an instrument which is actually measuring (very accurately) the temperature changes within an internal thermopile is actually measuring radiation, then you are being fooled by the instrument...you are assigning it a capability that it does not have...it does what it does very accurately but it does not do what you claim it to be doing.

Hahahaha. Well, I suppose there is no way of getting around your Catch-22.

We can only measure the effects of radiation. We can, and have, produced technology based on our inferred description of something that we will never be able to 'see' directly.

I side with logic. Don't worry, you get to share with the benefits derived from it even if you don't believe it is real.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We have given you many examples of radiation being measured with ambient temperature instruments.

No..you have given examples of the temperature change of an internal thermopile being measured by instruments at ambient temperature...none of those is even remotely capable of measuring a discrete frequency of radiation...they simply measure temperature change within the instrument.

You then say we are being fooled instrumentation. But you also say the measurements are accurate.

When you believe that an instrument which is actually measuring (very accurately) the temperature changes within an internal thermopile is actually measuring radiation, then you are being fooled by the instrument...you are assigning it a capability that it does not have...it does what it does very accurately but it does not do what you claim it to be doing.

When you believe that an instrument which is actually measuring (very accurately) the temperature changes within an internal thermopile is actually measuring radiation, then you are being fooled by the instrument...

Explain again how we were fooled by radio telescope evidence of cosmic background radiation.

 

[SSDD]

Actually every measurement is consistent with the one way gross energy movement from warm to cool that the 2nd amendment describes...claiming two way net energy movement when it can't be observed or measured and appears only in models is just silly.

And yes, scientists can be stupid...look at history...how often have new hypotheses been wrong when everyone thought this is it?

So you are claiming all physical science and all physical scientists are stupid and silly. Well, that certainly is a reflection of the integrity of your abysmal models of physics.

Of course not...But, at present, physics is in a state of crisis whether you care to admit it or not...precisely because physics has stopped being an empirical science and has become a theoretical science.....theoretical being the operative word there.

Again, refer to Niels Bohr and his thoughts on QM... "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description.

 

[SSDD]

We have given you many examples of radiation being measured with ambient temperature instruments.

No..you have given examples of the temperature change of an internal thermopile being measured by instruments at ambient temperature...none of those is even remotely capable of measuring a discrete frequency of radiation...they simply measure temperature change within the instrument.

You then say we are being fooled instrumentation. But you also say the measurements are accurate.

When you believe that an instrument which is actually measuring (very accurately) the temperature changes within an internal thermopile is actually measuring radiation, then you are being fooled by the instrument...you are assigning it a capability that it does not have...it does what it does very accurately but it does not do what you claim it to be doing.

When you believe that an instrument which is actually measuring (very accurately) the temperature changes within an internal thermopile is actually measuring radiation, then you are being fooled by the instrument...

Explain again how we were fooled by radio telescope evidence of cosmic background radiation.

because it was receiving radio signals, and not IR radiation...it has all been explained to you but apparently even the most basic explanation is so far over your head that you still believe it was measuring IR.

 

[SSDD]

Hahahaha. Well, I suppose there is no way of getting around your Catch-22.

there is no catch 22....there is just what the instrument is actually measuring and what you believe it to be measuring...they are two very different things.

We can only measure the effects of radiation. We can, and have, produced technology based on our inferred description of something that we will never be able to 'see' directly.

So you are saying that we are unable to measure discrete wavelengths of radiation? You are saying that this graph which you have so often posted is a fraud because we can only measure the effect of radiation and not radiation itself?

I side with logic. Don't worry, you get to share with the benefits derived from it even if you don't believe it is real.

No you don't ...you side with models over reality and can't differentiate between models and reality..that is hardly logical or rational behavior.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We have given you many examples of radiation being measured with ambient temperature instruments.

No..you have given examples of the temperature change of an internal thermopile being measured by instruments at ambient temperature...none of those is even remotely capable of measuring a discrete frequency of radiation...they simply measure temperature change within the instrument.

You then say we are being fooled instrumentation. But you also say the measurements are accurate.

When you believe that an instrument which is actually measuring (very accurately) the temperature changes within an internal thermopile is actually measuring radiation, then you are being fooled by the instrument...you are assigning it a capability that it does not have...it does what it does very accurately but it does not do what you claim it to be doing.

When you believe that an instrument which is actually measuring (very accurately) the temperature changes within an internal thermopile is actually measuring radiation, then you are being fooled by the instrument...

Explain again how we were fooled by radio telescope evidence of cosmic background radiation.

because it was receiving radio signals, and not IR radiation...it has all been explained to you but apparently even the most basic explanation is so far over your head that you still believe it was measuring IR.

because it was receiving radio signals, and not IR radiation...

Photons with less energy than IR are allowed to move from cold to warm?

 

[IanC]

So you reject math and logic.

Of course not. You can use a model to design and predict the performance of a bridge, or an aircraft wing, or most any other thing..the models are based on math...you then build the design in reality and test it...it either passes or fails. If it fails, then there is something wrong within the model and you correct the model so that what it predicts will happen in reality actually happens.

Those models produce results that are observable, measurable, and testable..in short, you know they work because you can test them. Not so with the models you believe so fervently in and in fact they routinely make predictions which are never, and can never be observed in reality.

I judge a model on its ability to accurately portray reality as well.

 

[Wuwei]

Actually every measurement is consistent with the one way gross energy movement from warm to cool that the 2nd amendment describes...claiming two way net energy movement when it can't be observed or measured and appears only in models is just silly.

And yes, scientists can be stupid...look at history...how often have new hypotheses been wrong when everyone thought this is it?

So you are claiming all physical science and all physical scientists are stupid and silly. Well, that certainly is a reflection of the integrity of your abysmal models of physics.

Of course not...But, at present, physics is in a state of crisis whether you care to admit it or not...precisely because physics has stopped being an empirical science and has become a theoretical science.....theoretical being the operative word there.

Again, refer to Niels Bohr and his thoughts on QM... "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description.

"claiming two way net energy movement when it can't be observed or measured and appears only in models is just silly ... scientists can be stupid [when a hypothesis is wrong] ..."
Au contraire, that is essentially accusing all physical scientists of being silly and stupid.

"...physics has stopped being an empirical science..."
So you think spending many billions on the Large Hadron Collider and other areas of physics is not empirical. That sounds silly and stupid.

 

[SSDD]

So you reject math and logic.

Of course not. You can use a model to design and predict the performance of a bridge, or an aircraft wing, or most any other thing..the models are based on math...you then build the design in reality and test it...it either passes or fails. If it fails, then there is something wrong within the model and you correct the model so that what it predicts will happen in reality actually happens.

Those models produce results that are observable, measurable, and testable..in short, you know they work because you can test them. Not so with the models you believe so fervently in and in fact they routinely make predictions which are never, and can never be observed in reality.

I judge a model on its ability to accurately portray reality as well.

Except that they don't portray reality...the whole net energy transfer is just a bullshit story that can't be verified. When we look, and when we measure, we detect gross, one way energy transfer from warm to cool. There has never been either an observation, or a measurement of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm, and there has never been a measurement of net energy transfer. So no, you aren't judging their ability to accurately portray reality because no observation or measurement of net has ever been made. Claiming a net transfer when it can't be observed, or measured has nothing to do with reality...it has to do with what you are willing to believe.

 

[SSDD]

Actually every measurement is consistent with the one way gross energy movement from warm to cool that the 2nd amendment describes...claiming two way net energy movement when it can't be observed or measured and appears only in models is just silly.

And yes, scientists can be stupid...look at history...how often have new hypotheses been wrong when everyone thought this is it?

So you are claiming all physical science and all physical scientists are stupid and silly. Well, that certainly is a reflection of the integrity of your abysmal models of physics.

Of course not...But, at present, physics is in a state of crisis whether you care to admit it or not...precisely because physics has stopped being an empirical science and has become a theoretical science.....theoretical being the operative word there.

Again, refer to Niels Bohr and his thoughts on QM... "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description.

"claiming two way net energy movement when it can't be observed or measured and appears only in models is just silly ... scientists can be stupid [when a hypothesis is wrong] ..."
Au contraire, that is essentially accusing all physical scientists of being silly and stupid.

It wouldn't be the first time...and it isn't "all" physical scientists....there are a goodly number who recognize the crisis in the field of physics at present and recognize the reason why.

"...physics has stopped being an empirical science..."

So you think spending many billions on the Large Hadron Collider and other areas of physics is not empirical. That sounds silly and stupid.

Well now that would be classified as physical experimentation to test a hypothesis wouldn't it. It isn't blind belief in a model that can't be observed, measured or tested.

 

[Wuwei]

Actually every measurement is consistent with the one way gross energy movement from warm to cool that the 2nd amendment describes...claiming two way net energy movement when it can't be observed or measured and appears only in models is just silly.

And yes, scientists can be stupid...look at history...how often have new hypotheses been wrong when everyone thought this is it?

So you are claiming all physical science and all physical scientists are stupid and silly. Well, that certainly is a reflection of the integrity of your abysmal models of physics.

Of course not...But, at present, physics is in a state of crisis whether you care to admit it or not...precisely because physics has stopped being an empirical science and has become a theoretical science.....theoretical being the operative word there.

Again, refer to Niels Bohr and his thoughts on QM... "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description.

"claiming two way net energy movement when it can't be observed or measured and appears only in models is just silly ... scientists can be stupid [when a hypothesis is wrong] ..."
Au contraire, that is essentially accusing all physical scientists of being silly and stupid.

It wouldn't be the first time...and it isn't "all" physical scientists....there are a goodly number who recognize the crisis in the field of physics at present and recognize the reason why.

"...physics has stopped being an empirical science..."

So you think spending many billions on the Large Hadron Collider and other areas of physics is not empirical. That sounds silly and stupid.

Well now that would be classified as physical experimentation to test a hypothesis wouldn't it. It isn't blind belief in a model that can't be observed, measured or tested.

No scientist recognizes a crisis in thermodynamics of radiation exchange.
The LHC is about as empirical as you can get.

 

[SSDD]

We have given you many examples of radiation being measured with ambient temperature instruments.

No..you have given examples of the temperature change of an internal thermopile being measured by instruments at ambient temperature...none of those is even remotely capable of measuring a discrete frequency of radiation...they simply measure temperature change within the instrument.

You then say we are being fooled instrumentation. But you also say the measurements are accurate.

When you believe that an instrument which is actually measuring (very accurately) the temperature changes within an internal thermopile is actually measuring radiation, then you are being fooled by the instrument...you are assigning it a capability that it does not have...it does what it does very accurately but it does not do what you claim it to be doing.

When you believe that an instrument which is actually measuring (very accurately) the temperature changes within an internal thermopile is actually measuring radiation, then you are being fooled by the instrument...

Explain again how we were fooled by radio telescope evidence of cosmic background radiation.

because it was receiving radio signals, and not IR radiation...it has all been explained to you but apparently even the most basic explanation is so far over your head that you still believe it was measuring IR.

because it was receiving radio signals, and not IR radiation...

Photons with less energy than IR are allowed to move from cold to warm?

Radio waves don't recognize cold and warm...but no one would expect you to know something so basic.