Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[SSDD]

It really does.

It really doesn't, but apparently this is all so far over your head that you can be forgiven for not understanding.

So why do you still propagate your faulty understanding?

The only faulty understanding is yours but again...being so far over your head and all..don't worry about it.

So post some links that agree with your dimmer switch theory of radiating. And, more importantly, some links that agree with your claim that cooler matter ceases radiating and that objects at equilibrium cease radiating.

The physical law itself isn't good enough for you? Here...

...set T to a temperature and leave it there...now set Tc to different temperatures...use small numbers, it will be easier for you...watch P change...when Tc changes, the radiator is no longer radiating according to the 4th power of its absolute temperature...it is radiating according to the its emissivity, its area, and the difference between its own temperature and that of its surroundings. If all matter radiated all the time according to the 4th power of its absolute temperature, then no other equation would be necessary...alas, there is another equation for a different senario than a perfect black body radiating in the absence of any other matter...that would be beacause P changes in the presence of other matter.

 

[IanC]

The equation toddster, ian, and aparently you love to reference is this

.....which does indicate that the black body is radiating in proportion to the 4th power of its absolute temperature, area, and emissivity.

No, that equation is for non blackbodies. That is why it has the extra term (e) in it. The equation for a blackbody leaves it out because the emissivity is unity. Why are you corrupting a perfectly simplified equation for no good reason? /sarc off. LOL

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It really does.

It really doesn't, but apparently this is all so far over your head that you can be forgiven for not understanding.

So why do you still propagate your faulty understanding?

The only faulty understanding is yours but again...being so far over your head and all..don't worry about it.

So post some links that agree with your dimmer switch theory of radiating. And, more importantly, some links that agree with your claim that cooler matter ceases radiating and that objects at equilibrium cease radiating.

The physical law itself isn't good enough for you? Here...

...set T to a temperature and leave it there...now set Tc to different temperatures...use small numbers, it will be easier for you...watch P change...when Tc changes, the radiator is no longer radiating according to the 4th power of its absolute temperature...it is radiating according to the its emissivity, its area, and the difference between its own temperature and that of its surroundings. If all matter radiated all the time according to the 4th power of its absolute temperature, then no other equation would be necessary...alas, there is another equation for a different senario than a perfect black body radiating in the absence of any other matter...that would be beacause P changes in the presence of other matter.

The physical law itself isn't good enough for you?

The physical law IS good enough for me.
But you need back up for your "dimmer switch" misinterpretation of the physical law.
And for your "cooler objects stop emitting altogether" misinterpretation as well.

set T to a temperature and leave it there...now set Tc to different temperatures...use small numbers, it will be easier for you...watch P change...

Yup. The net number changes. No need for the warmer body to telepathically detect the temperature of the cooler body, in order to adjust the dimmer switch.

 

[Wuwei]

So drop them an email and ask them upon what physical evidence they base that statement...ask them if two way net energy flow has ever been observed and measured....the fact that they believe that doesn't make it true any more than the fact that practically every doctor in the world believed that stress caused stomach ulcers not so long ago...and scientists have believed all sorts of things that turned out not to be true. This is just one more instance where belief in models over reality will eventually come back to bite them in the ass. There is a reason that science is losing much of the credibility that they gained over the years...and reliance on models in lieu of reality is a large part of that reason.

Why don't you drop him an email. He will think it's hilarious. It will make his day.

 

[Wuwei]

all you have done you nitwit is demonstrate that you don't grasp the law...to prove my point, lets hear your explanation as to why, if the first equation covers all radiators all the time, why it would be necessary to derive an equation that takes the presence of other matter into account? Why might that be? And in the 2nd equation, show me the expression by which you believe you can derive net energy flow.

Tod and Ianc have already done that on this thread very clearly such that any child can understand it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"The answers science gives us don't jive with my superstitions and politics. So, instead of asking scientists who dedicate their lives to this field of science, I am going to ask a bunch of nonscientists on an anonymous message board what they think of a complicated science topic. SURELY I will get the answers I want, then!"

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why don't you drop him an email. He will think it's hilarious

EXACTLY.

All of these uneducated slobs are invited to forward their nonsense to these scientists via email. Their university email addresses are publicly available.

Chances of it happening: 0%

 

[SSDD]

The equation toddster, ian, and aparently you love to reference is this

.....which does indicate that the black body is radiating in proportion to the 4th power of its absolute temperature, area, and emissivity.

No, that equation is for non blackbodies. That is why it has the extra term (e) in it. The equation for a blackbody leaves it out because the emissivity is unity. Why are you corrupting a perfectly simplified equation for no good reason? /sarc off. LOL

So here is the equation for black bodies not in the presence of any other matter...

The equation toddster, ian, and aparently you love to reference is this

.....which does indicate that the black body is radiating in proportion to the 4th power of its absolute temperature, area, and emissivity.

No, that equation is for non blackbodies. That is why it has the extra term (e) in it. The equation for a blackbody leaves it out because the emissivity is unity. Why are you corrupting a perfectly simplified equation for no good reason? /sarc off. LOL

Set the emissivity to 1 and get over yourself...but if you can't manage that...here...

 

[SSDD]

So drop them an email and ask them upon what physical evidence they base that statement...ask them if two way net energy flow has ever been observed and measured....the fact that they believe that doesn't make it true any more than the fact that practically every doctor in the world believed that stress caused stomach ulcers not so long ago...and scientists have believed all sorts of things that turned out not to be true. This is just one more instance where belief in models over reality will eventually come back to bite them in the ass. There is a reason that science is losing much of the credibility that they gained over the years...and reliance on models in lieu of reality is a large part of that reason.

Why don't you drop him an email. He will think it's hilarious. It will make his day.

I already have doofus...that is why I can confidently ask for such a measurement with supreme confidence that no such measurement will ever be forthcoming.....two way net energy transfer is the product of a mathematical model...it has never been observed, or measured.

 

[SSDD]

all you have done you nitwit is demonstrate that you don't grasp the law...to prove my point, lets hear your explanation as to why, if the first equation covers all radiators all the time, why it would be necessary to derive an equation that takes the presence of other matter into account? Why might that be? And in the 2nd equation, show me the expression by which you believe you can derive net energy flow.

Tod and Ianc have already done that on this thread very clearly such that any child can understand it.

Sorry, but they haven't...but if lying is your go to dodge...then by all means...lie on garth.

 

[SSDD]

"The answers science gives us don't jive with my superstitions and politics. So, instead of asking scientists who dedicate their lives to this field of science, I am going to ask a bunch of nonscientists on an anonymous message board what they think of a complicated science topic. SURELY I will get the answers I want, then!"

Hey hot rod...back with some more logical fallacy in lieu of actually supporting your beliefs...not that I would expect anything else from you...being the pseudo intellectual coward that you are.

 

[SSDD]

Why don't you drop him an email. He will think it's hilarious

EXACTLY.

All of these uneducated slobs are invited to forward their nonsense to these scientists via email. Their university email addresses are publicly available.

Chances of it happening: 0%

Like I said...I already did which is why I can ask idiots like you for a single solitary observation and measurement of two way energy flow made with an instrument at ambient temperature with perfect confidence that you can't produce it. Real scientists are perfectly happy to say what science actually knows and what is unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable...the scientists I asked certainly believe the models but at least they were willing to acknowledge that spontaneous two way energy movement has not and likely will not ever be observed.

 

[Wuwei]

So drop them an email and ask them upon what physical evidence they base that statement...ask them if two way net energy flow has ever been observed and measured....the fact that they believe that doesn't make it true any more than the fact that practically every doctor in the world believed that stress caused stomach ulcers not so long ago...and scientists have believed all sorts of things that turned out not to be true. This is just one more instance where belief in models over reality will eventually come back to bite them in the ass. There is a reason that science is losing much of the credibility that they gained over the years...and reliance on models in lieu of reality is a large part of that reason.

Why don't you drop him an email. He will think it's hilarious. It will make his day.

I already have doofus...that is why I can confidently ask for such a measurement with supreme confidence that no such measurement will ever be forthcoming.....two way net energy transfer is the product of a mathematical model...it has never been observed, or measured.

Too bad for you. He honored my request to clarify his site. See this:

Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

He didn't answer you did he. Maybe he doesn't answer wacko requests.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

being the pseudo intellectual coward that you are

Uh.... that would be the guy who is too much of an ignorant pussy to take his arguments to the scientists, and instead spreads his hilarious bullshit on an internet forum. I.E., you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

.I already did

hahahahahahahaha


No, you didn't. You have published no science, ever, and have never made a serious scientific argument regarding any of this material. You are an uneducated slob who has fooled himself into thinking he has outsmarted people who have dedicated their lives to these fields. And you have to admit, that is quite a feat, as any fool can see that you are an uneducated, denier slob swatting at imaginary flies on an internet forum. The self-delusion and amazingly over-inflated ego it takes to actually believe the things you believe about yourself are impressive. But, not "impressive" in a good way.... more like, "That's the nastiest turd I have ever seen!" impressive.

 

[SSDD]

So drop them an email and ask them upon what physical evidence they base that statement...ask them if two way net energy flow has ever been observed and measured....the fact that they believe that doesn't make it true any more than the fact that practically every doctor in the world believed that stress caused stomach ulcers not so long ago...and scientists have believed all sorts of things that turned out not to be true. This is just one more instance where belief in models over reality will eventually come back to bite them in the ass. There is a reason that science is losing much of the credibility that they gained over the years...and reliance on models in lieu of reality is a large part of that reason.

Why don't you drop him an email. He will think it's hilarious. It will make his day.

I already have doofus...that is why I can confidently ask for such a measurement with supreme confidence that no such measurement will ever be forthcoming.....two way net energy transfer is the product of a mathematical model...it has never been observed, or measured.

Too bad for you. He honored my request to clarify his site. See this:

Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

He didn't answer you did he. Maybe he doesn't answer wacko requests.

Don't see anything on the page that appears to be in context with your statement...if you are yammering about net energy flow, and someone stating that it is fact, all I have to do is ask you for the observed, measured instance of spontaneous two way energy flow made with an instrument at ambient temperature...the silence is always satisfying. Two way energy flow is the product of a model...it doesn't happen in the real world,

 

[SSDD]

being the pseudo intellectual coward that you are

Uh.... that would be the guy who is too much of an ignorant pussy to take his arguments to the scientists, and instead spreads his hilarious bullshit on an internet forum. I.E., you.

Wrong again bullwinkle. I have an ongoing dialog with several physicists and cliamte scientists. Again, that is why I can confidently ask you for a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability with perfect confidence that you won't be able to produce it. And I can ask you for a single measurement of spontaneous two way energy movement made with an instrument at ambient temperature with absolutely no doubt that you won't be able to produce it.

You see, real scientists aren't afraid to talk about what we don't know....My bet is that the unknown makes real scientist hard.. It is ignorant pussies who can't engage in debate who like to believe that any science is ever settled..and have no doubt over a hypothesis to which not a single piece of real evidence exists that supports it over natural variability. An as to my position being bullshit...I can't help but notice that neither you, nor any of your magic believing cult members has offered up a single piece of real data that demonstrates that I am wrong. Alas, the very fact that I can stymie you, and your belief with a single question says all that need be said about the merits of my position over yours.

 

[SSDD]

.I already did

hahahahahahahaha


No, you didn't. You have published no science, ever, and have never made a serious scientific argument regarding any of this material.

I never claimed to have published anything...do you spew so much bullshit that you can't even remember what you have said. I answered you honestly. As I have said, I have an ongoing dialog via email with several physicists and a couple of cliamte scientists. They are not afraid to discuss what science does not yet know or understand and being actual scientists have a firm grasp on what is real and demonstrable by observation and measurement, and what is the product of models that happen to be unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable. The majority of them believe the models but are not afraid to admit that they are just models with no observable analog out here in the real world,

You are an uneducated slob who has fooled himself into thinking he has outsmarted people who have dedicated their lives to these fields.

And yet, I can stymie your position with a single question and note that practically every comment you have made to me is little more than a meander though a logical fallacy wasteland. Alas, the quality of your discussion suggests very strongly that it is you who is the uneducated slob who has been fooled, and in turn fooled himself. I am asking straight forward questions, and asking for data that should be readily available in massive quantities if your hypothesis had any merit...and yet, you can't provide the first piece of data that I have asked for. Upon whose education does that reflect?

And you have to admit, that is quite a feat, as any fool can see that you are an uneducated, denier slob swatting at imaginary flies on an internet forum.

Alas, it is you who is mired in logical fallacy and unable to put forward a single piece of observed, measured data to put me in my place. That is what people are seeing. Me asking rational questions, asking for, not mountains of data to prove your point, but just a single piece of observed, measured data that supports your position over mine...and you, unable to deliver even that one single piece of data. Sadly, you are a fly. At least folks like ian try to support their beliefs...all you can manage is logical fallacy and impotent name calling.

The self-delusion and amazingly over-inflated ego it takes to actually believe the things you believe about yourself are impressive.

Project much bullwinkle? If playing the ineffectual bully is the best you have, why are you here? Is your self image so lacking that such an impotent gesture can bolster it?

 

[Wuwei]

Don't see anything on the page that appears to be in context with your statement...if you are yammering about net energy flow, and someone stating that it is fact, all I have to do is ask you for the observed, measured instance of spontaneous two way energy flow made with an instrument at ambient temperature...the silence is always satisfying. Two way energy flow is the product of a model...it doesn't happen in the real world,

Ha. A sore loser. Every experiment done is consistent with radiation exchange since you have cited no observed, measured, quantified experiment that shows otherwise.

 

[SSDD]

Don't see anything on the page that appears to be in context with your statement...if you are yammering about net energy flow, and someone stating that it is fact, all I have to do is ask you for the observed, measured instance of spontaneous two way energy flow made with an instrument at ambient temperature...the silence is always satisfying. Two way energy flow is the product of a model...it doesn't happen in the real world,

Ha. A sore loser. Every experiment done is consistent with radiation exchange since you have cited no observed, measured, quantified experiment that shows otherwise.

Tell me...how stupid are you...really? If you claim a thing that has no effect on the outcome of an experiment is happening..a thing that will not alter the end result whatsoever, do you really believe that just by claiming that the result of experiments are consistent with the claim really support the claim? The observation and experiment support one way gross energy movement...actual measurement supports one way energy movement...claiming net that can neither be observed, nor measured and has no effect on the amount of energy which actually moves is a meaningless claim.