Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Wuwei]

I call bullshit. He wouldn't have given a curt nonresponsive answer if he made the effort to respond at all. At the very least he would have pointed you in a direction to find more info.

Hmmm. It would have been far more illuminating if SSDD simply asked his professors if thermal radiation was one way. Too cowardly to hear their answers?

 

[Wuwei]

...the radio telescope detected a radio frequency that resonated to the microwave frequency of CMB. The radio telescope did not directly receive CMB...

If the detector did not receive any CMB how did it detect anything.

Hahahaha, your false logic has no power to defeat SSDD. He knows he's right, and no trick will sway him.

All hail SSDD, the true prophet.

It's always fun to see what our local charlatan prophet will come up with next. Why aren't his loyal minions giving him a chorus of "Winner" ratings here?

 

[SSDD]

...the radio telescope detected a radio frequency that resonated to the microwave frequency of CMB. The radio telescope did not directly receive CMB...

If the detector did not receive any CMB how did it detect anything.

It received a resonant radio frequency..which corresponded to CMB...sorry this is so difficult for you but alas, that is the way it is. No CMB was received by that radio telescope...

 

[SSDD]

No Atmosphere, Atmosphere, Greenhouse Gas Atmosphere

And it isn't just your memory that is faulty...When you return to that thread...take a look at some of the utter bullshit you tried to spew in an attempt to defend your position...the fundamental SB equation describes a two dimensional object...imagine, a two dimensional object...a two dimensional perfect black body no less radiating in all directions...where do you come up with that stuff? Is there anything you won't say in an effort to defend your beliefs?

Thanks for the link.

Is it possible for you to show all of the initial response, rather than just one sentence fragment, without the context? TIA

That was the entire response from each of the physicists...I sent out 4 emails and got two responses...I am sure that if you took the time to send out more emails to more physicists you would get the same sort of answers that I got...and if you tease them a bit, you could probably get them to add something in there about net to satisfy you....I am sure that they all believe in net energy transfer even though there is no physical evidence....that wasn't the issue anyway..it was what the equations themselves were stating...that being one describing a radiator radiating to cooler surroundings with no other matter present...and one describing the different amount of energy the radiator emits when it is in the presence of other matter...the difference between T and Tc.

So you are saying his entire response was-

.
" If it were not in a vacuum, some modifications might be needed."

I find that somewhat hard to believe. If he was just going to blow you off why would he respond at all.

Couldn't say...maybe he is a busy man and answered my question as explicitly as possible but didn't have time to be friendly. I wasn't offended nor did I feel blown off...I received a straight forward answer to my question...I asked a straight forward question and got a straight forward answer..I didn't invite him to a picnic...

I call bullshit. He wouldn't have given a curt nonresponsive answer if he made the effort to respond at all. At the very least he would have pointed you in a direction to find more info.

The other guy didn't point me in any direction...he just gave a longer answer which amounted to the same thing. Sorry if you don't like it but that is what I got...he answered my question...It isn't as if it makes any difference...had he referred me to a mountain of texts as high as everest, you would still believe what you believe since it isn't a matter of knowledge to you..it is your faith...what you believe...what you hold dear and you simply won't give it up even if it is wrong.

 

[SSDD]

Ian is right two photons cannot interact with each other at earth ambient temperatures.

And yet, at earth temperatures radio waves can cancel each other out...if they are composed of photons...and if photons exist, then clearly they can interact with each other.

 

[Wuwei]

It received a resonant radio frequency..which corresponded to CMB...sorry this is so difficult for you but alas, that is the way it is. No CMB was received by that radio telescope...

Ah, IanC is right. The charlatan prophet chants his memorized meaningless mantra.

 

[SSDD]

I call bullshit. He wouldn't have given a curt nonresponsive answer if he made the effort to respond at all. At the very least he would have pointed you in a direction to find more info.

Hmmm. It would have been far more illuminating if SSDD simply asked his professors if thermal radiation was one way. Too cowardly to hear their answers?

When I went through school, classical physics was taught...there was no suggestion of two way energy flow suggested in the physics department of the University of Florida in 1978...and to date, the same 2nd law that I was taught still exists...no mention of net energy flow...still not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm...still the same..

 

[Wuwei]

And yet, at earth temperatures radio waves can cancel each other out...if they are composed of photons...and if photons exist, then clearly they can interact with each other.

Yes. They are coherent.

 

[SSDD]

It received a resonant radio frequency..which corresponded to CMB...sorry this is so difficult for you but alas, that is the way it is. No CMB was received by that radio telescope...

Ah, IanC is right. The charlatan prophet chants his memorized meaningless mantra.

Pearls to swine...of course it is meaningless to you...I wouldn't expect anything else. You believe what you believe and refuse to see anything else....to the point that you believe CMB was detected by a radio telescope.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

...the radio telescope detected a radio frequency that resonated to the microwave frequency of CMB. The radio telescope did not directly receive CMB...

If the detector did not receive any CMB how did it detect anything.

It received a resonant radio frequency..which corresponded to CMB...sorry this is so difficult for you but alas, that is the way it is. No CMB was received by that radio telescope...

It received a resonant radio frequency..which corresponded to CMB...

This resonant frequency caused "cooler waves" to somehow transfer energy to "warmer waves"
that were allowed to travel to the cooler antenna?

Or did the "cooler waves" bounce off the warmer atmosphere (repelled by "covailent bonds" maybe) and cause ripples that could be detected?

Flesh out this resonant theory a bit more, if you could.........

 

[Wuwei]

Pearls to swine...of course it is meaningless to you...I wouldn't expect anything else. You believe what you believe and refuse to see anything else....to the point that you believe CMB was detected by a radio telescope.

Spoken like a child. "I know you are so what am I"

 

[TheTechnologist]

Hey fucker, those are children's graphs that illustrate ideal conditions for "one-layer" of atmosphere and illustrate the basic equations to understand the mechanism.

It hardly has to do anything with an accurate assessment of a multilayered atmosphere.

 

[Wuwei]

It received a resonant radio frequency..which corresponded to CMB...

This resonant frequency caused "cooler waves" to somehow transfer energy to "warmer waves"
that were allowed to travel to the cooler antenna?

Or did the "cooler waves" bounce off the warmer atmosphere (repelled by "covailent bonds" maybe) and cause ripples that could be detected?

Flesh out this resonant theory a bit more, if you could.........

Don't confuse him. He is confused enough.

Hey fucker, those are children's graphs that illustrate ideal conditions for "one-layer" of atmosphere and illustrate the basic equations to understand the mechanism.

It hardly has to do anything with an accurate assessment of a multilayered atmosphere.

He takes those graphs very seriously to try to prove that AGW is a hoax. Sad.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It received a resonant radio frequency..which corresponded to CMB...

This resonant frequency caused "cooler waves" to somehow transfer energy to "warmer waves"
that were allowed to travel to the cooler antenna?

Or did the "cooler waves" bounce off the warmer atmosphere (repelled by "covailent bonds" maybe) and cause ripples that could be detected?

Flesh out this resonant theory a bit more, if you could.........

Don't confuse him. He is confused enough.

Hey fucker, those are children's graphs that illustrate ideal conditions for "one-layer" of atmosphere and illustrate the basic equations to understand the mechanism.

It hardly has to do anything with an accurate assessment of a multilayered atmosphere.

He takes those graphs very seriously to try to prove that AGW is a hoax. Sad.

But I really want to know how to detect waves that don't hit the detector.

 

[Votto]

So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Here it is.

Our local warmer immediately begins to equivocate and then asks what's my point?

Well, I thought my point was pretty clear...I wanted to establish that we were on the same page to begin with...so I go out and get a few more diagrams from the atmospheric sciences department at Penn State, and Harvard, and one from no place in particular that seems to be showing the same thing. These are they.

Again, I ask if these describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science. And what does the pathetic wretch ask me?...again...what's my point? This guy, who claims to get the science, and claims to have read the IPCC documentation can't bring himself to say whether or not the graphs above, purported by the University of Washington, Penn State, and Harvard to describe the mechanism of the greenhouse effect actually describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

Who was the pathetic wretch I was talking to?....I am sure you can guess if you like...or you can go to the conversation here and see for yourself....

The fact that this warmer was scared....or unsure enough to even say whether or not the graphics above accurately show the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science perhaps brings up a much larger point...but that's beside the point and doesn't begin to answer the questions I have about the greenhouse effect.

So are there any warmers here on the board that might be able to look at the graphics above and say whether or not they describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science and perhaps talk a bit about that mechanism and effect? By the way...I notice some trivial differences in the above graphics that actually show the amount of radiation moving about...those differences are irrelevant to my questions...

So what is your point?

 

[SSDD]

So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Here it is.

Our local warmer immediately begins to equivocate and then asks what's my point?

Well, I thought my point was pretty clear...I wanted to establish that we were on the same page to begin with...so I go out and get a few more diagrams from the atmospheric sciences department at Penn State, and Harvard, and one from no place in particular that seems to be showing the same thing. These are they.

Again, I ask if these describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science. And what does the pathetic wretch ask me?...again...what's my point? This guy, who claims to get the science, and claims to have read the IPCC documentation can't bring himself to say whether or not the graphs above, purported by the University of Washington, Penn State, and Harvard to describe the mechanism of the greenhouse effect actually describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

Who was the pathetic wretch I was talking to?....I am sure you can guess if you like...or you can go to the conversation here and see for yourself....

The fact that this warmer was scared....or unsure enough to even say whether or not the graphics above accurately show the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science perhaps brings up a much larger point...but that's beside the point and doesn't begin to answer the questions I have about the greenhouse effect.

So are there any warmers here on the board that might be able to look at the graphics above and say whether or not they describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science and perhaps talk a bit about that mechanism and effect? By the way...I notice some trivial differences in the above graphics that actually show the amount of radiation moving about...those differences are irrelevant to my questions...

So what is your point?

There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

 

[Wuwei]

So what is your point?

He really doesn't know what his own point is.

 

[TheTechnologist]

So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Here it is.

Our local warmer immediately begins to equivocate and then asks what's my point?

Well, I thought my point was pretty clear...I wanted to establish that we were on the same page to begin with...so I go out and get a few more diagrams from the atmospheric sciences department at Penn State, and Harvard, and one from no place in particular that seems to be showing the same thing. These are they.

Again, I ask if these describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science. And what does the pathetic wretch ask me?...again...what's my point? This guy, who claims to get the science, and claims to have read the IPCC documentation can't bring himself to say whether or not the graphs above, purported by the University of Washington, Penn State, and Harvard to describe the mechanism of the greenhouse effect actually describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

Who was the pathetic wretch I was talking to?....I am sure you can guess if you like...or you can go to the conversation here and see for yourself....

The fact that this warmer was scared....or unsure enough to even say whether or not the graphics above accurately show the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science perhaps brings up a much larger point...but that's beside the point and doesn't begin to answer the questions I have about the greenhouse effect.

So are there any warmers here on the board that might be able to look at the graphics above and say whether or not they describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science and perhaps talk a bit about that mechanism and effect? By the way...I notice some trivial differences in the above graphics that actually show the amount of radiation moving about...those differences are irrelevant to my questions...

So what is your point?

There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

How do you come to that CONCLUSION?

 

[Wuwei]

But I really want to know how to detect waves that don't hit the detector.

Try asking SSDD again. He might have another amusing theory.

 

[Wuwei]

How do you come to that CONCLUSION?

He came to that conclusion by not understanding what the Stefan Boltzmann law is, and he didn't understand the difference between the units,
watts per square meter, and
watts.