Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[SSDD]

Yup, every time SSDD actually gives a link it works against him.

Of course how could it not?

Why do you find that you must lie...even when the lie doesn't result in any personal gain for you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yup, every time SSDD actually gives a link it works against him.

Of course how could it not?

Why do you find that you must lie...even when the lie doesn't result in any personal gain for you?

Post any links yet that say, explicitly, radiation only flows one way? No? Weird.

 

[Wuwei]

Equation 8 is the usual T⁴ derivation but there is no mention of the subtracted form of the SB equation that I could find.

And you think that proves what? That

is an invalid equation?

You are playing dumb Troll again. Nobody here said that equation is invalid. That is a ridiculous presumption. We have posted time and again the correct derivation involving energy emission and absorption of that equation, and you know it.

I presume you posted those 10 references to support your (incorrect) view of thermodynamics. They did not even come close to supporting you.

 

[Wuwei]

Why do you find that you must lie...even when the lie doesn't result in any personal gain for you?

The pot calling the kettle black.

 

[SSDD]

Equation 8 is the usual T⁴ derivation but there is no mention of the subtracted form of the SB equation that I could find.

And you think that proves what? That

is an invalid equation?

You are playing dumb Troll again. Nobody here said that equation is invalid. That is a ridiculous presumption. We have posted time and again the correct derivation involving energy emission and absorption of that equation, and you know it.

What you like to post is the equation describing a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum...what you don't like to post is the equation where the radiator is not a black body and not radiating into a vacuum....when there is a difference between the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings, the output starts to change and you don't like trying to deal with that...because all you have in support is a model while reality says an entirely different thing.

 

[SSDD]

Why do you find that you must lie...even when the lie doesn't result in any personal gain for you?

The pot calling the kettle black.

I don't lie..I don't need to. The physical laws support my position..observation, and measurement support my position...which is why my argument never changes...reality supports me...all you have is fantasy...and the claim that because other people believe the fantasy with you, that it must be real..you have faith...I have what is real.

 

[IanC]

Yup, every time SSDD actually gives a link it works against him.

Of course how could it not?

Why do you find that you must lie...even when the lie doesn't result in any personal gain for you?

I am pointing out that my personal observation is that every time you link up a reference it comes back to bite you in the ass. Typically, you take a single statement out of context that could be misconstrued because of ambiguous wording. Then when I read the whole article it disagrees with one or more of your claims.

Don't let that stop you though. I have found many of your links to be very informative.

 

[Wuwei]

What you like to post is the equation describing a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum...what you don't like to post is the equation where the radiator is not a black body and not radiating into a vacuum....when there is a difference between the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings, the output starts to change and you don't like trying to deal with that...because all you have in support is a model while reality says an entirely different thing.

Your model does not make scientific sense. What I post is the only thing that scientists have found that makes sense:

Rₑ = εσT₁⁴ , . .where Rₑ is the rate of emission.

Rₐ =εσT₂⁴, , . .where Rₑ is the rate of absorption.

The net rate is the difference;
Rₙₑₜ = Rₑ - Rₐ = εσT₁⁴ - εσT₂⁴ = εσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

 

[Wuwei]

I don't lie..I don't need to. The physical laws support my position..observation, and measurement support my position...which is why my argument never changes...reality supports me...all you have is fantasy...and the claim that because other people believe the fantasy with you, that it must be real..you have faith...I have what is real.

It's the old tired fantasy argument. The fantasy is all on your part. You are the one who has faith in a non-viable argument that doesn't follow reality.

 

[SSDD]

I don't lie..I don't need to. The physical laws support my position..observation, and measurement support my position...which is why my argument never changes...reality supports me...all you have is fantasy...and the claim that because other people believe the fantasy with you, that it must be real..you have faith...I have what is real.

It's the old tired fantasy argument. The fantasy is all on your part. You are the one who has faith in a non-viable argument that doesn't follow reality.

You have admitted yourself that we have only observed, and measured one way energy flow from warm to cool...that is reality....energy only moving spontaneously from a more ordered state to a less ordered state is reality....energy moving in the other direction is the fantasy...not the first piece of observed evidence to support it.....bottom line, you believe...you have faith...because you damned sure don't have evidence.

Since reality...actual observation and measurement align with my position, it is fantasy on your part to even suggest that I am engaged in fantasy.

 

[Wuwei]

You have admitted yourself that we have only observed, and measured one way energy flow from warm to cool...that is reality....energy only moving spontaneously from a more ordered state to a less ordered state is reality....energy moving in the other direction is the fantasy...not the first piece of observed evidence to support it.....bottom line, you believe...you have faith...because you damned sure don't have evidence.

Since reality...actual observation and measurement align with my position, it is fantasy on your part to even suggest that I am engaged in fantasy.

Don't forget these formula show that two way net flow also satisfies net energy only moving spontaneously from a more ordered state to a less ordered state. Of course net energy moving the other direction is a fantasy.

Emission: Rₑ = εσT₁⁴
Absorption: Rₐ =εσT₂⁴
The net rate:
Rnet = Rₑ - Rₐ = εσT₁⁴ - εσT₂⁴ = εσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

These equations also are consistent with atomic physics. One way energy flow is not consistent.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry guy...bastardized versions of the SB equations are bullshit and only bullshitters use them...they apply unicorn perspiration and fairy dust which has no effect and can not be measured...all you have is faith...same as all other religious zealots.

Want to break out your big book of dogma?...or maybe show me some relics from the founders of your religion?...maybe a hair from Schrodenger's cat stored reverently in a box made from wood from mann's most influential tree in history?

Of course Schrodenger's cat was just a model and has no actual hair, but the fact that it isn't real really means nothing to you does it? A model hair is as valid as an actual hair....right?

You wuwei...are a top shelf, first class putz...the very idea of trying to argue non reality against reality with a straight face would only occur to someone like you...and you believe your faith is an actual argument...and worse yet, you believe it is valid because others believe along with you.

 

[Wuwei]

We see the good old bastardized, fairy dust, unicorn, religious, faith, dogma, non-reality argument again.

However, I see you have a new argument: "top shelf, first class putz."

Yes, yes, we heard many times that's what you think of scientists who have confidence in QM.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The CERES data speaks for itself.. CO2 is retaining nothing and the atmosphere is cooling. In fact, as CO2 increases so does the LWIR escape at TOA.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The CERES data speaks for itself.. CO2 is retaining nothing and the atmosphere is cooling. In fact, as CO2 increases so does the LWIR escape at TOA.

At this website that explains WHY CO2 fails to stop the increased outflow:

The Science of why the Theory of Global Warming is Incorrect!

Excerpt:

"A 0.5 °C temperature difference between these two years resulted in an additional 2.5 W/m2 increase in the measured amount of energy lost to space. That increase in energy loss is not theoretical, it is a measured difference. It is also what is predicted by the Stefan-Boltmann Law.

If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.

The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up. The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years."
=========================\

Go in the link for the revealing charts that help explain why CO2 doesn't work as irrationally advertised.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Sorry guy...bastardized versions of the SB equations are bullshit and only bullshitters use them...they apply unicorn perspiration and fairy dust which has no effect and can not be measured...all you have is faith...same as all other religious zealots.

Want to break out your big book of dogma?...or maybe show me some relics from the founders of your religion?...maybe a hair from Schrodenger's cat stored reverently in a box made from wood from mann's most influential tree in history?

Of course Schrodenger's cat was just a model and has no actual hair, but the fact that it isn't real really means nothing to you does it? A model hair is as valid as an actual hair....right?

You wuwei...are a top shelf, first class putz...the very idea of trying to argue non reality against reality with a straight face would only occur to someone like you...and you believe your faith is an actual argument...and worse yet, you believe it is valid because others believe along with you.

They keep using the NET energy flow concept while the 2nd law only says only ONE WAY transfer, no mention of net at all..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry guy...bastardized versions of the SB equations are bullshit and only bullshitters use them...they apply unicorn perspiration and fairy dust which has no effect and can not be measured...all you have is faith...same as all other religious zealots.

Want to break out your big book of dogma?...or maybe show me some relics from the founders of your religion?...maybe a hair from Schrodenger's cat stored reverently in a box made from wood from mann's most influential tree in history?

Of course Schrodenger's cat was just a model and has no actual hair, but the fact that it isn't real really means nothing to you does it? A model hair is as valid as an actual hair....right?

You wuwei...are a top shelf, first class putz...the very idea of trying to argue non reality against reality with a straight face would only occur to someone like you...and you believe your faith is an actual argument...and worse yet, you believe it is valid because others believe along with you.

They keep using the NET energy flow concept while the 2nd law only says only ONE WAY transfer, no mention of net at all..

the 2nd law only says only ONE WAY transfer,

Where does the 2nd Law mention radiation?

 

[IanC]

The CERES data speaks for itself.. CO2 is retaining nothing and the atmosphere is cooling. In fact, as CO2 increases so does the LWIR escape at TOA.

At this website that explains WHY CO2 fails to stop the increased outflow:

The Science of why the Theory of Global Warming is Incorrect!

Excerpt:

"A 0.5 °C temperature difference between these two years resulted in an additional 2.5 W/m2 increase in the measured amount of energy lost to space. That increase in energy loss is not theoretical, it is a measured difference. It is also what is predicted by the Stefan-Boltmann Law.

If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.

The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up. The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years."
=========================\

Go in the link for the revealing charts that help explain why CO2 doesn't work as irrationally advertised.

John's blog, The Inconvenient Skeptic, is linked in the above comment. It is well worth reading. He is a scientist from a different field that pokes holes in AGW theory by using standard scientific methods, using AGW's own data.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Sorry guy...bastardized versions of the SB equations are bullshit and only bullshitters use them...they apply unicorn perspiration and fairy dust which has no effect and can not be measured...all you have is faith...same as all other religious zealots.

Want to break out your big book of dogma?...or maybe show me some relics from the founders of your religion?...maybe a hair from Schrodenger's cat stored reverently in a box made from wood from mann's most influential tree in history?

Of course Schrodenger's cat was just a model and has no actual hair, but the fact that it isn't real really means nothing to you does it? A model hair is as valid as an actual hair....right?

You wuwei...are a top shelf, first class putz...the very idea of trying to argue non reality against reality with a straight face would only occur to someone like you...and you believe your faith is an actual argument...and worse yet, you believe it is valid because others believe along with you.

They keep using the NET energy flow concept while the 2nd law only says only ONE WAY transfer, no mention of net at all..

the 2nd law only says only ONE WAY transfer,

Where does the 2nd Law mention radiation?

It doesn't, but Radiation is nothing more than moving from a source to elsewhere, with energy in it. The Sun radiates spreading energy into the solar system as example.

Thermodynamics discusses how energy moves from one state to another, such as "heat" moves in the atmosphere from the hotter surface to the cooler air on the way out to space by radiation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry guy...bastardized versions of the SB equations are bullshit and only bullshitters use them...they apply unicorn perspiration and fairy dust which has no effect and can not be measured...all you have is faith...same as all other religious zealots.

Want to break out your big book of dogma?...or maybe show me some relics from the founders of your religion?...maybe a hair from Schrodenger's cat stored reverently in a box made from wood from mann's most influential tree in history?

Of course Schrodenger's cat was just a model and has no actual hair, but the fact that it isn't real really means nothing to you does it? A model hair is as valid as an actual hair....right?

You wuwei...are a top shelf, first class putz...the very idea of trying to argue non reality against reality with a straight face would only occur to someone like you...and you believe your faith is an actual argument...and worse yet, you believe it is valid because others believe along with you.

They keep using the NET energy flow concept while the 2nd law only says only ONE WAY transfer, no mention of net at all..

the 2nd law only says only ONE WAY transfer,

Where does the 2nd Law mention radiation?

It doesn't, but Radiation is nothing more than moving from a source to elsewhere, with energy in it. The Sun radiates spreading energy into the solar system as example.

Thermodynamics discusses how energy moves from one state to another, such as "heat" moves in the atmosphere from the hotter surface to the cooler air on the way out to space by radiation.

It doesn't, but Radiation is nothing more than moving from a source to elsewhere, with energy in it.

Right. The 2nd Law doesn't say radiation can only go one way. So why do you think it only goes one way?