Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You didn't answer my question. Show me the link where Professor Woods showed back radiation was flawed.I have not read about Professor Woods. How did he show that it was flawed?And Professor Woods promptly showed that it was flawed...and it remained in the dustbin of failed hypothesis till leftists drug it out and dusted it off to put it to political use via pseudoscience.
No doubt...not surprising at all. I wouldn't expect the sources you rely on for information to mention Professor Woods and his experiment that disproved the greenhouse hypothesis any more than I would have expected them to inform you that it has been proven experimentally that there is a gravity induced temperature gradient in columns of air...
What I would expect is for you to disregard the experiments showing the temperature gradient in favor of arguing about his conclusions regarding what the experiments proved...ie a gravity induced temperature gradient in columns of air.
Of all people I would have thought you knew that "greenhouse" applied to the atmosphere is NOT the same as "greenhouse" applied to an enclosure where you grow petunias.Here it is....interesting that you are unable to find such readily available information yourself....the purpose of the experiment was to demonstrate that
Svante Arrhenius's hypothesis about greenhouse gases wrong...and the entire modern greenhouse hypothesis is built upon Arrhenius's failed hypothesis....
Repeatibility of Prof. Wood's Experiment
Your link has quite a different slant than the one SSDD provided. I will hold my opinion in abeyance until the experiment is done. Nevertheless atmospheric physics is the subject here, and SSDD is still confused.Dr. Roy Spencer talks about the flaws in the Wood experiment here.
Revisiting Wood’s 1909 Greenhouse Box Experiment: Part I « Roy Spencer, PhD
Of all people I would have thought you knew that "greenhouse" applied to the atmosphere is NOT the same as "greenhouse" applied to an enclosure where you grow petunias.Here it is....interesting that you are unable to find such readily available information yourself....the purpose of the experiment was to demonstrate that
Svante Arrhenius's hypothesis about greenhouse gases wrong...and the entire modern greenhouse hypothesis is built upon Arrhenius's failed hypothesis....
Repeatibility of Prof. Wood's Experiment
The greenhouse that grows petunias has a glass ceiling which prevents heat loss by convection. Convection is the upward flow of warm air which is stopped by the glass. Of course Wood's concept was verified. Good for him.
The greenhouse effect of the atmosphere is somewhat a misnomer since it depends totally on radiation physics.
The only things the two greenhouses have in common is heating by the sun. The heat retaining properties of the two are from totally different physical causes.
It's about time you understood that the two greenhouse concepts are different. My gosh you have lost touch with the science you are ranting about.
Your link has quite a different slant than the one SSDD provided. I will hold my opinion in abeyance until the experiment is done. Nevertheless atmospheric physics is the subject here, and SSDD is still confused.Dr. Roy Spencer talks about the flaws in the Wood experiment here.
Revisiting Wood’s 1909 Greenhouse Box Experiment: Part I « Roy Spencer, PhD
Do any of these "thousands of studies" control for CO2 levels between 280 and 400ppm?How is it that you, who believe one dated study out of thousands that show differently, are not guilty of exactly what you accuse us of.
Nope. Arrhenius's didn't assume earth's atmosphere has a plastic ceiling as in Wood's experiment.And yet, the greenhouse hypothesis is built firmly upon Arrhenius's failed hypothesis...and there still isn't the first bit of actual observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the greenhouse hypothesis..
Nope. You are duped into embracing the validity of an experiment that shows heat can spontaneously move from a cold object to a warm object, and predicts the ocean is 100 degrees at 2500 meters. You are duped by the blogosphere that thinks radiation is inhibited from certain directions. You are the one duped into having a disdain for modern physics. Etc.Only you warmers are confused...actually not even confused...duped is the more correct term....you believe whatever you find that you must believe in order to maintain the narrative.
You are duped by the blogosphere that thinks radiation is inhibited from certain directions.
I have seen another like him in the archives of an old forum. Watts, who understands the 2nd law, posted that there are some die-hards who believe in "smart photons" (he didn't use that term) that keep posting on his site and he had to ban one of the more outlandish ones. Could it have been SSDD?You are duped by the blogosphere that thinks radiation is inhibited from certain directions.
This piqued my interest. Has SID identified someone else who shares his beliefs about matter controlling its radiation? From my reading I had thought his views unique.
^^^THIS^^^^^Do any of these "thousands of studies" control for CO2 levels between 280 and 400ppm?How is it that you, who believe one dated study out of thousands that show differently, are not guilty of exactly what you accuse us of.
Thanks a bunch
and yet still no experimental evidence of back radiation. hmmmmmmm why not?I have seen another like him in the archives of an old forum. Watts, who understands the 2nd law, posted that there are some die-hards who believe in "smart photons" (he didn't use that term) that keep posting on his site and he had to ban one of the more outlandish ones. Could it have been SSDD?You are duped by the blogosphere that thinks radiation is inhibited from certain directions.
This piqued my interest. Has SID identified someone else who shares his beliefs about matter controlling its radiation? From my reading I had thought his views unique.
To find others like him google keeping quotes
"Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object"
Look for forums or blogs and you will find other die-hards.
How is it that you, who believe one dated study out of thousands that show differently, are not guilty of exactly what you accuse us of.
I have seen another like him in the archives of an old forum. Watts, who understands the 2nd law, posted that there are some die-hards who believe in "smart photons" (he didn't use that term) that keep posting on his site and he had to ban one of the more outlandish ones. Could it have been SSDD?You are duped by the blogosphere that thinks radiation is inhibited from certain directions.
This piqued my interest. Has SID identified someone else who shares his beliefs about matter controlling its radiation? From my reading I had thought his views unique.
To find others like him google keeping quotes
"Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object"
Look for forums or blogs and you will find other die-hards.
My gosh. You are the one thinking photons are smart and can avoid objects hotter than the ones they came from.Interesting how many of you guys think that objects must be smart in order to obey the laws of nature....energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...we can't explain why that is or the fundamental mechanism that makes it happen, but it happens none the less and every observation and measurement ever made bears this out...that is why the wording of the physical law doesn't mention net...energy movement is a one way gross transaction.
I guess you are right. If you are anti-science, everything is unknowable.There we have it. SSDD's universe is FILLED with UNKNOWABLES
My gosh. You are the one thinking photons are smart and can avoid objects hotter than the ones they came from.Interesting how many of you guys think that objects must be smart in order to obey the laws of nature....energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...we can't explain why that is or the fundamental mechanism that makes it happen, but it happens none the less and every observation and measurement ever made bears this out...that is why the wording of the physical law doesn't mention net...energy movement is a one way gross transaction.
When it comes to thermal energy in radiation physics, the word energy always means net energy. Every physicist understands that, but of course you don't believe in quantum mechanics, so you can believe what you want.
