The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[Allen Eltor]

Soon, we're gonna get to the point of cracking a book! O

You've got the intellect of a man who believed people when they told you that a cold nitrogen bath is a heater.

And that the cold light blocking refrigerants lacing the cold nitrogen bath, reducing temperature of the entire planet 22% before the conduction cooling they do even starts, are the magical core

of the cold nitrogen bath that's a heater.

Actually simpleton my first career was as a working biological, environmental & atmospheric chemist,

and my degree's in Radiation Communications Electronic Engineering: creating, modifying, transmitting, capturing, separating, analyzing and disposing of radiation energy
through the atmosphere,
the vacuum of space,
and the industrial chemistry forming the electronics required to sustain the radiation based space age my friends and I are flying over your befuddled head.

YOU sell shoes at a mall.

Another internet poser, hahaha.

The atmosphere is like a battery, that stores and releases energy according to the conditions.

GHGs are one of the pathways to add energy to the atmosphere.

The atmosphere is not simply a heater, or a cooler. It is a reservoir of energy.

The ATMOSPHERE is a COLD,

LIGHT-BLOCKING

NITROGEN BATH.

It's COOLING GHGs take 22% of the temperature of the planet

OFF the TOP of global atmospheric temperature calculations,

before ANY OTHER MATHEMATICS can PROCEED.

WHO told you,
a COLD NITROGEN BATH,
with light blocking refrigerants in it,

is WARMING the (less) light-warmed ROCK it's conduction chilling?

What's that person's NAME?

The atmosphere is WARM compared to space.

Greenhouse gases absorb more energy close to the surface than they release at higher altitude.

Space doesn't HAVE a temperature, dipstick. It's a vacuum. In space, space suits don't have HEATERS they have COOLERS because there's only ONE mode of COOLING: RADIANT.

Objects cooling via RADIANT means only in vacuum are the HIGHEST their temperature can be
because there are no other MODES to REMOVE the ENERGY.

The atmosphere is COLD compared to the PLANET
it is CONDUCTION CHILLING
as a
COLD NITROGEN BATH laced with COOLING GHG REFRIGERANTS,
which
COOL the planet before the light ever REACHES Earth,
KNOCKING DOWN it's TEMPERATURE, 22% before ANY other temperature processing is done.

 

[IanC]

As far as your Quack claim the Earth is emitting more energy than the sun provides and the Earth augments,

I specifically pointed out how the solar insolation and the terrestrial output matched exactly.

In reality, the Earth/atmosphere system can be out of balance slightly. This would cause warming or cooling. Bonus points for people who know where the energy is attained to cause warming.

 

[Allen Eltor]

Mein Gaia you magic gas barking hicks are the stupidest thing since those pot warriors.

POT is DEVIL WEED is ANOTHER of your church's insipid doctrines, STILL on the lawbooks TODAY.

Since 1937 when Democrats made pot illegal so the Democrats in the KLAN could
rob,
ruin,
and murder black and brown people,

"consurn'd minn frum prestijus Re surch Yewnuversatees, has dun got the critickal signtifick PEER REVEW, to PRUVE
two YEW that POTS like HEROIN!"

Pruve it in COART frum thim yewnuversatee studies, sayin
we awl gotta git on thim opioids
and git evurbodie off thim pots,
cause thim pots might make somebody get on opioids,
so we gotta AWL get on OPIOIDS
so POT doant make us awl GIT on OPIOIDS! YaW!"

Now they've sent your stupid a#$e$ to tell the world a "MAGICAL GAISSINESS has dun MADE a COLD BATH into a MAGICAL BATTERY HEEDUR WHAT DON'T GIT STUFF COOL like awl thim UTHUR nitrogin baths' what's coald,

but it dun made the ROCK it was conduction chilling, 33 degrees WARMER.

The COLD light blocking REFRIGERANTS, that made the planet 22% COOLER
MAGICALLY make that 22% RE-APPEAR
and THEN the entire COLD nitrogen BATH gets 33 degrees WARMER.

The ROCK that got 22% LESS light, due to more insulation
is MAGICALLY giving that 22% back off ANYWAY - though it never ARRIVED
and THEN
these SAME tiny quantities of trace gases having generated 22% of the entire energy of the sun
out of NOTHING
generate even MORE
PHANTOM ENERGY by warming the ENTIRE bath another 33 degrees.

To YOUR stupid A#$ that SOUNDS like a COMPLETELY
ROCK SOLID story.

To ALL of you in here barking about how that'TaiR magical gaissiness dun... BACKERDISTICALLY told CONSERVATION of ENERGY to KISS it's INFRARED SPARKLIN A@#$.

 

[SSDD]

There are countless experiments that show that under a variety of different conditions of accelerating charges, that they do radiate EM energy... yes, observed, measured, and quantified experiments that were done before the theory was conceived. The theory came later, first from Maxwell's equations classically and then in quantum mechanics. If this were not the case then all of science would fail. But of course you already think science has failed and you don't believe in it. Ask the 372 thousand physicists about it.

First, they are hardly countless. Exaggerating hardly lends you credibility. Second, the instrumentation in those experiments was invariably cooled. One would expect to see warmer materials radiating towards cooler instruments every time it is done.

And again...if those experiments demonstrated that the second law of thermodynamics was wrong in its statement that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm, don't you think that they would have prompted a change in the law itself?...rather than leaving goobs like you to try and whine your way into making people believe that the 2nd law, as stated is incorrect?

 

[Allen Eltor]

As far as your Quack claim the Earth is emitting more energy than the sun provides and the Earth augments,

I specifically pointed out how the solar insolation and the terrestrial output matched exactly.

In reality, the Earth/atmosphere system can be out of balance slightly. This would cause warming or cooling. Bonus points for people who know where the energy is attained to cause warming.

Whenever you started talking about the Atmosphere being "a magical battery warming the rock" it's chilling, your reputation for knowing what you're talking about to me was DONE.

DO YOU or DO YOU NOT know the name of the law of thermodynamics written as the only law
in ALL thermodynamics for solving temperatures of gases?

 

[IanC]

Space doesn't HAVE a temperature, dipstick. It's a vacuum. In space, space suits don't have HEATERS they have COOLERS because there's only ONE mode of COOLING: RADIANT.

Objects cooling via RADIANT means only in vacuum are the HIGHEST their temperature can be
because there are no other MODES to REMOVE the ENERGY.

The atmosphere is COLD compared to the PLANET
it is CONDUCTION CHILLING
as a
COLD NITROGEN BATH laced with COOLING GHG REFRIGERANTS,
which
COOL the planet before the light ever REACHES Earth,
KNOCKING DOWN it's TEMPERATURE, 22% before ANY other temperature processing is done.

You make a big noisy point about radiation being the only way to cool the system, then you claim conduction chilling! Make up your mind.

The planet's surface is in the middle of the energy pathway from sun to earth to space. The middle can have any number of different temperatures, depending on how much energy has been stored. Only the input and output must balance.

 

[Allen Eltor]

You've got the intellect of a man who believed people when they told you that a cold nitrogen bath is a heater.

And that the cold light blocking refrigerants lacing the cold nitrogen bath, reducing temperature of the entire planet 22% before the conduction cooling they do even starts, are the magical core

of the cold nitrogen bath that's a heater.

Actually simpleton my first career was as a working biological, environmental & atmospheric chemist,

and my degree's in Radiation Communications Electronic Engineering: creating, modifying, transmitting, capturing, separating, analyzing and disposing of radiation energy
through the atmosphere,
the vacuum of space,
and the industrial chemistry forming the electronics required to sustain the radiation based space age my friends and I are flying over your befuddled head.

YOU sell shoes at a mall.

Another internet poser, hahaha.

The atmosphere is like a battery, that stores and releases energy according to the conditions.

GHGs are one of the pathways to add energy to the atmosphere.

The atmosphere is not simply a heater, or a cooler. It is a reservoir of energy.

The ATMOSPHERE is a COLD,

LIGHT-BLOCKING

NITROGEN BATH.

It's COOLING GHGs take 22% of the temperature of the planet

OFF the TOP of global atmospheric temperature calculations,

before ANY OTHER MATHEMATICS can PROCEED.

WHO told you,
a COLD NITROGEN BATH,
with light blocking refrigerants in it,

is WARMING the (less) light-warmed ROCK it's conduction chilling?

What's that person's NAME?

The atmosphere is WARM compared to space.

Greenhouse gases absorb more energy close to the surface than they release at higher altitude.

Utter, COMPLETE, law-violating BUNK.

Green House Gases refract away to space 22% OF TOTAL otherwise available warming SUNLIGHT.

Before it ever ARRIVES the GHGs have ENSURED it never DOES.

The VOLUME of SUNLIGHT INFRARED IS PRODIGIOUS.

It DWARFS ALL EARTH'S OUTPUT * in EVERY SINGLE SPECTRUM the EARTH'S LIMITED EMISSIONS allow comparison in.

You have no CLUE what you are saying. NOTHING you wrote was correct.

 

[SSDD]

" It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object"

That is a pretty straight forward declarative sentence...it speaks in absolutes. Do explain exactly what, in that statement suggests to you that there is some hidden meaning, or a suggestion that energy might move spontaneously from cool to warm...and tell me, are you under the impression like toddster that somehow photons aren't energy or are exempt from the second law?

The same old trite "face value" interpreting words out of context. I gave you a reference many times. The meaning isn't hidden. Read the hyperphysics site again for the explanation that 372 thousand physicists accept.

Hey...two words in one sentence that you don't know the meaning of...first, I am not interpreting anything. Interpreting would mean that I don't accept the meaning of the statement as it is written and am attempting to claim that it says something other than what it says. The statement of the second law is concise and explicit...it needs no interpretation and yet, you find that you must in order to try and make it jibe with your beliefs.

And context...the word itself describes words that come before or after a point which contribute to its full meaning. Since I provided the statement of the 2nd law in its entirety, I provided it in its full and correct context...you are suggesting that the opinion provided by some unknown 3rd party regarding his belief on the 2nd law is required in order to give the full meaning of the 2nd law of thermodynamics itself? Bullshit.. The 2nd law says exactly what it means and requires no interpretation or additional "embellishment" When it is found to be wrong it will be revised to reflect the new evidence.

And again, telling me how many other people join you in your faith is meaningless. At present, there are something like 2.2 BILLION Christians in the world. Do you accept their teaching and belief as infallible and believe every word of it because there are so many? I would suggest that they have a better case for their beliefs than you have for the idea that energy flows spontaneously from cool to warm. Their beliefs are based on "eye witness" accounts...your beliefs are based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models.

This is science we are talking about...when you have actual observed, measured evidence which demonstrates spontaneous energy movement from cool to warm...or from a less organized to a more organized state, by all means bring it here because I, for one, would be most interested in seeing it.

 

[IanC]

Whenever you started talking about the Atmosphere being "a magical battery warming the rock" it's chilling, your reputation for knowing what you're talking about to me was DONE.

Are you implying that the surface would be warmer (on average) without an atmosphere? Hahaha

Bonus points to anyone who can give the simple mathematical reason why an atmosphere increases the average surface temperature.

 

[Allen Eltor]

Space doesn't HAVE a temperature, dipstick. It's a vacuum. In space, space suits don't have HEATERS they have COOLERS because there's only ONE mode of COOLING: RADIANT.

Objects cooling via RADIANT means only in vacuum are the HIGHEST their temperature can be
because there are no other MODES to REMOVE the ENERGY.

The atmosphere is COLD compared to the PLANET
it is CONDUCTION CHILLING
as a
COLD NITROGEN BATH laced with COOLING GHG REFRIGERANTS,
which
COOL the planet before the light ever REACHES Earth,
KNOCKING DOWN it's TEMPERATURE, 22% before ANY other temperature processing is done.

You make a big noisy point about radiation being the only way to cool the system, then you claim conduction chilling! Make up your mind.

The planet's surface is in the middle of the energy pathway from sun to earth to space. The middle can have any number of different temperatures, depending on how much energy has been stored. Only the input and output must balance.

WHAT in the BLANK, do YOU think you just said? Are you out of high school? WtF is WRONG with you?

The PLANET'S ATMOSPHERE is a COLD, NITROGEN BATH, CONDUCTION SCRUBBING the PLANET

it stops 22% of TOTAL otherwise available warming sunlight SPECTRA from ever WARMING.

THEN the CONDUCTION cooling starts.

This Earth-Atmosphere complex TOGETHER radiate the energy left after the COOLING GREEN HOUSE GASES

DROP global temperature 22% before any other calculations can even be ATTEMPTED.

In acting as a CHILLING CONDUCTION BATH
augmented FIRST by the cooling GHG's removal of 22% of temp off the TOP

then by the
PHASE CHANGE REFRIGERATION COOLING of not just the SURFACE but the ENTIRE NITROGEN BATH
by the
COOLING
Green House Gases.

It's patently obvious why you're in here trying to tell everyone a cold nitrogen bath became a magic heater,

because the COOLING REFRIGERANTS knocking 22% off the top,
are
OUT of NOWHERE
generating the 22% they refracted to SPACE never to WARM Earth's physical systems,
hence being taken ENTIRELY from calculation of temperature,
as the VERY first STEP to global atmospheric temperature calculation

you're so illiterate and innumerate it doesn't even strike you as odd that the

22% cooling by making sunlight go to space

is MAGICALLY made up so temperature is "as if thay warn't evun thair no moar"

and that THEN these SAME devilish, and magical gaissinesses,

dun.. made the WHOLE nitrogen BATH, 33 DEGREES WARMER
than if

yew know, "thay warnt evun thair. Yaw."

 

[Wuwei]

There are countless experiments that show that under a variety of different conditions of accelerating charges, that they do radiate EM energy... yes, observed, measured, and quantified experiments that were done before the theory was conceived. The theory came later, first from Maxwell's equations classically and then in quantum mechanics. If this were not the case then all of science would fail. But of course you already think science has failed and you don't believe in it. Ask the 372 thousand physicists about it.

First, they are hardly countless. Exaggerating hardly lends you credibility. Second, the instrumentation in those experiments was invariably cooled. One would expect to see warmer materials radiating towards cooler instruments every time it is done.

And again...if those experiments demonstrated that the second law of thermodynamics was wrong in its statement that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm, don't you think that they would have prompted a change in the law itself?...rather than leaving goobs like you to try and whine your way into making people believe that the 2nd law, as stated is incorrect?

I'm not talking about thermodynamics. It's about accelerating charges radiating Read the post again.

 

[Allen Eltor]

Whenever you started talking about the Atmosphere being "a magical battery warming the rock" it's chilling, your reputation for knowing what you're talking about to me was DONE.

Are you implying that the surface would be warmer (on average) without an atmosphere? Hahaha

Bonus points to anyone who can give the simple mathematical reason why an atmosphere increases the average surface temperature.

You ignorant hick. Show these people ONE instance in ALL thermodynamics when a COLD BATH
made ONE object it was
CONDUCTION CHILLING
warmer.

Yes,THERM-0-BILLY I TOLD YOU THERE'S NO SUCH THING as a COLD BATH that's a HEATER.

When RADIATION is the SOLE MODE of ENERGY LOSS
TEMPERATURES are by DEFINITION the HIGHEST they can ever BE with the same LIGHT load.

That's why they have the CHILDREN'S MIDDLE SCHOOL EXPERIMENT
where the KID puts the THERMOMETER in a JAR
and SUCKS AIR OUT with a STRAW she STUCK into a hole drilled in the lid
and SEALED with CHEWING GUM

and the TEMPERATURE starts to IMMEDIATELY RISE.

 

[IanC]

The VOLUME of SUNLIGHT INFRARED IS PRODIGIOUS

Close to the Sun's surface there is a lot of IR. By the time it gets to the Earth, it is less than one watt per metre squared. Hardly prodigious.

 

[Allen Eltor]

There are countless experiments that show that under a variety of different conditions of accelerating charges, that they do radiate EM energy... yes, observed, measured, and quantified experiments that were done before the theory was conceived. The theory came later, first from Maxwell's equations classically and then in quantum mechanics. If this were not the case then all of science would fail. But of course you already think science has failed and you don't believe in it. Ask the 372 thousand physicists about it.

First, they are hardly countless. Exaggerating hardly lends you credibility. Second, the instrumentation in those experiments was invariably cooled. One would expect to see warmer materials radiating towards cooler instruments every time it is done.

And again...if those experiments demonstrated that the second law of thermodynamics was wrong in its statement that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm, don't you think that they would have prompted a change in the law itself?...rather than leaving goobs like you to try and whine your way into making people believe that the 2nd law, as stated is incorrect?

I'm not talking about thermodynamics. It's about accelerating charges radiating Read the post again.

RADIATION IS THERMODYNAMICS. What in the WORLD makes you people say these CRACKPOT statements?

ALL energy and MATTER comprise the physical events GOVERNED by THERMODYNAMICS.

 

[SSDD]

They can't read the equation and state in plain English what it says. The don't seem to grasp the fact that in order for an equation to express net, there has to be an expression within the equation that calculates net.

The SB equation does express net. This is what 372 thousand scientists believe:

For a substance at temperature T₁
and the background at temperature T₂.

Emission: Rₑ = eσT₁⁴

Absorption: Rₐ =eσT₂⁴

The net rate of EM energy exchange:

Rnet = Rₑ - Rₐ = eσT₁⁴ - eσT₂⁴ = eσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

Showing me an unfinished equation hardly supports your argument. Do you see the equation after the last equals sign....e sigma (T^4 - Tc^4)? That is the finished eauation...and it doesn't state net anything...it describes a gross one way energy flow...you can right net as much as you like, but the final equation after all the equals signs is what matters and it doesn't calculate net anything.. Your math skills, and understanding of math is laughable...

 

[Wuwei]

you are suggesting that the opinion provided by some unknown 3rd party regarding his belief on the 2nd law is required in order to give the full meaning of the 2nd law of thermodynamics itself?

Nope. That is just one source out of many that says the "energy" in the second law is net energy. That is agreed by 372000 physicists. Maybe you should continue your chat with Allen Eltor.

 

[SSDD]

You've got the intellect of a man who believed people when they told you that a cold nitrogen bath is a heater.

And that the cold light blocking refrigerants lacing the cold nitrogen bath, reducing temperature of the entire planet 22% before the conduction cooling they do even starts, are the magical core

of the cold nitrogen bath that's a heater.

Actually simpleton my first career was as a working biological, environmental & atmospheric chemist,

and my degree's in Radiation Communications Electronic Engineering: creating, modifying, transmitting, capturing, separating, analyzing and disposing of radiation energy
through the atmosphere,
the vacuum of space,
and the industrial chemistry forming the electronics required to sustain the radiation based space age my friends and I are flying over your befuddled head.

YOU sell shoes at a mall.

Another internet poser, hahaha.

The atmosphere is like a battery, that stores and releases energy according to the conditions.

GHGs are one of the pathways to add energy to the atmosphere.

The atmosphere is not simply a heater, or a cooler. It is a reservoir of energy.

The ATMOSPHERE is a COLD,

LIGHT-BLOCKING

NITROGEN BATH.

It's COOLING GHGs take 22% of the temperature of the planet

OFF the TOP of global atmospheric temperature calculations,

before ANY OTHER MATHEMATICS can PROCEED.

WHO told you,
a COLD NITROGEN BATH,
with light blocking refrigerants in it,

is WARMING the (less) light-warmed ROCK it's conduction chilling?

What's that person's NAME?

The atmosphere is WARM compared to space.

Greenhouse gases absorb more energy close to the surface than they release at higher altitude.

Where is your tropospheric hot spot which would be the inevitable result if what you believe were true? Reality doesn't, and never will support you ian...

 

[Wuwei]

Showing me an unfinished equation hardly supports your argument. Do you see the equation after the last equals sign....e sigma (T^4 - Tc^4)? That is the finished eauation...and it doesn't state net anything...it describes a gross one way energy flow...you can right net as much as you like, but the final equation after all the equals signs is what matters and it doesn't calculate net anything.. Your math skills, and understanding of math is laughable...

Read the first two equations in the derivation again. You are acting like a troll again.

 

[IanC]

When RADIATION is the SOLE MODE of ENERGY LOSS
TEMPERATURES are by DEFINITION the HIGHEST they can ever BE with the same LIGHT load.

How am I supposed to respond to such garbled gibberish? Tighten up your thinking

 

[Allen Eltor]

The VOLUME of SUNLIGHT INFRARED IS PRODIGIOUS

Close to the Sun's surface there is a lot of IR. By the time it gets to the Earth, it is less than one watt per metre squared. Hardly prodigious.

The INFRARED from the SUN DWARFS the EARTH'S own INFRARED in EVERY SINGLE SPECTRUM AVAILABLE.

The COOLING GREEN HOUSE GASES stop HALF that 40% of SUNLIGHT that is INFRARED PLUS some.

The ROILING BATH of infrared ENGULFING the planet is PRODIGIOUS in it's power compared to the SAME spectra
emitted by Earth.

You're so stupid you actually think a ROCK
so cold WATER is condensed on it's surface
is emitting COMPARABLE light volumes

with the ENORMOUSLY HOT sun.

You are JUST exactly as DUMB as you sound.