The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[SSDD]

Either you have observed, measured, evidence to support what you say...or you don't and if you don't then what you say is just your opinion. Got any of that observed, measured evidence?

Not an opinion; It's the science of over 372 thousand physicists.

So with that many physicists on the job, surely you have some observed, measured evidence of energy moving spontaneously from cold to warm...lets see it. What's that? Don't have any? Then what you have is an opinion not supported by any actual observed measured physical evidence.

 

[SSDD]

A rearranged equation is hardly an unfinished equation.

tell me ian...do you think rearranging the equation actually makes something different happen in reality? Really?

 

[SSDD]

If you are talking about the movement of energy, then you are talking about thermodynamics...chalk up another foundational misunderstanding polluting your thinking.

Nope. EM radiation from accelerating charges is a concept that underlies many areas - Xray machines, synchrotron radiation, bremsstrahlung, etc. And yes it also involves thermodynamics such as BB radiation.

Stop speaking like an idiot. Thermodynamics are the sciences documenting ALL THINGS. X-rays are part of THERMODYNAMICS. Syncrotrons emit energy that is ALSO: PART of THERMODYNAMICS.

How can you people say these KooK-a-Zoid things? there ARE THINGS THAT AREN'T PART of THERMODYNAMICS?

Have YOU ever heard of the FIRST and SECOND and so on, LAWS of THERMODYNAMICS? The word strings you're putting together are PREPOSTEROUS.

Actually, you are the idiot. Moving electric charges create radiation. SSDD says that radiation can be nullified by simply having a warm object near by. Or even just in the universe, he is clear most of the time.

I don't say that...the SB law says that. I just read what the equation say.

 

[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.

I'm looking for an equation. This is the first hit

This absorption and radiation of heat by the atmosphere—the natural greenhouse effect—is beneficial for life on Earth. If there were no greenhouse effect, the Earth’s average surface temperature would be a very chilly -18°C (0°F) instead of the comfortable 15°C (59°F) that it is today.

Global Warming​

Thanks for giving it some thought. The mathematical reason is more of a property than an equation. Think about area to circumference. A circle is best. A 10 x10 square is not bad. A 1 x 19 rectangle is inefficient. Radiation to temperature is fourth power relationship, not just a squared relationship.

 

[SSDD]

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.

I'm looking for an equation. This is the first hit

This absorption and radiation of heat by the atmosphere—the natural greenhouse effect—is beneficial for life on Earth. If there were no greenhouse effect, the Earth’s average surface temperature would be a very chilly -18°C (0°F) instead of the comfortable 15°C (59°F) that it is today.

Global Warming​

What is interesting is that the ideal gas laws, and incoming solar radiation will give you damned near the exact temperature of every planet in the solar system without the need for a greenhouse effect....and if you use the calculations from which the greenhouse effect is derived, they don't come close to estimating the temperature of any planet in the solar system other than earth...and they only work on earth if you use an ad hoc fudge factor.

 

[Wuwei]

So with that many physicists on the job, surely you have some observed, measured evidence of energy moving spontaneously from cold to warm...lets see it. What's that? Don't have any? Then what you have is an opinion not supported by any actual observed measured physical evidence.

Scientists believe the CMB penetrated earth. You don't.
Scientists believe the mathematics of quantum mechanics. You don't.
Etc.
Their's is not opinion. It is evidenced belief. Your opinion violates quantum mechanics.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

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.

I'm looking for an equation. This is the first hit

This absorption and radiation of heat by the atmosphere—the natural greenhouse effect—is beneficial for life on Earth. If there were no greenhouse effect, the Earth’s average surface temperature would be a very chilly -18°C (0°F) instead of the comfortable 15°C (59°F) that it is today.

Global Warming​

Thanks for giving it some thought. The mathematical reason is more of a property than an equation. Think about area to circumference. A circle is best. A 10 x10 square is not bad. A 1 x 19 rectangle is inefficient. Radiation to temperature is fourth power relationship, not just a squared relationship.

Thanks. And all I can say is I'm with you, Wuwei and Toddster in this debate. I'm late to the party but will try to getup to speed.

And I need to depart now.

 

[IanC]

If you are talking about the movement of energy, then you are talking about thermodynamics...chalk up another foundational misunderstanding polluting your thinking.

Nope. EM radiation from accelerating charges is a concept that underlies many areas - Xray machines, synchrotron radiation, bremsstrahlung, etc. And yes it also involves thermodynamics such as BB radiation.

Stop speaking like an idiot. Thermodynamics are the sciences documenting ALL THINGS. X-rays are part of THERMODYNAMICS. Syncrotrons emit energy that is ALSO: PART of THERMODYNAMICS.

How can you people say these KooK-a-Zoid things? there ARE THINGS THAT AREN'T PART of THERMODYNAMICS?

Have YOU ever heard of the FIRST and SECOND and so on, LAWS of THERMODYNAMICS? The word strings you're putting together are PREPOSTEROUS.

Actually, you are the idiot. Moving electric charges create radiation. SSDD says that radiation can be nullified by simply having a warm object near by. Or even just in the universe, he is clear most of the time.

I don't say that...the SB law says that. I just read what the equation say.

Sorry, that should read 'not clear'.

The S-B law does not say the production of radiation is controlled by anything other than the temperature of the object. The rate of temperature loss or gain is affected by radiation from other objects.

 

[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.

I'm looking for an equation. This is the first hit

This absorption and radiation of heat by the atmosphere—the natural greenhouse effect—is beneficial for life on Earth. If there were no greenhouse effect, the Earth’s average surface temperature would be a very chilly -18°C (0°F) instead of the comfortable 15°C (59°F) that it is today.
​

No. No. LoL No.

When you calculate the temperature of the planet the very first thing you do is determine how much light strikes the surface of the planet.

And the way you do that is by separating the two values of energy at the physical surface or what would be referred to as Mean Sea Level,

and what the value of sunlight energy intensity is at the TOP of the atmosphere.

There is only ONE class gases that affects the amount of sunlight striking the surface, to any real degree at all.

These are the cooling Green House Gases. The cooling green house gases take some 22% of all sunlight energy from the equation for temperature of the planets' surface by being the nearly SOLE gases to DO any of this

initial cooling,
BEFORE
the conduction cooling by those gases starts.

When you SUBTRACT sunlight at surface from sunlight at top of atmsophere
that is the % initial cooling the green house gases cause.

They cause NO warming. Ever. Of any kind whatever. And neither does the atmosphere.

The Atmosphere is a cold nitrogen bath conduction chilling the planet.

 

[Allen Eltor]

If you are talking about the movement of energy, then you are talking about thermodynamics...chalk up another foundational misunderstanding polluting your thinking.

Nope. EM radiation from accelerating charges is a concept that underlies many areas - Xray machines, synchrotron radiation, bremsstrahlung, etc. And yes it also involves thermodynamics such as BB radiation.

Stop speaking like an idiot. Thermodynamics are the sciences documenting ALL THINGS. X-rays are part of THERMODYNAMICS. Syncrotrons emit energy that is ALSO: PART of THERMODYNAMICS.

How can you people say these KooK-a-Zoid things? there ARE THINGS THAT AREN'T PART of THERMODYNAMICS?

Have YOU ever heard of the FIRST and SECOND and so on, LAWS of THERMODYNAMICS? The word strings you're putting together are PREPOSTEROUS.

Actually, you are the idiot. Moving electric charges create radiation. SSDD says that radiation can be nullified by simply having a warm object near by. Or even just in the universe, he is clear most of the time.

What? MOVING CHARGES ARE PART OF THERMODYNAMICS, Mall shoe salesman.

YES.
THEY ARE.

The word strings you people put together are as preposterous as your KWACK-O CLAIM

you think a COLD nitrogen bath, HEATS the rock it's chilling.

 

[Allen Eltor]

So Todd, are you and your other magic gas barking kook buddies trying to FIND OUT the NAME of the LAW of PHYSICS you don't even know the NAME of, that - you're claiming you understand so well, that you've discovered it says a

COLD nitrogen bath is a HEATER
and the
COLD
light blocking REFRIGERANTS

chilling not just the ROCK but the entire nitrogen BATH,
are the CORE of the MAGICAL COLD NITROGEN HEATER?

I'm noticing you're not even able to make that sweaty mouse hand of yours even bring you to TRY to answer even BASIC questions about your KOOK pseudo-science church.

 

[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.

I'm looking for an equation. This is the first hit

This absorption and radiation of heat by the atmosphere—the natural greenhouse effect—is beneficial for life on Earth. If there were no greenhouse effect, the Earth’s average surface temperature would be a very chilly -18°C (0°F) instead of the comfortable 15°C (59°F) that it is today.

​

What is interesting is that the ideal gas laws, and incoming solar radiation will give you damned near the exact temperature of every planet in the solar system without the need for a greenhouse effect....and if you use the calculations from which the greenhouse effect is derived, they don't come close to estimating the temperature of any planet in the solar system other than earth...and they only work on earth if you use an ad hoc fudge factor.

There's no "green house effect" of ANY kind. The COLD, LIGHT BLOCKING REFRIGERANTS,

reduce the temperature of the planet about 22% RIGHT off the TOP.

They THEN proceed to aid the REST of the bath in CONDUCTION chilling the surface

and the MAIN GHG adds conduction cooling acceleration called PHASE CHANGE REFRIGERATION.

Not just of the surface.
Of the entire cold nitrogen bath as well.

 

[SSDD]

So with that many physicists on the job, surely you have some observed, measured evidence of energy moving spontaneously from cold to warm...lets see it. What's that? Don't have any? Then what you have is an opinion not supported by any actual observed measured physical evidence.

Scientists believe the CMB penetrated earth. You don't.

No they don't...they believe a resonant radio frequency was detected on the surface...not actual CMB...

Scientists believe the mathematics of quantum mechanics. You don't.
Etc.
Their's is not opinion. It is evidenced belief. Your opinion violates quantum mechanics.

Belief: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.
Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something

If they had evidence, then belief would not be necessary.

 

[Wuwei]

No they don't...they believe a resonant radio frequency was detected on the surface...not actual CMB...

Now you are being a total troll. The radio frequency was the output of the amplifier. The input was the CMB reflected from a warm antenna after penetrating earth. You know that, so not only are you a troll, you are lying.

Belief: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.
Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something

If they had evidence, then belief would not be necessary.

We know you pretend not to believe in QM, troll. Anything related to electricity and magnetism has been verified by experiment to parts per billion or trillion accuracy. You have no evidence EM from accelerated charges can be impeded. Absolutely none.

 

[SSDD]

Now you are being a total troll. The radio frequency was the output of the amplifier. The input was the CMB reflected from a warm antenna after penetrating earth. You know that, so not only are you a troll, you are lying.

If stating what is, rather than what you believe or wish makes me a troll then I guess we can chalk up one more word you don't know the meaning of.

We know you pretend not to believe in QM, troll. Anything related to electricity and magnetism has been verified by experiment to parts per billion or trillion accuracy. You have no evidence EM from accelerated charges can be impeded. Absolutely none.

Modelled experiments...not observed measured experiments...it is models all the way down with you guys. And why can't you bring yourself to simply admit that neither you nor all of science has the first observed, measured instance of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm?

 

[ChesBayJJ]

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.

I'm looking for an equation. This is the first hit

This absorption and radiation of heat by the atmosphere—the natural greenhouse effect—is beneficial for life on Earth. If there were no greenhouse effect, the Earth’s average surface temperature would be a very chilly -18°C (0°F) instead of the comfortable 15°C (59°F) that it is today.
​

No. No. LoL No.

When you calculate the temperature of the planet the very first thing you do is determine how much light strikes the surface of the planet.

And the way you do that is by separating the two values of energy at the physical surface or what would be referred to as Mean Sea Level,

and what the value of sunlight energy intensity is at the TOP of the atmosphere.

There is only ONE class gases that affects the amount of sunlight striking the surface, to any real degree at all.

These are the cooling Green House Gases. The cooling green house gases take some 22% of all sunlight energy from the equation for temperature of the planets' surface by being the nearly SOLE gases to DO any of this

initial cooling,
BEFORE
the conduction cooling by those gases starts.

When you SUBTRACT sunlight at surface from sunlight at top of atmsophere
that is the % initial cooling the green house gases cause.

They cause NO warming. Ever. Of any kind whatever. And neither does the atmosphere.

The Atmosphere is a cold nitrogen bath conduction chilling the planet.

That sounds like a bunch of babble to me. What "cooling" greenhouse gases? Which gases are they?

And can you give me a link to this equation for the temperature at the earth's surface?

I am unfamiliar with this theory so I'd like something with more meat to it, in language that is understandable.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So Todd, are you and your other magic gas barking kook buddies trying to FIND OUT the NAME of the LAW of PHYSICS you don't even know the NAME of, that - you're claiming you understand so well, that you've discovered it says a

COLD nitrogen bath is a HEATER
and the
COLD
light blocking REFRIGERANTS

chilling not just the ROCK but the entire nitrogen BATH,
are the CORE of the MAGICAL COLD NITROGEN HEATER?

I'm noticing you're not even able to make that sweaty mouse hand of yours even bring you to TRY to answer even BASIC questions about your KOOK pseudo-science church.

Still no link?

 

[ChesBayJJ]

So Todd, are you and your other magic gas barking kook buddies trying to FIND OUT the NAME of the LAW of PHYSICS you don't even know the NAME of, that - you're claiming you understand so well, that you've discovered it says a

COLD nitrogen bath is a HEATER
and the
COLD
light blocking REFRIGERANTS

chilling not just the ROCK but the entire nitrogen BATH,
are the CORE of the MAGICAL COLD NITROGEN HEATER?

I'm noticing you're not even able to make that sweaty mouse hand of yours even bring you to TRY to answer even BASIC questions about your KOOK pseudo-science church.

Still no link?

That one is incoherent

 

[Wuwei]

If stating what is, rather than what you believe or wish makes me a troll then I guess we can chalk up one more word you don't know the meaning of.

Nope, lying about what science is about - that makes you a troll.

Modelled experiments...not observed measured experiments...it is models all the way down with you guys. And why can't you bring yourself to simply admit that neither you nor all of science has the first observed, measured instance of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm?

Yep, physics is based on mathematical models. Can't do much science these days without it. 372 thousand scientist know that, and know the CMB penetrated the earth. You have no proof that says otherwise. Troll.

 

[Wuwei]

That one is incoherent

Isn't that the truth. There are a few others here that are incoherent but not as much as that one.