The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hopeless

In SSDD's world, the warmer object turns the dimmer switch, to reduce its emissions based on the temperature of the cooler object. He never explained how the warmer object can measure the temperature of the cooler object, since no photon is allowed to travel from the cooler object. The warmer object must use ESP.

And then, magically, at equilibrium, the formerly warmer object just "knows" that the temperatures are equal and
ceases radiating as well.

These edifices have been built so he can insist that global warming isn't a thing because back radiation doesn't exist.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Hopeless

In SSDD's world, the warmer object turns the dimmer switch, to reduce its emissions based on the temperature of the cooler object. He never explained how the warmer object can measure the temperature of the cooler object, since no photon is allowed to travel from the cooler object. The warmer object must use ESP.

And then, magically, at equilibrium, the formerly warmer object just "knows" that the temperatures are equal and
ceases radiating as well.

These edifices have been built so he can insist that global warming isn't a thing because back radiation doesn't exist.

I was wondering about that. Earlier looks in on this thread gave me the impression SSDD thought the 2nd Law proved AGW could not happen. Seems like he just doesn't understand the fine details on some of the laws of physics.

 

[Wuwei]

This seems to support your argument

But please note the bold

That is a great site. It clearly spells out what SSDD refuses to accept. It has been posted here before though. SSDD knows about the site, but calls the bold faced text "opinion".

 

[Wuwei]

I was wondering about that. Earlier looks in on this thread gave me the impression SSDD thought the 2nd Law proved AGW could not happen. Seems like he just doesn't understand the fine details on some of the laws of physics.

My opinion is that they are not failures in fine details. They are major failures that would upset the foundations of both classical and modern physics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry guy....when you use the SB law to calculate P, you use the equation after the last equals sign...nothing else. That is the mathematical expression of the SB law....there is no expression there to express energy the radiator is receiving from the back ground because it is receiving no energy from the background...refer to the second law...not possible for energy to flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object. There is no net energy flow.

You point out the first two expressions being used to for the final form. The second expression is
Absorption: Rₐ =ε σ T₂⁴
Now you are saying absorption of energy from the colder body is zero. That doesn't make any sense.

Zero absorption of energy from the colder body is precisely what the second law predicts....it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cooler body to a warmer body.

it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cooler body to a warmer body.

Temperatures in the upper thermosphere can range from about 500° C (932° F) to 2,000° C (3,632° F) or higher.

Thermosphere - overview | UCAR Center for Science Education

If the thermosphere is 500 C or hotter, how can the Earth's surface ever shed heat?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have provided you with the article that stated explicitly that they received a resonant radio frequency that equated to CMB...it isn't my fault that you think that means that the resonant radio frequency was actually cmb.

You never provided an article that said nor implied the CMB did not penetrate the air to a warm dish.

models without physical verification mean exactly jack.

All models of EM radiation have been verified by experiments to parts per billion accuracy.

models and models and models and not the first piece of physical evidence. Is EM radiation an observable, measurable, testable physical entity? Wouldn't you think that you might have physical evidence supporting claims regarding a physical entity? You are laughable.

Yes EM radiation is an observable, measurable, testable physical entity? You are observing it right now as you read this. Scientists have shown it agrees with the mathematical models to parts per billion accuracy. Scientists observed the CMB on the earth surface too.

Keep yanking your own chain if it gets you though life. Face it guy...you couldn't support your argument...you engaged in logical fallacies one after another and showed how easily you are fooled by instrumentation...nothing more. The Second law of thermodynamics still says what it says and the SB law still says what it says. Nothing has changed.

you engaged in logical fallacies one after another and showed how easily you are fooled by instrumentation...nothing more.

http://www.kelm.ftn.uns.ac.rs/liter...ModernSensorsPhysicsDesignAndApplications.pdf

We're fooled by instrumentation, the Handbook Of Modern Sensors is fooled by instrumentation.
Everybody but you.

 

[Wuwei]

For SSDD: Don't forget the wisdom of Dartmouth University
Here is another source so that you can make caustic remarks about scientists.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~physics/l...oltzmann.law/stefan.boltzmann.law.writeup.pdf

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

For SSDD: Don't forget the wisdom of Dartmouth University
Here is another source so that you can make caustic remarks about scientists.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~physics/l...oltzmann.law/stefan.boltzmann.law.writeup.pdf

They obviously don't understand the 2nd Law and the one-way only flow of energy.

 

[SSDD]

Please note": P = NET RADIATED POWER

SSDD will call that opinion.

Of course it is since it isn't what the SB law says...and it isn't supported by anything like observed measured evidence.

 

[SSDD]

Hopeless

In SSDD's world, the warmer object turns the dimmer switch, to reduce its emissions based on the temperature of the cooler object. He never explained how the warmer object can measure the temperature of the cooler object, since no photon is allowed to travel from the cooler object. The warmer object must use ESP.

And then, magically, at equilibrium, the formerly warmer object just "knows" that the temperatures are equal and
ceases radiating as well.

These edifices have been built so he can insist that global warming isn't a thing because back radiation doesn't exist.

I was wondering about that. Earlier looks in on this thread gave me the impression SSDD thought the 2nd Law proved AGW could not happen. Seems like he just doesn't understand the fine details on some of the laws of physics.

If by that you mean I don't alter the statements of the laws, or invent expressions for net in order to support my faith in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models then yes, I understand them differently than you. I accept the statements as they are and don't feel the need to add to them in order to make myself comfortable with the world,

 

[SSDD]

I was wondering about that. Earlier looks in on this thread gave me the impression SSDD thought the 2nd Law proved AGW could not happen. Seems like he just doesn't understand the fine details on some of the laws of physics.

My opinion is that they are not failures in fine details. They are major failures that would upset the foundations of both classical and modern physics.

I am sure that is what you like to think...but alas, it isn't me who can't support my position with the satements of the physical laws...it isn't me who has to find someones opinion to post in an effort to support my position..it isn't me who can't provide actual observed, measured evidence to support my position.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Hopeless

In SSDD's world, the warmer object turns the dimmer switch, to reduce its emissions based on the temperature of the cooler object. He never explained how the warmer object can measure the temperature of the cooler object, since no photon is allowed to travel from the cooler object. The warmer object must use ESP.

And then, magically, at equilibrium, the formerly warmer object just "knows" that the temperatures are equal and
ceases radiating as well.

These edifices have been built so he can insist that global warming isn't a thing because back radiation doesn't exist.

I was wondering about that. Earlier looks in on this thread gave me the impression SSDD thought the 2nd Law proved AGW could not happen. Seems like he just doesn't understand the fine details on some of the laws of physics.

If by that you mean I don't alter the statements of the laws, or invent expressions for net in order to support my faith in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models then yes, I understand them differently than you. I accept the statements as they are and don't feel the need to add to them in order to make myself comfortable with the world,

And I have shown you university physics web sites that specifically mention the term net. I'm not making that up to satisfy myself I am correct nor have I altered anything. It appears to be what the physics community feels the law actually means. It is you that goes against this.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hopeless

In SSDD's world, the warmer object turns the dimmer switch, to reduce its emissions based on the temperature of the cooler object. He never explained how the warmer object can measure the temperature of the cooler object, since no photon is allowed to travel from the cooler object. The warmer object must use ESP.

And then, magically, at equilibrium, the formerly warmer object just "knows" that the temperatures are equal and
ceases radiating as well.

These edifices have been built so he can insist that global warming isn't a thing because back radiation doesn't exist.

I was wondering about that. Earlier looks in on this thread gave me the impression SSDD thought the 2nd Law proved AGW could not happen. Seems like he just doesn't understand the fine details on some of the laws of physics.

If by that you mean I don't alter the statements of the laws, or invent expressions for net in order to support my faith in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models then yes, I understand them differently than you. I accept the statements as they are and don't feel the need to add to them in order to make myself comfortable with the world,

And I have shown you university physics web sites that specifically mention the term net. I'm not making that up to satisfy myself I am correct nor have I altered anything. It appears to be what the physics community feels the law actually means. It is you that goes against this.

He'll be posting up some sources that agree with him...…..any minute now.

 

[SSDD]

And I have shown you university physics web sites that specifically mention the term net. I'm not making that up to satisfy myself I am correct nor have I altered anything. It appears to be what the physics community feels the law actually means. It is you that goes against this.

What the community FEELS the law means? Not because the community has observed measured evidence that demonstrates that the statements of the physical laws are incorrect...but because the community FEELS that the law actually means irregardless of what the laws actually say in completely unambiguous language? What the community feels...right. Sounds like pseudoscience by committees to me.

 

[Wuwei]

Of course it is since it isn't what the SB law says...and it isn't supported by anything like observed measured evidence.

These lies from the troll are getting pretty stale.

 

[Wuwei]

If by that you mean I don't alter the statements of the laws, or invent expressions for net in order to support my faith in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models then yes, I understand them differently than you. I accept the statements as they are and don't feel the need to add to them in order to make myself comfortable with the world,

Yeah, yeah face value again. More trite lies from the troll.

 

[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.

Still no link?

This isn't about link-don't-think b**ch. It's about you being so f**g stupid you thought a cold nitrogen bath is a heater.

 

[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.

Still no link?

That one is incoherent

No b***ch YOU'RE a shoe salesman at a mall. As is Todd the Hick.

I'm the radiation engineer and atmospheric chemist MOCKING your dumb b**ch @#$ for letting somebody tell you a cold nitrogen bath's a heater.

 

[Allen Eltor]

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.

You're another b**ch who sells shoes at a store and are so STUPID you think a cold nitrogen bath is a heater.

 

[Allen Eltor]

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.

I have provided you with the article that stated explicitly that they received a resonant radio frequency that equated to CMB...it isn't my fault that you think that means that the resonant radio frequency was actually cmb.

and models without physical verification mean exactly jack.

I love the idea that a signal is detected at the Earth's surface without that signal entering the atmosphere.

Magic waves!

Magic waves is when somebody tells you a cold nitrogen bath warmed the rock it was chilling and you bobbing that Taco Bell cap up and down that you believed it was true, stupid.