The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[Crick]

As I and others have stated dozens and dozens of times, anyone wishing to see and review mountains of the evidence that SSDD claims does not exist should visit www.ipcc.ch and read Working Group I's portion of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Review: "The Physical Science Basis".

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SummaryVolume_FINAL.pdf

 

[SSDD]

As I and others have stated dozens and dozens of times, anyone wishing to see and review mountains of the evidence that SSDD claims does not exist should visit www.ipcc.ch and read Working Group I's portion of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Review: "The Physical Science Basis".

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SummaryVolume_FINAL.pdf

Yeah...you posted a big chunk of it HERE...and when I asked you to point out any where within it a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, YOU COULDN'T DO IT....and when I asked for you to point out a single piece of observed measured evidence which established a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, YOU COULDN'T DO IT....and when I asked you to point out a single peer reviewed published paper in which the hypothetical warming resulting from human activities was measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses, YOU COULDN'T DO IT.

You are being pwned skidmark...the more you talk, the more opportunity I have to point out that you couldn't produce even a shred of the evidence you claimed existed..,I can do it all day...till I have to leave to play a gig this afternoon anyway...

 

[Crick]

And even more lies.

 

[SSDD]

And even more lies.

Point out the evidence I asked for in the steaming pile of excrement you wasted bandwidth providing...or hell, go look somewhere else. I am asking for evidence and you aren't providing it...no one is providing it and it certainly isn't out there in the literature...where, exactly is the evidence I am asking for.

Do you believe that asking for a single piece of observed measured evidence that supports AGW over natural variability is to much to ask for?

Do you think it is unreasonable to ask for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere?

Do you think it is outrageous to ask for a single peer reviewed, published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by man's activities has been measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses?

Are those things really to much to ask from a hypothesis regarding entities as observable and measurable as the atmosphere and the climate?

 

[Crick]

Asked and answered

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ho hum, Same Shit is still the only person on Earth who thinks there is no empirical evidence supporting AGW. And given that he's an idiot and a liar, I am not terribly concerned.

And neither should anyone else out there. There is absolutely NO reason to pay the slightest attention to what SSDD has to say. His claims regarding heat transfer, the second law of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics and a dozen other topics indicate very clearly that he has no science education whatsoever. His concepts are the product of pure and unadulterated ignorance.

But he posts such good sources....which end up disproving his claims

 

[SSDD]

Asked and answered

F'ing liar...I have been asking and you have not been delivering...you post great steaming piles of garbage and are rightly to embarrassed to point out which parts of it are adequate to fool you...you aren't fooling anyone skidmark...no one at all. You lost great face today...learn something from it.

 

[Wuwei]

Ho Hum...still no observed measured evidence to support your claims...should I bother to even come back...will it all be just more of the same...you having a temper tantrum because I won't believe in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models?

So you are running away from your explanation of why you think radioactivity is not spontaneous emission? That's OK. I understand. It is an example of cold radiation -- a type of radiation that can hit bodies of any temperature. Phosphorescence is another example. These destroy your misunderstandings of radiation thermodynamics.

 

[SSDD]

So you are running away from your explanation of why you think radioactivity is not spontaneous emission? {;/quote]

When did I say that radioactive decay was not spontaneous? More of your made up bullshit to argue against. I pointed out that terms like hot and cold are convenient means to describe relative frequencies of energy objects emit. In the infrared, hot and cold are obvious..a burning match is hot, and ice cube is cold.

Once you go past the infrared either higher or lower, hot and cold aren't quite so obvious if you think hot and cold are merely matters of temperature. You mentioned gamma radiation...the frequency of gamma radiation makes it hotter than anything you might find in the infrared spectrum even though you could hold the emitter in your hand...

I don't see any reason to think that natural radioactive decay is anything other than spontaneous...but your suggestion that because the emitter might be cool to the touch but the radiation could be absorbed by something warmer to the touch is evidence that energy can move from cold to warm in spite of what the second law of thermodynamics says is nothing more than evidnence that you have a very juvenile understanding of energy and what constitutes hot and cold.. The frequency of gamma radiation makes it "hotter" than anything on the infrared scale.

That's OK. I understand. It is an example of cold radiation -- a type of radiation that can hit bodies of any temperature. Phosphorescence is another example. These destroy your misunderstandings of radiation thermodynamics.

Like I said...your notions of hot and cold as the apply to the frequency of energy being emitted are juvenile at best.

 

[Wuwei]

So you are running away from your explanation of why you think radioactivity is not spontaneous emission? {;/quote]

When did I say that radioactive decay was not spontaneous? More of your made up bullshit to argue against. I pointed out that terms like hot and cold are convenient means to describe relative frequencies of energy objects emit. In the infrared, hot and cold are obvious..a burning match is hot, and ice cube is cold.

Once you go past the infrared either higher or lower, hot and cold aren't quite so obvious if you think hot and cold are merely matters of temperature. You mentioned gamma radiation...the frequency of gamma radiation makes it hotter than anything you might find in the infrared spectrum even though you could hold the emitter in your hand...

I don't see any reason to think that natural radioactive decay is anything other than spontaneous...but your suggestion that because the emitter might be cool to the touch but the radiation could be absorbed by something warmer to the touch is evidence that energy can move from cold to warm in spite of what the second law of thermodynamics says is nothing more than evidnence that you have a very juvenile understanding of energy and what constitutes hot and cold.. The frequency of gamma radiation makes it "hotter" than anything on the infrared scale.

That's OK. I understand. It is an example of cold radiation -- a type of radiation that can hit bodies of any temperature. Phosphorescence is another example. These destroy your misunderstandings of radiation thermodynamics.

Like I said...your notions of hot and cold as the apply to the frequency of energy being emitted are juvenile at best.

Geez how do you think up that crap. Temperature cannot be defined by a single particle. A gamma ray does not have a temperature.

You actually said that refined radium does not decay spontaneously because work went into refining it. I then asked why refining ore could change the spontaneity. You ran away at that point.

Phosphorescence is also an example of spontaneous emission.

Note: all examples of spontaneous emission or "cold-body radiation" are not heat.

Luminescence is spontaneous emission of light by a substance not resulting from heat; it is thus a form of cold-body radiation. ... This distinguishes luminescence from incandescence, which is light emitted by a substance as a result of heating.​

You are trying confusing luminescence with incandescence.

With cold-body radiation there are many examples of energy moving from a cold source to a warmer substance.

.

 

[SSDD]

Geez how do you think up that crap. Temperature cannot be defined by a single particle. A gamma ray does not have a temperature.

How unsurprising is this.....we are barely past the basics and already over your head. Did I not say, and I quote, "
Once you go past the infrared either higher or lower, hot and cold aren't quite so obvious if you think hot and cold are merely matters of temperature."

I then went on to try and explain that it really is all a matter of frequency...that is why, whenever I asked you to provide measurements of energy, I asked for measurements of discrete frequencies. It is clear now that you had no idea why I was asking in those terms. This is all just way past you....so it goes with posers.

You actually said that refined radium does not decay spontaneously because work went into refining it. I then asked why refining ore could change the spontaneity. You ran away at that point.

I believe we were talking about visible light at the time and I was pointing out what was involved in making the paint you find on your watch...which, by the way, absorbs light then emits it...external process......in your quest to find energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...again...failure...If you are talking just radiation, then the frequency of its radiation is far above anything in the infrared...

Sorry guy..more evidence that you simply make up arguments and then rail against them.

Phosphorescence is also an example of spontaneous emission.

Sorry but it isn't...it requires an external source of energy which is then re emitted...been through all that before and you aren't going to be any less wrong this time

 

[Wuwei]

How unsurprising is this.....we are barely past the basics and already over your head. Did I not say, and I quote, "
Once you go past the infrared either higher or lower, hot and cold aren't quite so obvious if you think hot and cold are merely matters of temperature."

Nonsense, the sun is very hot and much of it's energy is in the visible wavelengths and on into the ultraviolet.

You said, "The frequency of gamma radiation makes it "hotter" than anything on the infrared scale." The fact is the frequency of the gamma ray in nuclear decay has nothing to do with BB radiation frequencies. Absolutely nothing. You are trying to reinvent physics again and are way over your head in BS.

I then went on to try and explain that it really is all a matter of frequency...that is why, whenever I asked you to provide measurements of energy, I asked for measurements of discrete frequencies. It is clear now that you had no idea why I was asking in those terms. This is all just way past you....so it goes with posers.

"...it really is all a matter of frequency..." What do you mean by "it". The only thing that makes sense is that "it" refers to black body radiation. Again gamma decay isn't "it".

I believe we were talking about visible light at the time and I was pointing out what was involved in making the paint you find on your watch...which, by the way, absorbs light then emits it...external process......in your quest to find energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...again...failure...If you are talking just radiation, then the frequency of its radiation is far above anything in the infrared...

Sorry guy..more evidence that you simply make up arguments and then rail against them.

Nope. You said.

Radium is manufactured commercially by the electrolysis of their molten salts...what exactly do you think is spontaneous about that?

We were not talking about a watch at that point. Just radioactive decay. Again you were ignoring physics definition of just what spontaneous really means.

Sorry but it isn't...it requires an external source of energy which is then re emitted...been through all that before and you aren't going to be any less wrong this time

Of course it initially requires an external source. But after the source is removed, phosphorescence is still spontaneous emission which is cold-body radiation. Here are the definitions again.

Luminescence is spontaneous emission of light by a substance not resulting from heat; it is thus a form of cold-body radiation. ... This distinguishes luminescence from incandescence, which is light emitted by a substance as a result of heating.

Spontaneous emission is the process in which a quantum mechanical system such as an atom, molecule or subatomic particle transitions from an excited energy state to a lower energy state and emits a quantum in the form of a photon.

Those definitions are not concerned with how the emitter initially gets it's energy. You are really having a hard time understanding spontaneous emission, and so you try to reinvent the physics again. It's not working.


.

 

[SSDD]

Here is the deal...I have grown very bored with going over the same discussion over and over and over...it always ends with you not being able to produce any observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously and simultaneously between two objects. If you feel the need to do this again...start with the observed, MEASURED example of said energy movement and we can proceed from there. I won't rehash the same thing over and over with you any further.

I get it...you believe in models...you believe in them to the extent that you will ignore observed measured reality in favor of them. I don't. Since you can't produce any observed, measured examples to demonstrate what you believe, it remains in the realm of belief. When you can bring them out into reality with observed MEASURED examples, let me know.

 

[Wuwei]

Here is the deal...I have grown very bored with going over the same discussion over and over and over...it always ends with you not being able to produce any observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously and simultaneously between two objects. If you feel the need to do this again...start with the observed, MEASURED example of said energy movement and we can proceed from there. I won't rehash the same thing over and over with you any further.

I get it...you believe in models...you believe in them to the extent that you will ignore observed measured reality in favor of them. I don't. Since you can't produce any observed, measured examples to demonstrate what you believe, it remains in the realm of belief. When you can bring them out into reality with observed MEASURED examples, let me know.

Since you cross-posted this in other threads, I will cross-post my reply.

You are bored? You incorrectly think the second law of thermodynamics says that there is no type of energy that can spontaneously move from a colder to a warmer body. Many experiments show you are totally wrong. No scientist agrees with you.

Here is the bottom line. We all agree that radiation can mediate energy flow. Aim a detector at the hot object, you see it is radiating energy. Aim the detector at the cold object, you see it radiates less energy. No observed measured experiment has shown they cannot radiate simultaneously.

Observed, measured principles of physics say they do. Many here have given you measured observed examples that show you are wrong – the CMB, luminescence, radioactivity, the corona, etc. You counter those examples with made up non-“science” that is totally inconsistent with all other science which you openly and vehemently disparage. None of your “science” can be found in the literature and you are aware of that. You are alone in your belief. So you are bored? I think you are intellectually exhausted.

 

[SSDD]

Still nothing but your insistence that I believe in the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models with you...Sorry, but I won't...

 

[Wuwei]

Still nothing but your insistence that I believe in the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models with you...Sorry, but I won't...

You are lying. The CMB, luminescence, radioactivity, the corona, etc. are all measured, observed, and tested. Not mathematical models. That's all you have left is lying.

 

[SSDD]

Your knowledge base is shallow, and sketchy to say the least...none of those are examples of energy moving spontaneously from a cool (lower energy) object to a warm ( higher energy) object...you are easily fooled and jump at every shiny object that passes your way....if you were a bass, you would be residing on someone's wall.

 

[Wuwei]

Your knowledge base is shallow, and sketchy to say the least...none of those are examples of energy moving spontaneously from a cool (lower energy) object to a warm ( higher energy) object...you are easily fooled and jump at every shiny object that passes your way....if you were a bass, you would be residing on someone's wall.

Nope, you are lying. The CMB, luminescence, radioactivity, the corona are measured observed evidence. You know that is accepted verified science and you are lying about it. Your ad hominem to all scientists just doesn't work anymore.

 

[SSDD]

You are so easily fooled that talking to you is nothing more than a tedious series of repetitive episodes explain how what you think you are seeing.....isn't. If I believed that anyone else would derive any benefit from seeing all your foolishness debunked, I might continue with it, but frankly, I don't think anyone else around here is obsessed with finding a way around the second law of thermodynamics in some misguided attempt to prove their crazy science knows all religion. So no...I am not going around on your crazy merry go round any more...if you feel the need to repeat the same thing over an over again, simply re read this gibberish the first 3 times you posted it.

 

[Wuwei]

I accept your concession. My "foolishness" is science and physics. Your's is made up pseudoscience. Science wins. Your merry go round has just derailed.