The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[Wuwei]

The problem isn't noise...it is lack of incoming radiation.

Nope. The radiation was measured. The problem is your fairy dust reinvention of physics.

 

[SSDD]

The problem isn't noise...it is lack of incoming radiation.

Nope. The radiation was measured. The problem is your fairy dust reinvention of physics.

Not with an instrument that was at ambient temperature...cool the instrument to a temperature cooler than the instrument and of course you will have incoming radiation...sorry you don't seem to be able to grasp the ramifications of this observation.

 

[Wuwei]

Not with an instrument that was at ambient temperature...cool the instrument to a temperature cooler than the instrument and of course you will have incoming radiation...sorry you don't seem to be able to grasp the ramifications of this observation.

You don't grasp that cooling is always for noise reduction and is not related to the temperature it is measuring.

 

[IanC]

Stefan (of SB fame), devised a very clever experiment. He took a hollow cannonball and heated it up in an oven. The enclosed cavity is filled with radiation at equilibrium to the cannonball's inner temperature. A small aperture had been drilled to allow measurements of the radiation but the very very small loss of energy did not affect the temperature.

His data for temperature readings from cool to hot suggested that the relationship was radiation equals temperature to the fourth power times a constant (temperature in Kelvins).

According to SSDD, there is no radiation in the cavity until the aperture is opened, and even then only radiation that will leave via the aperture is permitted to come into existence.

According to physicists the radiation is always there, waiting to get out rather than waiting for permission to spring into life.

All objects constantly radiating according to their temperature and emissivity, or SSDDs all knowing entity deciding which bit of radiation is permissible based on the average kinetic speed of the environment that contains the bit of matter that will ultimately absorb the photon.

 

[SSDD]

The only objects that constantly radiate according to their temperature and emissivity are perfect black bodies alone in a vacuum..all others radiate according to the difference between their own temperature and the temperature of their surroundings.

 

[SSDD]

Not with an instrument that was at ambient temperature...cool the instrument to a temperature cooler than the instrument and of course you will have incoming radiation...sorry you don't seem to be able to grasp the ramifications of this observation.

You don't grasp that cooling is always for noise reduction and is not related to the temperature it is measuring.

Keep telling yourself that...keep being fooled by instrumentation

 

[Wuwei]

Not with an instrument that was at ambient temperature...cool the instrument to a temperature cooler than the instrument and of course you will have incoming radiation...sorry you don't seem to be able to grasp the ramifications of this observation.

You don't grasp that cooling is always for noise reduction and is not related to the temperature it is measuring.

Keep telling yourself that...keep being fooled by instrumentation

We have been through this ad nauseam. We all get it. You don't believe science of the past 100 years or so. This makes you unqualified to say anything that makes sense in science or technology that involves basic physics.

 

[cnm]

This makes you [SSDD] unqualified to say anything that makes sense in science or technology that involves basic physics.

But never uncertain...

 

[Billy_Bob]

I agree, no sources exist that back up your claim.

That's right; no scientist in their right mind would use a noisy uncooled instrument in an experiment where the highest accuracy was desired. SSDD knows that. Yet he still pretends that smart photons exist. That's really quite trollish.

The problem isn't noise...it is lack of incoming radiation...

Any other sources to confirm your claim, "lack of incoming radiation..."?

Or are you one of the scientists who discovered ulcers were caused by bacteria? LOL!

Antarctic temperatures recently plunged close to the theoretically coldest achievable on Earth!

its called a lack of incoming energy...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I agree, no sources exist that back up your claim.

That's right; no scientist in their right mind would use a noisy uncooled instrument in an experiment where the highest accuracy was desired. SSDD knows that. Yet he still pretends that smart photons exist. That's really quite trollish.

The problem isn't noise...it is lack of incoming radiation...

Any other sources to confirm your claim, "lack of incoming radiation..."?

Or are you one of the scientists who discovered ulcers were caused by bacteria? LOL!

Antarctic temperatures recently plunged close to the theoretically coldest achievable on Earth!

its called a lack of incoming energy...

The Antarctic is cold because back-radiation doesn't exist?

 

[SSDD]

Not with an instrument that was at ambient temperature...cool the instrument to a temperature cooler than the instrument and of course you will have incoming radiation...sorry you don't seem to be able to grasp the ramifications of this observation.

You don't grasp that cooling is always for noise reduction and is not related to the temperature it is measuring.

Keep telling yourself that...keep being fooled by instrumentation

We have been through this ad nauseam. We all get it. You don't believe science of the past 100 years or so. This makes you unqualified to say anything that makes sense in science or technology that involves basic physics.

More of your fantasy. I am on board with much of the science of the past 100 years...Pretty much all of it that has observable, measurable results to back it up.. if it depends entirely on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...not so much.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I agree, no sources exist that back up your claim.

That's right; no scientist in their right mind would use a noisy uncooled instrument in an experiment where the highest accuracy was desired. SSDD knows that. Yet he still pretends that smart photons exist. That's really quite trollish.

The problem isn't noise...it is lack of incoming radiation...

Any other sources to confirm your claim, "lack of incoming radiation..."?

Or are you one of the scientists who discovered ulcers were caused by bacteria? LOL!

Antarctic temperatures recently plunged close to the theoretically coldest achievable on Earth!

its called a lack of incoming energy...

The Antarctic is cold because back-radiation doesn't exist?

DID I SAY THAT?

Nope!

Even NASA understands that radiation from a colder object cannot slow the cooling from a warmer one..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's right; no scientist in their right mind would use a noisy uncooled instrument in an experiment where the highest accuracy was desired. SSDD knows that. Yet he still pretends that smart photons exist. That's really quite trollish.

The problem isn't noise...it is lack of incoming radiation...

Any other sources to confirm your claim, "lack of incoming radiation..."?

Or are you one of the scientists who discovered ulcers were caused by bacteria? LOL!

Antarctic temperatures recently plunged close to the theoretically coldest achievable on Earth!

its called a lack of incoming energy...

The Antarctic is cold because back-radiation doesn't exist?

DID I SAY THAT?

Nope!

Even NASA understands that radiation from a colder object cannot slow the cooling from a warmer one..

DID I SAY THAT?

You haven't said anything. LOL!

Are you now agreeing with SSDD's dimmer switch theory?
Or do you have your own?

You never answered my previous question. Why so scared, bro?

The warmer body loses heat at the same rate with a -80F object radiating toward it as it would if it were just radiating into the vacuum of space at -450F?

Even NASA understands that radiation from a colder object cannot slow the cooling from a warmer one..

Cooling rates are unchanged by other, nearby objects? That's your claim?

A NASA source saying the same would be nice.

 

[Wuwei]

More of your fantasy. I am on board with much of the science of the past 100 years...Pretty much all of it that has observable, measurable results to back it up.. if it depends entirely on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...not so much.

Are you saying quantum mechanics is no longer fairy dust? Do you believe the "observables" of quantum mechanics?

 

[SSDD]

More of your fantasy. I am on board with much of the science of the past 100 years...Pretty much all of it that has observable, measurable results to back it up.. if it depends entirely on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...not so much.

Are you saying quantum mechanics is no longer fairy dust? Do you believe the "observables" of quantum mechanics?

There are some observations...whetger our explanations for those observations are correct remain to be seen.

 

[Wuwei]

More of your fantasy. I am on board with much of the science of the past 100 years...Pretty much all of it that has observable, measurable results to back it up.. if it depends entirely on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...not so much.

Are you saying quantum mechanics is no longer fairy dust? Do you believe the "observables" of quantum mechanics?

There are some observations...whetger our explanations for those observations are correct remain to be seen.

Meanwhile the mathematics of quantum mechanics remains indisputable in the realm of natural events on earth. Any future changes in QM will always predict the things that you will always deny. Look up this:
Correspondence principle | physics

 

[SSDD]

More of your fantasy. I am on board with much of the science of the past 100 years...Pretty much all of it that has observable, measurable results to back it up.. if it depends entirely on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...not so much.

Are you saying quantum mechanics is no longer fairy dust? Do you believe the "observables" of quantum mechanics?

There are some observations...whetger our explanations for those observations are correct remain to be seen.

Meanwhile the mathematics of quantum mechanics remains indisputable in the realm of natural events on earth. Any future changes in QM will always predict the things that you will always deny. Look up this:
Correspondence principle | physics

Sorry guy,,thee is a reason you can't come up with any actual empirical evidence to support your claims.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The problem isn't noise...it is lack of incoming radiation...

Any other sources to confirm your claim, "lack of incoming radiation..."?

Or are you one of the scientists who discovered ulcers were caused by bacteria? LOL!

Antarctic temperatures recently plunged close to the theoretically coldest achievable on Earth!

its called a lack of incoming energy...

The Antarctic is cold because back-radiation doesn't exist?

DID I SAY THAT?

Nope!

Even NASA understands that radiation from a colder object cannot slow the cooling from a warmer one..

DID I SAY THAT?

You haven't said anything. LOL!

Are you now agreeing with SSDD's dimmer switch theory?
Or do you have your own?

You never answered my previous question. Why so scared, bro?

The warmer body loses heat at the same rate with a -80F object radiating toward it as it would if it were just radiating into the vacuum of space at -450F?

Even NASA understands that radiation from a colder object cannot slow the cooling from a warmer one..

Cooling rates are unchanged by other, nearby objects? That's your claim?

A NASA source saying the same would be nice.

Until thermal equilibrium is met with the near by object the rate of cooling of the warmer one does not slow..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Any other sources to confirm your claim, "lack of incoming radiation..."?

Or are you one of the scientists who discovered ulcers were caused by bacteria? LOL!

Antarctic temperatures recently plunged close to the theoretically coldest achievable on Earth!

its called a lack of incoming energy...

The Antarctic is cold because back-radiation doesn't exist?

DID I SAY THAT?

Nope!

Even NASA understands that radiation from a colder object cannot slow the cooling from a warmer one..

DID I SAY THAT?

You haven't said anything. LOL!

Are you now agreeing with SSDD's dimmer switch theory?
Or do you have your own?

You never answered my previous question. Why so scared, bro?

The warmer body loses heat at the same rate with a -80F object radiating toward it as it would if it were just radiating into the vacuum of space at -450F?

Even NASA understands that radiation from a colder object cannot slow the cooling from a warmer one..

Cooling rates are unchanged by other, nearby objects? That's your claim?

A NASA source saying the same would be nice.

Until thermal equilibrium is met with the near by object the rate of cooling of the warmer one does not slow..

Until thermal equilibrium is met with the near by object the rate of cooling of the warmer one does not slow..

No. The warmer object emits proportional to the 4th power of its temperature.
So does the cooler object. By emitting toward the warmer object, the cooler objects slows
the cooling rate of the warmer object, compared to the rate the warmer object would cool,
if it were emitting into the vacuum of space at -450F.

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy,,thee is a reason you can't come up with any actual empirical evidence to support your claims.

I did support the claims of science (they are not just my claims). It's simply that you don't believe modern physics. We went through that ad infinitum.