The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Please demonstrate this by empirical experiment.

The experiments I have done personally show no such correlation. I know what the QM theroy says, but it does not match what is observed empirically..

There are a lot of assumptions that don't pass muster..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Please demonstrate this by empirical experiment.

The experiments I have done personally show no such correlation. I know what the QM theroy says, but it does not match what is observed empirically..

There are a lot of assumptions that don't pass muster..

Please demonstrate this by empirical experiment.

You need me to show you an experiment to prove Stefan-Boltzmann?
I thought you were a physicist...…..

 

[SSDD]

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.

Please demonstrate this by empirical experiment.

The experiments I have done personally show no such correlation. I know what the QM theroy says, but it does not match what is observed empirically..

There are a lot of assumptions that don't pass muster..

In his world an assumption is as good as a home run so long as you can come up with a model that supports the assumption...no testing necessary.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Please demonstrate this by empirical experiment.

The experiments I have done personally show no such correlation. I know what the QM theroy says, but it does not match what is observed empirically..

There are a lot of assumptions that don't pass muster..

In his world an assumption is as good as a home run so long as you can come up with a model that supports the assumption...no testing necessary.

Dimmer switch!!

 

[SSDD]

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.

Please demonstrate this by empirical experiment.

The experiments I have done personally show no such correlation. I know what the QM theroy says, but it does not match what is observed empirically..

There are a lot of assumptions that don't pass muster..

In his world an assumption is as good as a home run so long as you can come up with a model that supports the assumption...no testing necessary.

Dimmer switch!!

Your explanation, not mine. I only said what we could observe and measure, and what those observations and measurements indicated...the ridiculous explanations are all you guys...i don't feel like i need an explanation for every observable, measurable phenomenon...we will get them when technology has advanced sufficiently...i don't feel like i need to believe the stories we tell ourselves in the meantime.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Please demonstrate this by empirical experiment.

The experiments I have done personally show no such correlation. I know what the QM theroy says, but it does not match what is observed empirically..

There are a lot of assumptions that don't pass muster..

In his world an assumption is as good as a home run so long as you can come up with a model that supports the assumption...no testing necessary.

Dimmer switch!!

Your explanation, not mine. I only said what we could observe and measure, and what those observations and measurements indicated...the ridiculous explanations are all you guys...i don't feel like i need an explanation for every observable, measurable phenomenon...we will get them when technology has advanced sufficiently...i don't feel like i need to believe the stories we tell ourselves in the meantime.

Your explanation, not mine.

You didn't claim that matter dials down emissions when cooler matter is nearby?
That objects at equilibrium don't dial down emissions to zero?

I only said what we could observe and measure,

You ever post any measurements or observations that back up your claims, and refute the claims of Bohr, Einstein, et al?

 

[SSDD]

Your explanation, not mine.

You didn't claim that matter dials down emissions when cooler matter is nearby?

I said what the SB equation states. If you have a problem with what it says, take it up with S-B in the next life.
That objects at equilibrium don't dial down emissions to zero?

You ever post any measurements or observations that back up your claims, and refute the claims of Bohr, Einstein, et al?

Every observation and measurement backs up my position...one way gross energy movement....measurements of spontaneous two way energy transfer between objects is suspiciously absent.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your explanation, not mine.

You didn't claim that matter dials down emissions when cooler matter is nearby?

I said what the SB equation states. If you have a problem with what it says, take it up with S-B in the next life.
That objects at equilibrium don't dial down emissions to zero?

You ever post any measurements or observations that back up your claims, and refute the claims of Bohr, Einstein, et al?

Every observation and measurement backs up my position...one way gross energy movement....measurements of spontaneous two way energy transfer between objects is suspiciously absent.

I said what the SB equation states.

Yes, your misinterpretation is amusing.

That objects at equilibrium don't dial down emissions to zero?

Any observations or measurements to back up your claim?

Every observation and measurement backs up my position...one way gross energy movement...

Post a few. Why not a few that say, "Einstein was wrong, objects at equilibrium don't emit and absorb at the same rate"?

 

[SSDD]

Yes, your misinterpretation is amusing.

So how about you describe in plain english, the physical process this equation describes.

I sense a dodge approaching.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, your misinterpretation is amusing.

So how about you describe in plain english, the physical process this equation describes.

I sense a dodge approaching.

This describes net radiated power.

 

[SSDD]

Yes, your misinterpretation is amusing.

So how about you describe in plain english, the physical process this equation describes.

I sense a dodge approaching.

This describes net radiated power.

Like i said...dodge. Whats the matter? Can/t read an equation, or can't bring yourself to say what that equation actually says.?

Here, if you can't read one, let mr help you get started...

power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boatsman constant times the area of the object times what?...can you finish it from there or is that still to difficult for you?

 

[IanC]

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..

You are an idiot.

The rate of radiation depends on the temperature of the object.

The rate of cooling depends not only on the radiation emitted but also the radiation absorbed by the object from the environment.

A roast taken out of the oven at 75C will cool on the counter, but cool faster in the fridge, and faster still in the freezer. The energy being radiated away by the roast is identical for any specific temperature, but the net exchange between the object and environment differs according to the temperature difference between the two.

Radiation is always proportional to the actual temperature. The change in temperature is proportional to the difference in temperature/radiation between the two.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, your misinterpretation is amusing.

So how about you describe in plain english, the physical process this equation describes.

I sense a dodge approaching.

This describes net radiated power.

Like i said...dodge. Whats the matter? Can/t read an equation, or can't bring yourself to say what that equation actually says.?

Here, if you can't read one, let mr help you get started...

power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boatsman constant times the area of the object times what?...can you finish it from there or is that still to difficult for you?

Like i said...dodge

Straightforward answer to your question.

LMGTFY

 

[SSDD]

Yes, your misinterpretation is amusing.

So how about you describe in plain english, the physical process this equation describes.

I sense a dodge approaching.

This describes net radiated power.

Like i said...dodge. Whats the matter? Can/t read an equation, or can't bring yourself to say what that equation actually says.?

Here, if you can't read one, let mr help you get started...

power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boatsman constant times the area of the object times what?...can you finish it from there or is that still to difficult for you?

Like i said...dodge

Straightforward answer to your question.

LMGTFY

What a putz....you can't finish that simple equation can you? Don't know which would be worse...not being able to finish it or not being willing because to state what it says would challenge your beliefs...

Lets try it again...dodge again and prove that i have won my point...

power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boatsman constant times the area of the object times what?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, your misinterpretation is amusing.

So how about you describe in plain english, the physical process this equation describes.

I sense a dodge approaching.

This describes net radiated power.

Like i said...dodge. Whats the matter? Can/t read an equation, or can't bring yourself to say what that equation actually says.?

Here, if you can't read one, let mr help you get started...

power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boatsman constant times the area of the object times what?...can you finish it from there or is that still to difficult for you?

Like i said...dodge

Straightforward answer to your question.

LMGTFY

What a putz....you can't finish that simple equation can you? Don't know which would be worse...not being able to finish it or not being willing because to state what it says would challenge your beliefs...

Lets try it again...dodge again and prove that i have won my point...

power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boatsman constant times the area of the object times what?

Net power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boltzmann constant times the area of the object times what?

Fixed your question for you.

Stefan-Boltzmann Law

Hyperphysics agrees that it means net.
You must have dozens of sources that agree with you and disagree with Hyperphysics, Einstein, et al.

Right?

You never post any sources that agree with you...….weird.

 

[Flash]

Looks like this solar minimum that is coming is going to be a doozy.

“Oh, my sweet summer child," Old Nan said quietly, "what do you know of fear?
Fear is for the winter, my little lord, when the snows fall a hundred feet
deep and the ice wind comes howling out of the north. Fear is for the long
night, when the sun hides its face for years at a time, and little children
are born and live and die all in darkness while the direwolves grow gaunt and
hungry, and the white walkers move through the woods”



Professor Valentina Zharkova explains and confirms why a “Super” Grand Solar Minimum is upon us


Professor Valentina Zharkova explains and confirms why a “Super” Grand Solar Minimum is upon us


Professor Valentina Zharkova gave a presentation of her Climate and the Solar Magnetic Field hypothesis at the Global Warming Policy Foundation in October, 2018.

The last time we had a little ice age only two magnetic fields of the sun went out of phase. This time, all four magnetic fields are going out of phase.

Even if the IPCC’s worst case scenarios are seen, that’s only a 1.5 watts per square meter increase. Zharkova’s analysis shows a 8 watts per square meter decrease in TSI to the planet.

tl;dr: ice age, crop failures, starvation,

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Looks like this solar minimum that is coming is going to be a doozy.

“Oh, my sweet summer child," Old Nan said quietly, "what do you know of fear?
Fear is for the winter, my little lord, when the snows fall a hundred feet
deep and the ice wind comes howling out of the north. Fear is for the long
night, when the sun hides its face for years at a time, and little children
are born and live and die all in darkness while the direwolves grow gaunt and
hungry, and the white walkers move through the woods”



Professor Valentina Zharkova explains and confirms why a “Super” Grand Solar Minimum is upon us


Professor Valentina Zharkova explains and confirms why a “Super” Grand Solar Minimum is upon us


Professor Valentina Zharkova gave a presentation of her Climate and the Solar Magnetic Field hypothesis at the Global Warming Policy Foundation in October, 2018.

The last time we had a little ice age only two magnetic fields of the sun went out of phase. This time, all four magnetic fields are going out of phase.

Even if the IPCC’s worst case scenarios are seen, that’s only a 1.5 watts per square meter increase. Zharkova’s analysis shows a 8 watts per square meter decrease in TSI to the planet.

tl;dr: ice age, crop failures, starvation,

I might have to leave my SUV running overnight

 

[SSDD]

So how about you describe in plain english, the physical process this equation describes.

I sense a dodge approaching.

This describes net radiated power.

Like i said...dodge. Whats the matter? Can/t read an equation, or can't bring yourself to say what that equation actually says.?

Here, if you can't read one, let mr help you get started...

power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boatsman constant times the area of the object times what?...can you finish it from there or is that still to difficult for you?

Like i said...dodge

Straightforward answer to your question.

LMGTFY

What a putz....you can't finish that simple equation can you? Don't know which would be worse...not being able to finish it or not being willing because to state what it says would challenge your beliefs...

Lets try it again...dodge again and prove that i have won my point...

power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boatsman constant times the area of the object times what?

Net power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boltzmann constant times the area of the object times what?

Fixed your question for you.

View attachment 230937

View attachment 230938

Stefan-Boltzmann Law

Hyperphysics agrees that it means net.
You must have dozens of sources that agree with you and disagree with Hyperphysics, Einstein, et al.

Right?

You never post any sources that agree with you...….weird.

Let me know when you learn to read an equation and state what it says in english..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This describes net radiated power.

Like i said...dodge. Whats the matter? Can/t read an equation, or can't bring yourself to say what that equation actually says.?

Here, if you can't read one, let mr help you get started...

power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boatsman constant times the area of the object times what?...can you finish it from there or is that still to difficult for you?

Like i said...dodge

Straightforward answer to your question.

LMGTFY

What a putz....you can't finish that simple equation can you? Don't know which would be worse...not being able to finish it or not being willing because to state what it says would challenge your beliefs...

Lets try it again...dodge again and prove that i have won my point...

power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boatsman constant times the area of the object times what?

Net power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boltzmann constant times the area of the object times what?

Fixed your question for you.

View attachment 230937

View attachment 230938

Stefan-Boltzmann Law

Hyperphysics agrees that it means net.
You must have dozens of sources that agree with you and disagree with Hyperphysics, Einstein, et al.

Right?

You never post any sources that agree with you...….weird.

Let me know when you learn to read an equation and state what it says in english..

Let me know when you find anyone...….anyone who agrees with you and thinks Einstein was wrong.

 

[Wuwei]

Let me know when you learn to read an equation and state what it says in english..

For Gods sake. You were shown how to read that equation time and again. You can't be that ignorant that you don't understand where it came from. Even Stefan, who did the original experiment, wrote that there was emission and absorption, and then combined the two into one equation. Only the stupidest of people would proclaim that emission totally stops between two objects at the same temperature.