Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

[Crick]

Obviously, the natural sciences operate in the real world. Proof is not only unnecessary in the natural sciences, it is impossible. Therefore, your statement is incorrect.

What the fuck are you smoking? Proof is absolutely needed and OBSERVED in the real world..It is the basis of REAL science..

You must believe in the common core version of science... its whatever we tell you it is.. no evidence required..

You have just come as close to PROVING you do not have any form of science degree as it is possible to come.

 

[SSDD]

And how do you "prove" your hypotheses?

test results. How do you prove yours?

ever hear of Kepner Treqoe?

BTW, it's the reason I don't support your claims, the what ifs don't make sense.

the fucking idiot can't even spell it right.

You get more like crick, rocks, and the hairball every day....congratulations...embrace the cult.

 

[Crick]

Sorry jc, but he was talking to you.

 

[jc456]

Sorry jc, but he was talking to you.

well shit, I thought he was referring to your misspelling of

"And how do you "prove" your hypotheses"

so mistakes can be made eh? I will laugh now. so how do you spell 'hypothesis'?

 

[SSDD]

Sorry jc, but he was talking to you.

well shit, I thought he was referring to your misspelling of

"And how do you "prove" your hypotheses"

so mistakes can be made eh? I will laugh now. so how do you spell 'hypothesis'?

You know the are desperate when they start pointing out spelling errors...next it will be punctuation.

 

[Crick]

Hypotheses is the plural of hypothesis jc. Ian was talking about your misspelling of Tregoe ("Treqoe").

 

[IanC]

I don't give a shit about the spelling of common verbiage.

In jc's case, he was giving an obscure name without explanation or context. Google gave an optional spelling for a company that apparently specializes in decision algorithms.

Is that what he meant to reference? Who knows. jc didn't specifically state much of anything.

 

[SSDD]

I don't give a shit about the spelling of common verbiage.

In jc's case, he was giving an obscure name without explanation or context. Google gave an optional spelling for a company that apparently specializes in decision algorithms.

Is that what he meant to reference? Who knows. jc didn't specifically state much of anything.

And you behaved exactly as crick, rocks, or the hairball would behave...again...congratulations.

 

[Crick]

Whereas you're always nice to jc because he's one of the very few people around here that has any respect for your 'technical accomplishments'

 

[SSDD]

A theory that lacks supporting evidence is generally, more properly, referred to as a hypothesis."

Thank you. Thermodynamics as of today has a plethora of supporting evidence, therefore it is not a hypothesis.

Thermodynamics is a series of physical laws...and the second one states that neither heat nor energy EVER move spontaneously from cool to warm.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Proof is absolutely needed and OBSERVED in the real world..It is the basis of REAL science..

That is a common misconception among laymen.You can use the word "proof" in theorems that relate various aspects of science. For example, if we assume the speed of light is constant for all inertial systems, then we can mathematically prove E = mc^2.

You should understand that mathematical proof in physics models does not prove anything observed in the real world. The observations lead to a model.

Love this liberal common core approach.. No wonder so many have been duped by this scam. MODELS ARE NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN FANTASY!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Obviously, the natural sciences operate in the real world. Proof is not only unnecessary in the natural sciences, it is impossible. Therefore, your statement is incorrect.

What the fuck are you smoking? Proof is absolutely needed and OBSERVED in the real world..It is the basis of REAL science..

You must believe in the common core version of science... its whatever we tell you it is.. no evidence required..

You have just come as close to PROVING you do not have any form of science degree as it is possible to come.

Your Funny....Again avoiding giving up any thing that resembles empirical evidence.. ADhom's...

 

[Wuwei]

Love this liberal common core approach.. No wonder so many have been duped by this scam. MODELS ARE NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN FANTASY!

That's right, models are not empirical evidence of anything. Who has been duped by saying that? Do you think I said that? Where? Which liberals have said that?

 

[Wuwei]

Thermodynamics is a series of physical laws...and the second one states that neither heat nor energy EVER move spontaneously from cool to warm.

That's right thermodynamics is a series of laws. Yes, neither heat nor thermal energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm objects.

 

[SSDD]

Thermodynamics is a series of physical laws...and the second one states that neither heat nor energy EVER move spontaneously from cool to warm.

That's right thermodynamics is a series of laws. Yes, neither heat nor thermal energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm objects.

Neither heat, nor any sort of energy...the second law is universal...it applies to all sorts of energy whether it be stored potential energy created by holding a rock up above the ground or IR radiation emitted from a CO2 molecule...

 

[Wuwei]

I said,

That's right thermodynamics is a series of laws. Yes, neither heat nor thermal energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm objects.

The context is quite obviously spontaneous heat transfer. You reply,

Neither heat, nor any sort of energy...the second law is universal...it applies to all sorts of energy whether it be stored potential energy created by holding a rock up above the ground or IR radiation emitted from a CO2 molecule.

You are saying a cold rock off the ground cannot move to a warmer ground. Your wording also requires that a snowflake cannot fall to a warmer ground. I know you are not that stupid, but you really have to be more precise. BTW I gave you dozens of references that say radiation is two way between objects. What do you think of those references. Do you disagree with them all?

 

[SSDD]

You are saying a cold rock off the ground cannot move to a warmer ground.

Do you understand that potential energy stored in a rock held above the ground is different from the rock itself?...Do you grasp the meaning, and significance of the word spontaneously?

Your wording also requires that a snowflake cannot fall to a warmer ground.

Well, you just answered my question...you don't understand either or you wouldn't have come up with such an idiotic analogy.

BTW I gave you dozens of references that say radiation is two way between objects. What do you think of those references. Do you disagree with them all?

And not a single observation....your references are based on belief in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...without the first bit of observational evidence.

 

[IanC]

Thermodynamics is a series of physical laws...and the second one states that neither heat nor energy EVER move spontaneously from cool to warm.

That's right thermodynamics is a series of laws. Yes, neither heat nor thermal energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm objects.

Neither heat, nor any sort of energy...the second law is universal...it applies to all sorts of energy whether it be stored potential energy created by holding a rock up above the ground or IR radiation emitted from a CO2 molecule...

poor SSDD has some serious misconceptions about physics. basic laws are fundamental but they are still only single factors that need to be taken in combination with all the factors involved.

The Sun is a huge source of highly ordered energy that does work on Earth systems. Our atmosphere is only present because of stored solar energy that is constantly being refreshed to replace energy lost to space.

The radiation produced by the atmosphere (some of which returns to the surface) comes directly and indirectly from the Sun. It is not just an object at a defined temperature. Likewise the surface is also producing radiation from energy received directly and indirectly provided by the Sun.

Both the surface and the atmosphere produce radiation according to their temperature and emissivity. All the time, in all directions. If the surface is warmer than the atmosphere then heat (net energy) moves towards the air. If the atmosphere is warmer than the surface then heat moves towards the surface, but the radiation is always there. No exceptions, no throttling down, no restricted directions.

There is nothing special about the temperature of any object or environment. Sometimes they are a heat source, sometimes they absorb heat. But they always radiate according to their temperature and emissivity. Heat moves to the cooler object whether the differential is 50C-40C, or 20C-10C.

The part that seems to confuse most people is when the radiation from each object is considered individually. An object at 16C radiates about 400W, 15C at 395W, 17C at 405W. The 16C object would be losing 5W to the 15W object, gaining 5W from the 17C object. As long as any of the objects remain at their original temperature their radiation output remains the same.

I do not necessarily agree with Trenberth's numbers but it is illustrative. The Sun adds ~160W to the surface directly
(and an unknown amount of energy has already been stored in the atmosphere). But the surface radiates at ~ 400W. The deficit must be made up from somewhere. It comes from radiation returning from the atmosphere. Trenberth says that ~60W is radiated away, ~100W is carried upwards by the water cycle, which balances out the ~160W received from the Sun. We can argue the numbers endlessly but the general explanation is correct. The surface cannot fully shed energy by radiation because the temperature differential between the surface and atmosphere is much smaller than surface directly to space. The atmosphere is warm because it absorbs a considerable fraction of the surface radiation (indirect sunlight energy).

 

[IanC]

You are saying a cold rock off the ground cannot move to a warmer ground.

Do you understand that potential energy stored in a rock held above the ground is different from the rock itself?...Do you grasp the meaning, and significance of the word spontaneously?

Your wording also requires that a snowflake cannot fall to a warmer ground.

Well, you just answered my question...you don't understand either or you wouldn't have come up with such an idiotic analogy.

BTW I gave you dozens of references that say radiation is two way between objects. What do you think of those references. Do you disagree with them all?

And not a single observation....your references are based on belief in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...without the first bit of observational evidence.

SSDD is refusing to acknowledge all the blackbody experiments done in the past to formulate the basic Laws and repeated endlessly in university physics classes. Even though he linked up to some of them when he found a phrase used that seemed to support his position (out of context).

 

[Wuwei]

Do you understand that potential energy stored in a rock held above the ground is different from the rock itself?...Do you grasp the meaning, and significance of the word spontaneously?

Yep, but you don't grasp the context.

Well, you just answered my question...you don't understand either or you wouldn't have come up with such an idiotic analogy.

It definitely is an idiotic analogy, and it comes from your ideas.

And not a single observation....your references are based on belief in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...without the first bit of observational evidence.

Are you saying you don't believe the text of those references? Those references are the result of many observable, measurable, testable experiments.

About a dozen of those references were about the Stefan-Boltzmann mathematical model. You have used that model countless times. Why do you now disbelieve them?