What the science says

[IanC]

sorry jc, your link is full of....sophistry.

he states the warm wall is "refer to a hot wall with constant temperature". that means an outside source is controlling the temperature. it is somewhat ridiculous to state later in his calculations that " increasing temperature of the cold wall does not affect the temperature of the independent hot wall".

the second part of the article refers to one of his simplified models-

I am not concerned with his choice of solar input, or the ridiculously foreshortened time to equilibrium BUT it does illustrate an important point which many here dont seem to be able to grasp.

the left half of the graph shows how the object is warming up from solar input. all of the solar input is being used to warm the surface with little energy being released to space. the atmosphere would start to evaporate from the frozen crust on the surface. it would take millions of days or years just to get the atmosphere aloft again, absorbing and retaining most of the solar input. then comes the next big step; warming the ice until it starts to melt. this would take even longer, not just because of the latent heat involved but because by this time a fair amount of the solar input is also being radiated away to space. once the oceans are melted, currents would form to transport heat towards the poles. the amount of energy stored by the atmosphere, oceans, and their currents is totally staggering.

the stored energy in the atmosphere is the source of the 'backradiation'. any atmosphere will return part of its energy to the surface. an atmosphere with greenhouse gases will return more because it is more efficient at absorbing energy from the surface and hence is warmer.

the actual energy returned as 'backradiation' is both highly diffuse and in the low energy IR band of wavelengths. because of this it cannot perform 'work' on the warmer and more highly ordered surface. sunshine is both highly ordered and of a higher energy density wavelength so it can do work on the surface, like increasing the temperature or causing evaporation, etc.

'backradiation' does not 'warm' the surface directly, it passively changes the conditions whereby solar insulation can effect a greater change of temperature with the same amount of energy input. surface temperature is a function of energy input minus energy output. the temperature goes up by either increasing the input or decreasing the output.

****important point****. the energy 'backradiated' by the atmosphere is happening at the same time as the surface is radiating. radiation does not 'cancel out' somewhere between emission and absorption. the net exchange is the combination of gross flows in either direction.

is the equation for net exchange

is the equation showing gross exchanges in both directions, which of course gives exactly the same result as the first equation.

 

[SSDD]

How does following the basic laws governing their actions make a photon "smart"?

According to these wack jobs...the particle or object must be able to read, and understand the law in order to obey it....a rock must be able to grasp that it must fall when dropped in order to do so...it must be explained to a ball that it must roll down the hill instead of up the hill...and on and on..

 

[SSDD]

is the equation for net exchange

Sorry Ian...that equation...the equation written by SB is describing a gross..one way energy exchange...

is the equation showing gross exchanges in both directions, which of course gives exactly the same result as the first equation.

That equation...not written by SB describes a two way...net energy exchange...a phenomenon never observed or measured....and the two equations describe different physicality's that happen to have the same result....one is confirmed by every observation and measurement ever made...the other only exists within unobservable, untestable, unprovable mathematical models.

 

[Crick]

How does following the basic laws governing their actions make a photon "smart"?

According to these wack jobs...the particle or object must be able to read, and understand the law in order to obey it....a rock must be able to grasp that it must fall when dropped in order to do so...it must be explained to a ball that it must roll down the hill instead of up the hill...and on and on..

The dropped rock is responding to a force created by the field in which it finds itself. You have no such explanation for the behavior you posit. Your only response is that it is another unknowable. Tell you what, find us such a thing in one of the those lists of the remaining great mysteries of physics.

 

[IanC]

Ontological Mathematics is the Answer to GHE-Based Climate Alarm

link for those who want to delve into SSDD slayer talking points.

Q’ = A*σ*(Thot4 – Tcool4)

This defines Q’ as the heat. There is a hot and cool term, and there is an exchange of energy between them since they are subtracting from one to the other; however, only that result after subtraction is heat. Only Q’ is heat. The radiation from the cool object to the hot object is not heat, and only the greater portion of the radiation from the hot object relative to the cool object is heat, and it transfers or flows only in the direction from the hot object to the cool object, from the greater power to the lesser power.

actually I dont have a big problem with it. depends on how you want to define heat.

you will notice that it doesnt really match up with what SSDD says. actually it is pretty close to how I have described it. huh

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How does following the basic laws governing their actions make a photon "smart"?

According to these wack jobs...the particle or object must be able to read, and understand the law in order to obey it....a rock must be able to grasp that it must fall when dropped in order to do so...it must be explained to a ball that it must roll down the hill instead of up the hill...and on and on..

The dropped rock is responding to a force created by the field in which it finds itself. You have no such explanation for the behavior you posit. Your only response is that it is another unknowable. Tell you what, find us such a thing in one of the those lists of the remaining great mysteries of physics.

The emitted photon is also subject to a force

 

[IanC]

How does following the basic laws governing their actions make a photon "smart"?

According to these wack jobs...the particle or object must be able to read, and understand the law in order to obey it....a rock must be able to grasp that it must fall when dropped in order to do so...it must be explained to a ball that it must roll down the hill instead of up the hill...and on and on..

The dropped rock is responding to a force created by the field in which it finds itself. You have no such explanation for the behavior you posit. Your only response is that it is another unknowable. Tell you what, find us such a thing in one of the those lists of the remaining great mysteries of physics.

The emitted photon is also subject to a force

really? what kind of force? gravity? only noticeable around black holes. expansion of the universe affects photon wavelength but only after unimaginable distances.

what kind of photon? radiative, like from a flashlight or an excited CO2 molecule. or a virtual photon that carries force in an electric motor or between magnets?

please explain your statement.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How does following the basic laws governing their actions make a photon "smart"?

According to these wack jobs...the particle or object must be able to read, and understand the law in order to obey it....a rock must be able to grasp that it must fall when dropped in order to do so...it must be explained to a ball that it must roll down the hill instead of up the hill...and on and on..

The dropped rock is responding to a force created by the field in which it finds itself. You have no such explanation for the behavior you posit. Your only response is that it is another unknowable. Tell you what, find us such a thing in one of the those lists of the remaining great mysteries of physics.

The emitted photon is also subject to a force

The emitted photon is also subject to a force

Cool. Is there a force from a warmer object that repels the photon from a cooler object?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How does following the basic laws governing their actions make a photon "smart"?

According to these wack jobs...the particle or object must be able to read, and understand the law in order to obey it....a rock must be able to grasp that it must fall when dropped in order to do so...it must be explained to a ball that it must roll down the hill instead of up the hill...and on and on..

Have you ever provided a source that explains that emission will cease when a warmer object approaches?

The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature.

Where is your version, The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature......unless a warmer body is nearby?
DERP

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How does following the basic laws governing their actions make a photon "smart"?

According to these wack jobs...the particle or object must be able to read, and understand the law in order to obey it....a rock must be able to grasp that it must fall when dropped in order to do so...it must be explained to a ball that it must roll down the hill instead of up the hill...and on and on..

The dropped rock is responding to a force created by the field in which it finds itself. You have no such explanation for the behavior you posit. Your only response is that it is another unknowable. Tell you what, find us such a thing in one of the those lists of the remaining great mysteries of physics.

The emitted photon is also subject to a force

really? what kind of force? gravity? only noticeable around black holes. expansion of the universe affects photon wavelength but only after unimaginable distances.

what kind of photon? radiative, like from a flashlight or an excited CO2 molecule. or a virtual photon that carries force in an electric motor or between magnets?

please explain your statement.

A photon exiting the Sun is subject to heat. Isn't heat a force?

 

[IanC]

How does following the basic laws governing their actions make a photon "smart"?

According to these wack jobs...the particle or object must be able to read, and understand the law in order to obey it....a rock must be able to grasp that it must fall when dropped in order to do so...it must be explained to a ball that it must roll down the hill instead of up the hill...and on and on..

The dropped rock is responding to a force created by the field in which it finds itself. You have no such explanation for the behavior you posit. Your only response is that it is another unknowable. Tell you what, find us such a thing in one of the those lists of the remaining great mysteries of physics.

The emitted photon is also subject to a force

really? what kind of force? gravity? only noticeable around black holes. expansion of the universe affects photon wavelength but only after unimaginable distances.

what kind of photon? radiative, like from a flashlight or an excited CO2 molecule. or a virtual photon that carries force in an electric motor or between magnets?

please explain your statement.

A photon exiting the Sun is subject to heat. Isn't heat a force?

?????

Not following you. The hydrogen and helium at the Sun's surface are hot and give off photons to get rid of energy. Once the photon is emitted it travels until it interacts with another bit of matter. What force do you think is acting upon it?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

According to these wack jobs...the particle or object must be able to read, and understand the law in order to obey it....a rock must be able to grasp that it must fall when dropped in order to do so...it must be explained to a ball that it must roll down the hill instead of up the hill...and on and on..

The dropped rock is responding to a force created by the field in which it finds itself. You have no such explanation for the behavior you posit. Your only response is that it is another unknowable. Tell you what, find us such a thing in one of the those lists of the remaining great mysteries of physics.

The emitted photon is also subject to a force

really? what kind of force? gravity? only noticeable around black holes. expansion of the universe affects photon wavelength but only after unimaginable distances.

what kind of photon? radiative, like from a flashlight or an excited CO2 molecule. or a virtual photon that carries force in an electric motor or between magnets?

please explain your statement.

A photon exiting the Sun is subject to heat. Isn't heat a force?

?????

Not following you. The hydrogen and helium at the Sun's surface are hot and give off photons to get rid of energy. Once the photon is emitted it travels until it interacts with another bit of matter. What force do you think is acting upon it?

You're asking a question that probably has no answer to your satisfaction. Like others here, you seem to know EVERYTHING about energy! Congratulations!

In your example, in our space-time, the emitted photon will continue to travel to space-time that is cooler than the area it just left. Again, this is our limited 5 senses version of what we think we're seeing. Traveling at the speed of light, the photon itself does not experience time at all; it's here AND there all at once. Makes no logical sense to me at all, but I'm sure you understand that completely, because again, you know everything

 

[jc456]

How does following the basic laws governing their actions make a photon "smart"?

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law says that the power radiated by a body is directly proportional to the fourth power of its temperature.

That means all matter above 0K emits. For SSDD's stupid theory to work, matter would have to "look" to see if matter near it (or even light years away) is warmer or cooler, before deciding it wouldn't emit toward that warmer matter. That's what requires a smart photon, or a smart emitter. It doesn't work that way. He's wrong.

Tell me what basic law you think is violated when matter emits in all directions.

You're describing a Bizzaroland Universe where "matter" leaving the Sun and heading for Earth is just as likely to change direction and head back toward the hotter Sun it left as it is to head from the coloer Earth

Frank, i found this article on WUWT:

The Fraud of the AGHE Part 12: How to Lie with Math

"Math is True but Words can Lie
If any of you have been reading the material on Illuminism, you will know that mathematics is the basis of reality, and that this is probably something I agree with given my favorable review and presentation of that material.

However, while mathematics is a Formal language, English and any other verbal language are Natural spoken languages. And with human languages, the inevitable result is that you can lie with them. Because mathematics can be complicated and it is readily apparent that even people with PhD’s in science have a hard time understanding it, it is therefore possible to present a totally valid mathematical equation and at the same time totally misrepresent what the equation means. This is, of course, the purview of sophistry and those who produce it.

What I will do here is give you some simple math, and the correct words and correct descriptions to understand it, and then contrast that to some mental garbage that has instead been presented in order to lie about what the math actually means from some examples that I’ve been personally witness to."

The comments again are truly special.

Greenhouse effect believers who apparently do not understand physics

Most of the believers here understand physics, you have the problem.

although they can do some simple math, have stated that if you fix Q in that equation,

Why would you "fix Q"?

and then increase Tcold, then Thot has to increase “in order to keep Q constant”,

When the colder object warms (and the warmer object cools), the net rate of heat transfer slows.

and “therefore cold heats up hot”.

Nope. The (warming) colder object slows the loss of heat from the (cooling) warmer object.

Nope. The (warming) colder object slows the loss of heat from the (cooling) warmer object.
so explain how if all the warm object is doing is emitting, how does the colder object slow down it's rate? You've never explained that. are those the smart photons you speak of? If the object emits, it emits. you're saying the colder object slows that emitted process. How?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How does following the basic laws governing their actions make a photon "smart"?

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law says that the power radiated by a body is directly proportional to the fourth power of its temperature.

That means all matter above 0K emits. For SSDD's stupid theory to work, matter would have to "look" to see if matter near it (or even light years away) is warmer or cooler, before deciding it wouldn't emit toward that warmer matter. That's what requires a smart photon, or a smart emitter. It doesn't work that way. He's wrong.

Tell me what basic law you think is violated when matter emits in all directions.

You're describing a Bizzaroland Universe where "matter" leaving the Sun and heading for Earth is just as likely to change direction and head back toward the hotter Sun it left as it is to head from the coloer Earth

Frank, i found this article on WUWT:

The Fraud of the AGHE Part 12: How to Lie with Math

"Math is True but Words can Lie
If any of you have been reading the material on Illuminism, you will know that mathematics is the basis of reality, and that this is probably something I agree with given my favorable review and presentation of that material.

However, while mathematics is a Formal language, English and any other verbal language are Natural spoken languages. And with human languages, the inevitable result is that you can lie with them. Because mathematics can be complicated and it is readily apparent that even people with PhD’s in science have a hard time understanding it, it is therefore possible to present a totally valid mathematical equation and at the same time totally misrepresent what the equation means. This is, of course, the purview of sophistry and those who produce it.

What I will do here is give you some simple math, and the correct words and correct descriptions to understand it, and then contrast that to some mental garbage that has instead been presented in order to lie about what the math actually means from some examples that I’ve been personally witness to."

The comments again are truly special.

Greenhouse effect believers who apparently do not understand physics

Most of the believers here understand physics, you have the problem.

although they can do some simple math, have stated that if you fix Q in that equation,

Why would you "fix Q"?

and then increase Tcold, then Thot has to increase “in order to keep Q constant”,

When the colder object warms (and the warmer object cools), the net rate of heat transfer slows.

and “therefore cold heats up hot”.

Nope. The (warming) colder object slows the loss of heat from the (cooling) warmer object.

Nope. The (warming) colder object slows the loss of heat from the (cooling) warmer object.
so explain how if all the warm object is doing is emitting, how does the colder object slow down it's rate? You've never explained that. are those the smart photons you speak of? If the object emits, it emits. you're saying the colder object slows that emitted process. How?

so explain how if all the warm object is doing is emitting, how does the colder object slow down it's rate?

Because the colder object is also emitting. You know warmer objects can't really shield themselves from photons from colder objects.

you're saying the colder object slows that emitted process.

SSDD imagines the colder object only absorbs, doesn't emit.
That would require smart photons. In the real world, both objects emit. No smart photons needed.

 

[jc456]

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law says that the power radiated by a body is directly proportional to the fourth power of its temperature.

That means all matter above 0K emits. For SSDD's stupid theory to work, matter would have to "look" to see if matter near it (or even light years away) is warmer or cooler, before deciding it wouldn't emit toward that warmer matter. That's what requires a smart photon, or a smart emitter. It doesn't work that way. He's wrong.

Tell me what basic law you think is violated when matter emits in all directions.

You're describing a Bizzaroland Universe where "matter" leaving the Sun and heading for Earth is just as likely to change direction and head back toward the hotter Sun it left as it is to head from the coloer Earth

Frank, i found this article on WUWT:

The Fraud of the AGHE Part 12: How to Lie with Math

"Math is True but Words can Lie
If any of you have been reading the material on Illuminism, you will know that mathematics is the basis of reality, and that this is probably something I agree with given my favorable review and presentation of that material.

However, while mathematics is a Formal language, English and any other verbal language are Natural spoken languages. And with human languages, the inevitable result is that you can lie with them. Because mathematics can be complicated and it is readily apparent that even people with PhD’s in science have a hard time understanding it, it is therefore possible to present a totally valid mathematical equation and at the same time totally misrepresent what the equation means. This is, of course, the purview of sophistry and those who produce it.

What I will do here is give you some simple math, and the correct words and correct descriptions to understand it, and then contrast that to some mental garbage that has instead been presented in order to lie about what the math actually means from some examples that I’ve been personally witness to."

The comments again are truly special.

Greenhouse effect believers who apparently do not understand physics

Most of the believers here understand physics, you have the problem.

although they can do some simple math, have stated that if you fix Q in that equation,

Why would you "fix Q"?

and then increase Tcold, then Thot has to increase “in order to keep Q constant”,

When the colder object warms (and the warmer object cools), the net rate of heat transfer slows.

and “therefore cold heats up hot”.

Nope. The (warming) colder object slows the loss of heat from the (cooling) warmer object.

Nope. The (warming) colder object slows the loss of heat from the (cooling) warmer object.
so explain how if all the warm object is doing is emitting, how does the colder object slow down it's rate? You've never explained that. are those the smart photons you speak of? If the object emits, it emits. you're saying the colder object slows that emitted process. How?

so explain how if all the warm object is doing is emitting, how does the colder object slow down it's rate?

Because the colder object is also emitting. You know warmer objects can't really shield themselves from photons from colder objects.

you're saying the colder object slows that emitted process.

SSDD imagines the colder object only absorbs, doesn't emit.
That would require smart photons. In the real world, both objects emit. No smart photons needed.

Because the colder object is also emitting. You know warmer objects can't really shield themselves from photons from colder objects.

and so? are you saying they collide?

Still doesn't say how it slows the emitted process.

 

[social philosopher]

I recently watched a program on Science Channel. It was about the relationship between several factors such as the atmosphere and solar radiation that helps drive the overall temperature of a planet. The math held up for Earth, Mars and Venus. This program said that these factors were of overall importance in temperature determination. Forgive me if I have forgotten all the details. I encourage you to reference the material for the relevant information. However, that said, I do believe, and it should be obvious that human activity is greatly adding to the overall environmental temperature of the planet. You can aptly test this yourself by simply going into a cold room with a number of people and observe what occurs. The same principle exists though to a greater extent when you add in more than just body temperature.

 

[jc456]

I recently watched a program on Science Channel. It was about the relationship between several factors such as the atmosphere and solar radiation that helps drive the overall temperature of a planet. The math held up for Earth, Mars and Venus. This program said that these factors were of overall importance in temperature determination. Forgive me if I have forgotten all the details. I encourage you to reference the material for the relevant information. However, that said, I do believe, and it should be obvious that human activity is greatly adding to the overall environmental temperature of the planet. You can aptly test this yourself by simply going into a cold room with a number of people and observe what occurs. The same principle exists though to a greater extent when you add in more than just body temperature.

and it should be obvious that human activity is greatly adding to the overall environmental temperature of the planet

Like what? what is obvious? Can you point to something?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I recently watched a program on Science Channel. It was about the relationship between several factors such as the atmosphere and solar radiation that helps drive the overall temperature of a planet. The math held up for Earth, Mars and Venus. This program said that these factors were of overall importance in temperature determination. Forgive me if I have forgotten all the details. I encourage you to reference the material for the relevant information. However, that said, I do believe, and it should be obvious that human activity is greatly adding to the overall environmental temperature of the planet. You can aptly test this yourself by simply going into a cold room with a number of people and observe what occurs. The same principle exists though to a greater extent when you add in more than just body temperature.

Maybe you can help us out. Can you please post a repeatable lab experiment that shows the temperature difference between an atmosphere with 280PPM of CO2 and 400PPM?

Thanks a bunch!

 

[social philosopher]

Just the end of your nose my friend.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're describing a Bizzaroland Universe where "matter" leaving the Sun and heading for Earth is just as likely to change direction and head back toward the hotter Sun it left as it is to head from the coloer Earth

Frank, i found this article on WUWT:

The Fraud of the AGHE Part 12: How to Lie with Math

"Math is True but Words can Lie
If any of you have been reading the material on Illuminism, you will know that mathematics is the basis of reality, and that this is probably something I agree with given my favorable review and presentation of that material.

However, while mathematics is a Formal language, English and any other verbal language are Natural spoken languages. And with human languages, the inevitable result is that you can lie with them. Because mathematics can be complicated and it is readily apparent that even people with PhD’s in science have a hard time understanding it, it is therefore possible to present a totally valid mathematical equation and at the same time totally misrepresent what the equation means. This is, of course, the purview of sophistry and those who produce it.

What I will do here is give you some simple math, and the correct words and correct descriptions to understand it, and then contrast that to some mental garbage that has instead been presented in order to lie about what the math actually means from some examples that I’ve been personally witness to."

The comments again are truly special.

Greenhouse effect believers who apparently do not understand physics

Most of the believers here understand physics, you have the problem.

although they can do some simple math, have stated that if you fix Q in that equation,

Why would you "fix Q"?

and then increase Tcold, then Thot has to increase “in order to keep Q constant”,

When the colder object warms (and the warmer object cools), the net rate of heat transfer slows.

and “therefore cold heats up hot”.

Nope. The (warming) colder object slows the loss of heat from the (cooling) warmer object.

Nope. The (warming) colder object slows the loss of heat from the (cooling) warmer object.
so explain how if all the warm object is doing is emitting, how does the colder object slow down it's rate? You've never explained that. are those the smart photons you speak of? If the object emits, it emits. you're saying the colder object slows that emitted process. How?

so explain how if all the warm object is doing is emitting, how does the colder object slow down it's rate?

Because the colder object is also emitting. You know warmer objects can't really shield themselves from photons from colder objects.

you're saying the colder object slows that emitted process.

SSDD imagines the colder object only absorbs, doesn't emit.
That would require smart photons. In the real world, both objects emit. No smart photons needed.

Because the colder object is also emitting. You know warmer objects can't really shield themselves from photons from colder objects.

and so? are you saying they collide?

Still doesn't say how it slows the emitted process.

and so? are you saying they collide?

No.

Still doesn't say how it slows the emitted process

The (warming) colder object slows the loss of heat from the (cooling) warmer object.

^
Slows the loss of heat, doesn't slow the emitting. The emitting does slow as the object cools.