Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Billy_Bob, Sep 27, 2017.

  1. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,547
    Thanks Received:
    1,143
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,187
    So observation and experiment tell us that energy only moves from a cool object to a warm object...if you want it to go the other way, then you must delve into voodoo, reading goat entrails, cutting the heads off chickens, reading tea leaves, divining with forked sticks, or any of a thousand other beliefs...because actual experimental, observational science can't provide it for you. You must accept the writings of the book of QM and believe that which is unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable is real. You must have faith.

    Yeah....what I said.
     
  2. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,547
    Thanks Received:
    1,143
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,187
    God any observation and measurement of energy moving from cool to warm? Didn't think so.

    And Planck's law and the SB law have been known for a very long time to accurately predict one way emission from a black body in a vacuum. Neither basic equation requires...or even has an expression by which to determine the temperature of another body receiving the emitted radiation. When you put the black body in the presence of other matter, then the equations change.

    So again..got any actual observation and measurement of energy moving from cool to warm? Or am I expected, like you, to just take it on faith and quash down my innate skepticism? Must I be able to speak to the glorious colors and wonderful style of the emperor's new clothes in order to have credibility among the members of your faith?
     
  3. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,547
    Thanks Received:
    1,143
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,187
    No ian...you see an injection of new energy...which immediately begins to degrade into a more disordered state. Are you really that intellectually weak?
     
  4. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,547
    Thanks Received:
    1,143
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,187
    How much CO2 and other so called greenhouse gases are found in the upper reaches of the atmosphere relative to ice crystals? If conduction rules the troposphere and radiation doesn't really play a major part till the energy reaches the upper atmosphere, what exactly do you think is radiating the energy out to space?
     
  5. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    10,601
    Thanks Received:
    1,239
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,072
    Hahahaha, I have never said that, and you know it.

    On the other hand, you have repeatedly stated that increasing the emmisivity of the air does not cause warming by absorption from the nearby heat source.

    Same coin, different sides. The absorption is greater than the emission because of the temperature difference between where the absorption takes place and where the emission takes place.
     
  6. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,547
    Thanks Received:
    1,143
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,187
    Can you name a single other instance where you believe increasing the emissivity of a thing causes it to warm...or do you think that it is true in the case of the atmosphere because of the magical properties of CO2 that you so fervently believe in.
     
  7. Wuwei
    Offline

    Wuwei Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2015
    Messages:
    2,339
    Thanks Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,110
    Your choice of quotes really does not support your viewpoint. You really did not understand your quote. Scott Aronson was deep into the theory of QM, and eschewed the earlier attempts for an intuitive understandings.

    He was talking directly to you in his disdain for your type of thinking.
    if you insist on such an account, then that just proves that you cling naïvely to a classical worldview

    Yes, you live in the classic worldview of early physics and disparage modern science.

    He was talking to you when he said, you
    haven’t grasped the enormity of the quantum revolution

    He told you to, "shut-up and calculate."

    That is what a theorist in QM is telling you . But you refuse to believe the QM calculations that show that there is a two way radiant energy flow between all objects.

    Don''t tell Scott Aronson, who is in the field of quantum computers, that you think QM is in a crisis state. Don't tell him you think "part's per billion" is just a buzz name.
     
  8. Wuwei
    Offline

    Wuwei Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2015
    Messages:
    2,339
    Thanks Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,110
    I repeat:
    Observable experiments in thermodynamics can only determine net energy flow from a cool to warm object.
    You cannot say otherwise. Your only retort is this?
    How do you expect to have any science argument if that's all you can come up with.
     
  9. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,547
    Thanks Received:
    1,143
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,187
     
  10. Wuwei
    Offline

    Wuwei Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2015
    Messages:
    2,339
    Thanks Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,110
    Got any measurement that says this is wrong?
    Observable experiments in thermodynamics can only determine net energy flow from a cool to warm object.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

big brother dullard vidios