Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddster has made fun of you for years over the Sun's surface and Corona. You say the cooler object stops radiating if it is in the vicinity of a hot one. According to YOU, the Sun's surface should not be radiating, it should be invisible.

Toddster,, is just to stupid to understand the concept of applying spontaneous to energy movement...guess you are too.

And you're too stupid to explain why cool matter is prohibited from emitting toward hotter matter, except when the Sun is involved.

Too stupid to find, and share, all those scientists who agree with your misunderstanding, while claiming every measurement and every observation backs your claim. Weird.

 

[Wuwei]

When I am talking to a child, I try to put things on a level they can understand. Don't want to be talked to like a child..don't act like one.

Another troll tactic: "I know you are so what am I," is pretty childish.
Is that the way you talk to children - denying the last 100 years of quantum mechanics.

 

[SSDD]

When I am talking to a child, I try to put things on a level they can understand. Don't want to be talked to like a child..don't act like one.

Another troll tactic: "I know you are so what am I," is pretty childish.
Is that the way you talk to children - denying the last 100 years of quantum mechanics.

Bottom Line: Got any actual observed, measured evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow? Got a rewrite of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that states that energy...in any amount...can move spontaneously from a less ordered state to a more ordered state? Got any experimental data showing that spontaneous two way energy flow is real? Got any hard, observed measured, quantified data supporting the claim of spontaneous two way energy flow?

Got anything other than unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models?

No, of course you don't. So what am I denying? That models have replaced reality? That your faith is more powerful than reality and as such, I should discount reality in favor of your models?

Grow up.

 

[Wuwei]

Bottom Line: Got any actual observed, measured evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow? Got a rewrite of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that states that energy...in any amount...can move spontaneously from a less ordered state to a more ordered state? Got any experimental data showing that spontaneous two way energy flow is real? Got any hard, observed measured, quantified data supporting the claim of spontaneous two way energy flow?

Got anything other than unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models?

That is your continuous mantra without any understanding that all physics research is done with experiments which lead to mathematical models. Any useful applications must be done with mathematical models. Your hypocrisy is that you actually use mathematical models yourself in denying what the SB equation says, and then turn around and deny physics models have any use in explaining nature. You are replete with self contradiction.

No, of course you don't. So what am I denying? That models have replaced reality? That your faith is more powerful than reality and as such, I should discount reality in favor of your models?

Models allow us to deal with reality in a practical way. Maybe you should define what you mean by reality and how you can use "reality" to develop modern day technology. Secondly, you keep referring to "your models". They are not my models. And yes I have faith that the models of "reality" of QM are accurate to parts per billion. You don't need any more than that to deal with the technology and phenomena on the earth.

 

[SSDD]

That is your continuous mantra without any understanding that all physics research is done with experiments which lead to mathematical models.

I am afraid that it is you who has experienced the disconnect...mathematical models are exactly that...models...not real...they only become real when that which they attempt to model is observed, measured, quantified....till then, the model is just a story...just an idea...and even after the model is tested...the underlying mechanism of what it attempts to predict may yet remain unknown.

Any useful applications must be done with mathematical models

And the application only maters if it is observable, testable, and measurable out here in the real world

Your hypocrisy is that you actually use mathematical models yourself in denying what the SB equation says, and then turn around and deny physics models have any use in explaining nature. {/quote]

The SB model states that energy flows in one direction..and when a radiator is in the presence of other matter, the amount it radiates is determined by its area, its emissivity, and the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings...and every observation and measurement of that prediction bears out what the equation says...adding magic like net flow which would not alter the outcome is akin to adding a touch by a fairy, or a bit of unicorn perspiration which makes some magic thing happen which does not alter the final product...two way energy flow is fantasy..which does not alter the end result and can not be observed or measured.

Models allow us to deal with reality in a practical way.

Models that can be tested and confirmed in reality...

Maybe you should define what you mean by reality and how you can use "reality" to develop modern day technology.

Interesting that you require a definition of reality, as if there were more than one meaning to the word...as if you might rationally reject reality and substitute it with something else.

Here...have a couple... something that exists independently of ideas concerning it or something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.

reality is what is real...what is observable...what is testable...what is measurable...reality is the one way gross energy flow whose magnitude is determined in large part by the difference in temperature between a radiator and its surroundings which when observed and measured, always meshes with the prediction made by the equation....

Simultaneous two way energy flow, is not reality...it is unmeasurable, it is untestable, it is unverifiable..it is fairy dust..it is unicorn perspiration...it is not real.

And yes I have faith that the models of "reality" of QM are accurate to parts per billion.

\

Based on what?...more models? You and your inability to separate reality from fiction are laughable.

 

[Wuwei]

I am afraid that it is you who has experienced the disconnect...mathematical models are exactly that...models...not real...they only become real when that which they attempt to model is observed, measured, quantified....till then, the model is just a story...just an idea...and even after the model is tested...the underlying mechanism of what it attempts to predict may yet remain unknown.

The models involving radiation physics have been tested against experiment and there is no contradiction. Your model however leads to contradiction in atomic physics.

And the application only maters if it is observable, testable, and measurable out here in the real world

The application matters if it predicts real results. Your model predicts that vibrating atoms don't radiate under certain conditions and that is wrong.

 

[SSDD]

The models involving radiation physics have been tested against experiment and there is no contradiction. Your model however leads to contradiction in atomic physics.

They result in the same answers predicted by equations that have been around for a very long time....the observations match the predictions made by those equations...throwing in some fairy dust like net energy flow that does not alter the prediction made by the old school equation does not mean that the QM hypothesis is right...

And if you are claiming that reality does not jibe with the models, and are complaining about that, then I am laughing in your face.

The application matters if it predicts real results. Your model predicts that vibrating atoms don't radiate under certain conditions and that is wrong.

Can you prove that it is wrong? Can you describe the mechanism that translates the vibration into radiative energy? Can you show a measured example of an object radiating out into surroundings that are warmer than itself? Answer...no you can't. All you can do is hold up a model of fairy dust and claim that it is real because you believe it is real.

 

[Wuwei]

The models involving radiation physics have been tested against experiment and there is no contradiction. Your model however leads to contradiction in atomic physics.

They result in the same answers predicted by equations that have been around for a very long time....the observations match the predictions made by those equations...throwing in some fairy dust like net energy flow that does not alter the prediction made by the old school equation does not mean that the QM hypothesis is right...

And if you are claiming that reality does not jibe with the models, and are complaining about that, then I am laughing in your face.

The application matters if it predicts real results. Your model predicts that vibrating atoms don't radiate under certain conditions and that is wrong.

Can you prove that it is wrong? Can you describe the mechanism that translates the vibration into radiative energy? Can you show a measured example of an object radiating out into surroundings that are warmer than itself? Answer...no you can't. All you can do is hold up a model of fairy dust and claim that it is real because you believe it is real.

That's right the observations meet the predictions of net energy flow. That's right, the quantum hypothesis is not proven by radiation exchange. But my point is that your idea of one-way energy flow violates QM – that vibrating atoms must radiate. So if your one way flow is inconsistent with QM, and two way radiation exchange is consistent, then there really isn't any alternative but radiation exchange.

The fact that vibrating or accelerating charges radiate goes way back to Maxwell's equations in 1865. The QM atomic version came from Einstein a few decades later. The mechanism of atomic vibrations radiating has been shown decisively by theory and observations of black body radiation - a fundamental process. You nor anyone has shown an external process that would inhibit black body radiation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The models involving radiation physics have been tested against experiment and there is no contradiction. Your model however leads to contradiction in atomic physics.

They result in the same answers predicted by equations that have been around for a very long time....the observations match the predictions made by those equations...throwing in some fairy dust like net energy flow that does not alter the prediction made by the old school equation does not mean that the QM hypothesis is right...

And if you are claiming that reality does not jibe with the models, and are complaining about that, then I am laughing in your face.

The application matters if it predicts real results. Your model predicts that vibrating atoms don't radiate under certain conditions and that is wrong.

Can you prove that it is wrong? Can you describe the mechanism that translates the vibration into radiative energy? Can you show a measured example of an object radiating out into surroundings that are warmer than itself? Answer...no you can't. All you can do is hold up a model of fairy dust and claim that it is real because you believe it is real.

throwing in some fairy dust like net energy flow

Still no links backing your claim that energy strictly flows one way.
Weird. It's almost like you're the only one making that claim.
You're all by yourself.

 

[SSDD]

That's right the observations meet the predictions of net energy flow.

You acknowledged that observations only detect one way energy flow...net energy flow predicts the same temperature as gross energy flow...net energy flow predictions are the same as unicorn perspiration predictions...they make no difference whatsoever and the bottom line is that all we can observe is one way gross energy movement from a more oredered state to a less ordered state.

You are sill left with nothing but belief...and the only support you have is from others who also have nothing but belief...same as any other religion.

 

[Wuwei]

That's right the observations meet the predictions of net energy flow.

You acknowledged that observations only detect one way energy flow...net energy flow predicts the same temperature as gross energy flow...net energy flow predictions are the same as unicorn perspiration predictions...they make no difference whatsoever and the bottom line is that all we can observe is one way gross energy movement from a more oredered state to a less ordered state.

You are sill left with nothing but belief...and the only support you have is from others who also have nothing but belief...same as any other religion.

Observations detect one way thermal energy flow, as the SLoT says. If it makes no difference whatsoever, why do you assume the mechanism that is not consistent with QM.

 

[IanC]

Evaporation happens when the water molecule has absorbed enough energy for a phase change from water to vapor...then when that vapor is carried high enough in the atmosphere, it freezes into crystals and in doing so releases exactly the same amount of energy that was required to cause it to evaporate...that energy radiates on out into space.

How does the liquid water molecule attain the required threshold energy to escape the liquid bonds? You say energy cannot go uphill.

Once converted to water vapour, the H2O molecule acts like any other three atom double bond molecule. It cannot absorb and hold radiation in a different way than CO2.

When the water vapour condenses back into water droplets or ice crystals, those substances are warm and do radiate in all directions. And more importantly, they have a much greater range of available wavelengths to emit (similar to surface water or ice but with less atmosphere to traverse to escape to space in the outward direction).

Energy carried aloft by the water cycle and convection is similar to surface radiation absorbed by the atmosphere. In both cases the energy is either emitted as radiation in all directions (escape towards space or back towards the surface), or stored in atmosphere as increased temperature.

Only radiation that actually escapes to space causes cooling. Moving energy around inside the surface/atmosphere system does nothing but change the temperature at the various locations along the energy flow pathways.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ou guys are stuck on stupid...I have already provided emails from several top shelf physicists who state pretty clearly that what you are describing is the equation for a black body alone in a vacuum...that's it...include other matter and then T1-T2 matters...sorry again, that this is all so far over your head.

You ever ask these top shelf guys if objects at equilibrium stop emitting completely?
You ever ask them if photons only move from warmer matter to cooler matter or if the formula
shows net power lost/gained?

Maybe you could go back to your old emails and check?
Maybe follow up with your top shelf physicists?

Maybe post the entire email......so I can ask the follow up questions?

 

[Crick]

With the rash of articles that are coming out and the Gavin Schmidt Twitter Trick now clearly evident as a blatant attempt at covering up the total failure of all modeling, I think its time to expose the modeling failure and how bad it really is..

If we post up the current crop of Global Climate Models that were projections starting back in 1990 and then overlay the reality we find that all the modeling of the day has failed.

SO lets show you how modeling is falsified by empirical review.

View attachment 151720

When you create a model it is understood that empirical review after specified duration of time will confirm or falsify the model. If the system modeled and the empirical evidence diverge then the model is proven falsified and useless. At this point you start over and reassess why your modeling failed.

In the above image all of the models fail because they diverged from reality. This means the perceived understanding of system has failed and must be redone. Any policy or actions taken are therefore based on a failed hypothesis.

With the rash of articles that are coming out and the Gavin Schmidt Twitter Trick now clearly evident as a blatant attempt at covering up the total failure of all modeling, I think its time to expose the modeling failure and how bad it really is..

If we post up the current crop of Global Climate Models that were projections starting back in 1990 and then overlay the reality we find that all the modeling of the day has failed.

SO lets show you how modeling is falsified by empirical review.

View attachment 151720

When you create a model it is understood that empirical review after specified duration of time will confirm or falsify the model. If the system modeled and the empirical evidence diverge then the model is proven falsified and useless. At this point you start over and reassess why your modeling failed.

In the above image all of the models fail because they diverged from reality. This means the perceived understanding of system has failed and must be redone. Any policy or actions taken are therefore based on a failed hypothesis.

This, of course, is just another reprint of Roy Spencer's hot whopper - IOW, a huge LIE. Here is an accurate comparison between CMIP5 models and reality.