Latest AGW Guess

[Crick]

Let's hear what evidence you have supporting the charge that AR5 is "bullshit"

 

[SSDD]

Let's hear what evidence you have supporting the charge that AR5 is "bullshit"

Already gave you some to which you had no rational answer. .

 

[Crick]

Terribly sorry, but you failed at that as you have failed at every other argument you've tried to push in this debate. AR5 stands. Your arguments, very clearly, do not.

 

[SSDD]

Terribly sorry, but you failed at that as you have failed at every other argument you've tried to push in this debate. AR5 stands. Your arguments, very clearly, do not.

Well there was a failure...but it was your failure....We all know that you and yours are world class projectors...you do and then immediately claim that others are doing what you have done. Sorry guy. When you can rationally explain increased confidence in the face of failing computer models, then the conversation can continue...till then project on garth.

 

[Crick]

From AR5
"The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period ... The observed warming since 1951 can be attributed to the different natural and anthropogenic drivers and their contributions can now be quantified. Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3 °C over the period 1951−2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C."

"The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C."

TRANSLATION: The amount of net warming calculated from human activities matches the observed warming. The amount of net warming calculated from natural sources is ZERO, +0.1C. Thus, we think there's a very good chance that human activities are responsible for ALL of it.

​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Terribly sorry, but you failed at that as you have failed at every other argument you've tried to push in this debate. AR5 stands. Your arguments, very clearly, do not.

Well there was a failure...but it was your failure....We all know that you and yours are world class projectors...you do and then immediately claim that others are doing what you have done. Sorry guy. When you can rationally explain increased confidence in the face of failing computer models, then the conversation can continue...till then project on garth.

Still working on your smart wave mechanism?

 

[SSDD]

Terribly sorry, but you failed at that as you have failed at every other argument you've tried to push in this debate. AR5 stands. Your arguments, very clearly, do not.

Well there was a failure...but it was your failure....We all know that you and yours are world class projectors...you do and then immediately claim that others are doing what you have done. Sorry guy. When you can rationally explain increased confidence in the face of failing computer models, then the conversation can continue...till then project on garth.

Still working on your smart wave mechanism?

Interesting that you think it takes smart waves to not radiate in the direction of warm but don't think that it takes smart rocks to fall down when dropped even though the mechanism for neither is known. Just dumb....no other word for it.

By the way, if we are talking about waves...then it is well known that waves can cancel each other out or that a wave of greater magnitude can cancel out a weaker wave and continue on at a diminished strength...if we are talking hypothetical photons which no one even knows whether or not exist...then what's the point of talking anyway...may as well be discussing what unicorns do on a moonless night.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Terribly sorry, but you failed at that as you have failed at every other argument you've tried to push in this debate. AR5 stands. Your arguments, very clearly, do not.

Well there was a failure...but it was your failure....We all know that you and yours are world class projectors...you do and then immediately claim that others are doing what you have done. Sorry guy. When you can rationally explain increased confidence in the face of failing computer models, then the conversation can continue...till then project on garth.

Still working on your smart wave mechanism?

Interesting that you think it takes smart waves to not radiate in the direction of warm but don't think that it takes smart rocks to fall down when dropped even though the mechanism for neither is known. Just dumb....no other word for it.

By the way, if we are talking about waves...then it is well known that waves can cancel each other out or that a wave of greater magnitude can cancel out a weaker wave and continue on at a diminished strength...if we are talking hypothetical photons which no one even knows whether or not exist...then what's the point of talking anyway...may as well be discussing what unicorns do on a moonless night.

Interesting that you think it takes smart waves to not radiate in the direction of warm

Interesting that you know better than the Stefan–Boltzmann law.

By the way, if we are talking about waves...then it is well known that waves can cancel each other out

Now the waves from the cooler object are canceled out by the waves from the warmer? LOL!

 

[SSDD]

Terribly sorry, but you failed at that as you have failed at every other argument you've tried to push in this debate. AR5 stands. Your arguments, very clearly, do not.

Well there was a failure...but it was your failure....We all know that you and yours are world class projectors...you do and then immediately claim that others are doing what you have done. Sorry guy. When you can rationally explain increased confidence in the face of failing computer models, then the conversation can continue...till then project on garth.

Still working on your smart wave mechanism?

Interesting that you think it takes smart waves to not radiate in the direction of warm but don't think that it takes smart rocks to fall down when dropped even though the mechanism for neither is known. Just dumb....no other word for it.

By the way, if we are talking about waves...then it is well known that waves can cancel each other out or that a wave of greater magnitude can cancel out a weaker wave and continue on at a diminished strength...if we are talking hypothetical photons which no one even knows whether or not exist...then what's the point of talking anyway...may as well be discussing what unicorns do on a moonless night.

Interesting that you think it takes smart waves to not radiate in the direction of warm

Interesting that you know better than the Stefan–Boltzmann law.

By the way, if we are talking about waves...then it is well known that waves can cancel each other out

Now the waves from the cooler object are canceled out by the waves from the warmer? LOL!

SB equation describes a one way gross energy flow. Sorry.

As To waves....don't know what happens...neither do you...but every observation ever made tells us that energy does not move from cool to warm.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Terribly sorry, but you failed at that as you have failed at every other argument you've tried to push in this debate. AR5 stands. Your arguments, very clearly, do not.

Well there was a failure...but it was your failure....We all know that you and yours are world class projectors...you do and then immediately claim that others are doing what you have done. Sorry guy. When you can rationally explain increased confidence in the face of failing computer models, then the conversation can continue...till then project on garth.

Still working on your smart wave mechanism?

Interesting that you think it takes smart waves to not radiate in the direction of warm but don't think that it takes smart rocks to fall down when dropped even though the mechanism for neither is known. Just dumb....no other word for it.

By the way, if we are talking about waves...then it is well known that waves can cancel each other out or that a wave of greater magnitude can cancel out a weaker wave and continue on at a diminished strength...if we are talking hypothetical photons which no one even knows whether or not exist...then what's the point of talking anyway...may as well be discussing what unicorns do on a moonless night.

Interesting that you think it takes smart waves to not radiate in the direction of warm

Interesting that you know better than the Stefan–Boltzmann law.

By the way, if we are talking about waves...then it is well known that waves can cancel each other out

Now the waves from the cooler object are canceled out by the waves from the warmer? LOL!

SB equation describes a one way gross energy flow. Sorry.

As To waves....don't know what happens...neither do you...but every observation ever made tells us that energy does not move from cool to warm.

SB equation describes a one way gross energy flow. Sorry.

Net energy flow. Sorry.

As To waves....don't know what happens...neither do you...

But I do know what happens. And the SB equation agrees with my way, not yours.

but every observation ever made tells us that energy does not move from cool to warm.

But the SB shows every object above 0K constantly radiates.
It doesn't show that they radiate and suddenly stop when a warmer object approaches.
The SB explains why a hot object radiates energy away more slowly to a 100K object than to a 50K object.
Your smart wave theory explains......well, you still haven't explained your smart wave theory.

What are you afraid of?
Use it to explain why a hot object radiates energy away more slowly to a 100K object than to a 50K object.

 

[Crick]

When waves "cancel each other out" they and the energy they carry are not destroyed or hindered in any way. Waves pass through each other with no interference at all; they will come out of the superposition exactly as they went in. It is only in that superposition that the local field strength (or whatever physical parameter the wave is carrying) will be determined by the sum of the intersecting waves. Where they are out of phase, they will tend to cancel each other out - AT that location and AT that moment in time. When they are in phase they will add.

So if that wasn't your understanding of what "waves canceling each other out" means - and your later comment about a wave being weakened by another leads me to believe it was not - then we have found ANOTHER basic physical phenomenon which you COMPLETELY misunderstand.

Again, I have to raise the question is it possible for someone to be wrong as often as you? Is it not more likely that these errors are made on purpose solely to stir up an argument? Is it not more likely that you are simply a flaming troll?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Terribly sorry, but you failed at that as you have failed at every other argument you've tried to push in this debate. AR5 stands. Your arguments, very clearly, do not.

Well there was a failure...but it was your failure....We all know that you and yours are world class projectors...you do and then immediately claim that others are doing what you have done. Sorry guy. When you can rationally explain increased confidence in the face of failing computer models, then the conversation can continue...till then project on garth.

Still working on your smart wave mechanism?

Interesting that you think it takes smart waves to not radiate in the direction of warm but don't think that it takes smart rocks to fall down when dropped even though the mechanism for neither is known. Just dumb....no other word for it.

By the way, if we are talking about waves...then it is well known that waves can cancel each other out or that a wave of greater magnitude can cancel out a weaker wave and continue on at a diminished strength...if we are talking hypothetical photons which no one even knows whether or not exist...then what's the point of talking anyway...may as well be discussing what unicorns do on a moonless night.

Interesting that you think it takes smart waves to not radiate in the direction of warm

If not smart waves, what mechanism?

 

[Crick]

I asked him this question several months back and the answer was that it was accomplished by an unknown and perhaps unknowable mechanism. Note how he has brought up gravity on several occasions: we know it works but we don't know how. The description sounded amazingly close to "magic".

 

[SSDD]

Net energy flow. Sorry.

Sorry you are unable to read an equation. Again, if you would like to see what an equation that describes mythical two way energy flow looks like, I will be happy to provide it again.

the SB shows every object above 0K constantly radiates.

Into a vacuum with no other object around. Look at this equation...make the temperature of the radiator and the other object the same....tell me what the value of "P" is.

doesn't show that they radiate and suddenly stop when a warmer object approaches.

Don't they? Make the two temperatures within the parentheses the same and tell me what the value of "P" becomes?

SB explains why a hot object radiates energy away more slowly to a 100K object than to a 50K object.

Sorry this is so difficult for you....make T any temperature over 100K...now make Tc 100K....what is the value of "P"....now make Tc equal to 50K...what is the value of "P"?

smart wave theory explains......well, you still haven't explained your smart wave theory.

No smart waves needed....again, what is the value of P if T and Tc are the same value?

Use it to explain why a hot object radiates energy away more slowly to a 100K object than to a 50K object.

Just did...again, make T any temperature over 100K...now make Tc 100K...what is the value of P.....now make Tc 50K....what is the value of "P"? Can you possibly get any slower.....P changes in proportion to the difference in the temperature between T and Tc....and in case you couldn't figure it out, if you make T and Tc the same temperature the value of "P" becomes zero....what is P again?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Net energy flow. Sorry.

Sorry you are unable to read an equation. Again, if you would like to see what an equation that describes mythical two way energy flow looks like, I will be happy to provide it again.

the SB shows every object above 0K constantly radiates.

Into a vacuum with no other object around. Look at this equation...make the temperature of the radiator and the other object the same....tell me what the value of "P" is.

doesn't show that they radiate and suddenly stop when a warmer object approaches.

Don't they? Make the two temperatures within the parentheses the same and tell me what the value of "P" becomes?

SB explains why a hot object radiates energy away more slowly to a 100K object than to a 50K object.

Sorry this is so difficult for you....make T any temperature over 100K...now make Tc 100K....what is the value of "P"....now make Tc equal to 50K...what is the value of "P"?

smart wave theory explains......well, you still haven't explained your smart wave theory.

No smart waves needed....again, what is the value of P if T and Tc are the same value?

Use it to explain why a hot object radiates energy away more slowly to a 100K object than to a 50K object.

Just did...again, make T any temperature over 100K...now make Tc 100K...what is the value of P.....now make Tc 50K....what is the value of "P"? Can you possibly get any slower.....P changes in proportion to the difference in the temperature between T and Tc....and in case you couldn't figure it out, if you make T and Tc the same temperature the value of "P" becomes zero....what is P again?

Into a vacuum with no other object around.

And then suddenly stops, when a warmer object is near.
It's like, smart waves or something!!

Look at this equation...make the temperature of the radiator and the other object the same....tell me what the value of "P" is.

If both objects are the same temperature, their constant radiating is in balance and the net transfer of energy is zero. Get it yet?

Sorry this is so difficult for you....

Trying to educate you isn't difficult. Getting you to actually learn.....nearly impossible.

make T any temperature over 100K...now make Tc 100K....what is the value of "P"....now make Tc equal to 50K...what is the value of "P"?

Run the equation with a single 100K object.....write down your answer.
Run the equation with a single 50K object.....write down your answer.

Now run it with a 100K object and a 50K object.
Isn't it weird that your answer is exactly the radiation of the warmer minus the radiation of the cooler?
It's almost like they're both radiating continuously.

Of course your smart wave theory might work too.
So how does your smart wave theory explain why a hot object radiates slower to 100K than to 50K?
Oh, right, you can't expalin the change in speed.

 

[Crick]

SSDD, I am wondering why you insist on your bizarre interpretation, one requiring that all matter be aware of all other matter out to the limits of the universe, and they be able to throttle their radiation selectively, when the SB equation is satisfied precisely as well by simply assuming that all objects radiate in all directions according to their temperature. Heat transfer becomes NET heat transfer and the result is the same as your interpretation without having to evoke your intellligent atoms and magical control.

 

[Crick]

Another thought experiment:

I have two balls. One is 50C, the other is 100C. They are separated by a flat barrier that is kept at 0C. This barrier has a hole in it. The hole is not on the line between the two balls; the balls cannot "see" each other through the holes. The environment around the entire affair is at 25C (room temperature)

Let's look at the 50C ball. It radiates towards the cold, 0C barrier. It even radiates towards the hole through which it sees its 25C surroundings. But what happens to the IR waves when they get to the hole. If you go look up refraction in any physics textbook, you will find that the waves will depart the hole as if they were coming from a point radiator. The infrared will spread evenly throughout the 180 degrees available on the other side of the cold barrier. That means that IR will strike the hotter, 100C ball. You can say it was coming from the 50C ball or the 0C barrier, but in either case, it is coming from a colder object to a warmer object.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Another thought experiment:

I have two balls. One is 50C, the other is 100C. They are separated by a flat barrier that is kept at 0C. This barrier has a hole in it. The hole is not on the line between the two balls; the balls cannot "see" each other through the holes. The environment around the entire affair is at 25C (room temperature)

Let's look at the 50C ball. It radiates towards the cold, 0C barrier. It even radiates towards the hole through which it sees its 25C surroundings. But what happens to the IR waves when they get to the hole. If you go look up refraction in any physics textbook, you will find that the waves will depart the hole as if they were coming from a point radiator. The infrared will spread evenly throughout the 180 degrees available on the other side of the cold barrier. That means that IR will strike the hotter, 100C ball. You can say it was coming from the 50C ball or the 0C barrier, but in either case, it is coming from a colder object to a warmer object.

I've got a better one. I'll post it soon.

 

[SSDD]

Of course your smart wave theory might work too.
So how does your smart wave theory explain why a hot object radiates slower to 100K than to 50K?
Oh, right, you can't expalin the change in speed.

To bad you aren't able to see that it is you who has the crackpot theory....What do I have? Nothing but every observation and measurement ever made....there isn't one single solitary instance in the history of the universe where what you claim has been observed...and yet, you believe. Me, I know because we see it every day....energy moving along from warm objects to cool objects...and you are willing to replace actual reality with this mathematical model so that you can believe that once in a blue moon, an atom emits a hypothetical photon that is at a higher energy level than the atom itself and that one hypothetical photon can move to an object that is warmer than the molecule that somehow emitted a hypothetical photon that was at a higher energy level than itself...never mind how that might happen in the first place....and you think I have crackpot ideas?

 

[SSDD]

SSDD, I am wondering why you insist on your bizarre interpretation, one requiring that all matter be aware of all other matter out to the limits of the universe, and they be able to throttle their radiation selectively, when the SB equation is satisfied precisely as well by simply assuming that all objects radiate in all directions according to their temperature. Heat transfer becomes NET heat transfer and the result is the same as your interpretation without having to evoke your intellligent atoms and magical control.

Awareness is your crazy interpretation. You can't actually produce any observations, or measurements that prove what you claim, so you invent wild interpretations of what I have said and attack me in order to allay your own insecurities. I don't interpret anything...I don't do anything but point out that every observation and measurement ever made regarding energy movement has been from warm to cool...energy doesn't move except in one direction...

You claim net transfer as if it had actually been measured...it hasn't. Net transfer is a mathematical construct..unobservable...untestable, unmeasurable...but you believe...based on what? Someone who also believes told you so?