LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.

[Wuwei]

I didn't ask you for mathematical model...You claimed that the NATURE of light is understood to an accuracy of parts per billion. The particle/wave nature of light is a story put in place in an attempt to explain something that had no explanation...it still has no explanation...just a story made up a very long time ago.

The behavior of light is known to parts per billion. Physicists have known for a century that the nature of light is not intuitive. The ability to compute the behavior at the atomic level comes from the models. In that case a "story" isn't involved and is unnecessary in light of the success of the models.

So again...no answer...of course we have observed energy moving...I asked you to describe the mechanism by which a vibration in a molecule, becomes radiation moving at the speed of light...again...we don't know and aren't likely to know for quite some time if we ever know.

You are always focusing on observations, and now you want a model? Describing a mechanism in quantum mechanics cannot be done with English sentences. If you insist on that you will always be in the dark ages of physics. It must be done using the variables and math of physics. Maybe some philosopher is involved in the metaphysics you are requesting. You are on your own for that.

 

[Crick]

The denier rejection of models lasts right up till they need one, then they're perfect.

 

[SSDD]

The behavior of light is known to parts per billion. Physicists have known for a century that the nature of light is not intuitive. The ability to compute the behavior at the atomic level comes from the models. In that case a "story" isn't involved and is unnecessary in light of the success of the models.

Still weaseling rather than simply admitting that science doesn't know...You said that we fully understood the NATURE of light...you can observe and note the behavior of a thing to a very high degree and not know the first thing about its fundamental nature. You said, and I quote "The nature of light is understood to an accuracy of parts per billion."

It is well known that we know next to nothing about the nature of light...photons remain theoretical particles and particle/wave remains just a place holder....a story about what might be till such time as we can actually know.

So don't tell me any more about how light behaves, or how predictable it is..that is nothing more than observation over and over...it doesn't tell you anything at all about its nature. Maybe you should grab a dictionary and look up the definitions of words like nature, behavior, fundamental, mechanism, etc.

You are always focusing on observations, and now you want a model?

Of course I don't want a model...I am pointing out that we don't know regardless of what you think. The only way to know whether a model is correct is to observe the reality that it is modeling...You speak of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models as if they were real, and I believe that you believe that they actually are real...You are clearly unable to differentiate reality from fiction.

Describing a mechanism in quantum mechanics cannot be done with English sentences.

Then it can not be done. Einstein said "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

Deferring to models, rather than simply describing how a thing happens is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to complexity. If you actually understand the fundamental mechanism of how a thing happens, and why it happens, then a model is not necessary...you can simply state what is happening and why.

You really do have a deficiency when it comes to separating reality from unreality.

If you insist on that you will always be in the dark ages of physics.

If I insist on reality rather than simply accept stories that are told in an attempt to explain things that we can't yet know? Accept the stories as true rather than wait for the truth to actually be known?

Did you ever hear the story about the emperor's new clothes...you are one of the dolts who was standing around admiring his beautiful ensemble'....I am the guy pointing out that he is parading his hairy pimply ass all about town. Given the choice, I would much rather know that he his naked than be a dupe who believes that we possess knowledge that we don't..and may never possess.

You have the meanings of words so twisted in your mind that it appears that you really are unable to know what we don't know and aren't even prepared to acknowledge that the universe of things that we don't know is orders and orders and orders of magnitude greater than what we have learned in our first scratchings of the surface of reality.

You are the sort who will accept a story as truth...and actually believe it in your mind...I am not. If you do a bit of research into the dark ages, you will learn that part of what made them dark was superstitious belief in stories told in an effort to come to terms with things they didn't understand...the enlightenment brought us out of the dark ages...it was a time when the stories were challenged and actual work was done to get to a level of truth.

When stories become accepted as truth, you are heading back towards an age of darkness. I expect the next real renaissance in science to be at least 100 years from now...maybe a bit longer. At that time, this period will be looked back on with a quaint sort of disgust.

 

[SSDD]

The denier rejection of models lasts right up till they need one, then they're perfect.

Only when the results of the model can be tested against reality...and the predictions are accurate over and over and over...it is only then that a model is useful...till that time, it is just a wild assed guess.

 

[Crick]

Bullshit. ALL models are attempts to mathematically represent real world processes. ALL models are tested against reality. You and your denier buddies reject models when they clearly indicate you don't know what the fuck you're talking about - which is as frequent as frequent can be.

 

[Wuwei]

Still weaseling rather than simply admitting that science doesn't know...You said that we fully understood the NATURE of light...you can observe and note the behavior of a thing to a very high degree and not know the first thing about its fundamental nature. You said, and I quote "The nature of light is understood to an accuracy of parts per billion."

It is well known that we know next to nothing about the nature of light...photons remain theoretical particles and particle/wave remains just a place holder....a story about what might be till such time as we can actually know.

So don't tell me any more about how light behaves, or how predictable it is..that is nothing more than observation over and over...it doesn't tell you anything at all about its nature. Maybe you should grab a dictionary and look up the definitions of words like nature, behavior, fundamental, mechanism, etc.

Look up the nature of light on Google. Many quality sites will explain it for you. The behavior of light, (not the nature), is used in the atomic physics of gases.

Of course I don't want a model...I am pointing out that we don't know regardless of what you think. The only way to know whether a model is correct is to observe the reality that it is modeling...You speak of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models as if they were real, and I believe that you believe that they actually are real...You are clearly unable to differentiate reality from fiction.

Physics at the more advanced level finds that models are more useful than “reality”. If you want to focus on reality, you should study metaphysics.

Then it can not be done. Einstein said "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

Deferring to models, rather than simply describing how a thing happens is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to complexity. If you actually understand the fundamental mechanism of how a thing happens, and why it happens, then a model is not necessary...you can simply state what is happening and why.

You really do have a deficiency when it comes to separating reality from unreality.

You misunderstood Einstein. You certainly can explain quantum mechanics simply to anyone, but that isn't enough for that person to understand how to compute the energy levels of a hydrogen atom, for example.

If I insist on reality rather than simply accept stories that are told in an attempt to explain things that we can't yet know? Accept the stories as true rather than wait for the truth to actually be known?

Did you ever hear the story about the emperor's new clothes...you are one of the dolts who was standing around admiring his beautiful ensemble'....I am the guy pointing out that he is parading his hairy pimply ass all about town. Given the choice, I would much rather know that he his naked than be a dupe who believes that we possess knowledge that we don't..and may never possess.

You have the meanings of words so twisted in your mind that it appears that you really are unable to know what we don't know and aren't even prepared to acknowledge that the universe of things that we don't know is orders and orders and orders of magnitude greater than what we have learned in our first scratchings of the surface of reality.

You are the sort who will accept a story as truth...and actually believe it in your mind...I am not. If you do a bit of research into the dark ages, you will learn that part of what made them dark was superstitious belief in stories told in an effort to come to terms with things they didn't understand...the enlightenment brought us out of the dark ages...it was a time when the stories were challenged and actual work was done to get to a level of truth.

When stories become accepted as truth, you are heading back towards an age of darkness. I expect the next real renaissance in science to be at least 100 years from now...maybe a bit longer. At that time, this period will be looked back on with a quaint sort of disgust.

Posting that stuff here does not enlighten the topic. If you are more interested in the metaphysics of “reality” than the behavior of matter and light, you should be studying along the lines of Aristotle rather than principles of modern physics.

 

[SSDD]

Bullshit. ALL models are attempts to mathematically represent real world processes. ALL models are tested against reality. You and your denier buddies reject models when they clearly indicate you don't know what the fuck you're talking about - which is as frequent as frequent can be.

Really? Then lets see the observed, measured results of any experiment which demonstrated that energy can move spontaneously and freely from a cool object to a warmer object as wuwei's model suggests..

Pardon me if I don't hold my breath waiting for results.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The denier rejection of models lasts right up till they need one, then they're perfect.

Denier? That's not a word in science, that's more like a lunatic fringe Moonbat Cult word.

 

[SSDD]

Look up the nature of light on Google. Many quality sites will explain it for you. The behavior of light, (not the nature), is used in the atomic physics of gases.

So you have no answer and figure if I go off looking at google that I will find something that satisfies me? NEWSFLASH...I have already looked...unlike you, I read to learn...I wouldn't have said that we don't understand the nature of light if I thought that there was any chance that you could provide evidence that we do....all you can provide is observations of behavior...that tells us nothing about the nature of light...it only tells us what it does...

You have exceptionally poor command of the language...you misinterpret and misunderstand a great deal...do you really not know the difference between behavior and fundamental nature?

Physics at the more advanced level finds that models are more useful than “reality”. If you want to focus on reality, you should study metaphysics.['quote]

Refer back to what made the dark ages dark...belief in stories...inability to separate what was real from what was fiction...

You misunderstood Einstein. You certainly can explain quantum mechanics simply to anyone, but that isn't enough for that person to understand how to compute the energy levels of a hydrogen atom, for example.

Alas , I am not the one with a reading comprehension problem...and am certainly not prone to misunderstanding what I read.. I don't read with the intent of proving a point and therefore I don't read anything into statements that isn't there, nor do I disregard things in statements that don't agree with my position. I understood Einstein perfectly...and I understand you perfectly...you are dodging rather than simply admitting that there are things that science doesn't know.

Posting that stuff here does not enlighten the topic. If you are more interested in the metaphysics of “reality” than the behavior of matter and light, you should be studying along the lines of Aristotle rather than principles of modern physics.

Pointing out that you are unable to differentiate reality from unreality is precisely what the topic is about...you believe stories, with absolutely no observed, measured, tested evidence to support them is science...

Regardless of what you believe...it isn't..

 

[SSDD]

The denier rejection of models lasts right up till they need one, then they're perfect.

Denier? That's not a word in science, that's more like a lunatic fringe Moonbat Cult word.

You know another word that isn't in science....consensus. Scientists are supposed to be natural born skeptics.....certainly isn't much of that in science these days.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The denier rejection of models lasts right up till they need one, then they're perfect.

Denier? That's not a word in science, that's more like a lunatic fringe Moonbat Cult word.

You know another word that isn't in science....consensus. Scientists are supposed to be natural born skeptics.....certainly isn't much of that in science these days.

Consensus and denier and cult words; it's just not science

 

[Wuwei]

So you have no answer and figure if I go off looking at google that I will find something that satisfies me? NEWSFLASH...I have already looked...unlike you, I read to learn...I wouldn't have said that we don't understand the nature of light if I thought that there was any chance that you could provide evidence that we do....all you can provide is observations of behavior...that tells us nothing about the nature of light...it only tells us what it does...

You have exceptionally poor command of the language...you misinterpret and misunderstand a great deal...do you really not know the difference between behavior and fundamental nature?

Cut the crap TROLL. The behavior of light given by quantum mechanics is all you need to investigate the physics behind how LW radiation interacts with the atmosphere. Not metaphysics.

 

[Wuwei]

The American Journal o f Science and Arts Vol XXII Nov 1856, Pgs 382 - 383

The American Journal of Science and Arts

A two page report in 1856 by Eunice Newton Foote demonstrated that CO2 absorbs heat. She measured the temperatures in two glass 4x30 inch cylinders with internal thermometers. She exposed them to sunlight, one filled with air and one with CO2. Foote speculated that if there had been a period when the atmosphere held more of the gas, the planet would have been warmer.

She noted the temperature rises in various gases under the same conditions:

On comparing the sun's heat in different gases, I found it to be in hydrogen gas, 104° ; in common air, 106°; in oxygen gas 108°; and in carbonic acid gas, 125°.​

 

[SSDD]

Cut the crap TROLL. The behavior of light given by quantum mechanics is all you need to investigate the physics behind how LW radiation interacts with the atmosphere. Not metaphysics.

TRANSLATION: "Stop kicking my stupid ass all over the board...I don't like it."

You made a bullshit claim and now you can't back it up...but then what else is new?

 

[SSDD]

The American Journal o f Science and Arts Vol XXII Nov 1856, Pgs 382 - 383

The American Journal of Science and Arts

A two page report in 1856 by Eunice Newton Foote demonstrated that CO2 absorbs heat. She measured the temperatures in two glass 4x30 inch cylinders with internal thermometers. She exposed them to sunlight, one filled with air and one with CO2. Foote speculated that if there had been a period when the atmosphere held more of the gas, the planet would have been warmer.

She noted the temperature rises in various gases under the same conditions:

On comparing the sun's heat in different gases, I found it to be in hydrogen gas, 104° ; in common air, 106°; in oxygen gas 108°; and in carbonic acid gas, 125°.​

Quaint 19th century science again? You grow more boring every day...Like I said...look up "heat of compression..therein lies your answer.

 

[Crick]

And when did this compression take place?

 

[Crick]

Waiting for an answer. When did the Earth's atmosphere first develop its current density and altitude?

When I asked Google, the answer was 4.5 billion years ago. Do you accept that?

 

[Wuwei]

So you have no answer and figure if I go off looking at google that I will find something that satisfies me? NEWSFLASH...I have already looked...unlike you, I read to learn...I wouldn't have said that we don't understand the nature of light if I thought that there was any chance that you could provide evidence that we do....all you can provide is observations of behavior...that tells us nothing about the nature of light...it only tells us what it does...

There are lots of books on the nature of light without formulas so that people like you who don't understand physics can easily grasp it. Who gives a ꞰↃՈℲ about the nature of light, when it comes to computations of interactions of light in a gas. Since you think the nature is most important, it's no wonder that you sneer at the mathematics of QM. You couldn't possibly understand it, and you say idiotic things about the second law and the SB equation that absolutely unrelated to what is actually happening, and far from what the discoverers and body of science knows and understands.

Your understanding of the nature of light is so much fantasy that you can't even fabricate a phony reason why photons from cold object can't hit a warm object. We have to fabricate it for you: "smart photons".

 

[Wuwei]

The American Journal o f Science and Arts Vol XXII Nov 1856, Pgs 382 - 383

The American Journal of Science and Arts

A two page report in 1856 by Eunice Newton Foote demonstrated that CO2 absorbs heat. She measured the temperatures in two glass 4x30 inch cylinders with internal thermometers. She exposed them to sunlight, one filled with air and one with CO2. Foote speculated that if there had been a period when the atmosphere held more of the gas, the planet would have been warmer.

She noted the temperature rises in various gases under the same conditions:

On comparing the sun's heat in different gases, I found it to be in hydrogen gas, 104° ; in common air, 106°; in oxygen gas 108°; and in carbonic acid gas, 125°.​

Quaint 19th century science again? You grow more boring every day...Like I said...look up "heat of compression..therein lies your answer.

Yes, it was quite quaint, but nevertheless a breakthrough for that time. The whole physics of heat absorption of GHGs has been modeled by today's scientists.

The heat of compression adds less than 1% to the total temperature change compared to air. That is easily calculated from the IGL. For you to think it's "your answer" without investigating it is your usual BS.

 

[SSDD]

And when did this compression take place?

When the glass or plastic in the bottle warmed up and conducted heat to the gas inside..you really are clueless.