No Evidence

[The Sage of Main Street]

Quantum electrodynamics, QED is the relativistic version of Schrodinger's equation. The theory was tested against every possible measurement. QED applies to all the physics of the atmosphere.

But my point is you said you disbelieve it, and that's what I posted.

Guess you don't get out much...Hard to get news when you wrap yourself in your faith and refuse to accept the fact that you might be wrong.

Why quantum mechanics might need an overhaul

Quantum mechanics is science’s equivalent of political polarization.

Voters either take sides and argue with each other endlessly, or stay home and accept politics as it is. Physicists either just accept quantum mechanics and do their calculations, or take sides in the never-ending debate over what quantum mechanics is actually saying about reality.

New Evidence Could Break The Standard View of Quantum Mechanics

By the way...here is what Schrodinger had to say on QM...and I quote " I don't like it and I am sorry that I ever had anything to do with it."

In addition, Weinberg is still giving talks about the inherent problems with QM...He points out that there are two interpretations to Schrödinger’s wave functions as solutions of Schrödinger’s multi-dimensional wave equation as the basic model of QM and physics is a very long way from choosing one that is correct and that physicists who agree that QM is correct can't agree on what is correct.

So you go ahead and take it on faith...and assume that it is all just fine...I will wait for the evidence to emerge and watch the theory change over time.

Note: QM goes far beyond the relativistic version of Schrodinger's equation.

In History, "Postclassical" Means the Dark Ages

Starting with its Original Sin, the Quantum "Leap" was an illusion that pushed weak-minded scientists into irrational explanations and theoretical fantasies. It is absolutely impossible to change one's place without moving through a space between the starting point and the end point. In the real world, this illusion can only be produced by theoretically restricting the dimensions within which the displacement takes place. So if a scientist's obsession is with rejecting the old but tried-and-true ways of logic and determinism, in a sophomoric youth rebellion to impress his contemporaries, he can restrict the apparent leap to the three-dimensional world instead of risking criticism for proposing that there had to be an extra outside dimension that the particle went into. The reason for the scientist's gutless fear of being called silly was that the extra dimension had been speculated on back in the 1880s (Flatland) but, through no fault of the theory itself, had degenerated into supernaturalist explanations.

Yet this fudged misconception can happen in the macro world, too. Suppose you pretend you can only go from Boston to New York by traveling along at ground level. Then airplane flights would leap to that destination without touching any place between.

The motto of these neurotic escapist geeks is, "If It's Weird, It's Wise." However, they're only looked up to if they come up with a new weirdness, and not the adults' weirdness of supernatural explanations.

 

[Wuwei]

SSDD: Here is the story so far.

In post #102 I said the following:

You disbelieve quantum mechanics
You disbelieve spontaneous emissions of energy
You disbelieve the textbook second law of thermodynamics
You disbelieve the textbook Stefan-Boltzmann equation
You disbelieve radiative equilibrium
You disbelieve mathematical representation of scientific theory
You disbelieve radiation of accelerating charges
You disbelieve equipartition theory of energy in air ​

Your reply in post #106 was a total melt down and started with this:
You are full of shit...you are a liar...and you are just plain stupid. The above represent yet another episode of fantasy in which you fabricate statements, claim that I made them, then argue against them. Keep it up and I will report you.

Then in that same post you methodically lambasted accepted science point by point and tried to prove that the accepted science was wrong. You were actually agreeing with my post #102! You called me a liar and then agreed with me. That is more than weird.

That whole circus repeated in my post #110 and your reply #112 which ended with,

Face it...you are doing nothing but proving my position.​

Actually you were proving my position that you don't believe the science.

That whole circus repeated yet another time in my post #114 and your reply in post #118 again emphasized that you don't believe in the science.

OK, we both get it. You don't believe in some classical and all of modern physics.

So along with your misunderstanding of my posts, you kept saying there was no evidence concerning AGW. My concluding replies related to your position. You have not addressed them:

Post #110 When you say nobody gives you observed measured evidence, you mean they don't give it an a way that is compatible with your made-up reinvention of science.

Post #114. The point is that if you don't even believe the fundamental physics underlying the atmosphere, how can you honestly argue anything about GW or AGW to people that understand the textbook tenets of science, and disagree with your reinvention of science.​

With that preamble, now to address your position specifically.

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses..

My two conclusions in posts #110 and 114 already said your positions are untenable because someone knowledgeable in science has no basis for a rational discussion with someone who thinks science is fairy dust. We have seen that impasse many times.

I'm still not taking a stance on AGW, however, your position 2 is patently false. Why do you think absorption of IR by GHG's does not warm the atmosphere. Where do you think the 400 W/m² radiated from the earth goes?

.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD: Here is the story so far.

The story so far is that I said:

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.

To date, neither you nor any of the other faithful have posted a single piece of observed, measured evidence which challenges any of those 3 statements...nor will you because it simply doesn't exist. As an amusing side bar to the story, you have been whining, mewling, bleating, bawling, bleating, crying, and baaahing because I don't place the same faith in unmeasurable, unobservable, untestable models as you without regard to who else places their faith in them.

Since you can't provide the first piece of observed, measured evidence to challenge any of the 3 statements above, you have done what all people of very low character have done for as long as anyone can remember...you have attacked me personally in every way you can think of to do it. You have complained about what I believe, and what I don't believe, and attempted to suggest that because I don't believe, somehow that has anything whatsoever to do with your inability to provide observed, measured evidence to challenge the assertions I made in the OP.

Either you can or you can't...and by now we all know you can't...so continue to cry, wail, gnash your teeth, piss and moan or whatever lament you care to engage in...The end result however, is going to be that my statements stand because the actual observed, measured evidence does not exist.

 

[Wuwei]

The story so far is that I said:
...
2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

I disagree. Why do you think absorption of IR by GHG's does not warm the atmosphere. Where do you think the 400 W/m² radiated from the earth goes?

 

[SSDD]

The story so far is that I said:
...
2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

I disagree. Why do you think absorption of IR by GHG's does not warm the atmosphere. Where do you think the 400 W/m² radiated from the earth goes?

Why do I think that the absorption of IR by so called GHG's does not warm the atmosphere? How many times have I told you. Begin with the fact that over a million hours of experiment, development, and commercial and residential observation in the infrared heating industry has demonstrated beyond question that infrared can not, and does not heat the air....OBSERVATION AND MEASUREMENT...that is the whole point of infrared heating systems...they don't waste energy heating air...they heat objects.

Then there is the fact that in spite of your belief that absorption of IR results in warming of the atmosphere, there is not the first piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by so called greenhouse gasses and warming in the atmosphere.

Then there is the fact that when the energy that has been absorbed by a molecule of a so called greenhouse gas, it is emitted at the same frequency it was absorbed, or at a slightly lower frequency. If you want to warm, you must increase the frequency of the energy being emitted. How do you think you get warming without an increase of the frequency of the radiation that is supposedly causing the warming. You don't get warming by simply adding more energy at the same frequency. As I have pointed out, you can pump as much 70 degree air into a space as you like but the temperature is never going to rise above 70 degrees.

If you believe there is a coherent relationship between the absorption and emission of IR by gas and warming in the atmosphere, lets see the evidence. And a spectrum is not evidence that absorption and emission equals warming...Describe how you believe absorption and emission increase the frequency of the radiation being absorbed and emitted....then provide some observed measured evidence because models and thought experiments will never be actual evidence...

As I have pointed out several times already...I made 3 statements in the OP and none of them have been challenged by the first piece of observed, measured evidence...and to date, there has not been the first peer reviewed paper published which the supposed warming resulting from our production of so called greenhouse gases has been empirically measured, quantified, and then ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses. Your belief and claims are based on pseudoscience, and media hype...not any actual observed, measured evidence or even published, peer reviewed literature.

Of the claimed 400 wm^2 that is supposedly emitted from the whole surface of the earth, better than 99% is conducted, and convected through the troposphere to the upper atmosphere where it is radiated into space. Radiation plays almost no part in energy movement through the troposphere where the greenhouse effect is supposed to exert its influence. The very idea of a radiative greenhouse effect in a troposphere which is so completely dominated by conduction and convection is laughable...and again, there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support the belief. The concept has been in dispute since it was first laid on the table by Arrhenius and again, no less giants than Maxwell, Carnot, and Clausius dismissed the idea of a radiative greenhouse effect as nonsense and after 120 years there still isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support the hypothesis. There are miles and miles of double-talk, unfounded claims, appeals to complexity, etc...what there isn't is actual empirical evidence.

You live in this mental trap in which you think that if someone can't explain the underlying mechanism of a thing that the explanation you accept must be correct even though its underlying mechanism remains unexplained and there is no physical evidence to support it. The fact is that with regard to how energy moves through the atmosphere, and the effect that energy has on climate, we are just now beginning to scratch the surface, and the more we learn, the less plausible a radiative greenhouse effect becomes.

As I said, better than 99% of the energy that moves through the troposphere is transported via conduction and convection...How does the greenhouse hypothesis address that observable, measurable fact? All accounts of the greenhouse effect that I have read pretty much discount convection and conduction and proceed on the unrealistic fantasy that energy is radiated through the troposphere. AI am asking questions...very elementary questions that must be answered regarding a hypothesis such as a radiative greenhouse effect and there are no answers...and more importantly, there is no observed, measured evidence to support it...if there is, by all means, lets see it.

 

[skookerasbil]

Lol....I keep coming back to this thread but still no evidence.

Ghey

Yet another thread dominated intellectually by skeptics.

 

[Wuwei]

Of the claimed 400 wm^2 that is supposedly emitted from the whole surface of the earth, better than 99% is conducted, and convected through the troposphere to the upper atmosphere where it is radiated into space.

Google the phrase "is air a good conductor of heat" you will see that your statement is quite false. You still have to think about where does any of the 400 W/m² go. Surely not all of it can go to outer space.

.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Of the claimed 400 wm^2 that is supposedly emitted from the whole surface of the earth, better than 99% is conducted, and convected through the troposphere to the upper atmosphere where it is radiated into space.

Google the phrase "is air a good conductor of heat" you will see that your statement is quite false. You still have to think about where does any of the 400 W/m² go. Surely not all of it can go to outer space.

.

Alarma, Larma Ding-Dong

Unless there is a planet-wide polymer of "greenhouse" gases, all that extra heat will fly off into the Void. So your blocking mechanism is so thin that it is porous. Maybe you can ask President Trump to build a wall to keep your tin-soldier gases in, because that's the only way you dystopiaphiles will ever be able to screech, "See, I told you so!!!"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of the claimed 400 wm^2 that is supposedly emitted from the whole surface of the earth, better than 99% is conducted, and convected through the troposphere to the upper atmosphere where it is radiated into space.

Google the phrase "is air a good conductor of heat" you will see that your statement is quite false. You still have to think about where does any of the 400 W/m² go. Surely not all of it can go to outer space.

.

Alarma, Larma Ding-Dong

Unless there is a planet-wide polymer of "greenhouse" gases, all that extra heat will fly off into the Void. So your blocking mechanism is so thin that it is porous. Maybe you can ask President Trump to build a wall to keep your tin-soldier gases in, because that's the only way you dystopiaphiles will ever be able to screech, "See, I told you so!!!"

all that extra heat will fly off into the Void.

How quickly?

 

[Wuwei]

How quickly?

I know "funny" is not a rating to give to a simple question, but I think the answer will be verbose and funny.

 

[SSDD]

Of the claimed 400 wm^2 that is supposedly emitted from the whole surface of the earth, better than 99% is conducted, and convected through the troposphere to the upper atmosphere where it is radiated into space.

Google the phrase "is air a good conductor of heat" you will see that your statement is quite false. You still have to think about where does any of the 400 W/m² go. Surely not all of it can go to outer space.

.

First, when did I say that air is a "good" conductor? Lucky for us that it isn't. If it moved heat as quickly as radiation, we would be very cold indeed. I said that conduction and convection dominate energy movement through the troposphere....yet another example of you either deliberately changing what I said in an attempt to have a point to rail against, or you just aren't bright enough to read what someone writes and grasp what they are saying.

You seem to be missing a very fundamental point. Unless the frequency of the emission is increasing, there is no warming....and again, if there were radiatively induced warming, there would be a tropospheric hot spot.

So again...do you have a single piece of observed, measured data which challenges any of the three statements I made above.

And by the way, if greenhouse gasses, specifically those made by man were responsible for warming, don't you think their impact would have been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to those greenhouse gasses by now? The whole thing is little more than smoke and mirrors...lots of double-talk, and appeals to complexity...no empirical data supporting the claims.

 

[SSDD]

The story so far is that I said:
...
2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

I disagree. Why do you think absorption of IR by GHG's does not warm the atmosphere. Where do you think the 400 W/m² radiated from the earth goes?

Of course you disagree....even though there was nothing to either agree with or disagree with there.

There was only a statement. It was" There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. There are two rational answers to that statement. The first is, I agree, there is none. The second is, to reply that there is, in fact such evidence and then to present it.

Pointing out that we are just beginning to grasp how energy moves through the atmosphere, and suggesting that pointing that out somehow negates the statement above is an indication of a reading/comprehension disability, or a deep seeded dishonesty.

Did you have any such data? Didn't think so.

 

[Wuwei]

First, when did I say that air is a "good" conductor? Lucky for us that it isn't. If it moved heat as quickly as radiation, we would be very cold indeed. I said that conduction and convection dominate energy movement through the troposphere....yet another example of you either deliberately changing what I said in an attempt to have a point to rail against, or you just aren't bright enough to read what someone writes and grasp what they are saying.

Where do you think any of the 400 W/m² radiated from the earth goes?

You seem to be missing a very fundamental point. Unless the frequency of the emission is increasing, there is no warming....and again, if there were radiatively induced warming, there would be a tropospheric hot spot.

That is either physical nonsense, or poorly explained. Don't attempt a butchered explanation again. Just me a reference to where you think increasing emission frequency has anything to do with warming.

 

[Wuwei]

There was only a statement. It was" There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

If there is no absorption by GHG's then where do you think the radiation goes. If there is absorption, that means energy is transfered to GHGs. What form does that random energy take if not heat? Do you propose any other possibilities of where the 400 W/m² goes?

 

[whitehall]

Ski resorts opening on time or early this year. Temperatures about 15 below average in the Southeast this year in early November. The world seems to be balanced except in the minds of the crazy left.

 

[SSDD]

Where do you think any of the 400 W/m² radiated from the earth goes?

The vast bulk is conducted through the troposphere to an altitude where the atmospheric pressure is less than 10KPa where it is then radiated out to space.

The surface of the earth does not emit 400wm/2...Refer to trenberth's cartoon...he claims that the surface absorbs 161 and 78 is absorbed by the atmosphere...that is 239...he then states that the outgoing long wave is ~239...the surface emits the 161 trenberth claims and the atmosphere emits the 78 it absorbs...all that is absorbed is emitted. Your 400wm2 is a fiction.....

That is either physical nonsense, or poorly explained. Don't attempt a butchered explanation again. Just me a reference to where you think increasing emission frequency has anything to do with warming.

The sheer volume of information that you don't know...or simply have never devoted any thought to has ceased to amaze me.....you take what you are spoon fed by your priests and question not....like a good little acolyte.

The Molecular Collision Theory says that frequency is directly proportional to the average velocity of molecules...the Kinetic theory of gasses says that the average velocity of molecules is directly proportional to the square root of the temperature. Therefore, frequency is directly proportional to the square root of temperature...You don't get an increase in temperature without an increase in frequency.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Molecular Collision Theory says that frequency is directly proportional to the average velocity of molecules...the Kinetic theory of gasses says that the average velocity of molecules is directly proportional to the square root of the temperature. Therefore, frequency is directly proportional to the square root of temperature...You don't get an increase in temperature without an increase in frequency.

You have no idea how many Phd's I have had to teach this very basic concept to... Once they understand it and that it is the Square and not a liner or LOG reaction they understand why there is no atmospheric hot spot. The result would be over all warming of all levels of the atmosphere not just the region where water vapor is present. And we see paradoxical warming and cooling at different levels today indicating they still have no idea how to model the atmosphere.

 

[Wuwei]

The vast bulk is conducted through the troposphere to an altitude where the atmospheric pressure is less than 10KPa where it is then radiated out to space.

The surface of the earth does not emit 400wm/2...Refer to trenberth's cartoon...he claims that the surface absorbs 161 and 78 is absorbed by the atmosphere...that is 239...he then states that the outgoing long wave is ~239...the surface emits the 161 trenberth claims and the atmosphere emits the 78 it absorbs...all that is absorbed is emitted. Your 400wm2 is a fiction.....

I'm referring to the earth surface. You referred to Trenberth's diagram. He shows roughly 400 W/m² radiating from the earth surface. Since the surface is roughly 300 K, the SB equation gives a radiation of roughly 400 W/m² too. Where do you think that radiation all goes? Study the diagram more carefully. If you don't agree with it why did you bring it up in the first place.

The sheer volume of information that you don't know...or simply have never devoted any thought to has ceased to amaze me.....you take what you are spoon fed by your priests and question not....like a good little acolyte.

You go though that crap and then you change the discussion from frequency of emission to frequency of molecular collisions. That is totally dishonest and a strawman at it's worst.
In post 125 you said,

Then there is the fact that when the energy that has been absorbed by a molecule of a so called greenhouse gas, it is emitted at the same frequency it was absorbed, or at a slightly lower frequency. If you want to warm, you must increase the frequency of the energy being emitted. ​

The phrases I bold faced show that you were explicitly talking about radiation. You are attempting to turn the word emission into collision.

The Molecular Collision Theory says that frequency is directly proportional to the average velocity of molecules...the Kinetic theory of gasses says that the average velocity of molecules is directly proportional to the square root of the temperature. Therefore, frequency is directly proportional to the square root of temperature...You don't get an increase in temperature without an increase in frequency.

That is totally ignores the point. Of course more collisions happen at higher temperature. But we were talking about radiation!!! It is radiation emission impinging on molecules that gives higher average velocities that in turn increases the temperature. Therefore absorption of radiation warms the atmosphere. Talk about spoon feeding physics!

 

[SSDD]

I'm referring to the earth surface. You referred to Trenberth's diagram. He shows roughly 400 W/m² radiating from the earth surface. Since the surface is roughly 300 K, the SB equation gives a radiation of roughly 400 W/m² too. Where do you think that radiation all goes? Study the diagram more carefully. If you don't agree with it why did you bring it up in the first place.

Describe the mechanism by which CO2 turns ~239 wm^2 into 400 wm^2. The earth is not absorbing 400 from its primary energy source, so it can only emit what it absorbs.

You go though that crap and then you change the discussion from frequency of emission to frequency of molecular collisions. That is totally dishonest and a strawman at it's worst.
In post 125 you said,

Then there is the fact that when the energy that has been absorbed by a molecule of a so called greenhouse gas, it is emitted at the same frequency it was absorbed, or at a slightly lower frequency. If you want to warm, you must increase the frequency of the energy being emitted. ​

The phrases I bold faced show that you were explicitly talking about radiation. You are attempting to turn the word emission into collision.

Are you claiming that molecules in the atmosphere don't collide or that most of the energy transported through the troposphere is via conduction?

That is totally ignores the point. Of course more collisions happen at higher temperature. But we were talking about radiation!!! It is radiation emission impinging on molecules that gives higher average velocities that in turn increases the temperature. Therefore absorption of radiation warms the atmosphere. Talk about spoon feeding physics!

So am I which is why I said:
The Molecular Collision Theory says that frequency is directly proportional to the average velocity of molecules...the Kinetic theory of gasses says that the average velocity of molecules is directly proportional to the square root of the temperature. Therefore, frequency is directly proportional to the square root of temperature...You don't get an increase in temperature without an increase in frequency.

Let me guess...you thought frequency refers to how often the molecules are bumping into each other... Are you really??...never mind, you are...without a doubt.

The fact is that you can't have a temperature increase without a corresponding increase in frequency, nor can you increase the frequency without increasing the temperature, assuming that all other variables remain the same.

Spew all the witch doctor magic you like, but the facts are what they are and there is the fundamental reason you don't see a tropospheric hot spot...the frequency of the radiation CO2 is emitting is the same, or slightly lower than that of the radiation it absorbed...no increase in the frequency of the radiation...no increase in temperature.

 

[Billy_Bob]

But we were talking about radiation!!! It is radiation emission impinging on molecules that gives higher average velocities that in turn increases the temperature. Therefore absorption of radiation warms the atmosphere. Talk about spoon feeding physics!

Only convection and conduction warms the atmosphere. The atmosphere is transparent to LWIR and does not warm it.

You have no concept of LWIR and its FREQUENCY. You folks post up the bandpass graph and you fail to understand that 99.4% of energy emitted from the ground is emitted in a LWIR band above 10um. Only water will react to it in our atmosphere and then only long enough to cool due to the evaporation process rendering it impotent (which is why there is no tropospheric hot spot).

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can warm an Object that is 32 deg F? Trenbreth's cartoon is a fantasy derived from failed QED modeling. Less energetic (lower frequency) energy causes cooling in more energetic (higher frequency) molecules.

This is why I sit back and watch you folks go round and round about energy transfer that not one of you can prove and empirical observations say is not happening. Whom to believe, Your UN-provalbe mathematical constructs which fail empirical test or observations which disprove your theroy/hypothesis.?