Northern nations warming faster than global average

[Wuwei]

SSDDs link also describes the 'energy density' of a region of space that is in thermal equilibrium with itself. Oddly enough it is not zero as SSDD has constantly claimed but also follows the same T^4 relationship. There is no throttling down of radiation as the net exchange goes to zero.

SSDDs link also describes the 'energy density' of a region of space that is in thermal equilibrium with itself. Oddly enough it is not zero as SSDD has constantly claimed but also follows the same T^4 relationship. There is no throttling down of radiation as the net exchange goes to zero.

Read for comprehension...
If the hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings at temperature Tc, the net radiation loss rate takes the form

and again...net is an assumption since net anything can not be derived from that equation.

We showed you this many times. This is the derivation from the basic SB form.
Equation 1 radiation output
Equation 2 radiation input
Equation 3 Net. The net is a subtraction of the input from the output. Then an arithmetic collection of terms. The middle two terms define the net. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? Fine. You want to disagree with science, but something as basic as this is grade school arithmetic.

 

[SSDD]

Yep...seen your bogus equation...seen the assumption tacked to the end of it...

It was bogus the first few times you posted it..its' still bogus...it ignores the fundamental assumption in the SB law that the temperature of T is greater than the temperature of Tc.

 

[Wuwei]

Yep...seen your bogus equation...seen the assumption tacked to the end of it...

It was bogus the first few times you posted it..its' still bogus...it ignores the fundamental assumption in the SB law that the temperature of T is greater than the temperature of Tc.

Of course you are wrong, as you no doubt already know, but I thought I would take this opportunity to point out that you disagree with almost all the basic tenets of thermodynamics, and most of other modern science.

Although defiance of science is what everyone expects from you, what is quite really off the charts is that your statements concerning what you think the science should be is full of self-contradictions. When it comes to your self-contradictions they are not just flaws in science thinking. They are flaws in the much more fundamental field of logic.

I will chat with you from time to time in depth about your flaws and self-contradictions as you continue to bring them up and I'm sure the others on this forum who do understand science will do the same.


.

 

[SSDD]

Yep...seen your bogus equation...seen the assumption tacked to the end of it...

It was bogus the first few times you posted it..its' still bogus...it ignores the fundamental assumption in the SB law that the temperature of T is greater than the temperature of Tc.

Of course you are wrong, as you no doubt already know, but I thought I would take this opportunity to point out that you disagree with almost all the basic tenets of thermodynamics, and most of other modern science.

Although defiance of science is what everyone expects from you, what is quite really off the charts is that your statements concerning what you think the science should be is full of self-contradictions. When it comes to your self-contradictions they are not just flaws in science thinking. They are flaws in the much more fundamental field of logic.

I will chat with you from time to time in depth about your flaws and self-contradictions as you continue to bring them up and I'm sure the others on this forum who do understand science will do the same.


.

Nice attempt to appear intelligent...failed but nice attempt... The fact remains that you can't produce any actual evidence to support your belief in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models.

And in case you haven't noticed..."modern science" is in a reproducibility crisis pretty much across the board..

And maybe you haven't noticed that some real heavyweights in physics, Sabine Hossenfelder and Roger Penrose have begun to state in no uncertain terms that quantum mechanics is wrong....and don't be surprised if even more stop playing the "if you believe it it will be true" game... The reproducibility crisis that science is experiencing now has its beginnings in quantum mechanics.

 

[Wuwei]

The fact remains that you can't produce any actual evidence to support your belief in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models.

Many examples of evidence were given to you many times by many people.

And maybe you haven't noticed that some real heavyweights in physics, Sabine Hossenfelder and Roger Penrose have begun to state in no uncertain terms that quantum mechanics is wrong....and don't be surprised if even more stop playing the "if you believe it it will be true" game... The reproducibility crisis that science is experiencing now has its beginnings in quantum mechanics.

It is obvious you don't know enough about QM to be in a position to critique it. Searching the web with key words is not good enough. You have done this before but I will answer you again anyway.

Modern physics theory is accurately predicted by every experiment to parts per billion or trillion. You don't need string theory, multiverses, quantum gravity and many similar hypotheses to deal with atmospheric physics. QM will still predict the experiments to the same accuracy no matter what underlying hypotheses are changed.


.

 

[SSDD]

The fact remains that you can't produce any actual evidence to support your belief in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models.

Many examples of evidence were given to you many times by many people.

And maybe you haven't noticed that some real heavyweights in physics, Sabine Hossenfelder and Roger Penrose have begun to state in no uncertain terms that quantum mechanics is wrong....and don't be surprised if even more stop playing the "if you believe it it will be true" game... The reproducibility crisis that science is experiencing now has its beginnings in quantum mechanics.

It is obvious you don't know enough about QM to be in a position to critique it. Searching the web with key words is not good enough. You have done this before but I will answer you again anyway.

Modern physics theory is accurately predicted by every experiment to parts per billion or trillion. You don't need string theory, multiverses, quantum gravity and many similar hypotheses to deal with atmospheric physics. QM will still predict the experiments to the same accuracy no matter what underlying hypotheses are changed.


.

Like all the believers in models...all you were able to produce was what was good enough to fool you...unfortunate, but laughably true.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The fact remains that you can't produce any actual evidence to support your belief in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models.

Many examples of evidence were given to you many times by many people.

And maybe you haven't noticed that some real heavyweights in physics, Sabine Hossenfelder and Roger Penrose have begun to state in no uncertain terms that quantum mechanics is wrong....and don't be surprised if even more stop playing the "if you believe it it will be true" game... The reproducibility crisis that science is experiencing now has its beginnings in quantum mechanics.

It is obvious you don't know enough about QM to be in a position to critique it. Searching the web with key words is not good enough. You have done this before but I will answer you again anyway.

Modern physics theory is accurately predicted by every experiment to parts per billion or trillion. You don't need string theory, multiverses, quantum gravity and many similar hypotheses to deal with atmospheric physics. QM will still predict the experiments to the same accuracy no matter what underlying hypotheses are changed.


.

Like all the believers in models...all you were able to produce was what was good enough to fool you...unfortunate, but laughably true.

And yet, still no sources to back you up. Weird.

 

[Wuwei]

Like all the believers in models...all you were able to produce was what was good enough to fool you...unfortunate, but laughably true.

Yes we all know that you laugh at science and call it foolish so you can wallow in your own self-contradictions. You don't need to keep reminding us of that.

.

 

[SSDD]

And the wait continues for anything at all that demonstrates your point...we grow tired watching you prove over and over how easily you are fooled.

 

[Wuwei]

And the wait continues for anything at all that demonstrates your point...we grow tired watching you prove over and over how easily you are fooled.

Are you referring to the point I made that you don't believe in current science? You said that yourself.

 

[SSDD]

And the wait continues for anything at all that demonstrates your point...we grow tired watching you prove over and over how easily you are fooled.

Are you referring to the point I made that you don't believe in current science? You said that yourself.

You claim that the laws of science say that back radiation is real...which law of science says that spontaneous energy transfer between objects of different temperatures happens?

 

[Wuwei]

You claim that the laws of science say that back radiation is real...which law of science says that spontaneous energy transfer between objects of different temperatures happens?

The SB law.


.

 

[SSDD]

You claim that the laws of science say that back radiation is real...which law of science says that spontaneous energy transfer between objects of different temperatures happens?

The SB law.


.

Wrong yet again...do you ever actually research anything or is making it up as you go the only way you roll. The statement of the SB law is that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.

Nothing whatsoever about back radiation there...and your bogus equation certainly doesn't prove anything since it ignores a fundamental assumption of the SB law that the temperature of T is always higher than the temperature of Tc...

Tc designates the cooler background...

Been through it all before...your argument failed then...it is the same argument and doomed to fail again...if you must relive your defeats, revisit any of the previous incarnations of this same discussion and save us the tedium of reliving it with you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You claim that the laws of science say that back radiation is real...which law of science says that spontaneous energy transfer between objects of different temperatures happens?

The SB law.


.

Wrong yet again...do you ever actually research anything or is making it up as you go the only way you roll. The statement of the SB law is that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.

Nothing whatsoever about back radiation there...and your bogus equation certainly doesn't prove anything since it ignores a fundamental assumption of the SB law that the temperature of T is always higher than the temperature of Tc...

Tc designates the cooler background...

Been through it all before...your argument failed then...it is the same argument and doomed to fail again...if you must relive your defeats, revisit any of the previous incarnations of this same discussion and save us the tedium of reliving it with you.

The statement of the SB law is that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.

Exactly!

Nothing whatsoever about back radiation there..

Nothing whatsoever about dialing down radiation there..

 

[SSDD]

You claim that the laws of science say that back radiation is real...which law of science says that spontaneous energy transfer between objects of different temperatures happens?

The SB law.


.

Wrong yet again...do you ever actually research anything or is making it up as you go the only way you roll. The statement of the SB law is that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.

Nothing whatsoever about back radiation there...and your bogus equation certainly doesn't prove anything since it ignores a fundamental assumption of the SB law that the temperature of T is always higher than the temperature of Tc...

Tc designates the cooler background...

Been through it all before...your argument failed then...it is the same argument and doomed to fail again...if you must relive your defeats, revisit any of the previous incarnations of this same discussion and save us the tedium of reliving it with you.

The statement of the SB law is that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.

Exactly!

Nothing whatsoever about back radiation there..

Nothing whatsoever about dialing down radiation there..

What would restrict it...the SB law is addressing a theoretical perfect black body in a theoretical perfect vacuum....that is the statement of the SB law..nothing more nothing less...assumptions don't make the belief in back radiation true.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You claim that the laws of science say that back radiation is real...which law of science says that spontaneous energy transfer between objects of different temperatures happens?

The SB law.


.

Wrong yet again...do you ever actually research anything or is making it up as you go the only way you roll. The statement of the SB law is that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.

Nothing whatsoever about back radiation there...and your bogus equation certainly doesn't prove anything since it ignores a fundamental assumption of the SB law that the temperature of T is always higher than the temperature of Tc...

Tc designates the cooler background...

Been through it all before...your argument failed then...it is the same argument and doomed to fail again...if you must relive your defeats, revisit any of the previous incarnations of this same discussion and save us the tedium of reliving it with you.

The statement of the SB law is that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.

Exactly!

Nothing whatsoever about back radiation there..

Nothing whatsoever about dialing down radiation there..

What would restrict it...the SB law is addressing a theoretical perfect black body in a theoretical perfect vacuum....that is the statement of the SB law..nothing more nothing less...assumptions don't make the belief in back radiation true.

What would restrict it

Exactly.

The unknowable temperature of a nearby body can't restrict the emission of a body.

 

[SSDD]

You claim that the laws of science say that back radiation is real...which law of science says that spontaneous energy transfer between objects of different temperatures happens?

The SB law.


.

Wrong yet again...do you ever actually research anything or is making it up as you go the only way you roll. The statement of the SB law is that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.

Nothing whatsoever about back radiation there...and your bogus equation certainly doesn't prove anything since it ignores a fundamental assumption of the SB law that the temperature of T is always higher than the temperature of Tc...

Tc designates the cooler background...

Been through it all before...your argument failed then...it is the same argument and doomed to fail again...if you must relive your defeats, revisit any of the previous incarnations of this same discussion and save us the tedium of reliving it with you.

The statement of the SB law is that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.

Exactly!

Nothing whatsoever about back radiation there..

Nothing whatsoever about dialing down radiation there..

What would restrict it...the SB law is addressing a theoretical perfect black body in a theoretical perfect vacuum....that is the statement of the SB law..nothing more nothing less...assumptions don't make the belief in back radiation true.

What would restrict it

Exactly.

The unknowable temperature of a nearby body can't restrict the emission of a body.

Sorry that this is all so difficult for you. There are different equations to use the SB law when a radiator is not a perfect black body and not in a perfect vacuum...those equations show that the output of a radiator varies with the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings...You have been provided with the equation over and over and simply don't seem to be able to grasp it...unfortunate, but not everyone has the math skills to read very simple algebraic equations...those who don't are left simply making up stories about what they believe the equation means...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The SB law.


.

Wrong yet again...do you ever actually research anything or is making it up as you go the only way you roll. The statement of the SB law is that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.

Nothing whatsoever about back radiation there...and your bogus equation certainly doesn't prove anything since it ignores a fundamental assumption of the SB law that the temperature of T is always higher than the temperature of Tc...

Tc designates the cooler background...

Been through it all before...your argument failed then...it is the same argument and doomed to fail again...if you must relive your defeats, revisit any of the previous incarnations of this same discussion and save us the tedium of reliving it with you.

The statement of the SB law is that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.

Exactly!

Nothing whatsoever about back radiation there..

Nothing whatsoever about dialing down radiation there..

What would restrict it...the SB law is addressing a theoretical perfect black body in a theoretical perfect vacuum....that is the statement of the SB law..nothing more nothing less...assumptions don't make the belief in back radiation true.

What would restrict it

Exactly.

The unknowable temperature of a nearby body can't restrict the emission of a body.

Sorry that this is all so difficult for you. There are different equations to use the SB law when a radiator is not a perfect black body and not in a perfect vacuum...those equations show that the output of a radiator varies with the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings...You have been provided with the equation over and over and simply don't seem to be able to grasp it...unfortunate, but not everyone has the math skills to read very simple algebraic equations...those who don't are left simply making up stories about what they believe the equation means...

Sorry that this is all so difficult for you.

Not difficult at all. Take 2 grey bodies of different temperatures.
Put them near each other. They both radiate. Their radiation is proportional to the fourth power of their absolute temperature.

those equations show that the output of a radiator varies with the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings...

Nope. You don't have a single source that says the radiation is dialed down based on the unknowable temperature of nearby objects.

You have been provided with the equation over and over and simply don't seem to be able to grasp it...

I grasp your solo misinterpretation just fine.

unfortunate, but not everyone has the math skills to read very simple algebraic equations..

Or to understand basic physics. But we keep trying. You keep failing.

 

[Wuwei]

You claim that the laws of science say that back radiation is real...which law of science says that spontaneous energy transfer between objects of different temperatures happens?

The SB law.

Wrong yet again...do you ever actually research anything or is making it up as you go the only way you roll. The statement of the SB law is that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.

Nothing whatsoever about back radiation there...and your bogus equation certainly doesn't prove anything since it ignores a fundamental assumption of the SB law that the temperature of T is always higher than the temperature of Tc...

Tc designates the cooler background...

Been through it all before...your argument failed then...it is the same argument and doomed to fail again...if you must relive your defeats, revisit any of the previous incarnations of this same discussion and save us the tedium of reliving it with you.

You are lying again. You know what the science is, but you keep lying about it. There is no restriction on the second temperature term in the derived form, and you know it. You have absolutely no proof that the Dartmouth article is wrong.

If you think radiation is inhibited by nearby objects at higher temperatures you are contrary to many observations and experiments. Also you are breaking at least four laws of physics:

• Accelerating charges must radiate.
• The derived form of the SB law.
• Black body radiation law.
• The second law of thermodynamics.

.

 

[flacaltenn]

See the "Official Thread for for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics" in the sticky section of the Enviro forum for why this thread was closed...