Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Refer to the SB equations...Set T1 and T2 to the same number...P=0 no energy exchange regardless of how much bad math you engage in to torture the equation in an attempt to satisfy your belief.
Refer to the SB equations...Set T1 and T2 to the same number...P=0 no energy exchange regardless of how much bad math you engage in to torture the equation in an attempt to satisfy your belief.
No heat exchange. For energy exchange by radiation there is always radiation produced by both objects, leaving a net flow that is considered heat exchange.
Photons only interact with matter, they do not cancel out during the journey from emitter to absorber.
What, weirdo? the things he said are observed, empircal fact.Refer to the SB equations...Set T1 and T2 to the same number...P=0 no energy exchange regardless of how much bad math you engage in to torture the equation in an attempt to satisfy your belief.
No heat exchange. For energy exchange by radiation there is always radiation produced by both objects, leaving a net flow that is considered heat exchange.
Photons only interact with matter, they do not cancel out during the journey from emitter to absorber.
According to your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...no such observation or measurement in the real world.
What, weirdo? the things he said are observed, empircal fact.Refer to the SB equations...Set T1 and T2 to the same number...P=0 no energy exchange regardless of how much bad math you engage in to torture the equation in an attempt to satisfy your belief.
No heat exchange. For energy exchange by radiation there is always radiation produced by both objects, leaving a net flow that is considered heat exchange.
Photons only interact with matter, they do not cancel out during the journey from emitter to absorber.
According to your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...no such observation or measurement in the real world.
What, weirdo? the things he said are observed, empircal fact.Refer to the SB equations...Set T1 and T2 to the same number...P=0 no energy exchange regardless of how much bad math you engage in to torture the equation in an attempt to satisfy your belief.
No heat exchange. For energy exchange by radiation there is always radiation produced by both objects, leaving a net flow that is considered heat exchange.
Photons only interact with matter, they do not cancel out during the journey from emitter to absorber.
According to your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...no such observation or measurement in the real world.
Really? Got an observation and measurement of two way, net energy flow made with an instrument at ambient temperature? Didn't think so. Clearly you don't have a complete understanding of what observed, empirical fact is. Like ian, you seem to believe unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model output represents observed fact...maybe you believe observing a model run is like observing reality.
Or maybe you know something no one else does...by all means, if you have an observed example of two way net energy flow made with an instrument at ambient temperature, by all means, lets see it.
Fort Fun, you have to understand that SSDD does not believe any modern physics of the last 100 years. I mean that literally. In particular he doesn't believe in fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics. He doesn't understand that all of physics are mathematical models conceived to be consistent with experimental knowledge, and if you reject mathematical models, you are essentially rejecting the current understanding of physics. Furthermore he is a troll, similar to a flat-earther.What, weirdo? the things he said are observed, empircal fact.
Fort Fun, you have to understand that SSDD does not believe any modern physics of the last 100 years. I mean that literally. In particular he doesn't believe in fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics. He doesn't understand that all of physics are mathematical models conceived to be consistent with experimental knowledge, and if you reject mathematical models, you are essentially rejecting the current understanding of physics. Furthermore he is a troll, similar to a flat-earther.What, weirdo? the things he said are observed, empircal fact.
I can't help but notice that you don't, nor have you ever had any observed, measured evidence of two way net energy flow....all measurements are of gross one way energy flow from warm to cool. If models is all you have...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models, I might add, then you, like the rest of the believers have nothing but faith...and someone whom you perceive as being smarter than yourself saying so.
I can't help but notice that you don't, nor have you ever had any observed, measured evidence of two way net energy flow....all measurements are of gross one way energy flow from warm to cool. If models is all you have...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models, I might add, then you, like the rest of the believers have nothing but faith...and someone whom you perceive as being smarter than yourself saying so.
And yes, I do reject much of the modern "understanding" of physics, which really isn't...and to claim that it jibes with experimental results is just ignorant...show me a measurement made with an instrument at ambient temperature of two way net energy flow rather than one way gross energy movement from warm to cool.
Maybe you are just a kid and haven't been around long enough to see how often science has to acknowledge that what they though they knew...they didn't...how often they are wrong...or maybe you have been around but just aren't bright enough to have been paying attention..or maybe you lack the confidence to actually say that the emperor is buck assed naked...your problem..not mine.
Post modern science..especially physics is in trouble...when you live by models, you will die by models...and modern "science" has become entirely too dependent on models..accepting the output as truth when in reality, the output is little more than a story that we tell each other about things that are happening that we are decades, perhaps centuries away from understanding..and that is assuming that we will ever understand.
Amazing!So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.
So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Here it is.
Our local warmer immediately begins to equivocate and then asks what's my point?
Well, I thought my point was pretty clear...I wanted to establish that we were on the same page to begin with...so I go out and get a few more diagrams from the atmospheric sciences department at Penn State, and Harvard, and one from no place in particular that seems to be showing the same thing. These are they.
Again, I ask if these describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science. And what does the pathetic wretch ask me?...again...what's my point? This guy, who claims to get the science, and claims to have read the IPCC documentation can't bring himself to say whether or not the graphs above, purported by the University of Washington, Penn State, and Harvard to describe the mechanism of the greenhouse effect actually describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.
Who was the pathetic wretch I was talking to?....I am sure you can guess if you like...or you can go to the conversation here and see for yourself....
The fact that this warmer was scared....or unsure enough to even say whether or not the graphics above accurately show the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science perhaps brings up a much larger point...but that's beside the point and doesn't begin to answer the questions I have about the greenhouse effect.
So are there any warmers here on the board that might be able to look at the graphics above and say whether or not they describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science and perhaps talk a bit about that mechanism and effect? By the way...I notice some trivial differences in the above graphics that actually show the amount of radiation moving about...those differences are irrelevant to my questions...
Amazing!
Have you published this yet? Have you yet written a formal, open letter to the major scientifoc societies of the planet? Have you started sharing this idea with actual scientists and academics, in order to gain input on it?
Of course you have! Not.
[QUOTE="Wuwei, post: 18927215, member: 54364
You have stated many times you not believe any modern physics of the last 100 years. In particular you don't believe in fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics. You don't understand that all of physics are mathematical models conceived to be consistent with experimental knowledge, and if you reject mathematical models, you are essentially rejecting the past and current understanding of physics.
It's not a fallacy. I am not engaging you in discussion of the truth of any of the denier bullshit you are spreading. I am ridiculing you for being an obvious charlatan and fraud. You publish no science and explocitly state that the people who actually do are liars and incompetent. You are a fraud.Amazing!
Have you published this yet? Have you yet written a formal, open letter to the major scientifoc societies of the planet? Have you started sharing this idea with actual scientists and academics, in order to gain input on it?
Of course you have! Not.
Nothing but a piss poor, impotent logical fallacy? Is that really all you have? Step on up hot rod...lets see a single piece of data made with an instrument at ambient temperature which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...just one...
Or here is an even easier one...lets see a single piece of observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
My bet is that neither will be forthcoming because neither exists...and what will you do? Run away like you have every other time I asked you for such data? Come up with another logical fallacy or just use one of the same old ones you tend to toss around as if they represented actual intelligence? Maybe call some names? Maybe a combination of all of the above...
What you WON'T do is provide the requested data.
It's not a fallacy. I am not engaging you in discussion of the truth of any of the denier bullshit you are spreading. I am ridiculing you for being an obvious charlatan and fraud. You publish no science and explocitly state that the people who actually do are liars and incompetent. You are a fraud.Amazing!
Have you published this yet? Have you yet written a formal, open letter to the major scientifoc societies of the planet? Have you started sharing this idea with actual scientists and academics, in order to gain input on it?
Of course you have! Not.
Nothing but a piss poor, impotent logical fallacy? Is that really all you have? Step on up hot rod...lets see a single piece of data made with an instrument at ambient temperature which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...just one...
Or here is an even easier one...lets see a single piece of observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
My bet is that neither will be forthcoming because neither exists...and what will you do? Run away like you have every other time I asked you for such data? Come up with another logical fallacy or just use one of the same old ones you tend to toss around as if they represented actual intelligence? Maybe call some names? Maybe a combination of all of the above...
What you WON'T do is provide the requested data.
Of course there is observational evidence. Every piece of evidence that you claim supports your version also supports mine. Plus my side has all the entropy solutions that negate your version.
If there were experimental evidence, then that would mean that there is observation and measurement of two way energy flow...there is none, therefore there is no experimental evidence...you seem to believe that model output is actual experimental data.
Of course there is observational evidence. Every piece of evidence that you claim supports your version also supports mine. Plus my side has all the entropy solutions that negate your version.
Sorry ian...every measurement ever made shows nothing more than gross one way energy movment. But believe what you want ian...your faith is clearly strong.
It's not a fallacy.
I am not engaging you in discussion of the truth of any of the denier bullshit you are spreading.
I am ridiculing you for being an obvious charlatan and fraud.
You publish no science and explocitly state that the people who actually do are liars and incompetent. You are a fraud.
Of course there is observational evidence. Every piece of evidence that you claim supports your version also supports mine. Plus my side has all the entropy solutions that negate your version.
Sorry ian...every measurement ever made shows nothing more than gross one way energy movment. But believe what you want ian...your faith is clearly strong.
If there were experimental evidence, then that would mean that there is observation and measurement of two way energy flow...there is none, therefore there is no experimental evidence...you seem to believe that model output is actual experimental data.
Within the theory of quantum mechanics, photons are emitted from a warm body in all directions. There is no QM mechanism that prevents those photons from hitting a hotter body. You have not given any QM mechanism on how photons are impeded from doing that. That's why people on this board refer to your misunderstanding as "smart photons". Do you care to give your QM mechanism?
