The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[SSDD]

Let me know when you learn to read an equation and state what it says in english..

For Gods sake. You were shown how to read that equation time and again. You can't be that ignorant that you don't understand where it came from. Even Stefan, who did the original experiment, wrote that there was emission and absorption, and then combined the two into one equation. Only the stupidest of people would proclaim that emission totally stops between two objects at the same temperature.

Really? Are you making the claim that you can read an equation? Here give it a try I'll get you started.

power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boatsman constant times the area of the object times what?

 

[IanC]

Let me know when you learn to read an equation and state what it says in english..

For Gods sake. You were shown how to read that equation time and again. You can't be that ignorant that you don't understand where it came from. Even Stefan, who did the original experiment, wrote that there was emission and absorption, and then combined the two into one equation. Only the stupidest of people would proclaim that emission totally stops between two objects at the same temperature.

Really? Are you making the claim that you can read an equation? Here give it a try I'll get you started.

power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boatsman constant times the area of the object times what?

Why don't you give us a simple real world example of how that equation works?

 

[Wuwei]

Really? Are you making the claim that you can read an equation? Here give it a try I'll get you started.

power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boatsman constant times the area of the object times what?

Tod in another thread said it could be that the atoms of CO2 never emit the photons toward warmer objects in the first place. These could be considered "smart molecules" vs "smart photons".

So which is it SSDD? is it the photons that shun warmer objects or are the CO2 molecules simply not releasing them in that direction?

We really would like you to elaborate on your new physics.

 

[SSDD]

Really? Are you making the claim that you can read an equation? Here give it a try I'll get you started.

power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boatsman constant times the area of the object times what?

Tod in another thread said it could be that the atoms of CO2 never emit the photons toward warmer objects in the first place. These could be considered "smart molecules" vs "smart photons".

So which is it SSDD? is it the photons that shun warmer objects or are the CO2 molecules simply not releasing them in that direction?

We really would like you to elaborate on your new physics.

So you either can't read an equation or won't actually speak it either...interesting

 

[SSDD]

Let me know when you learn to read an equation and state what it says in english..

For Gods sake. You were shown how to read that equation time and again. You can't be that ignorant that you don't understand where it came from. Even Stefan, who did the original experiment, wrote that there was emission and absorption, and then combined the two into one equation. Only the stupidest of people would proclaim that emission totally stops between two objects at the same temperature.

Really? Are you making the claim that you can read an equation? Here give it a try I'll get you started.

power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boatsman constant times the area of the object times what?

Why don't you give us a simple real world example of how that equation works?

how do you suppose it became a physical law?

 

[Crick]

I asked you this once before but I don't think I got back to see if you answered. We have two interpretations of SB's law: one that uses nothing but the basic assumption that all matter radiates per its temperature regardless of its surroundings and YOURS, that contends all matter is somehow able to know the temperature of all matter around it and somehow adjust its radiation in response including somehow taking relativistic travel time into account. The results regarding energy transferred are the same. Why in god's name would you choose the interpretation that requires all the obviously impossible, voodoo-mumbo jumbo? Eh?

 

[Wuwei]

So you either can't read an equation or won't actually speak it either...interesting

Cut out the troll crap. We have told you time and again how the equation is derived. Your reading differs from all text books, lectures, and journals, and you know it. Crick's above post challenges you to come up with some valid scientific justification, but you don't understand why you believe your crap. That makes you a troll.

 

[IanC]

Let me know when you learn to read an equation and state what it says in english..

For Gods sake. You were shown how to read that equation time and again. You can't be that ignorant that you don't understand where it came from. Even Stefan, who did the original experiment, wrote that there was emission and absorption, and then combined the two into one equation. Only the stupidest of people would proclaim that emission totally stops between two objects at the same temperature.

Really? Are you making the claim that you can read an equation? Here give it a try I'll get you started.

power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boatsman constant times the area of the object times what?

Why don't you give us a simple real world example of how that equation works?

how do you suppose it became a physical law?

Post a real world application of this equation. You don't seem to understand the complexities of emissivity, or of the calculations for area.

Your answer should be useful in demonstrating why intensity drops proportionally to 1/d^2

 

[SSDD]

I asked you this once before but I don't think I got back to see if you answered. We have two interpretations of SB's law: one that uses nothing but the basic assumption that all matter radiates per its temperature regardless of its surroundings and YOURS, that contends all matter is somehow able to know the temperature of all matter around it and somehow adjust its radiation in response including somehow taking relativistic travel time into account. The results regarding energy transferred are the same. Why in god's name would you choose the interpretation that requires all the obviously impossible, voodoo-mumbo jumbo? Eh?

Actually, what you have is the law, and your wrong interpretation of it.

This formula, which describes a black body radiating according to its temperature, applies only to a perfect black body sitting alone, in a perfect vacuum. I took the time to have a few top shelf physicists point that out to ian a while back...the fact that you guys continue to believe that it doesn't apply only to perfect black bodies perfectly alone in a perfect vacuum is just one more reason that you have been fooled into buying into the scam. You only read to justify your beliefs...it seems that none of you actually read anything with the intent of learning anything.

 

[SSDD]

So you either can't read an equation or won't actually speak it either...interesting

Cut out the troll crap. We have told you time and again how the equation is derived. Your reading differs from all text books, lectures, and journals, and you know it. Crick's above post challenges you to come up with some valid scientific justification, but you don't understand why you believe your crap. That makes you a troll.

So you still either can't read an equation or won't actually speak it either...still interesting

 

[SSDD]

Let me know when you learn to read an equation and state what it says in english..

For Gods sake. You were shown how to read that equation time and again. You can't be that ignorant that you don't understand where it came from. Even Stefan, who did the original experiment, wrote that there was emission and absorption, and then combined the two into one equation. Only the stupidest of people would proclaim that emission totally stops between two objects at the same temperature.

Really? Are you making the claim that you can read an equation? Here give it a try I'll get you started.

power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boatsman constant times the area of the object times what?

Why don't you give us a simple real world example of how that equation works?

how do you suppose it became a physical law?

Post a real world application of this equation. You don't seem to understand the complexities of emissivity, or of the calculations for area.

Your answer should be useful in demonstrating why intensity drops proportionally to 1/d^2

Any measurement of energy movement from one object to another is a real world application of that equation...measure the rate qt which a bottle of 100 degree water cools sitting on a counter surrounded by 70 degree air, vs the rate at which a bottle of 100 degree water cools in a bath of 40 degree water. Measure any other energy transfer you care to measure and you will have a real world application of the above equation....one way gross energy movement. You can not measure energy moving from a cool object to a warm object because energy does not move in that direction any more than rocks fall up into the sky.

 

[Wuwei]

So you either can't read an equation or won't actually speak it either...interesting

Cut out the troll crap. We have told you time and again how the equation is derived. Your reading differs from all text books, lectures, and journals, and you know it. Crick's above post challenges you to come up with some valid scientific justification, but you don't understand why you believe your crap. That makes you a troll.

So you still either can't read an equation or won't actually speak it either...still interesting

So you still pretend to believe science is fairy dust. Troll.

 

[IanC]

For Gods sake. You were shown how to read that equation time and again. You can't be that ignorant that you don't understand where it came from. Even Stefan, who did the original experiment, wrote that there was emission and absorption, and then combined the two into one equation. Only the stupidest of people would proclaim that emission totally stops between two objects at the same temperature.

Really? Are you making the claim that you can read an equation? Here give it a try I'll get you started.

power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boatsman constant times the area of the object times what?

Why don't you give us a simple real world example of how that equation works?

how do you suppose it became a physical law?

Post a real world application of this equation. You don't seem to understand the complexities of emissivity, or of the calculations for area.

Your answer should be useful in demonstrating why intensity drops proportionally to 1/d^2

Any measurement of energy movement from one object to another is a real world application of that equation...measure the rate qt which a bottle of 100 degree water cools sitting on a counter surrounded by 70 degree air, vs the rate at which a bottle of 100 degree water cools in a bath of 40 degree water. Measure any other energy transfer you care to measure and you will have a real world application of the above equation....one way gross energy movement. You can not measure energy moving from a cool object to a warm object because energy does not move in that direction any more than rocks fall up into the sky.

That equation does not describe the rate of cooling.

It only gives the net radiation between two objects for a single instant when the temperature of the two objects, the emissivity of the two objects, and the area of the facing surfaces are known.

The calculations for two cans of pop, one can width away, are already massively complex. Litre cartons as close as possible would allow a certain amount of simplifying assumptions but in any case the emergent temperature gradients as time passed would quickly make any calculations impossible without a computer and calculus.

 

[SSDD]

That equation does not describe the rate of cooling.

Really? If you know how much energy an object is losing, you can't calculate its rate of cooling?

It only gives the net radiation between two objects for a single instant when the temperature of the two objects, the emissivity of the two objects, and the area of the facing surfaces are known.

There is no radiation exchange between the objects...there is only one way gross energy movement from the warmer to the cooler object...if you think otherwise, I will wait for you to provide an observed measured example of spontaneous energy movement between two objects.

 

[SSDD]

So you either can't read an equation or won't actually speak it either...interesting

Cut out the troll crap. We have told you time and again how the equation is derived. Your reading differs from all text books, lectures, and journals, and you know it. Crick's above post challenges you to come up with some valid scientific justification, but you don't understand why you believe your crap. That makes you a troll.

So you still either can't read an equation or won't actually speak it either...still interesting

So you still pretend to believe science is fairy dust. Troll.

Funny...coming from someone who can't even state what an equation describing a physical phenomenon is saying in plain english.

Want to try again?

Power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boatsman constant times the area of the object times what?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That equation does not describe the rate of cooling.

Really? If you know how much energy an object is losing, you can't calculate its rate of cooling?

It only gives the net radiation between two objects for a single instant when the temperature of the two objects, the emissivity of the two objects, and the area of the facing surfaces are known.

There is no radiation exchange between the objects...there is only one way gross energy movement from the warmer to the cooler object...if you think otherwise, I will wait for you to provide an observed measured example of spontaneous energy movement between two objects.

If you know how much energy an object is losing, you can't calculate its rate of cooling?

Not when you ignore how much energy it's absorbing.

There is no radiation exchange between the objects...

All by yourself. Weird.

I will wait for you to provide an observed measured example of spontaneous energy movement between two objects.

I will wait for you to provide an observed measured example of zero energy movement between two objects at equilibrium..

 

[IanC]

So you either can't read an equation or won't actually speak it either...interesting

Cut out the troll crap. We have told you time and again how the equation is derived. Your reading differs from all text books, lectures, and journals, and you know it. Crick's above post challenges you to come up with some valid scientific justification, but you don't understand why you believe your crap. That makes you a troll.

So you still either can't read an equation or won't actually speak it either...still interesting

So you still pretend to believe science is fairy dust. Troll.

Funny...coming from someone who can't even state what an equation describing a physical phenomenon is saying in plain english.

Want to try again?

Power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boatsman constant times the area of the object times what?

It says-

Pnet = Pwarm - Pcool

 

[SSDD]

Not when you ignore how much energy it's absorbing.

Got any measurements of a warm object absorbing energy spontaneously emitted from a cooler object? Didn't think so.

Not when you ignore how much energy it's absorbing.

All by yourself. Weird.

I don't need anyone to agree with me in order to be confident of my position..You know who is only comfortable with being part of a group that agrees with them? Sheep. Lets hear a great big old baaahhhh toddster....say it once...bbbaaaaaahhhhhh.

I will wait for you to provide an observed measured example of zero energy movement between two objects at equilibrium..

Any measurement made of objects of the same temperature will do...they will all show the same thing...and it isn't an exchange of energy.

 

[SSDD]

So you either can't read an equation or won't actually speak it either...interesting

Cut out the troll crap. We have told you time and again how the equation is derived. Your reading differs from all text books, lectures, and journals, and you know it. Crick's above post challenges you to come up with some valid scientific justification, but you don't understand why you believe your crap. That makes you a troll.

So you still either can't read an equation or won't actually speak it either...still interesting

So you still pretend to believe science is fairy dust. Troll.

Funny...coming from someone who can't even state what an equation describing a physical phenomenon is saying in plain english.

Want to try again?

Power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boatsman constant times the area of the object times what?

It says-

Pnet = Pwarm - Pcool

There is no net...there is only one way gross energy flow...but do feel free to provide a measurement of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...your models don't mean jack if they can't reflect reality.

Thanks for acknowledging that you can't read an equation either....you guys are a hoot...for all your bullshit, none of you can bring yourselves to actually speak the equation in plain english...willful ignorance at its zenith.

 

[IanC]

That equation does not describe the rate of cooling.

Really? If you know how much energy an object is losing, you can't calculate its rate of cooling?

It only gives the net radiation between two objects for a single instant when the temperature of the two objects, the emissivity of the two objects, and the area of the facing surfaces are known.

There is no radiation exchange between the objects...there is only one way gross energy movement from the warmer to the cooler object...if you think otherwise, I will wait for you to provide an observed measured example of spontaneous energy movement between two objects.

Please explain how you rearrange the terms in the SB equation to get a rate of cooling.