The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no "net" except within your terribly mistaken mind....it doesn't exist out here in the real world as evidenced by your inability to show any observed measured example of energy moving from cool to warm...and no..your example of a resonance radio frequency is not an example of anything other than how easily you are fooled by instrumentation. A common trait among the dupes who believe in AGW...it would have to be.

There is no "net" except within your terribly mistaken mind....

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

His mind, Science Magazine, The Handbook of Modern Sensors.

The only place where energy only moves one way is in your mind. Weird.

Another mind experiment...and not the first actual measurement of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...how completely unsurprising....yyyaaaaawwwwwnnnnnn

Ummm….The Handbook of Modern Sensors did "mind experiments"? Sure.

It's sad that you're unable to come up with any back up for your "one way only" energy flows.
All the sources ever posted end up agreeing with two-way, none ever say one-way.
Why do you suppose that is the case?

 

[SSDD]

Your inability to provide any observed, measured example of spontaneous two way energy movement does back up my positon. Either you can provide an actual measurement or you can't....and by now you have proven substantively that you can't.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your inability to provide any observed, measured example of spontaneous two way energy movement does back up my positon. Either you can provide an actual measurement or you can't....and by now you have proven substantively that you can't.

It's sad that you're unable to come up with any back up for your "one way only" energy flows.
All the sources ever posted end up agreeing with two-way, none ever say one-way.
Why do you suppose that is the case?

 

[Wuwei]

There is no "net" except within your terribly mistaken mind....it doesn't exist out here in the real world

According to the American Institute of Physics 14,200 PhD physicists graduated from 2002 to 2012 in the US.

According to an article from Physics Today, there are over 372,000 physicist worldwide.

Why is this important? I tells us that 372,000 physicists totally disagree with SSDD's understanding of thermodynamics.

 

[SSDD]

Your inability to provide any observed, measured example of spontaneous two way energy movement does back up my positon. Either you can provide an actual measurement or you can't....and by now you have proven substantively that you can't.

It's sad that you're unable to come up with any back up for your "one way only" energy flows.
All the sources ever posted end up agreeing with two-way, none ever say one-way.
Why do you suppose that is the case?

Here is one written just for you...

Flowing from Hot to Cold: The Second Law of Thermodynamics - dummies

How Does Energy Flow?

In What Direction Does Energy Flow?

theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html

Then there is the second law of thermodynamics itself...

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

 

[Billy_Bob]

WOW..

This thread has gone off the rails... The whole point of this thread was to show how EM energy passes through our atmosphere almost transparently. Radiation by all matter will over power the CO2 ability to slow release because it can not hold energy and once it is excited it must release energy in order to take on more energy.

The SB law does not incorporate basic fluxes of energy and how they affect the mass they pass through. Is CO2 currently saturated with energy and thus transparent to further energy? Is this the reason that no hot spot exists? The LOG interpretation suggest this. Then we give water a positive forcing due to the escaping energy but we forget conduction and convection which have given us the 1/2 of warming we expected to see from 120ppm (which is just about half of one doubling from 280ppm).

From the very beginning the premise was a failure because simple basic science was bastardized by models that do not replicate the system they were designed to imitate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your inability to provide any observed, measured example of spontaneous two way energy movement does back up my positon. Either you can provide an actual measurement or you can't....and by now you have proven substantively that you can't.

It's sad that you're unable to come up with any back up for your "one way only" energy flows.
All the sources ever posted end up agreeing with two-way, none ever say one-way.
Why do you suppose that is the case?

Here is one written just for you...

Flowing from Hot to Cold: The Second Law of Thermodynamics - dummies

How Does Energy Flow?

In What Direction Does Energy Flow?

theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html

Then there is the second law of thermodynamics itself...

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Thanks for the links, which one specifically says radiation can't flow from cold matter to warmer matter?

Maybe you could just cut and paste the portion that backs your claim?

 

[SSDD]

There is no "net" except within your terribly mistaken mind....it doesn't exist out here in the real world

According to the American Institute of Physics 14,200 PhD physicists graduated from 2002 to 2012 in the US.

According to an article from Physics Today, there are over 372,000 physicist worldwide.

Why is this important? I tells us that 372,000 physicists totally disagree with SSDD's understanding of thermodynamics.

You think that actually means something. I can think of at least 6 instances in the past 20 years when I have been right and damned near every scientists on earth involved with the subject matter on earth was wrong.

I was right when I told my MD that my stomach ulcer was in no way caused by stress.

I was right when I told my MD that I would not begin taking statins because cholesterol did not cause heart disease

I was right when I told my MD that salt intake did not cause high blood pressure

I was right when I said that whole milk is better for you than 2% or skim

I was right when I said that natural oils and fats were better for you than hydrogenated oils.

And I was right when I took the arbitrary position against the consensus that quasicrystals did, in fact, exist. If you bothered to look at the history of science you would find that in any slightly controversial scientific topic, if you go against the consensus, the odds are heavily in your favor that you will be right....and as science moves further away from the demand for actual empirical evidence in favor of models, those odds are only going to increase.​

 

[Wuwei]

You think that actually means something. I can think of at least 6 instances in the past 20 years when I have been right and damned near every scientists on earth involved with the subject matter on earth was wrong.

I was right when I told my MD that my stomach ulcer was in no way caused by stress.

I was right when I told my MD that I would not begin taking statins because cholesterol did not cause heart disease

I was right when I told my MD that salt intake did not cause high blood pressure

I was right when I said that whole milk is better for you than 2% or skim

I was right when I said that natural oils and fats were better for you than hydrogenated oils.

And I was right when I took the arbitrary position against the consensus that quasicrystals did, in fact, exist. If you bothered to look at the history of science you would find that in any slightly controversial scientific topic, if you go against the consensus, the odds are heavily in your favor that you will be right....and as science moves further away from the demand for actual empirical evidence in favor of models, those odds are only going to increase.

For physicists to agree that photons can only flow one way between objects they would have to abandon direct evidence from the CMB, and work out a way for EM from the CMB to be just "resonance frequencies" that pass through the atmosphere (whatever that means since you never explained it) and not be black body radiation.

They would have to abandon extremely basic concepts on black body radiation, and adopt the idea that radiation really can be completely stopped by a remote hotter object.

They would have to abandon the idea that accelerating charges always radiate, and adopt the idea they will always stop radiating because of some external cause.

They would have to adopt the idea that two objects at the same temperature would both totally stop radiating toward each other.

Do you really think that can be achieved?

It is so much more consistent to fulfill all the above by assuming that the SB law refers to two way radiation. No physics laws are violated by that assumption.

You are basing your whole idea of abandoning the above physics on the interpretation of just one word, energy, in some wordings of the second law.

In the phrase "energy spontaneously flows from hot to cold." Physicists interpret the word energy in that context to be either heat energy or net energy.

Do you really think they would abandon that one interpretation and create a morass of difficulty in the rest of science?

 

[IanC]

This thread has gone off the rails... The whole point of this thread was to show how EM energy passes through our atmosphere almost transparently.

But radiation doesn't pass through transparently. While some IR bands escape quite freely, others are totally opaque for surface generated radiation.

The amount of IR leaving the planet is roughly 1/3 of the amount being produced at the surface.

 

[IanC]

You think that actually means something. I can think of at least 6 instances in the past 20 years when I have been right and damned near every scientists on earth involved with the subject matter on earth was wrong.

I was right when I told my MD that my stomach ulcer was in no way caused by stress.

I was right when I told my MD that I would not begin taking statins because cholesterol did not cause heart disease

I was right when I told my MD that salt intake did not cause high blood pressure

I was right when I said that whole milk is better for you than 2% or skim

I was right when I said that natural oils and fats were better for you than hydrogenated oils.

And I was right when I took the arbitrary position against the consensus that quasicrystals did, in fact, exist. If you bothered to look at the history of science you would find that in any slightly controversial scientific topic, if you go against the consensus, the odds are heavily in your favor that you will be right....and as science moves further away from the demand for actual empirical evidence in favor of models, those odds are only going to increase.

For physicists to agree that photons can only flow one way between objects they would have to abandon direct evidence from the CMB, and work out a way for EM from the CMB to be just "resonance frequencies" that pass through the atmosphere (whatever that means since you never explained it) and not be black body radiation.

They would have to abandon extremely basic concepts on black body radiation, and adopt the idea that radiation really can be completely stopped by a remote hotter object.

They would have to abandon the idea that accelerating charges always radiate, and adopt the idea they will always stop radiating because of some external cause.

They would have to adopt the idea that two objects at the same temperature would both totally stop radiating toward each other.

Do you really think that can be achieved?

It is so much more consistent to fulfill all the above by assuming that the SB law refers to two way radiation. No physics laws are violated by that assumption.

You are basing your whole idea of abandoning the above physics on the interpretation of just one word, energy, in some wordings of the second law.

In the phrase "energy spontaneously flows from hot to cold." Physicists interpret the word energy in that context to be either heat energy or net energy.

Do you really think they would abandon that one interpretation and create a morass of difficulty in the rest of science?

All things radiate, all the time, according to their temperature.

Without an external energy source, every object cools quickly by radiation production and the energy that flys away. This is the natural, default condition. Everything is attempting to cool, because everything is producing radiation.

This cooling is most effective when no energy is being absorbed from outside sources. Going into a walk-in freezer is different than sunbathing on the beach. Why?

SSDD does not accept that all objects radiate according to their temperature. He thinks an object is prohibited from radiating if a warmer object is nearby, AND the warmer object is only allowed to produce as much radiation as would have been calculated by subtracting the cool radiation from the warm radiation. eg. The Net Radiation.

How does all that radiation get stopped from coming into existence? Apparently we will have to wait until physics progresses. What about the decreased entropy? SSDD says it doesn't matter.

 

[SSDD]

Your inability to provide any observed, measured example of spontaneous two way energy movement does back up my positon. Either you can provide an actual measurement or you can't....and by now you have proven substantively that you can't.

It's sad that you're unable to come up with any back up for your "one way only" energy flows.
All the sources ever posted end up agreeing with two-way, none ever say one-way.
Why do you suppose that is the case?

Here is one written just for you...

Flowing from Hot to Cold: The Second Law of Thermodynamics - dummies

How Does Energy Flow?

In What Direction Does Energy Flow?

theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html

Then there is the second law of thermodynamics itself...

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Thanks for the links, which one specifically says radiation can't flow from cold matter to warmer matter?

Maybe you could just cut and paste the portion that backs your claim?

Let me guess...you think radiation is not energy.

 

[SSDD]

For physicists to agree that photons can only flow one way between objects they would have to abandon direct evidence from the CMB, and work out a way for EM from the CMB to be just "resonance frequencies" that pass through the atmosphere (whatever that means since you never explained it) and not be black body radiation.

You couldn't be more wrong...but hey, you are a dupe...what else could you be? Go learn what a resonant radio frequency is and note that it is not microwave radiation.

They would have to abandon extremely basic concepts on black body radiation, and adopt the idea that radiation really can be completely stopped by a remote hotter object.

Got any actual observe measured instance of energy moving from a warmer object to a cooler object.

They would have to abandon the idea that accelerating charges always radiate, and adopt the idea they will always stop radiating because of some external cause.

Got any observed, measured evidence to the contrary?

They would have to adopt the idea that two objects at the same temperature would both totally stop radiating toward each other.

Got any observed measured evidence to the contrary?

Do you really think that can be achieved?

When you are wrong, you have to give up all the wrong ideas if you ever want to be right...all sorts of consensus beliefs have fallen by the wayside over the centuries as science advances...eventually those will also.

 

[SSDD]

All things radiate, all the time, according to their temperature.

sorry ian...only perfect black bodies, perfectly alone, in a perfect vacuum radiate according to their temperature. Till you abandon that completely wrong idea, it will pollute every idea you have on the topic...and as a result, you will always be wrong...you are holding a position of faith...you have to believe because there isn't the first piece of actual evidence to support what you think.

SSDD does not accept that all objects radiate according to their temperature.

And nether do the top shelf physicists who I took the time to email in order to give you an explanation. The fact that you still believe even after those guys pointed out that I was right regarding those equations shows how blind your belief has made you to the truth.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Heat Transfer

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your inability to provide any observed, measured example of spontaneous two way energy movement does back up my positon. Either you can provide an actual measurement or you can't....and by now you have proven substantively that you can't.

It's sad that you're unable to come up with any back up for your "one way only" energy flows.
All the sources ever posted end up agreeing with two-way, none ever say one-way.
Why do you suppose that is the case?

Here is one written just for you...

Flowing from Hot to Cold: The Second Law of Thermodynamics - dummies

How Does Energy Flow?

In What Direction Does Energy Flow?

theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html

Then there is the second law of thermodynamics itself...

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Thanks for the links, which one specifically says radiation can't flow from cold matter to warmer matter?

Maybe you could just cut and paste the portion that backs your claim?

Let me guess...you think radiation is not energy.

Let me guess, you think radiation only flows from warm to cold.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All things radiate, all the time, according to their temperature.

sorry ian...only perfect black bodies, perfectly alone, in a perfect vacuum radiate according to their temperature. Till you abandon that completely wrong idea, it will pollute every idea you have on the topic...and as a result, you will always be wrong...you are holding a position of faith...you have to believe because there isn't the first piece of actual evidence to support what you think.

SSDD does not accept that all objects radiate according to their temperature.

And nether do the top shelf physicists who I took the time to email in order to give you an explanation. The fact that you still believe even after those guys pointed out that I was right regarding those equations shows how blind your belief has made you to the truth.

Dimmer switch!!!

 

[SSDD]

Your inability to provide any observed, measured example of spontaneous two way energy movement does back up my positon. Either you can provide an actual measurement or you can't....and by now you have proven substantively that you can't.

It's sad that you're unable to come up with any back up for your "one way only" energy flows.
All the sources ever posted end up agreeing with two-way, none ever say one-way.
Why do you suppose that is the case?

Here is one written just for you...

Flowing from Hot to Cold: The Second Law of Thermodynamics - dummies

How Does Energy Flow?

In What Direction Does Energy Flow?

theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html

Then there is the second law of thermodynamics itself...

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Thanks for the links, which one specifically says radiation can't flow from cold matter to warmer matter?

Maybe you could just cut and paste the portion that backs your claim?

Let me guess...you think radiation is not energy.

Let me guess, you think radiation only flows from warm to cold.

Radiation being energy...of course it only moves spontaneously from warm to cool...it isn't exempt from the 2nd law.

 

[SSDD]

All things radiate, all the time, according to their temperature.

sorry ian...only perfect black bodies, perfectly alone, in a perfect vacuum radiate according to their temperature. Till you abandon that completely wrong idea, it will pollute every idea you have on the topic...and as a result, you will always be wrong...you are holding a position of faith...you have to believe because there isn't the first piece of actual evidence to support what you think.

SSDD does not accept that all objects radiate according to their temperature.

And nether do the top shelf physicists who I took the time to email in order to give you an explanation. The fact that you still believe even after those guys pointed out that I was right regarding those equations shows how blind your belief has made you to the truth.

Dimmer switch!!!

Your description not mine...I describe it as the reality that we see every time we look at measure.

 

[jillian]

A friend of mine asked me the other day what was back radiation capable of and if true, could it cause catastrophic warming. While the explanation of our deserts does a fine job of showing AGW a complete failure, I am taking a look at the molecular level as to why it can not cause this.

Lets go straight to the heart of AGW..

The premise is; energy absorbed by our atmosphere is re-emitted towards surface causing warming. The so called big player is CO2, that re-emits energy in a narrow band at 12-16um.

The problems come from several sources when it comes to energy transmission;

1. The electrical state of the molecule. Molecules will only accept energy in a negative state. In a positive state the molecule either reflects the energy or passes it. Each molecule also reacts differently to different wavelengths of energy. Not only does the molecule have to be in the right state it must also be in the range it is capable of reacting to.

2. The time energy resides within the molecule. Water has a very long residency time while CO2 a very short one. CO2 will not warm unless it collides with a warmer object (conduction), where water will absorb and use the energy to warm. Absent another warmer object, CO2 passes energy rapidly and can not warm.

3. The mass/mass conversion of energy. A mass emitting at -80 Deg F can not warm a mass that is warmer. The mass, as a whole, will lose energy more slowly logarithmicly to its surroundings simply due to the increase of mass.

In order to discuss this, one must agree on basic items. First, we must agree that all matter emits energy in all directions above absolute zero (0 deg K). Second, we must agree on how differing energy excitements affect one another. (This is the one which is not settled.) This is the crux of the AGW meme. Depending on the outcome of this determines the failure of the hypothesis, specifically any multiplier of effect (sensitivity).

SO.... How do two molecules, of differing temperatures, affect each-other. How does the energy emitted affect each molecule?

In my next post I will explain what I observe...

Yes. 98% of climate scientists acknowledge a truth. And we should believe imbecilic uninformed lying trumploons?