The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[SSDD]

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

The fact that 98% of scientists (if you choose to believe that fraudulent number) acknowledge a thing doesn't mean a thing. A few years ago 98% of scientists would have acknowledged that stress gives you stomach ulcers...or salt causes high blood pressure, or cholesterol causes heart disease... Guess what? They were all wrong.

The fact is, jillian, if you take a close look at the history of science, you will find that the odds of being right are in your favor if you simply take the opposite side from the consensus.

And exactly what makes you think man made climate change is truth? Can you provide 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? ..Or maybe a single piece of observed measured evidence which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability?

My bet is that you can't provide either....that being the case...exactly what is this truth based on?

 

[Wuwei]

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.

So you think over 372,000 physicists should abandon 150 years of physics progress to agree with you because they should wait for their 150 years of physics to fall by the wayside. Well, that shows you are driven wild because are afraid of the idea of back-radiation. I might ordinarily think that is amazing, but it is obvious you are just a troll doing a trolls work.

 

[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.

So you think over 372,000 physicists should abandon 150 years of physics progress to agree with you because they should wait for their 150 years of physics to fall by the wayside. Well, that shows you are driven wild because are afraid of the idea of back-radiation. I might ordinarily think that is amazing, but it is obvious you are just a troll doing a trolls work.

Won't be the first time they had to abandon a century or more of research...interesting that people will go to such lengths defending a belief that isn't based on the first piece of observed, measured evidence....well, maybe not...every sunday morning the churches are full of people who are exhibiting almost as much faith as you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Radiation being energy...of course it only moves spontaneously from warm to cool..​

If only you had any backup for your interpretation. Ever.​

 

[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!!!

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

Your claim that matter reduces emissions based on surroundings is your description.

You alone. No backup, ever.

 

[Wuwei]

Won't be the first time they had to abandon a century or more of research...interesting that people will go to such lengths defending a belief that isn't based on the first piece of observed, measured evidence....well, maybe not...every sunday morning the churches are full of people who are exhibiting almost as much faith as you.

Faith? You are the one with faith. I and the 372,000 other scientists have evidenced confidence in the parts-per-billion accuracy of quantum mechanics. You have faith which is unevidenced belief, that accelerating charges will cease to radiate because of remote surroundings. You are a faithful member of the church of the Troll.

 

[SSDD]

If only you had any backup for your interpretation. Ever.​

Gave you plenty already...and here's the thing...I am not "interpreting" anything. It is you guys who are interpreting. I accept the statement of the physical law at face value. I am not adding anything to it..I am not taking anything away from it and not suggesting that it means anything other than what it says...you guys on the other hand are interpreting it to mean something entirely different from what it says.


"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."

 

[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.

Your claim that matter reduces emissions based on surroundings is your description.

You alone. No backup, ever.

Again...not my description...simply what the SB law says about radiators in the vicinity of other matter.

According to this equation,

, when you change either the temperature of T or Tc, P changes. I accept this at face value...you guys, on the other hand attempt to claim that it says something other than what it says and when asked to actually say in english what it says, you either won't, because you know that it says something other than what you claim, or you simply add something to it that isn't there...or as in wuwei's case, you attempt to write it in a manner that completely ignores the SB law and allows you to set TC warmer than T.

 

[SSDD]

Faith? You are the one with faith. I and the 372,000 other scientists have evidenced confidence in the parts-per-billion accuracy of quantum mechanics. You have faith which is unevidenced belief, that accelerating charges will cease to radiate because of remote surroundings. You are a faithful member of the church of the Troll.

Maybe you don't know what the word faith means...here, let me help you out. Faith: strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence.

I keep asking you for some observed measured evidence supporting your belief that spontaneous two way energy exchange happens...you can't provide it because it has never been observed. Then when I point out to you that you are operating from a position of faith, you think pointing out how many other faithful there are changes belief into a position based on proof?

And no..I have every observation and measurement ever made...you have an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model and a whole lot of other people who believe in the same model. You know, maybe your problem is that you simply can't understand and comprehend what you read...you read the words, but are completely unable to understand the message that they are meant to convey. Is it semi illiteracy that makes you do it or is it some sort of compulsion that requires you to alter the meaning of everything to something other than what it says?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If only you had any backup for your interpretation. Ever.​

Gave you plenty already...and here's the thing...I am not "interpreting" anything. It is you guys who are interpreting. I accept the statement of the physical law at face value. I am not adding anything to it..I am not taking anything away from it and not suggesting that it means anything other than what it says...you guys on the other hand are interpreting it to mean something entirely different from what it says.


"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."

Gave you plenty already...

Nope, not even once.

and here's the thing...I am not "interpreting" anything.

You are. You think the 2nd Law means radiation can't travel from cold matter to warmer matter. Unique.

You think matter, instead of emitting directly proportional to the 4th power of its temperature, acts like a dimmer switch. Even if the target it is emitting toward is billions of light years away. Again, unique.

I accept the statement of the physical law at face value.

And you have no backup for your unique interpretation of "face value".

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.

And no one else is interpreting that to mean photons are magically restricted in their travels. Weird.

 

[Wuwei]

I keep asking you for some observed measured evidence supporting your belief that spontaneous two way energy exchange happens.

Science has observed, measured, tested, quantitative experiments that accelerating charges always radiate. You have no evidence to the contrary. Your faith in your hypothesis that hot objects keep colder objects from radiating anything at all has no evidence to back it up. You lose. Science wins.

 

[Wuwei]

And you have no backup for your unique interpretation of "face value".

Yes, that is really a preposterous argument he has made over and over. You are right there is no basis for "face value" in science. No scientist would ever look at an equation or wording of a law and decline to understand exactly what the symbols or words meant according to the author stating the law. But of course SSDD doesn't understand the physical sciences.

Reading the laws as he does is very similar to evangelicals reading passages from the bible and taking every word on faith to be infallible proof of their particular desired interpretation.

 

[SSDD]

You are. You think the 2nd Law means radiation can't travel from cold matter to warmer matter. Unique.

Only unique if you are the sort of idiot who thinks that radiation is not energy.

And you have no backup for your unique interpretation of "face value".

Again...I am not interpreting anything...that is you. And don't you think that if the second law meant something else, it would say something else?

And no one else is interpreting that to mean photons are magically restricted in their travels. Weird.

What is so weird about that? Electrons are restricted in their travels...all manner of things are restricted in their travels...what is so magical about one more thing being restricted...especially when the second law of thermodynamics says that they are?

 

[SSDD]

I keep asking you for some observed measured evidence supporting your belief that spontaneous two way energy exchange happens.

Science has observed, measured, tested, quantitative experiments that accelerating charges always radiate. You have no evidence to the contrary. Your faith in your hypothesis that hot objects keep colder objects from radiating anything at all has no evidence to back it up. You lose. Science wins.

Tested with instrumentation cooled to temperatures lower than the temperature of the radiator...one would expect energy to be moving from the radiator to the cooler instrument...,.again...not evidence of anything more than that you are easily fooled by instrumentations...ie a dupe.

 

[SSDD]

And you have no backup for your unique interpretation of "face value".

Yes, that is really a preposterous argument he has made over and over. You are right there is no basis for "face value" in science. No scientist would ever look at an equation or wording of a law and decline to understand exactly what the symbols or words meant according to the author stating the law. But of course SSDD doesn't understand the physical sciences.

Reading the laws as he does is very similar to evangelicals reading passages from the bible and taking every word on faith to be infallible proof of their particular desired interpretation.

Don't you wack jobs have the intellectual wattage to ask yourself; "if the statement of the second law meant something else, then it would say something else?"

Alas it is you guys who are operating from faith..otherwise you could slap me down with actual observed, measured evidence supporting your claims rather than incessantly bleating your mewling impotent cries that I am a heretic because I don't hold your faith and telling me about all the other people who hold the same faith...and make no mistake..it is faith.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are. You think the 2nd Law means radiation can't travel from cold matter to warmer matter. Unique.

Only unique if you are the sort of idiot who thinks that radiation is not energy.

And you have no backup for your unique interpretation of "face value".

Again...I am not interpreting anything...that is you. And don't you think that if the second law meant something else, it would say something else?

And no one else is interpreting that to mean photons are magically restricted in their travels. Weird.

What is so weird about that? Electrons are restricted in their travels...all manner of things are restricted in their travels...what is so magical about one more thing being restricted...especially when the second law of thermodynamics says that they are?

Only unique if you are the sort of idiot who thinks that radiation is not energy.

If it's not unique you must have dozens of reputable sources that back up your one way radiation claim.
So go ahead, post some up. Unless you're an idiot...….

Again...I am not interpreting anything...

Which is why your unique interpretation is unique.

Electrons are restricted in their travels...all manner of things are restricted in their travels...what is so magical about one more thing being restricted...

Because photons can't predict the future and measure temperatures across the universe. Weird.

especially when the second law of thermodynamics says that they are?

The 2nd Law says photons are restricted? Weird.

 

[Wuwei]

I keep asking you for some observed measured evidence supporting your belief that spontaneous two way energy exchange happens.

Science has observed, measured, tested, quantitative experiments that accelerating charges always radiate. You have no evidence to the contrary. Your faith in your hypothesis that hot objects keep colder objects from radiating anything at all has no evidence to back it up. You lose. Science wins.

Tested with instrumentation cooled to temperatures lower than the temperature of the radiator...one would expect energy to be moving from the radiator to the cooler instrument...,.again...not evidence of anything more than that you are easily fooled by instrumentations...ie a dupe.

You misunderstood. I'm not talking about heat, it's much more fundamental than that. Accelerated charges must always radiate EM energy. There are examples in synchrotron radiation, bremsstrahlung, the Larmor formula.

Again science has observed, measured, tested, quantitative experiments that accelerating charges always radiate. Your faith says accelerated charge EM radiation can be inhibited. It simply can't.

But time after time you don't believe in science of the last 150 years, so I don't expect you to agree with electromagnetic radiation theory.

 

[Wuwei]

Don't you wack jobs have the intellectual wattage to ask yourself; "if the statement of the second law meant something else, then it would say something else?"

Alas it is you guys who are operating from faith..otherwise you could slap me down with actual observed, measured evidence supporting your claims rather than incessantly bleating your mewling impotent cries that I am a heretic because I don't hold your faith and telling me about all the other people who hold the same faith...and make no mistake..it is faith.

"Face value" means nothing in physics. No, you don't understand the laws of physics. You don't even believe in them. You said that many times. Your only remaining recourse is to save face by maintaining a continuity of insults as trolls are accustomed to doing. That's sad.

 

[SSDD]

You misunderstood. I'm not talking about heat, it's much more fundamental than that. Accelerated charges must always radiate EM energy. There are examples in synchrotron radiation, bremsstrahlung, the Larmor formula.

I didn't misunderstand anything...you only showed how easily you are fooled by instrumentation... congratulations

 

[SSDD]

"Face value" means nothing in physics.

Face value means something in language you idiot...if the second law meant something else, then it would say something else...it doesn't...it says that it isn't possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object. I accept that statement as it is written. You don't...you find that in order to support your faith, you must attempt to interpret it to say something else.