Another Epic Fail for Climate Science

[IanC]

SSDD brings up a valid point. photons do exist all along their flight path until a bit of matter 'puts them to the test' and condenses a probability wave into a discrete particle. it is very conceivable that all photons start as virtual photons.

but the evidence seems to suggest that radiative photons have their energy prepaid by matter trying to shed energy. unlike reactive photons in electric and magnetic fields that are virtual photons which probe the surroundings looking for partners to swap force with. if a virtual photon finds no partner it simply ceases to exist and no energy bill needs to be paid. while virtual photons exist for only a very short time, in the photon's reference frame it exists at all points of it's path.

there is a fundemental difference between radiative and reactive photons. the reactive photons have an extra characteristic of being either attractive or repulsive.

 

[SSDD]

You seem to believe a lot about a particle whose existence remains theoretical....and there is little acual difference at all between radiative and reactive photons since both are only theorized...

Nice of you to acknowledge that a theoretical photon would "know" about where it was going before it went and therefore would not go to a place it couldn't....much like the rock dropping because it knows that falling up is not an option.

Pointe of order....you would sound much more credible if you would preface these statements you make about theoretical particles and such with an acknowledgement that you are not speaking in terms of fact but only theory.

 

[IanC]

There is significant work that now shows that greenhouse warming has enhanced Milankovitch cycle changes on every move from cold to warm. And before you throw your bag of memes at me, that is not an endorsement of runaway warming.

An interesting point to consider: is the change in TSI brought about by the greatest Milankovitch deviation possible, sufficient to lower the Earth's temperature sufficient to produce a snowball Earth? I think you will find that without the sequestration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (water vapor solidified and lying on the ground), that the Earth wouldn't have gotten anywhere near as cold as it did - the Milankovitch change was insufficient to have done that by itself.

Low GHG levels during snowball Earth is a validation of the greenhouse effect.

astrophysics claims that stars produce significantly less energy early in their lifespan and increase their output as they age. in the 3 billion years that Earth has been around it has always had liquid water. the homeostasis system we call climate has kept the Earth in a narrow temperature band despite many changes and disruptions to the system.

 

[IanC]

You seem to believe a lot about a particle whose existence remains theoretical....and there is little acual difference at all between radiative and reactive photons since both are only theorized...

Nice of you to acknowledge that a theoretical photon would "know" about where it was going before it went and therefore would not go to a place it couldn't....much like the rock dropping because it knows that falling up is not an option.

Pointe of order....you would sound much more credible if you would preface these statements you make about theoretical particles and such with an acknowledgement that you are not speaking in terms of fact but only theory.

everything is only a theory, so what?

you can manipulate radiative photons, reactive photons not so much. lasers yes, tractor beams no.

 

[itfitzme]

Positive, as in creating more warming. SSo DDumb, that is the abstract from the article you posted. That is the authors judgements as to what the effect of the far-IR surface emissivity they measured are. So, you want to interpret their results differantly than they do, publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal. That is how real science is done. Alternatively, flap yap with crackpot theories on an internet message board, and look the fool.

Positive because the idiots haven't considered Kirchhoff's law....poor emissivity equals poor absorptivity at every wavelength...clearly you aren't able to grasp the implications of that fact any more than the idiot who wrote it.... If sea water is a poor absorber in the far IR wavelengths...exactly which energy is the poor emissivity storing? Poor emissivity at the peak emitting frequency of CO2 equals poor absorptivity at the peak emitting frequency of CO2....In your own words, what does that mean to the claim that CO2 is causing the oceans to warm?

Here is the problem,

."A perfect black body in thermodynamic equilibrium absorbs all light that strikes it, and radiates energy according to a unique law of radiative emissive power for temperature T, universal for all [b,]perfect black bodies[/b]."

"Kirchhoff's perfect black bodies
Planck also noted that the perfect black bodies of Kirchhoff do not occur in physical reality. They are theoretical fictions. "

You first need to show that the oceans are suffuciently close to thermal equilibrium and a black body in order to use Kirchhoff's Law in the oversimplified and overgeneralized manner that you do.

As the ocean is neither a perfect black body or in thermodynamic equilibrium, emmissivity and absorption are not necessarily identical.

You term "Poor emissivity" is insufficiently defined. Poor compared to what? What range of values is "poor"? Zero? Zero to .25? To .5? Below .8? Then, why is that "poor" in context of the problem?

Physics presents a set of ideal laws that are true under ideal situations which never occur in nature. They provide a starting point, not the solution.

 

[IanC]

Positive, as in creating more warming. SSo DDumb, that is the abstract from the article you posted. That is the authors judgements as to what the effect of the far-IR surface emissivity they measured are. So, you want to interpret their results differantly than they do, publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal. That is how real science is done. Alternatively, flap yap with crackpot theories on an internet message board, and look the fool.

Positive because the idiots haven't considered Kirchhoff's law....poor emissivity equals poor absorptivity at every wavelength...clearly you aren't able to grasp the implications of that fact any more than the idiot who wrote it.... If sea water is a poor absorber in the far IR wavelengths...exactly which energy is the poor emissivity storing? Poor emissivity at the peak emitting frequency of CO2 equals poor absorptivity at the peak emitting frequency of CO2....In your own words, what does that mean to the claim that CO2 is causing the oceans to warm?

Here is the problem,

."A perfect black body in thermodynamic equilibrium absorbs all light that strikes it, and radiates energy according to a unique law of radiative emissive power for temperature T, universal for all [b,]perfect black bodies[/b]."

"Kirchhoff's perfect black bodies
Planck also noted that the perfect black bodies of Kirchhoff do not occur in physical reality. They are theoretical fictions. "

You first need to show that the oceans are suffuciently close to thermal equilibrium and a black body in order to use Kirchhoff's Law in the oversimplified and overgeneralized manner that you do.

As the ocean is neither a perfect black body or in thermodynamic equilibrium, emmissivity and absorption are not necessarily identical.

You term "Poor emissivity" is insufficiently defined. Poor compared to what? What range of values is "poor"? Zero? Zero to .25? To .5? Below .8? Then, why is that "poor" in context of the problem?

Physics presents a set of ideal laws that are true under ideal situations which never occur in nature. They provide a starting point, not the solution.

the emission is always perfectly matched by the absorption.

 

[SSDD]

Positive, as in creating more warming. SSo DDumb, that is the abstract from the article you posted. That is the authors judgements as to what the effect of the far-IR surface emissivity they measured are. So, you want to interpret their results differantly than they do, publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal. That is how real science is done. Alternatively, flap yap with crackpot theories on an internet message board, and look the fool.

Positive because the idiots haven't considered Kirchhoff's law....poor emissivity equals poor absorptivity at every wavelength...clearly you aren't able to grasp the implications of that fact any more than the idiot who wrote it.... If sea water is a poor absorber in the far IR wavelengths...exactly which energy is the poor emissivity storing? Poor emissivity at the peak emitting frequency of CO2 equals poor absorptivity at the peak emitting frequency of CO2....In your own words, what does that mean to the claim that CO2 is causing the oceans to warm?

Here is the problem,

."A perfect black body in thermodynamic equilibrium absorbs all light that strikes it, and radiates energy according to a unique law of radiative emissive power for temperature T, universal for all [b,]perfect black bodies[/b]."

"Kirchhoff's perfect black bodies
Planck also noted that the perfect black bodies of Kirchhoff do not occur in physical reality. They are theoretical fictions. "

You first need to show that the oceans are suffuciently close to thermal equilibrium and a black body in order to use Kirchhoff's Law in the oversimplified and overgeneralized manner that you do.

As the ocean is neither a perfect black body or in thermodynamic equilibrium, emmissivity and absorption are not necessarily identical.

You term "Poor emissivity" is insufficiently defined. Poor compared to what? What range of values is "poor"? Zero? Zero to .25? To .5? Below .8? Then, why is that "poor" in context of the problem?

Physics presents a set of ideal laws that are true under ideal situations which never occur in nature. They provide a starting point, not the solution.

the emission is always perfectly matched by the absorption.

That paper is going to be devastating to the AGW hypothesis and they know it...ergo the attempted back pedaling by the warmer continent. .

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You believe that it's magic which makes temperature extremes on Earth milder than those on the Moon? LOL!

You just get further out there all the time...now you want to bring the moon into the equation?...the moon with essentially no atmosphere proves my point, not yours. The daytime side of the moon can reach an excess of 250 F....what is our maximum daytime temp? Clearly the atmosphere keeps us from burning up during the daytime...the night time temps can drop below -240..not so here on earth primarily because of water vapor. Back radiation is not a factor since it does not happen.

Just as you believe that matter which has been known since SB to constantly radiate, magically ceases when a warmer object approaches, despite no link or textbook backing your claim.

Again, you are misinterpreting the SB...the SB tells us that the radiation a blackbody emits is determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings....set the difference to zero and P=0....and again, the SB describes a one way energy flow between a radiator and its surroundings...

You seem to be dodging Toddster....do you believe in back conduction and back convection like you believe in back radiation?.....Do you think a photon experiences time and space in the same manner as we do?....Do you visualize photons zipping around like souped up corvettes, or do you visualize photons as particles travelling at the speed of light and therefore subject to an entirely different sort of experience of time space than we know...where distance is meaningless because all spatial length is infinitely contracted and time is essentially standing still due to infinite time dilation? And if you accept that the reality of time and space is different for a photon than it is for us, why do you try to constrict it to our reality rather than its own?

You just get further out there all the time...now you want to bring the moon into the equation?...the moon with essentially no atmosphere proves my point, not yours. The daytime side of the moon can reach an excess of 250 F....what is our maximum daytime temp? Clearly the atmosphere keeps us from burning up during the daytime...the night time temps can drop below -240..not so here on earth primarily because of water vapor. Back radiation is not a factor since it does not happen.

Yes, I want to bring the Moon into the equation. Just more proof of the idiocy of your position.

the night time temps can drop below -240..not so here on earth primarily because of water vapor.

Awesome. How does water vapor prevent our temp from dropping to -240 at night?
Spell out your mechanism.

where distance is meaningless because all spatial length is infinitely contracted and time is essentially standing still due to infinite time dilation?

A photon (or wave) won't be emitted from the surface of the Sun, because 70 million years from now it would impact a star that's even hotter? Is that what you're going to use now, to explain your silly one-way flow "theory"? LOL! Good luck with that. There must be plenty of papers you can link to, for us to peruse.

 

[SSDD]

Awesome. How does water vapor prevent our temp from dropping to -240 at night?

Unlike CO2, water vapor can actually absorb and retain heat...and then there is the heat generated by the mass of the atmosphere itself...which is the true "greenhouse" effect if greenhouse is what you want to call it...the ideal gas laws spell it out.
Spell out your mechanism.

where distance is meaningless because all spatial length is infinitely contracted and time is essentially standing still due to infinite time dilation?

A photon (or wave) won't be emitted from the surface of the Sun, because 70 million years from now it would impact a star that's even hotter? Is that what you're going to use now, to explain your silly one-way flow "theory"? LOL! Good luck with that. There must be plenty of papers you can link to, for us to peruse.

I didn't make it up...I am just telling you what science says is...either you believe it or you don't. If you don't then I really must question your belief in the rest of your QM net energy flow claims. You don't get to pick and choose which you believe because they all depend on each other...either you buy the whole lot, which says that photons don't experience space or time in any way that you can possibly imagine, or you don't...in which case, two way net energy flow goes out the window with the rest.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Awesome. How does water vapor prevent our temp from dropping to -240 at night?

Unlike CO2, water vapor can actually absorb and retain heat...and then there is the heat generated by the mass of the atmosphere itself...which is the true "greenhouse" effect if greenhouse is what you want to call it...the ideal gas laws spell it out.
Spell out your mechanism.

where distance is meaningless because all spatial length is infinitely contracted and time is essentially standing still due to infinite time dilation?

A photon (or wave) won't be emitted from the surface of the Sun, because 70 million years from now it would impact a star that's even hotter? Is that what you're going to use now, to explain your silly one-way flow "theory"? LOL! Good luck with that. There must be plenty of papers you can link to, for us to peruse.

I didn't make it up...I am just telling you what science says is...either you believe it or you don't. If you don't then I really must question your belief in the rest of your QM net energy flow claims. You don't get to pick and choose which you believe because they all depend on each other...either you buy the whole lot, which says that photons don't experience space or time in any way that you can possibly imagine, or you don't...in which case, two way net energy flow goes out the window with the rest.

Unlike CO2, water vapor can actually absorb and retain heat

Retain heat, forever?

and then there is the heat generated by the mass of the atmosphere itself.

The atmosphere itself generates heat?

I didn't make it up...I am just telling you what science says is...either you believe it or you don't.

I'm still waiting for your proof that the science says a 100 K object ceases radiating when a 200 K object approaches. Because the SB doesn't say that, not even a little bit.

 

[mamooth]

So you don't accept the Lorentz relativity equations or relativity either?

Quit deflecting. The topic is your spacey religion which states that every photon understands the whole infinite cosmos.

You view photons as souped up corvettes zipping around experiencing time and space in the same manner as you? Not surprising. Do you imagine them with racing stripes or flames?

I don't imagine anything. I _know_ you're babbling new-age nonsense. I await to see how healing crystals and aromatherapy will soon be added to your theories.

By the way, have you been toking on that hippie herb? Or perhaps dropping the brown acid? That would explain much of your "science", not to mention your paranoia.

If CO2 drives the climate via its so called greenhouse gas properties, how did the earth break out of its snowball earth phase...during the snowball earth phase, nearly all of the CO2 was locked up...the atmospheric CO2 concentration during that time would have been small to the point of insignificance. The warming that brought the earth out of its snowball phase would have been well underway before any appreciable amount of CO2 were released.. You just can't manage to think no matter how hard you try can you hairball?

As usual, pissdrinker, you evaded the question, which concerned where the warming that brought earth out of its snowball phase came from. You just waved your hands and declared it magically happened.

Snowball earth lasted for tens of millions of years or more. Therefore, we know Milankovitch cycles didn't make a dent in it, because it persisted through hundreds of such cycles. So, where did the heat that melted snowball earth come from? If you say it's because solar output has slowly increased, then why wasn't earth frozen before the snowball earth phase, when the sun was even cooler?

It's good to be part of the rational crowd, because the answer is very obvious. A snowbound earth had no CO2 sinks, so CO2 emitted from volcanoes built up over millions of years, eventually producing enough greenhouse gas warming to melt the earth. It's impossible to explain paleoclimate history unless you include greenhouse gases.

 

[jc456]

Pissdrinker's kook science keeps getting funnier. Now the photons no longer exist in space and time, so they "know" all of existence simultaneously. That's groovy, man.

When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the Age of Denialists
The Age of Denialists
Denialists! Denialists!

So, if CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, how did the earth break out of its snowball earth phase?

It wasn't due to CO2 bub!!!

 

[jc456]

So you don't accept the Lorentz relativity equations or relativity either?

Quit deflecting. The topic is your spacey religion which states that every photon understands the whole infinite cosmos.

You view photons as souped up corvettes zipping around experiencing time and space in the same manner as you? Not surprising. Do you imagine them with racing stripes or flames?

I don't imagine anything. I _know_ you're babbling new-age nonsense. I await to see how healing crystals and aromatherapy will soon be added to your theories.

By the way, have you been toking on that hippie herb? Or perhaps dropping the brown acid? That would explain much of your "science", not to mention your paranoia.

If CO2 drives the climate via its so called greenhouse gas properties, how did the earth break out of its snowball earth phase...during the snowball earth phase, nearly all of the CO2 was locked up...the atmospheric CO2 concentration during that time would have been small to the point of insignificance. The warming that brought the earth out of its snowball phase would have been well underway before any appreciable amount of CO2 were released.. You just can't manage to think no matter how hard you try can you hairball?

As usual, pissdrinker, you evaded the question, which concerned where the warming that brought earth out of its snowball phase came from. You just waved your hands and declared it magically happened.

Snowball earth lasted for tens of millions of years or more. Therefore, we know Milankovitch cycles didn't make a dent in it, because it persisted through hundreds of such cycles. So, where did the heat that melted snowball earth come from? If you say it's because solar output has slowly increased, then why wasn't earth frozen before the snowball earth phase, when the sun was even cooler?

It's good to be part of the rational crowd, because the answer is very obvious. A snowbound earth had no CO2 sinks, so CO2 emitted from volcanoes built up over millions of years, eventually producing enough greenhouse gas warming to melt the earth. It's impossible to explain paleoclimate history unless you include greenhouse gases.

The Sun you fool, the sun that big ball in the sky that's on fire, that's what warmed the earth. What a boob!!!!

 

[SSDD]

Retain heat, forever?

Why must it retain heat forever...is the sun not coming up in 12 hours?....and then there is the heat generated by the mass of the atmosphere..

The atmosphere itself generates heat?

Ideal gas laws?....PV = nRT?....ever hear of it? Have any idea what it means?

I'm still waiting for your proof that the science says a 100 K object ceases radiating when a 200 K object approaches. Because the SB doesn't say that, not even a little bit.

Since I never claimed such a thing...you may be waiting for some time....lying about my position is getting to be a regular thing for you...are you really that dishonest?

The SB says that energy flows from warm to cold...one way with the magnitude of that transfer being determined by the difference between the warm radiator and its cooler surroundings...I have never said anything more than that regarding the SB law...you, on the other hand make all sorts of claims that the SB law doesn't..

 

[SSDD]

Quit deflecting. The topic is your spacey religion which states that every photon understands the whole infinite cosmos.

Interesting how you wackos feel the need to manufacture an argument to rail against....to bad it isn't my argument since I never said any such thing...a photon doesn't know to go from warm to cool any more than a rock knows to fall down when dropped...both are doing the only thing they can do.

I don't imagine anything. I _know_ you're babbling new-age nonsense. I await to see how healing crystals and aromatherapy will soon be added to your theories.

Relativity and special relativity are new age nonsense? Interesting that you think such a thing.

By the way, have you been toking on that hippie herb? Or perhaps dropping the brown acid? That would explain much of your "science", not to mention your paranoia.

Stating what reality is like for a photon according to the theory of relativity and special relativity is the result of doing drugs? Again, interesting.

As usual, pissdrinker, you evaded the question, which concerned where the warming that brought earth out of its snowball phase came from. You just waved your hands and declared it magically happened.

The cause was that big ball of fire in the sky....I do know that it wasn't due to CO2 because in a snowball earth phase, the CO2 was locked up tight.

Snowball earth lasted for tens of millions of years or more. Therefore, we know Milankovitch cycles didn't make a dent in it, because it persisted through hundreds of such cycles. So, where did the heat that melted snowball earth come from? If you say it's because solar output has slowly increased, then why wasn't earth frozen before the snowball earth phase, when the sun was even cooler?

And we know that CO2 didn't make a dent in it either because the CO2 was locked up tight till the warming was well on its way.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Retain heat, forever?

Why must it retain heat forever...is the sun not coming up in 12 hours?....and then there is the heat generated by the mass of the atmosphere..

The atmosphere itself generates heat?

Ideal gas laws?....PV = nRT?....ever hear of it? Have any idea what it means?

I'm still waiting for your proof that the science says a 100 K object ceases radiating when a 200 K object approaches. Because the SB doesn't say that, not even a little bit.

Since I never claimed such a thing...you may be waiting for some time....lying about my position is getting to be a regular thing for you...are you really that dishonest?

The SB says that energy flows from warm to cold...one way with the magnitude of that transfer being determined by the difference between the warm radiator and its cooler surroundings...I have never said anything more than that regarding the SB law...you, on the other hand make all sorts of claims that the SB law doesn't..

Why must it retain heat forever...is the sun not coming up in 12 hours?....

How long does it retain heat? Does it ever release that heat? If so, how?

Ideal gas laws?....PV = nRT?....ever hear of it?

I have. You feel that means that the atmosphere itself generates heat?

Since I never claimed such a thing...you may be waiting for some time

Then let's get you on the record.
Does a 100 K object sitting all by itself radiate?

The SB says that energy flows from warm to cold

It gives you the equation to calculate how fast energy will move from warm to cold.
I've never seen any reference to a one way flow and I've never seen you produce one.
Do you have one you've been saving?

 

[mamooth]

And we know that CO2 didn't make a dent in it either because the CO2 was locked up tight till the warming was well on its way.

Another fail on your part, since the CO2 preceeded the warming. Is there any topic you don't get completely wrong? You're a renaissance man of stupid.

And again, you failed to explain why, if the sun was the cause, the earth didn't freeze in eras before snowball earth when the sun was even cooler. Your stupid theory is, as is usual, contradicted by the observed evidence in multiple ways. But that's never stopped you before, so don't start looking at reality now.

You should expand more on your new-age relativity religion. It's just as dumb as your paleoclimate failures, but much more amusing. You really need to publish it, revolutionize physics and collect your Nobel prize.

 

[SSDD]

How long does it retain heat? Does it ever release that heat? If so, how?

Are you really this uninformed?

I have. You feel that means that the atmosphere itself generates heat?

You don't think a gas under pressure generates heat? Any idea what the T in the ideal gas laws stands for?

Does a 100 K object sitting all by itself radiate?

Already been through this...no matter how many times I state my position, you invariably go back to a twisted version of your own manufacture...if you can't even keep my position straight in your mind, what is the point of even talking to you? Are you dishonest or are you really not able to remember what someone says more than a couple of minutes even if it is written down for you?

It gives you the equation to calculate how fast energy will move from warm to cold.
I've never seen any reference to a one way flow and I've never seen you produce one.
Do you have one you've been saving?

been through that as well....it isn't my fault that you are so poor in math that you don't recognize an equation that describes a one way energy flow...you have been provided with an example equation that does describe two way energy flow, but alas, that is not how the SB equation is written.....sorry.

You keep going over the same losing argument over and over...you can't provide observed examples of the energy transfer you claim...you can't recognize an equation describing one way energy flow...and on and on and somehow you think that the next time it will turn out differently. The second law, the SB equation, and every observation ever made support my position and to date, you have nothing but an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model to support yours.

 

[mamooth]

You don't think a gas under pressure generates heat?

Of course it doesn't. Nobody except cult loons will say it does.

According to your deranged theory here, the fire extinguisher in my kitchen should be generating heat. Dammit, why am I using a furnace, when I could just get a couple more fire extinugishers? Basketball players should all be saying "ow!" as they touch the ball, because the compressed air inside would be constantly generating heat.

What's more, you could hook up such heat sources to a Stirling engine, and get free work out of it, forever. Perpetual motion, baby! Forget conservation of energy. Your cult's religion says energy can magically be created or destroyed whenever it's convenient for the cult.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How long does it retain heat? Does it ever release that heat? If so, how?

Are you really this uninformed?

I have. You feel that means that the atmosphere itself generates heat?

You don't think a gas under pressure generates heat? Any idea what the T in the ideal gas laws stands for?

Does a 100 K object sitting all by itself radiate?

Already been through this...no matter how many times I state my position, you invariably go back to a twisted version of your own manufacture...if you can't even keep my position straight in your mind, what is the point of even talking to you? Are you dishonest or are you really not able to remember what someone says more than a couple of minutes even if it is written down for you?

It gives you the equation to calculate how fast energy will move from warm to cold.
I've never seen any reference to a one way flow and I've never seen you produce one.
Do you have one you've been saving?

been through that as well....it isn't my fault that you are so poor in math that you don't recognize an equation that describes a one way energy flow...you have been provided with an example equation that does describe two way energy flow, but alas, that is not how the SB equation is written.....sorry.

You keep going over the same losing argument over and over...you can't provide observed examples of the energy transfer you claim...you can't recognize an equation describing one way energy flow...and on and on and somehow you think that the next time it will turn out differently. The second law, the SB equation, and every observation ever made support my position and to date, you have nothing but an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model to support yours.

Are you really this uninformed?

I'm waiting for you to show you are informed.
Hasn't happened yet.

You don't think a gas under pressure generates heat?

I'd like you to explain how it does.
Start here, you have 2 liters of N2 at 12 atm, how much heat does it generate?
Show all your work.

Already been through this...

I know. Previous times through it you claimed an object stops radiating when a warmer object is nearby, now you're trying to squirm out. Because your claims are wrong.

....it isn't my fault that you are so poor in math that you don't recognize an equation that describes a one way energy flow

If you had any references that backed up your claim that the SB Law described a one way flow, you'd have produced them already.

The second law, the SB equation, and every observation ever made support my position

I provided a link to a textbook and a link to a Science article that both described a two way flow.
You're free to contact the publishers and explain your feelings about their "errors".
If they agree, I'll be happy to apologize for mocking your idiocy.