This man rejects quantum theory.
Far larger brains than my own acknowledge that quantum theory has some serious problems...and none but the most dogmatized argue that modern physics is in a shambles as a result.
You ought to proof your posts before you pop them up. I don't think this is what you meant to say.
For the domain to which it is applied, QM is essentially perfect. Here is a rather lengthy introduction, history and overview of quantum mechanics from Wikipedia. And on a combined front, while you're searching for those "serious problems" they would undoubtedly have noted, you might also note their use of the word "STATISTICAL".
Quantum mechanics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quantum mechanics (QM – also known as quantum physics, or quantum theory) is a branch of physics which deals with physical phenomena at nanoscopic scales where the action is on the order of the Planck constant. It departs from classical mechanics primarily at the quantum realm of atomic and subatomic length scales. Quantum mechanics provides a mathematical description of much of the dual particle-like and wave-like behavior and interactions of energy and matter. Quantum mechanics provides a substantially useful framework for many features of the modern periodic table of elements including the behavior of atoms during chemical bonding and has played a significant role in the development of many modern technologies.
In advanced topics of quantum mechanics, some of these behaviors are macroscopic (see macroscopic quantum phenomena) and emerge at only extreme (i.e., very low or very high) energies or temperatures (such as in the use of superconducting magnets). For example, the angular momentum of an electron bound to an atom or molecule is quantized. In contrast, the angular momentum of an unbound electron is not quantized. In the context of quantum mechanics, the wave–particle duality of energy and matter and the uncertainty principle provide a unified view of the behavior of photons, electrons, and other atomic-scale objects.
The mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics are abstract. A mathematical function, the wavefunction, provides information about the probability amplitude of position, momentum, and other physical properties of a particle. Mathematical manipulations of the wavefunction usually involve bra–ket notation which requires an understanding of complex numbers and linear functionals. The wavefunction formulation treats the particle as a quantum harmonic oscillator, and the mathematics is akin to that describing acoustic resonance. Many of the results of quantum mechanics are not easily visualized in terms of classical mechanics. For instance, in a quantum mechanical model the lowest energy state of a system, the ground state, is non-zero as opposed to a more "traditional" ground state with zero kinetic energy (all particles at rest). Instead of a traditional static, unchanging zero energy state, quantum mechanics allows for far more dynamic, chaotic possibilities, according to John Wheeler.
The earliest versions of quantum mechanics were formulated in the first decade of the 20th century. About this time, the atomic theory and the corpuscular theory of light (as updated by Einstein)[1] first came to be widely accepted as scientific fact; these latter theories can be viewed as quantum theories of matter and electromagnetic radiation, respectively. Early quantum theory was significantly reformulated in the mid-1920s by Werner Heisenberg, Max Born and Pascual Jordan, (matrix mechanics); Louis de Broglie and Erwin Schrödinger (wave mechanics); and Wolfgang Pauli and Satyendra Nath Bose (statistics of subatomic particles). Moreover, the Copenhagen interpretation of Niels Bohr became widely accepted. By 1930, quantum mechanics had been further unified and formalized by the work of David Hilbert, Paul Dirac and John von Neumann[2] with a greater emphasis placed on measurement in quantum mechanics, the statistical nature of our knowledge of reality, and philosophical speculation about the role of the observer. Quantum mechanics has since permeated throughout many aspects of 20th-century physics and other disciplines including quantum chemistry, quantum electronics, quantum optics, and quantum information science. Much 19th-century physics has been re-evaluated as the "classical limit" of quantum mechanics and its more advanced developments in terms of quantum field theory, string theory, and speculative quantum gravity theories.
The name quantum mechanics derives from the observation that some physical quantities can change only in discrete amounts (Latin quanta), and not in a continuous (cf. analog) way.
**************
He rejects BASIC thermodynamics.
I am afraid that is you, not me abe. Tell me, is heat a form of energy, or is it the fingerprint left by the movement of energy?
It is you that believes cold bodies are magically aware of their surroundings and
choose not to radiate towards warmer ones. And you knew precisely what I was talking about. Any particular reason you didn't stand up for your beliefs?
He rejects the greenhouse effect
Give me one good reason to accept it. How many years has that hypothesis been floating around now? 150 years? 170 years? We are still waiting for the hypothesis to be confirmed via the scientific method. To date, it hasn't.
It was confirmed in the late 1800s. You choose to continue lying about that point.
It has never been measured
It has most
certainly been measured.
Of course this is where you recite your mantra that absorption and emission don't equate to heating. That, I'm afraid, is complete horseshit. This graphic handily includes the sprectra of solar radiation and Earth's long wave re-radiation. The entire effect may be calculated from this image.
and it has never been observed.
It's observed every time someone takes a temperature on the planet Earth and finds that it is 33C warmer than a blackbody at the Earth's radius with the Earth's reflectivity.
Predictions based on the hypothesis fail at a rate near 100%.
Lie
The hypothesis has never been experimentally validated.
Lie.
observations can't be repeated
Lie.
and assumptions can't be falsified by validation of the models
Lie.
The greenhouse hypothesis is kept alive via the press, and govnerment money for political, not scientific reasons.
Lie.
What political value did it serve between it's hypothesis in 1824 (Fourier) and verification between 1859 and 1896 (Tyndall and Arrhenius) and, let's say, the formation of the IPCC in 1988? None.
Climate science and the greenhouse hypothesis fail miserably with regard to the scientific method.
Lie.
The scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. Tell me, how much actual testing of the hypothesis ever gets done?
Why do you think that so difficult? That CO2, H2O, methane and ozone absorb pass visible light but absorb infrared has been demonstrated in a thousand labs and a hundred thousand school rooms. That the Earth is 33C warmer than physics says it should be certainly verifies that something is warming the planet.
In order for rigorous testing to happen, data must be made available so that the claimed results of studies can be duplicated by other, independent scientists.
Oh good ******* grief.
Climate science has a hard time releasing data because they don't want anything to be found wrong with it. ? That is a slap in the face of the scientific method. So again, why should I accept a failed hypothesis?
You contend that ALL climate data is being withheld? That is such complete and utter bullshit.
READ:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/open-access-climate-data-policy.pdf
READ:
Data
READ:
Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets
READ:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Now tell us your sorry for being such an incredibly blithering idiot.
Further, a valid hypothesis must be falsifiable. Tell me, what would falsify the greenhouse hypothesis?
o A global temperature 33C colder than it is.
o The specified greenhouse gases being found NOT to absorb infrared radiation.
o Atmospheric levels of H2O, methane, CO2 and ozone so low as to absorb trivial amounts of infrared.
o Satellite observations showing no radiative imbalance at the ToA
o The radiated spectra of the warmed Earth not intersecting the absorption spectra of designated greenhouse gases.
Need more?
A single failure should be enough to send scientists back to the drawing board with regard to any hypothesis but failure after failure is accepted in the case of the greenhouse hypothesis.
You just said there's no data available with which to check it and that the theory isn't falsifiable to start with. So what failures are you talking about?
Of course there are tons of data available and the theory is completely falsifiable. Your problem is that it isn't false.
"The conclusion from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (co-authored by UAH's John Christy) is the most likely explanation for the discrepancy between model and satellite observations
[regarding the tropospheric hot spot created by surface warming changing the lapse rate (you remember our discussions about lapse rate, don't you - another in a lo-o-o-o-ong line of scientific errors on your part) ] is
measurement uncertainty."
Besides, the hot spot IS seen on short time scales (a month or less) and the three long term datasets (UAH, RSS and UWA) are mixed: one shows a cool spot, one shows even temperatures and one shows a hot spot. Again, refer to the quote from Christy, one of your few heroes.
no warming in spite of rising CO2.
The data from the satellites re the radiative imbalance at the ToA and the temperature data from the deep ocean say your premise is crap.
..increasing ice in the antarctic despite predictions.
Predictions WERE for increasing ice. And of course you ignore the five-fold increase in ice flow rate into the sea and the unstoppable destabilization of all the WAIS glaciers feeding into the Amundsen Sea.
...no ice free arctic by 2013.
Your 2013 prediction is horseshit. The Arctic ice extents have never stopped shrinking and the ice mass is shrinking even faster. The ice is getting smaller AND thinner.
..no tropospheric hot spot
You're repeating yourself.
..and on and on and on and on and on. What would falsify this failed hypothesis?
Asked and answered. And, again, you can't claim it unfalsifiable and then claim its been falsfied six ways from Sunday. More of your really solid grasp of basic science? The truth is that many things
could falsify it but, in 150 years of testing, nothing has.
Falsifiability is tested via validation. Among other things validation includes the ability to simulate existing conditions, repeat past conditions, accurately forecast future conditions, etc. None of these have been accurately achieved by any laboratory experiment or GCM (which by the way are not experiments)
Do you even speak
English. Validation is the process of proving something is TRUE, not false.
My proposal is based upon an asymmetry between verifiability and falsifiability; an asymmetry which results from the logical form of universal statements. For these are never derivable from singular statements, but can be contradicted by singular statements.
—Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, p. 19.
And I have listed five different ways in which the greenhouse effect could be falsified - contradicted by singular statements.
So again, why should anyone accept a hypothesis that has failed as miserably as the greenhouse hypothesis.
Because you are a stupid, lying, sack of shit and the greenhouse effect has been WIDELY accepted - clearly-demonstrated, falsifiable-but-never-falsified science for well over a hundred years. Find us ANY textbook or peer reviewed work that suggests ANYTHING you've just said has any backing from ANYONE.
A giant nail in its coffin is the fact that it can't accurately predict the temperatures of other planets in our own solar system with atmospheres....and can only produce accurate temperatures here with constant adjustment...
Bullshit on every point. See Kasting, James F. (1991). "Runaway and moist greenhouse atmospheres and the evolution of Earth and Venus.". Planetary Sciences: American and Soviet Research/Proceedings from the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Workshop on Planetary Sciences. Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems (CETS). pp. 234–245.
There are hypotheses out there which not only accurately predict the temperature here, but on other planets in the solar system and have actual observable, repeatable experimental evidence in their support.
Names? Links? I have buried you, repeatedly, in highly qualified reference material showing specifically everything I've contended about the greenhouse effect and every other insane understanding you think you have of how the universe actually works. You provide NOTHING and that would be because you HAVE NOTHING!
So again, why accept a failed hypothesis when there are other superior hypotheses available?
Because as far as can be seen from what you write here, you are both an idiot and insane.
He rejects the scientific method.
As I have pointed out, it is climate science, and by default you who rejects the scientific method. Maybe you should offer up a definition of the scientific method in which climate science can possibly be viewed as a legitimate science. I would be interested to see how far from the definition of the actual scientific method you would have to go in order for climate science to be considered to be working within the scientific method.
You have rejected multiple major tenets of modern, mainstream science. Those were all the product of the scientific method conducted by thousands of qualified professional scientists. To do so, you make wildly unsupportable claims without a shred of evidence and/or simply lie. To claim that the vast majority of the world's scientists (all sorts) have accepted a theory which has not been tested according to the scientific method is utter nonsense. Peer reviewed scientific journals have published better than 12,000 studies on anthropogenic global warming. Do you suggest that NONE of those 12,000 studies made use of the scientific method and that none of the journals or their reviewers realized it? You're ******* insane.
I find it amazing he's brave enough to face the demons that animate that illuminated box in the corner of his basement.
Again, projection isn't an actual argument. Putting your own fears on others doesn't make them the fears of others. You are the one who lives in a constant state of fearful hysteria, not me.
I'm not the one here lying over and over again, making completely unsupportable claims, denying facts in plain evidence and, in general, acting really, seriously, insane. I'm the one who chooses to define himself by MAINSTREAM SCIENCE. My side's the one with mountains of evidence and thousands of PhDs in consensus agreement. Your side is the one with you, by yourself, and... no... one... else.
Grow up and rejoin the human race dude.
