Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[SSDD]

S

Yet the cavity experiment does measure the amount of radiation produced. .

No ian..the cavity experiment measures the amount of radiation present...and then makes assumptions about what it is doing. Measuring the amount of radiation being produced, and the amount of radiation present are two very different things.

 

[IanC]

S

Yet the cavity experiment does measure the amount of radiation produced. .

No ian..the cavity experiment measures the amount of radiation present...and then makes assumptions about what it is doing. Measuring the amount of radiation being produced, and the amount of radiation present are two very different things.

Please explain these two very different things.

According to SSDD'S version of physics, there is no radiation present in the cavity. Then when the aperture opens, only particles that are in direct line-of-sight are allowed to emit, and even then only at specific angles which would escape.

And, needless to say, only in amounts commensurate with the difference in temperature between the cavity and detector. And the type/amount is not in the shape of a Planck curve but in the shape left over when the Planck curve of the cooler temp is subtracted from the Planck curve of the warmer temp.

And we haven't even discussed how we are being fooled by poor instrumentation yet.

Hahahaha.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why don't you explain the non-spontaneous flow of energy from the surface to the corona?

Their is reason that sceintists say that the movement of energy from the surface to the corona defies our understanding...it isn't because they believe energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm..it is because they believe something is happing there that we don't understand...that would be some process that equates to work making the movement happen. You seem to be the only one suggesting that the energy movement is spontaneous.

Their is reason that sceintists say that the movement of energy from the surface to the corona defies our understanding..

Post links for 2 scientists who say that "the movement of energy from the surface to the corona" defies their understanding.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, cooler matter of the surface of the Sun freely radiates in all directions, including toward the hotter corona.

The second law says that you are wrong...but you go ahead and believe.

Grey bodies in an atmosphere don't radiate?

Yes, but they radiate according to their emissivity, their area, and the difference in temperature between themselves and their surroundings..Set T1 and T2 to the same number and P=0.

Have you ever found a source that says, the rate of outward radiative energy (per unit area) emitted by an object with temperature T is proportional to the 4th power of T, unless there is warmer matter nearby (or billions of light years away)?

Years and distance are irrelevant to entities traveling at the speed of light. Most sources assume that the reader already knows this and therefore aren't interested in teaching basics all over again. Ever go to college? When you get to 2000 and 3000 level physics they assume that you already know the math so spend little to no time teaching algebra, trig, and calculus. If you are unaware that time and distance are irrelevant concepts when you are talking about entities that are moving at the speed of light, then you need to go back to the remedial level.

Or any source that says matter at equilibrium doesn't radiate at all?

Just the SB law...again set T1 and T2 to the same temperature and P=0...that statement actually has a literal and mathematical meaning...and since the equation has no variable that would allow for calculations of net, it is speaking to gross, one way energy movements. Sorry that you can't read an equation and know what it says. I get that your dogma requires that it say something else, but alas, the language of mathematical equations is very explicit..if you don't have an expression or expressions within the equation that would allow you to calculate net, then it isn't speaking to net.

Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

Again, set T1 and T2 to the same number...P=0 that means that the power being radiated is equal to the power being absorbed from other bodies at equilibrium

Was Kirchhoff wrong?

Of course not...you are just unable to read mathematical equations...which is required if you want to know what he is saying...in verbal language, statements are open to interpretation..in mathematical language, they are not...set T1 and T2 to the same number and P=0...that mathematical statement is not open to interpretation.

Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

According to an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model. Einstein had some opinions on models..maybe you should look them up.

The second law says that you are wrong..

The second law says something about directional emission of photons? LOL!

Yes, but they radiate according to their emissivity, their area, and the difference in temperature between themselves and their surroundings..

Right, the dimmer switch theory of emission.

Years and distance are irrelevant to entities traveling at the speed of light

You would have saved time by just saying, "No. I have no source that says, the rate of outward radiative energy (per unit area) emitted by an object with temperature T is proportional to the 4th power of T, unless there is warmer matter nearby (or billions of light years away)"

Just the SB law...again set T1 and T2 to the same temperature and P=0...that statement actually has a literal and mathematical meaning...and since the equation has no variable that would allow for calculations of net, it is speaking to gross, one way energy movements.

The Stefan–Boltzmann constant can be used to measure the amount of heat that is emitted by a blackbody, which absorbs all of the radiant energy that hits it, and will emit all the radiant energy. Furthermore, the Stefan–Boltzmann constant allows for temperature (K) to be converted to units for intensity (W m−2), which is power per unit area.

Stefan–Boltzmann constant - Wikipedia

Isn't it strange that all these sources talk about bodies absorbing and emitting at the same time.
How could they get something so basic, "all energy flow must be one way", so wrong.

Is it safe to say you don't have at least 2 sources that explicitly say, "All energy flow must be one way"?
I mean besides your solo misinterpretations?

Gustav Robert Kirchhoff “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

Again, set T1 and T2 to the same number...P=0 that means that the power being radiated is equal to the power being absorbed from other bodies at equilibrium

Wait, what?

Radiating and absorbing from bodies at equilibrium? Two way flow? What? WHAT?

WHAT?

 

[IanC]

Years and distance are irrelevant to entities traveling at the speed of light. Most sources assume that the reader already knows this and therefore aren't interested in teaching basics all over again. Ever go to college? When you get to 2000 and 3000 level physics they assume that you already know the math so spend little to no time teaching algebra, trig, and calculus. If you are unaware that time and distance are irrelevant concepts when you are talking about entities that are moving at the speed of light, then you need to go back to the remedial level

Physics is done in the real world. Light travels at 300,000 m/s. It takes minutes to reach the Earth from the Sun.

Light, in all its forms has been intensely studied for hundreds of years. Experimental evidence show it to have both the properties of a wave and a particle depending on conditions. So, obviously it is neither.

You keep saying photons are theoretical, as if that negates their reality. Light is real, and doesn't give a shit about how we name it or describe it.

 

[IanC]

Just the SB law...again set T1 and T2 to the same temperature and P=0...that statement actually has a literal and mathematical meaning...and since the equation has no variable that would allow for calculations of net, it is speaking to gross, one way energy movements. Sorry that you can't read an equation and know what it says. I get that your dogma requires that it say something else, but alas, the language of mathematical equations is very explicit..if you don't have an expression or expressions within the equation that would allow you to calculate net, then it isn't speaking to net

The equation is easily rearranged to give gross amounts going in either direction. It has been shown to you a hundred times or more.

P = k (T^4 - Tc^4) is exactly the same as
P = kT^4 - kTc^4

The first arrangement emphasizes the temperature relationship, and shortens it because the components of k ( emissivity, S-B constant, and Area) only have to be written once.

The second arrangement emphasizes the two gross flows that combine together to make a net flow.

Both give the same answer. Neither arrangement is 'better' than the other.

 

[SSDD]

The equation is easily rearranged to give gross amounts going in either direction. It has been shown to you a hundred times or more.

P = k (T^4 - Tc^4) is exactly the same as
P = kT^4 - kTc^4

If all you want is an answer, then yes, they are the same...if you want to make a mathematical statement regarding a physical phenomenon, then no, they are not the same...in fact, they are quite different. And since there has never been a measurement of two way energy flow, the very idea of trying to substitute a mathematical statement that reflects every observation and measurement ever made for one that only applies in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models stinks of deliberate fraud.

The first arrangement emphasizes the temperature relationship, and shortens it because the components of k ( emissivity, S-B constant, and Area) only have to be written once.

The first arrangement is the actual equation used by the SB law..it describes a gross one way energy movement from cool to warm.

The second arrangement emphasizes the two gross flows that combine together to make a net flow.

The second statement is deliberate fraud...it makes a mathematical statement of a physical process that has never been observed or measured.

Both give the same answer. Neither arrangement is 'better' than the other.

The point of the equation is to describe a physical process..one describes an actual observable, measurable process..one is deliberate fraud which pretends to describe a physical process which has never been observed, or measured.

Follow through with your bastardized equation without violating SB's assumption that T1 is ALWAYS greater than T2

Just to put a period to the discussion, can you show me a two way Planck law by which to prove the two way version of the SB law? Answer: No.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The equation is easily rearranged to give gross amounts going in either direction. It has been shown to you a hundred times or more.

P = k (T^4 - Tc^4) is exactly the same as
P = kT^4 - kTc^4

If all you want is an answer, then yes, they are the same...if you want to make a mathematical statement regarding a physical phenomenon, then no, they are not the same...in fact, they are quite different. And since there has never been a measurement of two way energy flow, the very idea of trying to substitute a mathematical statement that reflects every observation and measurement ever made for one that only applies in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models stinks of deliberate fraud.

The first arrangement emphasizes the temperature relationship, and shortens it because the components of k ( emissivity, S-B constant, and Area) only have to be written once.

The first arrangement is the actual equation used by the SB law..it describes a gross one way energy movement from cool to warm.

The second arrangement emphasizes the two gross flows that combine together to make a net flow.

The second statement is deliberate fraud...it makes a mathematical statement of a physical process that has never been observed or measured.

Both give the same answer. Neither arrangement is 'better' than the other.

The point of the equation is to describe a physical process..one describes an actual observable, measurable process..one is deliberate fraud which pretends to describe a physical process which has never been observed, or measured.

Follow through with your bastardized equation without violating SB's assumption that T1 is ALWAYS greater than T2

Just to put a period to the discussion, can you show me a two way Planck law by which to prove the two way version of the SB law? Answer: No.

And since there has never been a measurement of two way energy flow

You ever post your sources that agree with your "one-way only flow"?

Or are we supposed to take your word for it?

 

[IanC]

No ian..the cavity experiment measures the amount of radiation present...and then makes assumptions about what it is doing. Measuring the amount of radiation being produced, and the amount of radiation present are two very different things.

You still haven't made any effort to explain how these are two very different things. Why not?

 

[IanC]

Follow through with your bastardized equation without violating SB's assumption that T1 is ALWAYS greater than T2

It makes no difference which order they are inserted into the equation. A negative result just means the net flow is going into the first object.

 

[SSDD]

Follow through with your bastardized equation without violating SB's assumption that T1 is ALWAYS greater than T2

It makes no difference which order they are inserted into the equation. A negative result just means the net flow is going into the first object.

Not what the SB law says...and I am still waiting for a single measurement of two way energy flow....it only happens in your models...never out here in the real world where the rest of us live.

 

[SSDD]

No ian..the cavity experiment measures the amount of radiation present...and then makes assumptions about what it is doing. Measuring the amount of radiation being produced, and the amount of radiation present are two very different things.

You still haven't made any effort to explain how these are two very different things. Why not?

Geez ian...i thought you were smarter than that...hell, look at an atomic blast..there is an amount of radiation produced..and an amount of radiation present...they aren't the same thing.

 

[IanC]

No ian..the cavity experiment measures the amount of radiation present...and then makes assumptions about what it is doing. Measuring the amount of radiation being produced, and the amount of radiation present are two very different things.

You still haven't made any effort to explain how these are two very different things. Why not?

Geez ian...i thought you were smarter than that...hell, look at an atomic blast..there is an amount of radiation produced..and an amount of radiation present...they aren't the same thing.

Hahahaha!!!!!!!

An atomic blast! That's your answer. Hahahaha.

We were discussing Stefan's cavity experiment. Did you forget?

I say the surface of the cavity is emitting and absorbing equally in both quantity and quality. You say there is no radiation present because the surface has no temperature difference, the emissions have been throttled down to nothing.

Please inform me if you have changed your mind.


Why do you believe so fervently in the S-B equations when they were obviously produced with inferior equipment and bastardized physics?

 

[IanC]

Follow through with your bastardized equation without violating SB's assumption that T1 is ALWAYS greater than T2

It makes no difference which order they are inserted into the equation. A negative result just means the net flow is going into the first object.

Not what the SB law says...and I am still waiting for a single measurement of two way energy flow....it only happens in your models...never out here in the real world where the rest of us live.

It's right there in the equation. Net power equals the power of the first object less the power of the second object, with due consideration given to emissivity and area.

 

[IanC]

What happens when we take due consideration of emissivities for surface and atmosphere?

At 15 microns the atmosphere is black, all surface 15 micron radiation is absorbed within the first few metres.

At 10 microns the atmosphere is clear, the surface radiation is almost totally transmitted out to space as if the atmosphere was not even there.

Cloud are more like liquid water than a gas so they have more bonds to absorb a variety of photons than does water vapour.

 

[SSDD]

Hahahaha!!!!!!!

An atomic blast! That's your answer. Hahahaha.

Pick your own example..they are practically all the same...an amount of radiation being produced is a different thing from an amount of radiation present...sorry you are unable to grasp such a basic fact. Guess you didn't learn much about the real world in modeling 101.

 

[SSDD]

It's right there in the equation. Net power equals the power of the first object less the power of the second object, with due consideration given to emissivity and area.

If you believe the actual SB equation has an expression for net, then you are a f'ing idiot who lacks the ability to read even the most basic mathematical equation.

That equation is a very precise sentence describing a physical reality..and there is nothing there about net energy flows...your dogma and, frankly, pitiful belief in models over reality is just sad ian...sad as it can be.

 

[SSDD]

What happens when we take due consideration of emissivities for surface and atmosphere?

At 15 microns the atmosphere is black, all surface 15 micron radiation is absorbed within the first few metres.

At 10 microns the atmosphere is clear, the surface radiation is almost totally transmitted out to space as if the atmosphere was not even there.

Cloud are more like liquid water than a gas so they have more bonds to absorb a variety of photons than does water vapour.

Show me an actual measurement made with an instrument at ambient temperature that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...leave your models at home...show me some actual evidence...something that illustrates more than the already obvious fact that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.

 

[IanC]

Hahahaha!!!!!!!

An atomic blast! That's your answer. Hahahaha.

Pick your own example..they are practically all the same...an amount of radiation being produced is a different thing from an amount of radiation present...sorry you are unable to grasp such a basic fact. Guess you didn't learn much about the real world in modeling 101.

Quit ducking.

You said the amount of radiation present in the cavity was a totally different thing than the amount of radiation being measured from the cavity.

When questioned as to what you mean, you responded with 'atomic blast', as if that means something.

How did Stefan figure out the relationship between temperature and radiation if the experiment cannot work according to your version of physics? And why do you believe in it so fervently if it was discovered with false data?

 

[IanC]

It's right there in the equation. Net power equals the power of the first object less the power of the second object, with due consideration given to emissivity and area.

If you believe the actual SB equation has an expression for net, then you are a f'ing idiot who lacks the ability to read even the most basic mathematical equation.

That equation is a very precise sentence describing a physical reality..and there is nothing there about net energy flows...your dogma and, frankly, pitiful belief in models over reality is just sad ian...sad as it can be.

I find it hard to believe you have ever taken any physics, chemistry or calculus courses if you are unfamiliar with rearranging terms to solve equations.