Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[SSDD]

the man was thumbing his nose at the lack of interpretation for QM 100 years on and pointing out that to people of faith like you, those of us who remember that science is about experiment, observation, and measurement must be wrong because we don't hold your faith. You are find with proclamations about reality which have no basis in reality...you are find with accepting faith as if it were derived from observation and measurement....that is what he said...if you read anything else into it, it was of your own making and nothing to do with what he said. Must we break his statement down sentence by sentence in order to help you comprehend what was said?

You still don't understand what he said. Go ahead break it down. Maybe you will understand him.

Sure...glad to help the stupid anytime I can.

"As for Copenhagen, I’ve described it as “shut-up and calculate except without ever shutting up about it”!

Pretty straight forward statement of contempt...He is stating that it is all models...and no reality...You can't read the distain there? Interesting.

I regard Bohr’s writings on the subject as barely comprehensible, and Copenhagen as less of an interpretation than a self-conscious anti-interpretation:

Which part of Bohr's writings are barely comprehensible do you find so hard to understand...and are you not able to read that he thinks the Copenhagen interpretation is not an interpretation at all, but a bashful wave at interpretation? Seems to be pretty plain language to me.

You tell me what you think barely comprehensible means and then tell me what you believe less of an interpretation than a self conscious anti interpretation means in the context of the Copenhagen interpretation.

a studied refusal to offer any account of the actual constituents of the world,— and most of all—an insistence that if you insist on such an account, then that just proves that you cling naïvely to a classical worldview, and haven’t grasped the enormity of the quantum revolution."

And here, he is stating quite clearly, and depreciatingly that the QM adherents can't apply their beliefs to the physical world... and that when those of us who don't operate on faith, but prefer some sort of substance to our science...some evidence out here in the real world actually ask for said substance, you simply tell us that we are to stupid to see how beautiful the emperors clothes are.

Care to tell me what you believe the phrase "account of the actual constituents of the world" means to you. Maybe you don't know what constituents mean...

So tell me how that statement disagrees with my position...show me how terribly you must mangle his statement in order to make it agree with you.

 

[SSDD]

Emmisivity is the description of how effective the substance is at using the available energy. Emmisivity describes how a substance either absorbs, transmits or reflects radiation.

Well, there you go. You don't know what emissivity means. Emissivity is nothing more than a statement about an entities ability to radiate energy...it has noting to do with "using" energy. You increase emissivity, you increase the amount of energy the entity is able to emit. Period.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Emmisivity is the description of how effective the substance is at using the available energy. Emmisivity describes how a substance either absorbs, transmits or reflects radiation.

Well, there you go. You don't know what emissivity means. Emissivity is nothing more than a statement about an entities ability to radiate energy...it has noting to do with "using" energy. You increase emissivity, you increase the amount of energy the entity is able to emit. Period.

You increase emissivity, you increase the amount of energy the entity is able to emit. Period.

You increase emissivity, you increase the amount of energy the entity is able to absorb. Period.

 

[Wuwei]

[
All an experiment can do is determine that net energy moves from warmer to colder objects. Do you have an experiment that says otherwise.

Interesting....we can measure discrete wavelengths of energy moving from a warm object to a cold object...and measure those wavelengths being absorbed by the cool object...but we can't measure energy moving in the other direction...we have to just believe that it is happening.

Why do you find it so hard to admit that your position is one of faith when it is clearly faith...a belief in something with no evidence in support. My position certainly isn't one of faith....observation and measurement support it...energy moves one way...demonstrable, observable, measurable, quantifiable fact....you believe it moves in two directions but no evidence exists to support that belief......that is called FAITH.

As you admit...all experiments show and say that energy moves from a more ordered state to a less ordered state...

I referred to net energy.

Trying to count the number of angels that can stand on the head of a pin now? You said that experiment can only show gross energy flow...only gross energy flow can be observed and measured...then you claim that actually, something is happening other than what can be observed and measured...you claim that it is something real that is happing but we just can't see it or detect it...it is unobservable, unmeasurable, unprovable..but it is real...we just have to believe it is real even though there is no evidence of it. We must have faith.

You can't support your belief with another trollish retort.

My position is that energy movement is a gross, one way proposition..you acknowledge that experiment, observation, and measurement support my position...Therefore, my position, by definition is not one of belief....then you go on to say that what is really happening is invisible...undetectable...but real none the less and that I should believe it...I should give up my position which is supported by actual observation and measurement in favor of your position which is supported by nothing..in short, I should share your faith. Is that about the size of it?

The idea of net energy in thermal energy exchange comes from basic ideas in atomic physics. Vibrating electric charges must radiate EM energy. If you want to believe these objects don't radiate EM toward each other you have to deny all of QM.

You call that process faith because you don't believe in QM. Scientists call it Quantum Mechanics.

 

[Wuwei]

the man was thumbing his nose at the lack of interpretation for QM 100 years on and pointing out that to people of faith like you, those of us who remember that science is about experiment, observation, and measurement must be wrong because we don't hold your faith. You are find with proclamations about reality which have no basis in reality...you are find with accepting faith as if it were derived from observation and measurement....that is what he said...if you read anything else into it, it was of your own making and nothing to do with what he said. Must we break his statement down sentence by sentence in order to help you comprehend what was said?

You still don't understand what he said. Go ahead break it down. Maybe you will understand him.

Sure...glad to help the stupid anytime I can.

"As for Copenhagen, I’ve described it as “shut-up and calculate except without ever shutting up about it”!

Pretty straight forward statement of contempt...He is stating that it is all models...and no reality...You can't read the distain there? Interesting.

I regard Bohr’s writings on the subject as barely comprehensible, and Copenhagen as less of an interpretation than a self-conscious anti-interpretation:

Which part of Bohr's writings are barely comprehensible do you find so hard to understand...and are you not able to read that he thinks the Copenhagen interpretation is not an interpretation at all, but a bashful wave at interpretation? Seems to be pretty plain language to me.

You tell me what you think barely comprehensible means and then tell me what you believe less of an interpretation than a self conscious anti interpretation means in the context of the Copenhagen interpretation.

a studied refusal to offer any account of the actual constituents of the world,— and most of all—an insistence that if you insist on such an account, then that just proves that you cling naïvely to a classical worldview, and haven’t grasped the enormity of the quantum revolution."

And here, he is stating quite clearly, and depreciatingly that the QM adherents can't apply their beliefs to the physical world... and that when those of us who don't operate on faith, but prefer some sort of substance to our science...some evidence out here in the real world actually ask for said substance, you simply tell us that we are to stupid to see how beautiful the emperors clothes are.

Care to tell me what you believe the phrase "account of the actual constituents of the world" means to you. Maybe you don't know what constituents mean...

So tell me how that statement disagrees with my position...show me how terribly you must mangle his statement in order to make it agree with you.

You answered your own question. Scientists such as Aronson are deep into the mathematical applications of QM such as quantum computing. He recognizes mathematical modeling in QM solves real problems and he has no use for the many philosophical attempts, especially the Copenhagen School, at intuitive understanding.

 

[SSDD]

Emmisivity is the description of how effective the substance is at using the available energy. Emmisivity describes how a substance either absorbs, transmits or reflects radiation.

Well, there you go. You don't know what emissivity means. Emissivity is nothing more than a statement about an entities ability to radiate energy...it has noting to do with "using" energy. You increase emissivity, you increase the amount of energy the entity is able to emit. Period.

You increase emissivity, you increase the amount of energy the entity is able to emit. Period.

You increase emissivity, you increase the amount of energy the entity is able to absorb. Period.

Still nothing to do with "using" energy. Using energy implies work and absorption and emission are not work...and absorption and emission does not equal warming.

 

[SSDD]

The idea of net energy in thermal energy exchange comes from basic ideas in atomic physics. Vibrating electric charges must radiate EM energy. If you want to believe these objects don't radiate EM toward each other you have to deny all of QM.

I know where the idea comes from...and I also know that there are no observed, measured instances of it happening in the real world...if you believe it happens, then it is a matter of faith...not objective science.

 

[SSDD]

the man was thumbing his nose at the lack of interpretation for QM 100 years on and pointing out that to people of faith like you, those of us who remember that science is about experiment, observation, and measurement must be wrong because we don't hold your faith. You are find with proclamations about reality which have no basis in reality...you are find with accepting faith as if it were derived from observation and measurement....that is what he said...if you read anything else into it, it was of your own making and nothing to do with what he said. Must we break his statement down sentence by sentence in order to help you comprehend what was said?

You still don't understand what he said. Go ahead break it down. Maybe you will understand him.

Sure...glad to help the stupid anytime I can.

"As for Copenhagen, I’ve described it as “shut-up and calculate except without ever shutting up about it”!

Pretty straight forward statement of contempt...He is stating that it is all models...and no reality...You can't read the distain there? Interesting.

I regard Bohr’s writings on the subject as barely comprehensible, and Copenhagen as less of an interpretation than a self-conscious anti-interpretation:

Which part of Bohr's writings are barely comprehensible do you find so hard to understand...and are you not able to read that he thinks the Copenhagen interpretation is not an interpretation at all, but a bashful wave at interpretation? Seems to be pretty plain language to me.

You tell me what you think barely comprehensible means and then tell me what you believe less of an interpretation than a self conscious anti interpretation means in the context of the Copenhagen interpretation.

a studied refusal to offer any account of the actual constituents of the world,— and most of all—an insistence that if you insist on such an account, then that just proves that you cling naïvely to a classical worldview, and haven’t grasped the enormity of the quantum revolution."

And here, he is stating quite clearly, and depreciatingly that the QM adherents can't apply their beliefs to the physical world... and that when those of us who don't operate on faith, but prefer some sort of substance to our science...some evidence out here in the real world actually ask for said substance, you simply tell us that we are to stupid to see how beautiful the emperors clothes are.

Care to tell me what you believe the phrase "account of the actual constituents of the world" means to you. Maybe you don't know what constituents mean...

So tell me how that statement disagrees with my position...show me how terribly you must mangle his statement in order to make it agree with you.

You answered your own question. Scientists such as Aronson are deep into the mathematical applications of QM such as quantum computing. He recognizes mathematical modeling in QM solves real problems and he has no use for the many philosophical attempts, especially the Copenhagen School, at intuitive understanding.

The more you talk, the more apparent it becomes that you don't have a clue. You don't have any idea what the Copenhagen interpretation is...do you? If it weren't so sad, I would be laughing in your face.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Emmisivity is the description of how effective the substance is at using the available energy. Emmisivity describes how a substance either absorbs, transmits or reflects radiation.

Well, there you go. You don't know what emissivity means. Emissivity is nothing more than a statement about an entities ability to radiate energy...it has noting to do with "using" energy. You increase emissivity, you increase the amount of energy the entity is able to emit. Period.

You increase emissivity, you increase the amount of energy the entity is able to emit. Period.

You increase emissivity, you increase the amount of energy the entity is able to absorb. Period.

Still nothing to do with "using" energy. Using energy implies work and absorption and emission are not work...and absorption and emission does not equal warming.

Using energy implies work and absorption and emission are not work.

Great. So how does the cooler surface of the Sun emit toward the hotter corona?
Sounds like the Sun is violating your "one-way flow" theory.

 

[IanC]

Emmisivity is the description of how effective the substance is at using the available energy. Emmisivity describes how a substance either absorbs, transmits or reflects radiation.

Well, there you go. You don't know what emissivity means. Emissivity is nothing more than a statement about an entities ability to radiate energy...it has noting to do with "using" energy. You increase emissivity, you increase the amount of energy the entity is able to emit. Period.

Again, you are looking at a coin but only acknowledging one side.

The ability to emit radiation is EXACTLY matched by its ability to absorb that radiation.

 

[Wuwei]

The more you talk, the more apparent it becomes that you don't have a clue. You don't have any idea what the Copenhagen interpretation is...do you? If it weren't so sad, I would be laughing in your face.

My god. Another personal attack. Is that the best you can do?

 

[Wuwei]

I know where the idea comes from...and I also know that there are no observed, measured instances of it happening in the real world...if you believe it happens, then it is a matter of faith...not objective science.

You want to base all your beliefs only on directly observed and measured phenomena. That is the dark ages of science. A deeper understanding comes from inference of many experiments that put together mathematical models that reveal deeper connections. Thermodynamics has melded with QM a hundred years ago, and you don't understand that.

 

[IanC]

[
All an experiment can do is determine that net energy moves from warmer to colder objects. Do you have an experiment that says otherwise.

Interesting....we can measure discrete wavelengths of energy moving from a warm object to a cold object...and measure those wavelengths being absorbed by the cool object...but we can't measure energy moving in the other direction...we have to just believe that it is happening.

Why do you find it so hard to admit that your position is one of faith when it is clearly faith...a belief in something with no evidence in support. My position certainly isn't one of faith....observation and measurement support it...energy moves one way...demonstrable, observable, measurable, quantifiable fact....you believe it moves in two directions but no evidence exists to support that belief......that is called FAITH.

As you admit...all experiments show and say that energy moves from a more ordered state to a less ordered state...

I referred to net energy.

Trying to count the number of angels that can stand on the head of a pin now? You said that experiment can only show gross energy flow...only gross energy flow can be observed and measured...then you claim that actually, something is happening other than what can be observed and measured...you claim that it is something real that is happing but we just can't see it or detect it...it is unobservable, unmeasurable, unprovable..but it is real...we just have to believe it is real even though there is no evidence of it. We must have faith.

You can't support your belief with another trollish retort.

My position is that energy movement is a gross, one way proposition..you acknowledge that experiment, observation, and measurement support my position...Therefore, my position, by definition is not one of belief....then you go on to say that what is really happening is invisible...undetectable...but real none the less and that I should believe it...I should give up my position which is supported by actual observation and measurement in favor of your position which is supported by nothing..in short, I should share your faith. Is that about the size of it?

The idea of net energy in thermal energy exchange comes from basic ideas in atomic physics. Vibrating electric charges must radiate EM energy. If you want to believe these objects don't radiate EM toward each other you have to deny all of QM.

You call that process faith because you don't believe in QM. Scientists call it Quantum Mechanics.

This is SSDD's major mistake.

Radiation is produced because of local internal conditions. To stop the production of radiation you have to change the local internal conditions.

SSDD says the distant external conditions expressed as temperature controls the production of radiation, although he has no mechanism for how this is done. And in fact there is no possible mechanism.

All things radiate if they have the necessary local and internal conditions. The net movement of radiation energy in a defined system is the net result of all the radiation going in all directions, all the time.

 

[Wuwei]

Again, you are looking at a coin but only acknowledging one side.

The ability to emit radiation is EXACTLY matched by its ability to absorb that radiation.

Right, and here is a reference for SSDD.

Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation - Wikipedia
Kirchhoff's law states:

For an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again, you are looking at a coin but only acknowledging one side.

The ability to emit radiation is EXACTLY matched by its ability to absorb that radiation.

Right, and here is a reference for SSDD.

Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation - Wikipedia
Kirchhoff's law states:

For an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.​

Kirchhoff's law states:

Obviously that has never been measured or observed.
Because matter at equilibrium doesn't absorb or emit /idiocy off

 

[Wuwei]

Kirchhoff's law states:

Obviously that has never been measured or observed.
Because matter at equilibrium doesn't absorb or emit /idiocy off

Oops, I forgot.

Shame on Kirchhoff for his faith in science.

 

[IanC]

I know where the idea comes from...and I also know that there are no observed, measured instances of it happening in the real world...if you believe it happens, then it is a matter of faith...not objective science.

You want to base all your beliefs only on directly observed and measured phenomena. That is the dark ages of science. A deeper understanding comes from inference of many experiments that put together mathematical models that reveal deeper connections. Thermodynamics has melded with QM a hundred years ago, and you don't understand that.

QM was discovered/invented because classical thermodynamics was insufficient to give correct answers that matched the experimental data.

Got that SSDD? Classical thermodynamics gave approximately right answers for some calculations but failed for others.

A better understanding was needed and found, leading to the ever expanding theories of QM.

Will QM be overthrown like classical thermodynamics? Perhaps. But the new paradigm will include most of QM, just like QM included most of classical thermodynamics.

 

[SSDD]

Emmisivity is the description of how effective the substance is at using the available energy. Emmisivity describes how a substance either absorbs, transmits or reflects radiation.

Well, there you go. You don't know what emissivity means. Emissivity is nothing more than a statement about an entities ability to radiate energy...it has noting to do with "using" energy. You increase emissivity, you increase the amount of energy the entity is able to emit. Period.

Again, you are looking at a coin but only acknowledging one side.

The ability to emit radiation is EXACTLY matched by its ability to absorb that radiation.

Got any evidence to indicate that absorption and emission equals warming? Any at all?

Didn't think so. Which is precisely why IR does't warm the air.

 

[SSDD]

The more you talk, the more apparent it becomes that you don't have a clue. You don't have any idea what the Copenhagen interpretation is...do you? If it weren't so sad, I would be laughing in your face.

My god. Another personal attack. Is that the best you can do?

So you don't know what the Copenhagen interpretation is...or why it is profound that he made such a snide comment about it...no surprise.

 

[SSDD]

You want to base all your beliefs only on directly observed and measured phenomena.

You don't seem to grasp that observed, and measured phenomena is science. Belief in the unseen and unknowable is faith.

That is the dark ages of science.

Maybe you should do a bit of research into the history of science...particularly the dark ages...during that period, belief in the unseen and unknowable was the norm...then follow on to the enlightenment when science started to actually be about observation, measurement, experiment...and becoming acquainted with the real world....

A deeper understanding comes from inference of many experiments that put together mathematical models that reveal deeper connections. Thermodynamics has melded with QM a hundred years ago, and you don't understand that.

So you want me to share your faith in the unseen and unknowable...the unobservable, the untestable, and the unknowable... In a word...NO. Science is about knowledge...not faith.