No Evidence

[SSDD]

Again...this thread is about evidence, or lack of to support the AGW hypothesis...got any? Didn't think so...

Take your mewling somewhere else...whining all over the board because you can't prove your point, and because scientific papers are not written in the 5th grade appropriate language you insist on is just childish...

 

[Wuwei]

Again...this thread is about evidence, or lack of to support the AGW hypothesis...got any? Didn't think so...

Take your mewling somewhere else...whining all over the board because you can't prove your point, and because scientific papers are not written in the 5th grade appropriate language you insist on is just childish...

The evidence behind behind global warming involves science. However you disbelieve major science that has been repetitively observed and measured.

You disbelieve quantum mechanics
You disbelieve spontaneous emissions of energy
You disbelieve the textbook second law of thermodynamics
You disbelieve the textbook Stefan-Boltzmann equation
You disbelieve radiative equilibrium
You disbelieve mathematical representation of scientific theory
You disbelieve radiation of accelerating charges
You disbelieve equipartition theory of energy in air

You disbelieve all of that so you can proclaim that green house gases don't have an effect on the world climate. Well according to all of science you are wrong. Even scientists that discount the danger of greenhouse gases still believe that they are instrumental in moderating the global earth temperature.

So yes, my topic is about AGW whether you realize it or not.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Again...this thread is about evidence, or lack of to support the AGW hypothesis...got any? Didn't think so...

Take your mewling somewhere else...whining all over the board because you can't prove your point, and because scientific papers are not written in the 5th grade appropriate language you insist on is just childish...

The evidence behind behind global warming involves science. However you disbelieve major science that has been repetitively observed and measured.

You disbelieve quantum mechanics
You disbelieve spontaneous emissions of energy
You disbelieve the textbook second law of thermodynamics
You disbelieve the textbook Stefan-Boltzmann equation
You disbelieve radiative equilibrium
You disbelieve mathematical representation of scientific theory
You disbelieve radiation of accelerating charges
You disbelieve equipartition theory of energy in air

You disbelieve all of that so you can proclaim that green house gases don't have an effect on the world climate. Well according to all of science you are wrong. Even scientists that discount the danger of greenhouse gases still believe that they are instrumental in moderating the global earth temperature.

So yes, my topic is about AGW whether you realize it or not.

Cooped Up in Sheldon Cooper's Shell

If he starts college at 18, a science PhD doesn't earn a living until he is 30 years old. Such an unnatural and permanently damaging youth only produces crooks, quacks, and crackpots. Hiding from real life, sheltered by the dingy walls of their Ivory Tower dungeon, eventually gets to these escapist misfits and makes them overcompensate by imagining themselves to be comic-book superheroes out to save the world from those who actually and maturely test themselves by going out into this imperfect aggravating world and try to conquer it as it is. Theory-addicted freaks can never be trusted; your cult imagines that they are disembodied angels who would never be driven by greed and the will to power.

 

[Wuwei]

Cooped Up in Sheldon Cooper's Shell

If he starts college at 18, a science PhD doesn't earn a living until he is 30 years old. Such an unnatural and permanently damaging youth only produces crooks, quacks, and crackpots. Hiding from real life, sheltered by the dingy walls of their Ivory Tower dungeon, eventually gets to these escapist misfits and makes them overcompensate by imagining themselves to be comic-book superheroes out to save the world from those who actually and maturely test themselves by going out into this imperfect aggravating world and try to conquer it as it is. Theory-addicted freaks can never be trusted; your cult imagines that they are disembodied angels who would never be driven by greed and the will to power.

Wow. You really hate scientists don't you. It seems a lot of people do these days. Yes, hatred and fear in many guises seems to have ruled the world for a long time. But you have to admit that those scientists you hate did bring you semiconductors, GPS systems, cell phones, computers and the LCD you are looking at right now.

 

[skookerasbil]

Cooped Up in Sheldon Cooper's Shell

If he starts college at 18, a science PhD doesn't earn a living until he is 30 years old. Such an unnatural and permanently damaging youth only produces crooks, quacks, and crackpots. Hiding from real life, sheltered by the dingy walls of their Ivory Tower dungeon, eventually gets to these escapist misfits and makes them overcompensate by imagining themselves to be comic-book superheroes out to save the world from those who actually and maturely test themselves by going out into this imperfect aggravating world and try to conquer it as it is. Theory-addicted freaks can never be trusted; your cult imagines that they are disembodied angels who would never be driven by greed and the will to power.

Wow. You really hate scientists don't you. It seems a lot of people do these days. Yes, hatred and fear in many guises seems to have ruled the world for a long time. But you have to admit that those scientists you hate did bring you semiconductors, GPS systems, cell phones, computers and the LCD you are looking at right now.

All the science in the world doesnt matter for dick if policy makers think its ghey. Which they consistently do. So....the science transcends nowhere beyond the science. For 25 years now. But I suppose for some, banner gazing is a hoot. For me, it's all about who's not winning!

 

[SSDD]

The evidence behind behind global warming involves science. However you disbelieve major science that has been repetitively observed and measured.

You disbelieve quantum mechanics
You disbelieve spontaneous emissions of energy
You disbelieve the textbook second law of thermodynamics
You disbelieve the textbook Stefan-Boltzmann equation
You disbelieve radiative equilibrium
You disbelieve mathematical representation of scientific theory
You disbelieve radiation of accelerating charges
You disbelieve equipartition theory of energy in air

You are full of shit...you are a liar...and you are just plain stupid. The above represent yet another episode of fantasy in which you fabricate statements, claim that I made them, then argue against them. Keep it up and I will report you.

1. True, I don't believe quantum mechanics as a whole...The fact that the theory is evolving is good reason to not take it as absolute truth. When you have a theory on the table this long and those working on it can't even agree on what it means, you don't have a theory that thinking people jump on and accept as truth. I will wait for the actual evidence to come out rather than accept the output of models which are trying to replicate, and predict processes that, in many cases, we don't even know exist at this point.

2. What a stupid statement....The SB equation which deals with the radiation of an object in the presence of other matter describes equilibrium perfectly and in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. When you set the temperature of the two objects in question to the same temperature, the output of the primary radiation is zero.

I took the time to look up the term equilibrium in the science dictionary....under the heading of physics, equilibrium is, by definition : Physics The state of a body or physical system that is at rest or in constant and unchanging motion. A system that is in equilibrium shows no tendency to alter over time.

Pretty much describes my position on equilibrium....now, what additions, subtractions, or alterations would you like to make to the definition in order to have it support your opinion of what equilibrium is.

3. Again...what a stupid statement. The textbook statement of the second law of thermodynamics is as follows:

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.

I am in perfect agreement with that statement. Now, what additions, subtractions, or alterations would you like to make in order to have it agree with your opinion of what it should say?

4.Reference above...we have already been through the whole thing over and over. The equation describes a one way gross energy flow from warm to cool...just as the second law predicts.

That equation describes one way energy flow......now, what alterations would you like to make to it in order to have it support your opinion of what it should say? Let me guess, you want to unsimplify the equation, which would allow you to validate the assumption of the SB law which is that T>Tc.

5. To the contrary...I am in agreement with both the SB law, and the science dictionary definition of equilibrium...What alterations to those did you want to make in order to have them support your opinion again?

6. Again, to the contrary...I fully accept the mathematical representations of mathematical theories which agree with observations and measurements. Take the SB equation above...Set T and Tc to the same number and it states that P=0...I am in perfect agreement with that. And there exists example after example of mathematical representations of physical laws that I am in perfect agreement with.

I suppose you are referring to the greenhouse hypothesis and associated equations...I have asked you to apply that equation to another planet with an atmosphere and show how well it predicts the temperature in comparison to the equation of the molar version of the ideal gas law. You declined for obvious reasons. Of what good, exactly, is an equation that describes a so called physical phenomenon which only works in one location and then only if you apply a completely made up fudge factor?

7. Of course I don't disbelieve radiation of accelerating charges...I said that we don't understand the underlying mechanism. You couldn't provide one. We don't understand the underlying mechanism of gravity or inertia either, but I have no problem with either. Now claiming that the underlying mechanism of either gravity or inertia proves some point that I want to make, when it is clear that we don't have a handle on the underlying mechanism is just stupid...and that is what you attempted.

8. Equipartition theory doesn't work in the atmosphere. The very term equipartition means equal division...Alas that is not possible in an environment as chaotic as our atmosphere. Here....from one of your favorite sources.

Equipartition no longer holds because it is a poor approximation to assume that the energy levels form a smooth continuum, which is required in the derivations of the equipartition theorem above.[5][9] Historically, the failures of the classical equipartition theorem to explain specific heats and blackbody radiation were critical in showing the need for a new theory of matter and radiation, namely, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory.[11]


Perhaps if you had some ideal set up where you had a perfectly static column of air....but how would you do that...Gareff has demonstrated that even in static columns of air on a laboratory scale, there are minute temperature gradients that eventually result in movement of that air. The fact of temperature gradients, and constant movement of the air pretty much dash the idea that energy is equally dispersed in such an environment.

You disbelieve all of that so you can proclaim that green house gases don't have an effect on the world climate. Well according to all of science you are wrong. Even scientists that discount the danger of greenhouse gases still believe that they are instrumental in moderating the global earth temperature.

So no, as I have demonstrated, you are just a liar and make up positions for those who you can't defeat in an actual debate and then rail agains those fabricated positions.

I asked in the OP for 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. I can't help but note that you have not provided any such observed, measured evidence. Can you provide any at this time or does my statement stand?

This why speaking to you is so tedious...I spend half my time correcting the obvious and glaring mischaracterizations you make regarding what I have said. You are either inherently dishonest, or just to stupid to read what someone says and reply to that statement rather than add your own spin to it, or in many many cases, change the intent of the statement completely.

I tend to think that you are just inherently dishonest and don't have much of a handle on simple, common decency..

And no, your statement is about nothing more than your inability to produce any of the evidence I asked for in the OP.

 

[Crick]

Wuwei's observations as to the arguments you've presented here is completely accurate.

Evidence for AGW has been presented here. You just choose to lie about it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The evidence behind behind global warming involves science. However you disbelieve major science that has been repetitively observed and measured.

You disbelieve quantum mechanics
You disbelieve spontaneous emissions of energy
You disbelieve the textbook second law of thermodynamics
You disbelieve the textbook Stefan-Boltzmann equation
You disbelieve radiative equilibrium
You disbelieve mathematical representation of scientific theory
You disbelieve radiation of accelerating charges
You disbelieve equipartition theory of energy in air

You are full of shit...you are a liar...and you are just plain stupid. The above represent yet another episode of fantasy in which you fabricate statements, claim that I made them, then argue against them. Keep it up and I will report you.

1. True, I don't believe quantum mechanics as a whole...The fact that the theory is evolving is good reason to not take it as absolute truth. When you have a theory on the table this long and those working on it can't even agree on what it means, you don't have a theory that thinking people jump on and accept as truth. I will wait for the actual evidence to come out rather than accept the output of models which are trying to replicate, and predict processes that, in many cases, we don't even know exist at this point.

2. What a stupid statement....The SB equation which deals with the radiation of an object in the presence of other matter describes equilibrium perfectly and in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. When you set the temperature of the two objects in question to the same temperature, the output of the primary radiation is zero.

I took the time to look up the term equilibrium in the science dictionary....under the heading of physics, equilibrium is, by definition : Physics The state of a body or physical system that is at rest or in constant and unchanging motion. A system that is in equilibrium shows no tendency to alter over time.

Pretty much describes my position on equilibrium....now, what additions, subtractions, or alterations would you like to make to the definition in order to have it support your opinion of what equilibrium is.

3. Again...what a stupid statement. The textbook statement of the second law of thermodynamics is as follows:

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.

I am in perfect agreement with that statement. Now, what additions, subtractions, or alterations would you like to make in order to have it agree with your opinion of what it should say?

4.Reference above...we have already been through the whole thing over and over. The equation describes a one way gross energy flow from warm to cool...just as the second law predicts.

That equation describes one way energy flow......now, what alterations would you like to make to it in order to have it support your opinion of what it should say? Let me guess, you want to unsimplify the equation, which would allow you to validate the assumption of the SB law which is that T>Tc.

5. To the contrary...I am in agreement with both the SB law, and the science dictionary definition of equilibrium...What alterations to those did you want to make in order to have them support your opinion again?

6. Again, to the contrary...I fully accept the mathematical representations of mathematical theories which agree with observations and measurements. Take the SB equation above...Set T and Tc to the same number and it states that P=0...I am in perfect agreement with that. And there exists example after example of mathematical representations of physical laws that I am in perfect agreement with.

I suppose you are referring to the greenhouse hypothesis and associated equations...I have asked you to apply that equation to another planet with an atmosphere and show how well it predicts the temperature in comparison to the equation of the molar version of the ideal gas law. You declined for obvious reasons. Of what good, exactly, is an equation that describes a so called physical phenomenon which only works in one location and then only if you apply a completely made up fudge factor?

7. Of course I don't disbelieve radiation of accelerating charges...I said that we don't understand the underlying mechanism. You couldn't provide one. We don't understand the underlying mechanism of gravity or inertia either, but I have no problem with either. Now claiming that the underlying mechanism of either gravity or inertia proves some point that I want to make, when it is clear that we don't have a handle on the underlying mechanism is just stupid...and that is what you attempted.

8. Equipartition theory doesn't work in the atmosphere. The very term equipartition means equal division...Alas that is not possible in an environment as chaotic as our atmosphere. Here....from one of your favorite sources.

Equipartition no longer holds because it is a poor approximation to assume that the energy levels form a smooth continuum, which is required in the derivations of the equipartition theorem above.[5][9] Historically, the failures of the classical equipartition theorem to explain specific heats and blackbody radiation were critical in showing the need for a new theory of matter and radiation, namely, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory.[11]


Perhaps if you had some ideal set up where you had a perfectly static column of air....but how would you do that...Gareff has demonstrated that even in static columns of air on a laboratory scale, there are minute temperature gradients that eventually result in movement of that air. The fact of temperature gradients, and constant movement of the air pretty much dash the idea that energy is equally dispersed in such an environment.

You disbelieve all of that so you can proclaim that green house gases don't have an effect on the world climate. Well according to all of science you are wrong. Even scientists that discount the danger of greenhouse gases still believe that they are instrumental in moderating the global earth temperature.

So no, as I have demonstrated, you are just a liar and make up positions for those who you can't defeat in an actual debate and then rail agains those fabricated positions.

I asked in the OP for 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. I can't help but note that you have not provided any such observed, measured evidence. Can you provide any at this time or does my statement stand?

This why speaking to you is so tedious...I spend half my time correcting the obvious and glaring mischaracterizations you make regarding what I have said. You are either inherently dishonest, or just to stupid to read what someone says and reply to that statement rather than add your own spin to it, or in many many cases, change the intent of the statement completely.

I tend to think that you are just inherently dishonest and don't have much of a handle on simple, common decency..

And no, your statement is about nothing more than your inability to produce any of the evidence I asked for in the OP.

2. What a stupid statement....The SB equation which deals with the radiation of an object in the presence of other matter describes equilibrium perfectly and in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. When you set the temperature of the two objects in question to the same temperature, the output of the primary radiation is zero.

I took the time to look up the term equilibrium in the science dictionary....under the heading of physics, equilibrium is, by definition : Physics The state of a body or physical system that is at rest or in constant and unchanging motion. A system that is in equilibrium shows no tendency to alter over time.

Every physicist for the last 100 years, at least, thought that equilibrium is when emission and absorption balance out, you've discovered they're all wrong and that it means both bodies stop radiating.

Hilarious!!!

And of course, you have no backup, because you're the only one. DERP!!

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Cooped Up in Sheldon Cooper's Shell

If he starts college at 18, a science PhD doesn't earn a living until he is 30 years old. Such an unnatural and permanently damaging youth only produces crooks, quacks, and crackpots. Hiding from real life, sheltered by the dingy walls of their Ivory Tower dungeon, eventually gets to these escapist misfits and makes them overcompensate by imagining themselves to be comic-book superheroes out to save the world from those who actually and maturely test themselves by going out into this imperfect aggravating world and try to conquer it as it is. Theory-addicted freaks can never be trusted; your cult imagines that they are disembodied angels who would never be driven by greed and the will to power.

You really hate scientists don't you. a lot of people do these days. Yes, hatred and fear in many guises seems to have ruled the world for a long time. those scientists you hate did bring you semiconductors, GPS systems, cell phones, computers and the LCD you are looking at right now.

Pompously Preaching Puffdaddies

Warmalarmies aren't scientists, no more than the corrupt medieval clergy were Christians. Postmodern academics have as little to do with being intelligent as sportswriters have to do with being athletic. These bitter and jealous bean-counters have no right to take credit for any modern invention; they actually preach that creative genius has produced only unnatural and eventually globe-destroying inventions. Your aggressive and shallow jumping to convenient but illogical conclusions proves that you don't have the natural ability to belong in real science, either.

 

[Wuwei]

You are full of shit...etc

More ad hominem doesn't make your point Chill out.

Here are the points one by one... I have countered you many times before about the following, but you obviously “forgot”:

1...Right, as I said you don't believe QM, which was verified to parts per billion or trillion accuracy.

2...I said you don't believe spontaneous emission [as it is understood by all scientists.] You have not responded to my second point. You responded to “radiative equilibrium”.

You should have looked up “radiative equilibrium”, not “equilibrium”. It was understood long long ago. I gave you a list of the many famous scientists that said essentially the same thing. Even over a hundred years ago Planck, Einstein, and many others said that any two bodies at the same temperature exchange radiation by equal amounts with each other. ( 2-way radiation flow, not 1-way.) Yet you disbelieve that.

3...In the second law of thermodynamics, radiation flows both ways between hot and cold objects. Any textbook that derives the Stefan-Boltzmann equation says exactly that. So you obviously disbelieve the textbook version of the second law.

4... The text book version of the Stefan-Boltzmann law is derived by emission and absorption of radiation to and from any object. I showed you the derivation many times but you refuse to believe the text book version that all scientists believe.

5...Again you should have looked up “radiative equilibrium”. You choose not to. You have not made your point.

6...The mathematical representations of scientific theory are called “models”. You continually discounted models in most discourses.

7...If you don't disbelieve radiation of accelerating charges, then you must believe that colder objects can radiate anywhere under any conditions. You are contradicting yourself.

8... You often said that GHGs can't warm the atmosphere. The chaos of gases in the atmosphere is precisely why energy is thoroughly mixed and equally partitioned between all vibration, spin, and kinetic modes. That is what the Equipartition Theory means.

The quote you made totally and dishonestly left out the context, and you totally missed the point. You obviously didn't understand the importance of this sentence that preceded your bold faced quote:

The law of equipartition breaks down when the thermal energy kBT is significantly smaller than the spacing between energy levels.

That refers to cryogenic temperatures. The atmosphere is not that cold by a long shot. Your reply is totally wrong. So the EP theory does apply.
…........
Moral of the story: I told you what I said you disbelieve in physics and you resorted to dishonesty or ignorance. You must not take sentences out of context in technical literature, substitute colloquial definitions and ignore the specific definitions that the science refers to. My claim that you disbelieve the eight points of physics still stands.

You asked, “for 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.”

Many here gave you that observed, measured evidence many times. In a nutshell, the earth is warmed by solar SW radiation, the earth radiates 400 W/ m^2 of LW radiation. Specific LW frequencies are absorbed by various GHGs. Most of that energy is rapidly distributed to the other gases by the equipartition theorem and warms the atmosphere. Vibration modes of the GHG's gas excited through the equipartition theorem re-emit isotropically and a fraction of the radiation gradually makes it's way to outer space.

When you say nobody gives you observed measured evidence, you mean they don't give it an a way that is compatible with your made-up reinvention of science. The fact is they give evidence as it is accepted by all scientists, not just scientists involved in atmospheric physics – all scientists.

Finally I have given you evidence how GHG's work in the atmosphere. I have purposely kept this discussion clean by not claiming GW, let alone AGW. The point is that if you don't even believe in the fundamental physics underlying the atmosphere, how can you honestly argue anything about GW or AGW.

.

 

[SSDD]

Wuwei's observations as to the arguments you've presented here is completely accurate.

Evidence for AGW has been presented here. You just choose to lie about it.

What's the matter skid mark....still stinging over having your ass handed to you? I can't help but note, all your talking about all the evidence you claimed to have seen, you weren't able to produce the first piece...and admitted that while there was no actual empirical evidence there, it was enough to fool you.

Guess that must sting.

 

[SSDD]

1...Right, as I said you don't believe QM, which was verified to parts per billion or trillion accuracy.

The whole theory, or just some small bit? Are you under the impression that because some small bit of a theory that attempts to cover so much the theory is proven?

2...I said you don't believe spontaneous emission [as it is understood by all scientists.] You have not responded to my second point. You responded to “radiative equilibrium”.

No...I said that you are unable to differentiate between spontaneous emission and non spontaneous emission and gave you the dictionary definition of spontaneous as evidence...

You should have looked up “radiative equilibrium”, not “equilibrium”. It was understood long long ago. I gave you a list of the many famous scientists that said essentially the same thing. Even over a hundred years ago Planck, Einstein, and many others said that any two bodies at the same temperature exchange radiation by equal amounts with each other. ( 2-way radiation flow, not 1-way.) Yet you disbelieve that.

Still waiting for that observed, measured evidence that the model is true...oh....that's right.. you can't provide any since the instruments just won't cooperate with you.

...In the second law of thermodynamics, radiation flows both ways between hot and cold objects. Any textbook that derives the Stefan-Boltzmann equation says exactly that. So you obviously disbelieve the textbook version of the second law.

You said textbook statement of the second law...which textbook did you take your quote from? Or are you just making shit up again?

4... The text book version of the Stefan-Boltzmann law is derived by emission and absorption of radiation to and from any object. I showed you the derivation many times but you refuse to believe the text book version that all scientists believe.

So you say...but that's not what the equation says...and I am still waiting for you to provide the observed, measured evidence to support that claim as well...we both know that it won't be forthcoming....to bad..

5...Again you should have looked up “radiative equilibrium”. You choose not to. You have not made your point.

The instruments, and every observation and measurement ever made support my point...where is the observed, measured evidence to support yours? Again..you don't have any.

6...The mathematical representations of scientific theory are called “models”. You continually discounted models in most discourses.

A model is only useful if it gives an accurate depiction of reality...so again, where are those observed, measured examples to support your claims?

7...If you don't disbelieve radiation of accelerating charges, then you must believe that colder objects can radiate anywhere under any conditions. You are contradicting yourself.

Sorry guy, but if accelerating EM charges proved your point, you would be able to provide observed, measured evidence to support your position rather than just mewling and bleating because you don't.

8... You often said that GHGs can't warm the atmosphere. The chaos of gases in the atmosphere is precisely why energy is thoroughly mixed and equally partitioned between all vibration, spin, and kinetic modes. That is what the Equipartition Theory means.

Still waiting for that observed, measured evidence which supports a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas, and warming in the atmosphere...what's that? You don't have any of that evidence either? Too bad.


Face it...you are doing nothing but proving my position...there is no observed, measured evidence to support yours...you accept models over reality...and that is sad...now, if you have nothing new...I am done with this repetitive discussion.

 

[IanC]

. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2013/503727/

An interesting paper that looks at the movement of energy through the atmosphere by various pathways. Then in combination.

Eg. at relative equilibrium, active heating by surface blackbody radiation, cooling by available radiation frequencies, etc.


As always, the science presented in this paper is in direct opposition to SSDDs bizarroland version of physics.

 

[Wuwei]

The whole theory, or just some small bit? Are you under the impression that because some small bit of a theory that attempts to cover so much the theory is proven?

Quantum electrodynamics, QED is the relativistic version of Schrodinger's equation. The theory was tested against every possible measurement. QED applies to all the physics of the atmosphere.

But my point is you said you disbelieve it, and that's what I posted.

No...I said that you are unable to differentiate between spontaneous emission and non spontaneous emission and gave you the dictionary definition of spontaneous as evidence...

That doesn't cut it. Look up "spontaneous emission". You said it was not spontaneous, so you proved my point, that you disbelieve it.

You said textbook statement of the second law...which textbook did you take your quote from? Or are you just making shit up again?

I gave that to you maybe a dozen times. I even copied a text page that showed the net energy is derived by the emission minus absorption of radiation.
But you continue to claim one way emission. You don't believe the text book version. Again that proves my point.

So you say...but that's not what the equation says...and I am still waiting for you to provide the observed, measured evidence to support that claim as well...we both know that it won't be forthcoming....to bad..

Observed measured evidence is not the point. The point is that you disbelieve the what science has discovered. That makes my point again.

The instruments, and every observation and measurement ever made support my point...where is the observed, measured evidence to support yours? Again..you don't have any.

Again you are going against what the science is. That makes my point again.

A model is only useful if it gives an accurate depiction of reality...so again, where are those observed, measured examples to support your claims?

The mathematical model of QED underlies atmospheric physics. If you disbelieve the model you disbelieve a fundamental aspect of physics.

Sorry guy, but if accelerating EM charges proved your point, you would be able to provide observed, measured evidence to support your position rather than just mewling and bleating because you don't.

Those measurements were done over a century ago. If you say accelerating charges don't radiate then you disbelieve QED. That makes my point.

Still waiting for that observed, measured evidence which supports a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas, and warming in the atmosphere...what's that? You don't have any of that evidence either? Too bad.

A GHG gas absorbs the energy of the photon and the photon disappears. That energy of the GHG molecule is rapidly transfered to other molecules in the chaos of the gas. That comes from the conservation of energy.
That is obvious and basic science, but you don't believe it. That makes my point again.

Face it...you are doing nothing but proving my position...there is no observed, measured evidence to support yours...you accept models over reality...and that is sad...now, if you have nothing new...I am done with this repetitive discussion.

Proving your position?

My position is that you disbelieve many major aspects of physics that are either measured or are obvious from the models, (which you don't believe.) You have proven that point over and over -- you disagree with accepted basic physics and how physics is used. That was my entire point.

Listen closely I am not trying to convince you of anything. Nobody can. I am simply saying you don't believe in the fundamental tenets of physics. When I elaborated on that you had a hissy fit, yet you continued to prove my point. You don't have to try to prove your disbelief to me because I agree that you disbelieve all the above.

The point is that if you don't even believe the fundamental physics underlying the atmosphere, how can you honestly argue anything about GW or AGW to people that understand the textbook tenets of science, and disagree with your reinvention of science.

.

 

[Wuwei]

. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2013/503727/

An interesting paper that looks at the movement of energy through the atmosphere by various pathways. Then in combination.

Eg. at relative equilibrium, active heating by surface blackbody radiation, cooling by available radiation frequencies, etc.

As always, the science presented in this paper is in direct opposition to SSDDs bizarroland version of physics.

I skimmed through it just to see what it covered. It seems to have everything you wanted to know about atmospheric physics.

 

[Crick]

Wuwei's observations as to the arguments you've presented here is completely accurate.

Evidence for AGW has been presented here. You just choose to lie about it.

What's the matter skid mark....still stinging over having your ass handed to you? I can't help but note, all your talking about all the evidence you claimed to have seen, you weren't able to produce the first piece...and admitted that while there was no actual empirical evidence there, it was enough to fool you.

Guess that must sting.

Hahahahahahahaaaaaa.. Oh FUCK are you stupid.

 

[SSDD]

. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2013/503727/

An interesting paper that looks at the movement of energy through the atmosphere by various pathways. Then in combination.

Eg. at relative equilibrium, active heating by surface blackbody radiation, cooling by available radiation frequencies, etc.


As always, the science presented in this paper is in direct opposition to SSDDs bizarroland version of physics.

Still waiting for that measurement of discrete frequencies of radiation moving from the atmosphere to the surface made with an instrument at ambient temperature...there certainly is no problem measuring discrete frequencies of energy moving from the surface with an instrument at ambient temperature. Ever wonder why that is or do you just accept models as reality because that's the way you are wired?

 

[SSDD]

Quantum electrodynamics, QED is the relativistic version of Schrodinger's equation. The theory was tested against every possible measurement. QED applies to all the physics of the atmosphere.

But my point is you said you disbelieve it, and that's what I posted.

Guess you don't get out much...Hard to get news when you wrap yourself in your faith and refuse to accept the fact that you might be wrong.

Why quantum mechanics might need an overhaul

Quantum mechanics is science’s equivalent of political polarization.

Voters either take sides and argue with each other endlessly, or stay home and accept politics as it is. Physicists either just accept quantum mechanics and do their calculations, or take sides in the never-ending debate over what quantum mechanics is actually saying about reality.

New Evidence Could Break The Standard View of Quantum Mechanics

By the way...here is what Schrodinger had to say on QM...and I quote " I don't like it and I am sorry that I ever had anything to do with it."

In addition, Weinberg is still giving talks about the inherent problems with QM...He points out that there are two interpretations to Schrödinger’s wave functions as solutions of Schrödinger’s multi-dimensional wave equation as the basic model of QM and physics is a very long way from choosing one that is correct and that physicists who agree that QM is correct can't agree on what is correct.

So you go ahead and take it on faith...and assume that it is all just fine...I will wait for the evidence to emerge and watch the theory change over time.

Note: QM goes far beyond the relativistic version of Schrodinger's equation.

I gave that to you maybe a dozen times. I even copied a text page that showed the net energy is derived by the emission minus absorption of radiation.
But you continue to claim one way emission. You don't believe the text book version. Again that proves my point.

You gave me someone's opinion of what the second law says...I never asked for anyone's opinion..I asked for observed, measured evidence of spontaneous two way energy movement...you continue to argue that evidence is not necessary...there is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model out there that says that energy does move spontaneously in both directions and because of that, we don't need to actually see it...we just need to believe. Sorry, I'm a natural born skeptic...I need evidence as should any thinking person.

Observed measured evidence is not the point. The point is that you disbelieve the what science has discovered. That makes my point again.

What do you know...you just said it...Observed evidence is not the point...beileve the models and don't worry about what we observe and measure every time we look.

Again you are going against what the science is. That makes my point again.

The science that says ignore what we observe and measure and accept what the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models say...that science? No thanks...that isn't science...that is faith.

The mathematical model of QED underlies atmospheric physics. If you disbelieve the model you disbelieve a fundamental aspect of physics.

So do a lot of other physicists...including Schrodinger himself. I am in good company.

Those measurements were done over a century ago. If you say accelerating charges don't radiate then you disbelieve QED. That makes my point.

And they provide measured examples of discrete frequencies moving in both directions between objects of different temperatures? Goody...bring them here...Lets see the observed measured evidence...My bet is that no such evidence will be forthcoming though, because you simply fail to understand what those experiments meant...you do that a lot...claiming that you have evidence, and it turns out that all you have is misunderstanding.

A GHG gas absorbs the energy of the photon and the photon disappears. That energy of the GHG molecule is rapidly transfered to other molecules in the chaos of the gas. That comes from the conservation of energy.
That is obvious and basic science, but you don't believe it. That makes my point again.

So you are saying that there is no radiative greenhouse effect..that the atmosphere is dominated by conduction...which is the result of gravity, and the weight of the atmosphere...yeah...that's what I think to.

Proving your position?

Yes. Proving my position. I saId:

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not 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.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses..

Neither you, nor anyone else has posted anything that even remotely challenges those 3 statements...You have talked enough to bore everyone on the board to tears...you have gone on and on about your faith in models, and how they are more real to you than reality...and on and on and on..what you haven't done is posted the first thing that challenges my statements...therefore, you have done nothing more than prove my point...you guys can talk and talk and talk, and then talk some more...what you can't do is provide the first piece of observed, measured evidence call my statements into question.

So unless you can provide some observed measured evidence to challenge the 3 statements I made above, you have nothing.

 

[SSDD]

Hahahahahahahaaaaaa.. Oh FUCK are you stupid.

Alas skidmark....I am not the one trying to save face after he got his ass handed to him...The wait continues for a single piece of observed, measured data that challenges any one of the 3 statements I made in the OP...and by your own words, simple, straight forward observed, measured evidence is just to much to ask a whole branch of science for. And you think I am stupid? Laughing in your face skid mark.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2013/503727/

An interesting paper that looks at the movement of energy through the atmosphere by various pathways. Then in combination.

Eg. at relative equilibrium, active heating by surface blackbody radiation, cooling by available radiation frequencies, etc.


As always, the science presented in this paper is in direct opposition to SSDDs bizarroland version of physics.

Still waiting for that measurement of discrete frequencies of radiation moving from the atmosphere to the surface made with an instrument at ambient temperature...there certainly is no problem measuring discrete frequencies of energy moving from the surface with an instrument at ambient temperature. Ever wonder why that is or do you just accept models as reality because that's the way you are wired?

there certainly is no problem measuring discrete frequencies of energy moving from the surface with an instrument at ambient temperature.

Of course, because we all know that energy doesn't exist if we can't measure it with an instrument at ambient temperature.

Still waiting for that measurement of discrete frequencies of radiation moving from the atmosphere to the surface made with an instrument at ambient temperature.

Because before matter emits, it detects the temperature of potential targets.

That's why gas in the atmosphere will refuse to emit down toward an instrument at ambient temperature, but at the precise moment when the instrument is cooled to below the temperature of the gas, suddenly, inexplicably, photons are allowed to travel downward.

It is weird that you never post any source which agrees with your claim of these magic emitters.