No Evidence

[SSDD]

Thanks for proving my point....nothing in that says that objects in the presence of other objects radiate according to their temperature...nor will you find any real science that says that objects other than perfect black bodies in perfect vacuum radiate according to their temperature...

It says you're a fooking idiot. It says all matter radiates all the time. It says nothing that would allow for your smart photon insanity.

Are you really unable to differentiate between the meaning of a statement saying that all objects radiate and a statement that all objects radiate according to their temperarue? Let me guess...you aren't...it is that sort of failure to think that is the reason you are a top shelf dupe...

 

[SSDD]

You were doing so good right up till you got to the word everything...sorry, but every thing doesn't radiate according to its temperature....perfect black bodies in perfect vacuums radiate according to their temperature...everything else radiates according to its emissivity, its area, and the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings....the equation is quite simple and easy to read and understand if you have even junior high level math skills.

Then there is the fact that IR can not warm the air...

Are you still trolling that crap!!?? We went through that time and again and you ended up in a idiotic self contradiction. Yes the equation is easy to read if you have a junior high level of math skills. Since the equation represents emission minus absorption, the conclusion is that you don't have a junior high level of math skills.

Actually we ended up with you admitting finally that the equation says exactly what I had been saying all along...typical that you would forget, or interpret your admission to mean something else...

 

[Crick]

Why don't you find the post where he did that Shit. Because, I don't think a single person here believes you.

Speaking of evidence: From Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[1] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[2] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[3]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming.

In his latest paper, Powell reported that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[4]

References

1. Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
2. ^ Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
3. ^ Powell, James Lawrence (1 October 2015). "Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 35 (5–6): 121–124. doi:10.1177/0270467616634958. ISSN 0270-4676.
4. ^ Powell, James Lawrence (2017-05-24). "The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 36 (3): 157–163. doi:10.1177/0270467617707079.

 

[jc456]

Why don't you find the post where he did that Shit. Because, I don't think a single person here believes you.

Speaking of evidence: From Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[141] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[142] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[143]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming.

In his latest paper, Powell reported that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[144]

well I do. so again you are wrong. standing on a box banging your chest look at me. fk you troll. instigator plus. peer reviewed is bullshit. the equation is one way. heat flowing to cold. period. you have no case.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why don't you find the post where he did that Shit. Because, I don't think a single person here believes you.

Speaking of evidence: From Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[141] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[142] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[143]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming.

In his latest paper, Powell reported that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[144]

well I do. so again you are wrong. standing on a box banging your chest look at me. fk you troll. instigator plus. peer reviewed is bullshit. the equation is one way. heat flowing to cold. period. you have no case.

the equation is one way.

That would violate causality.

 

[jc456]

Why don't you find the post where he did that Shit. Because, I don't think a single person here believes you.

Speaking of evidence: From Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[141] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[142] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[143]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming.

In his latest paper, Powell reported that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[144]

well I do. so again you are wrong. standing on a box banging your chest look at me. fk you troll. instigator plus. peer reviewed is bullshit. the equation is one way. heat flowing to cold. period. you have no case.

the equation is one way.

That would violate causality.

how?

 

[Crick]

Thanks for proving my point....nothing in that says that objects in the presence of other objects radiate according to their temperature...nor will you find any real science that says that objects other than perfect black bodies in perfect vacuum radiate according to their temperature...

It says you're a fooking idiot. It says all matter radiates all the time. It says nothing that would allow for your smart photon insanity.

Are you really unable to differentiate between the meaning of a statement saying that all objects radiate and a statement that all objects radiate according to their temperarue? Let me guess...you aren't...it is that sort of failure to think that is the reason you are a top shelf dupe...

Are you really unable to differentiate between a statement that all matter radiates and a contention that matter only radiate towards cooler matter? Of course you know the difference. You do not post this shit because its what you believe. You post it to entertain yourself with our reactions. You are a TROLL, plain and simple.

 

[jc456]

Thanks for proving my point....nothing in that says that objects in the presence of other objects radiate according to their temperature...nor will you find any real science that says that objects other than perfect black bodies in perfect vacuum radiate according to their temperature...

It says you're a fooking idiot. It says all matter radiates all the time. It says nothing that would allow for your smart photon insanity.

Are you really unable to differentiate between the meaning of a statement saying that all objects radiate and a statement that all objects radiate according to their temperarue? Let me guess...you aren't...it is that sort of failure to think that is the reason you are a top shelf dupe...

Are you really unable to differentiate between a statement that all matter radiates and a contention that matter only radiate towards cooler matter? Of course you know the difference. You do not post this shit because its what you believe. You post it to entertain yourself with our reactions. You are a TROLL, plain and simple.

radiates according to it's temperature.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why don't you find the post where he did that Shit. Because, I don't think a single person here believes you.

Speaking of evidence: From Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[141] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[142] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[143]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming.

In his latest paper, Powell reported that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[144]

well I do. so again you are wrong. standing on a box banging your chest look at me. fk you troll. instigator plus. peer reviewed is bullshit. the equation is one way. heat flowing to cold. period. you have no case.

the equation is one way.

That would violate causality.

how?

It would require a radiator to know the temperature of a target before the information exists.

 

[jc456]

Why don't you find the post where he did that Shit. Because, I don't think a single person here believes you.

Speaking of evidence: From Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[141] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[142] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[143]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming.

In his latest paper, Powell reported that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[144]

well I do. so again you are wrong. standing on a box banging your chest look at me. fk you troll. instigator plus. peer reviewed is bullshit. the equation is one way. heat flowing to cold. period. you have no case.

the equation is one way.

That would violate causality.

how?

It would require a radiator to know the temperature of a target before the information exists.

why would it need to do that? It would radiate based on its own temperature. why do you think it would do otherwise?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why don't you find the post where he did that Shit. Because, I don't think a single person here believes you.

Speaking of evidence: From Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[141] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[142] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[143]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming.

In his latest paper, Powell reported that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[144]

well I do. so again you are wrong. standing on a box banging your chest look at me. fk you troll. instigator plus. peer reviewed is bullshit. the equation is one way. heat flowing to cold. period. you have no case.

the equation is one way.

That would violate causality.

how?

It would require a radiator to know the temperature of a target before the information exists.

why would it need to do that? It would radiate based on its own temperature. why do you think it would do otherwise?

why would it need to do that?

Two identical objects, 1 light year apart.
One is 400K, the other 300K.

SSDD says the cooler object simply won't radiate toward the warmer object.
Do you agree with his claim?

It would radiate based on its own temperature.

Sounds like you understand 2 way flow of radiation.
Don't tell SSDD.

 

[jc456]

well I do. so again you are wrong. standing on a box banging your chest look at me. fk you troll. instigator plus. peer reviewed is bullshit. the equation is one way. heat flowing to cold. period. you have no case.

the equation is one way.

That would violate causality.

how?

It would require a radiator to know the temperature of a target before the information exists.

why would it need to do that? It would radiate based on its own temperature. why do you think it would do otherwise?

why would it need to do that?

Two identical objects, 1 light year apart.
One is 400K, the other 300K.

SSDD says the cooler object simply won't radiate toward the warmer object.
Do you agree with his claim?

It would radiate based on its own temperature.

Sounds like you understand 2 way flow of radiation.
Don't tell SSDD.

Do you agree with his claim?

Sure. No one has proven it can. It will radiate according to its temperature.

Sounds like you understand 2 way flow of radiation.

Again, the flow is determined by an object's own temperature and any objects near it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the equation is one way.

That would violate causality.

how?

It would require a radiator to know the temperature of a target before the information exists.

why would it need to do that? It would radiate based on its own temperature. why do you think it would do otherwise?

why would it need to do that?

Two identical objects, 1 light year apart.
One is 400K, the other 300K.

SSDD says the cooler object simply won't radiate toward the warmer object.
Do you agree with his claim?

It would radiate based on its own temperature.

Sounds like you understand 2 way flow of radiation.
Don't tell SSDD.

Do you agree with his claim?

Sure. No one has proven it can. It will radiate according to its temperature.

Sounds like you understand 2 way flow of radiation.

Again, the flow is determined by an object's own temperature and any objects near it.

It will radiate according to its temperature.

I agree. The 300K object radiates, according to its temperature, in all directions with no restriction.
So does the 400 K object.

Again, the flow is determined by an object's own temperature and any objects near it.

The 300K object does not reduce the radiation emitted by the 400K object.

The 400K object does not stop radiation from being emitted by the 300K object.​

 

[jc456]

how?

It would require a radiator to know the temperature of a target before the information exists.

why would it need to do that? It would radiate based on its own temperature. why do you think it would do otherwise?

why would it need to do that?

Two identical objects, 1 light year apart.
One is 400K, the other 300K.

SSDD says the cooler object simply won't radiate toward the warmer object.
Do you agree with his claim?

It would radiate based on its own temperature.

Sounds like you understand 2 way flow of radiation.
Don't tell SSDD.

Do you agree with his claim?

Sure. No one has proven it can. It will radiate according to its temperature.

Sounds like you understand 2 way flow of radiation.

Again, the flow is determined by an object's own temperature and any objects near it.

It will radiate according to its temperature.

I agree. The 300K object radiates, according to its temperature, in all directions with no restriction.
So does the 400 K object.

Again, the flow is determined by an object's own temperature and any objects near it.

The 300K object does not reduce the radiation emitted by the 400K object.

The 400K object does not stop radiation from being emitted by the 300K object.​

The 400K object does not stop radiation from being emitted by the 300K object.

Prove it. I can prove a warm object will not get any warmer when a cooler object is near it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It would require a radiator to know the temperature of a target before the information exists.

why would it need to do that? It would radiate based on its own temperature. why do you think it would do otherwise?

why would it need to do that?

Two identical objects, 1 light year apart.
One is 400K, the other 300K.

SSDD says the cooler object simply won't radiate toward the warmer object.
Do you agree with his claim?

It would radiate based on its own temperature.

Sounds like you understand 2 way flow of radiation.
Don't tell SSDD.

Do you agree with his claim?

Sure. No one has proven it can. It will radiate according to its temperature.

Sounds like you understand 2 way flow of radiation.

Again, the flow is determined by an object's own temperature and any objects near it.

It will radiate according to its temperature.

I agree. The 300K object radiates, according to its temperature, in all directions with no restriction.
So does the 400 K object.

Again, the flow is determined by an object's own temperature and any objects near it.

The 300K object does not reduce the radiation emitted by the 400K object.

The 400K object does not stop radiation from being emitted by the 300K object.​

The 400K object does not stop radiation from being emitted by the 300K object.

Prove it. I can prove a warm object will not get any warmer when a cooler object is near it.

The 400K object does not stop radiation from being emitted by the 300K object.

Prove it.

I heard it here.

radiates according to it's temperature.

No Evidence

I can prove a warm object will not get any warmer when a cooler object is near it.

Why would you need to prove that?
Do you know anyone who disagrees?

 

[jc456]

why would it need to do that? It would radiate based on its own temperature. why do you think it would do otherwise?

why would it need to do that?

Two identical objects, 1 light year apart.
One is 400K, the other 300K.

SSDD says the cooler object simply won't radiate toward the warmer object.
Do you agree with his claim?

It would radiate based on its own temperature.

Sounds like you understand 2 way flow of radiation.
Don't tell SSDD.

Do you agree with his claim?

Sure. No one has proven it can. It will radiate according to its temperature.

Sounds like you understand 2 way flow of radiation.

Again, the flow is determined by an object's own temperature and any objects near it.

It will radiate according to its temperature.

I agree. The 300K object radiates, according to its temperature, in all directions with no restriction.
So does the 400 K object.

Again, the flow is determined by an object's own temperature and any objects near it.

The 300K object does not reduce the radiation emitted by the 400K object.

The 400K object does not stop radiation from being emitted by the 300K object.​

The 400K object does not stop radiation from being emitted by the 300K object.

Prove it. I can prove a warm object will not get any warmer when a cooler object is near it.

The 400K object does not stop radiation from being emitted by the 300K object.

Prove it.

I heard it here.

radiates according to it's temperature.

No Evidence

I can prove a warm object will not get any warmer when a cooler object is near it.

Why would you need to prove that?
Do you know anyone who disagrees?

why do you say it doesn't stop it?
you making shit up again? you are the master of shit.

 

[Wuwei]

Actually we ended up with you admitting finally that the equation says exactly what I had been saying all along...typical that you would forget, or interpret your admission to mean something else...

This is what I said, and you know it. I showed you the physics derivation over a dozen times. Read the last paragraph ten times until you get it. The SB law describes 2-way radiation exchange.

Troll

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

why would it need to do that?

Two identical objects, 1 light year apart.
One is 400K, the other 300K.

SSDD says the cooler object simply won't radiate toward the warmer object.
Do you agree with his claim?

It would radiate based on its own temperature.

Sounds like you understand 2 way flow of radiation.
Don't tell SSDD.

Do you agree with his claim?

Sure. No one has proven it can. It will radiate according to its temperature.

Sounds like you understand 2 way flow of radiation.

Again, the flow is determined by an object's own temperature and any objects near it.

It will radiate according to its temperature.

I agree. The 300K object radiates, according to its temperature, in all directions with no restriction.
So does the 400 K object.

Again, the flow is determined by an object's own temperature and any objects near it.

The 300K object does not reduce the radiation emitted by the 400K object.

The 400K object does not stop radiation from being emitted by the 300K object.​

The 400K object does not stop radiation from being emitted by the 300K object.

Prove it. I can prove a warm object will not get any warmer when a cooler object is near it.

The 400K object does not stop radiation from being emitted by the 300K object.

Prove it.

I heard it here.

radiates according to it's temperature.

No Evidence

I can prove a warm object will not get any warmer when a cooler object is near it.

Why would you need to prove that?
Do you know anyone who disagrees?

why do you say it doesn't stop it?
you making shit up again? you are the master of shit.

why do you say it doesn't stop it?

How would it?

And why would I disagree with, "radiates according to it's temperature"?

And causality.

 

[jc456]

Do you agree with his claim?

Sure. No one has proven it can. It will radiate according to its temperature.

Sounds like you understand 2 way flow of radiation.

Again, the flow is determined by an object's own temperature and any objects near it.

It will radiate according to its temperature.

I agree. The 300K object radiates, according to its temperature, in all directions with no restriction.
So does the 400 K object.

Again, the flow is determined by an object's own temperature and any objects near it.

The 300K object does not reduce the radiation emitted by the 400K object.

The 400K object does not stop radiation from being emitted by the 300K object.​

The 400K object does not stop radiation from being emitted by the 300K object.

Prove it. I can prove a warm object will not get any warmer when a cooler object is near it.

The 400K object does not stop radiation from being emitted by the 300K object.

Prove it.

I heard it here.

radiates according to it's temperature.

No Evidence

I can prove a warm object will not get any warmer when a cooler object is near it.

Why would you need to prove that?
Do you know anyone who disagrees?

why do you say it doesn't stop it?
you making shit up again? you are the master of shit.

why do you say it doesn't stop it?

How would it?

And why would I disagree with, "radiates according to it's temperature"?

And causality.

why would it need to? is it smart?

The one thing I am quite confidant of, is that you will never prove that a warm object will get warmer from a colder object.

And that the surface is warmed by the sun and only the sun. there is no such thing as more heat at the surface. Greenhouse affect is a leftists masturbation.

I feel we've beaten that horse enough.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It will radiate according to its temperature.

I agree. The 300K object radiates, according to its temperature, in all directions with no restriction.
So does the 400 K object.

Again, the flow is determined by an object's own temperature and any objects near it.

The 300K object does not reduce the radiation emitted by the 400K object.

The 400K object does not stop radiation from being emitted by the 300K object.​

The 400K object does not stop radiation from being emitted by the 300K object.

Prove it. I can prove a warm object will not get any warmer when a cooler object is near it.

The 400K object does not stop radiation from being emitted by the 300K object.

Prove it.

I heard it here.

radiates according to it's temperature.

No Evidence

I can prove a warm object will not get any warmer when a cooler object is near it.

Why would you need to prove that?
Do you know anyone who disagrees?

why do you say it doesn't stop it?
you making shit up again? you are the master of shit.

why do you say it doesn't stop it?

How would it?

And why would I disagree with, "radiates according to it's temperature"?

And causality.

why would it need to? is it smart?

why would it need to?

What?

is it smart?

Matter does not need to be smart to radiate according to its temperature.