No Evidence

[Wuwei]

And all textbooks aren't wrong about the SB law...I provided you with a pretty comprehensive list of which ones promoted your wack job derivation, and which ones taught the actual SB law.

No you didn't provide any reference that taught the second factor in the SB law was always smaller. You only gave one that assumed a special case.

And when did I ever say that all photons from a black body have the same wavelength?

You said that photons can be a single frequency from a black body.
Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...

A black body emits whatever it absorbs...if it is absorbing a single wavelength then it is emitting a single wavelength...if it is absorbing multiple wavelengths, then it is emitting multiple wavelengths...more "interpretation" or outright lies...which is it?

That goes in my compendium of your ridiculous quotes. I would think you would know what black body radiation is by now. Look it up and you will see that it's a continuum of wavelengths.

One obvious counterexample is a high intensity laser used in heating metal is absorption of single wavelength. It re-radiates a spectrum of BB colors and not just the laser frequency!

If you want quotes you will have to tell me what else you think has been misrepresented in my list above in post #1558.

.

 

[IanC]

And when did I ever say that all photons from a black body have the same wavelength? A black body emits whatever it absorbs...if it is absorbing a single wavelength then it is emitting a single wavelength...if it is absorbing multiple wavelengths, then it is emitting multiple wavelengths...more "interpretation" or outright lies...which is it?

This is a perfect example of why you so seldom put anything down in your own words. You have screwed up royally and painted yourself into a corner.

Most likely you simply do not understand. Any material absorbs some types of radiation and has the ability to emit the exact same frequencies that it can absorb.

The problem is that outside source of radiation may be a different temperature than the receiving material. Temperature of the material in question is the limiting factor in how energetic a photon it can produce.

Visible light may warm the soil underfoot but until it is 5000K it will never emit its own visible light. Instead it emits infrared, just as you would predict from its temperature.

Anyways, it's time for you to run away from this thread now. Bye bye.

 

[SSDD]

No you didn't provide any reference that taught the second factor in the SB law was always smaller. You only gave one that assumed a special case.

Sure I did...title and author...more lies...more tedium.

You said that photons can be a single frequency from a black body.
Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...

And that is perfectly true...If a black body is absorbing a single frequency, it will emit in that same frequency...do you think it can absorb a single frequency and emit in a different frequency?

That goes in my compendium of your ridiculous quotes. I would think you would know what black body radiation is by now. Look it up and you will see that it's a continuum of wavelengths.

Observed measured evidence?

One obvious counterexample is a high intensity laser used in heating metal is absorption of single wavelength. It re-radiates a spectrum of BB colors and not just the laser frequency!

Is the laser firing into a perfect black body? Of course not...so we are no longer talking about black bodies...oh the tedium...

If you want quotes you will have to tell me what else you think has been misrepresented in my list above in post #1558.

.

Why bother...you will just make up something as always...

 

[SSDD]

And when did I ever say that all photons from a black body have the same wavelength? A black body emits whatever it absorbs...if it is absorbing a single wavelength then it is emitting a single wavelength...if it is absorbing multiple wavelengths, then it is emitting multiple wavelengths...more "interpretation" or outright lies...which is it?

This is a perfect example of why you so seldom put anything down in your own words. You have screwed up royally and painted yourself into a corner.

Most likely you simply do not understand. Any material absorbs some types of radiation and has the ability to emit the exact same frequencies that it can absorb.

The problem is that outside source of radiation may be a different temperature than the receiving material. Temperature of the material in question is the limiting factor in how energetic a photon it can produce.

Visible light may warm the soil underfoot but until it is 5000K it will never emit its own visible light. Instead it emits infrared, just as you would predict from its temperature.

Anyways, it's time for you to run away from this thread now. Bye bye.

When I talk about black bodies...I am talking about a theoretical ideal black body..sitting in a perfect vacuum...anything else is some variation on an actual ideal black body...

Sorry ian...your error is that you believe actual ideal black bodies exist..and you believe that non ideal black bodies behave as ideal black bodies...and you believe that non ideal black bodies not in a perfect vacuum also behave as ideal black bodies which are theorized to be in perfect vacuums...you aren't able to differentiate between what is real, and what is modeled... Why would I run away from your misunderstanding?

 

[Wuwei]

Sure I did...title and author...more lies...more tedium.

That's a lie. Nobody assumes the second term is always smaller.

And that is perfectly true...If a black body is absorbing a single frequency, it will emit in that same frequency...do you think it can absorb a single frequency and emit in a different frequency?

Yes, you are really slipping and wallowing in ignorance or maybe its just the troll nature coming out. The laser example is exactly that.

Observed measured evidence?

You are compounding your idiocy with more idiocy. The black body spectrum was measured in countless experiments and it is always a continuum of frequencies. Simply google black body spectrum. I would think you would know the nature of black bodies by now.

Is the laser firing into a perfect black body? Of course not...so we are no longer talking about black bodies...oh the tedium...

Yes, again your reference to tedium means you are cornered in either lies or ignorance.

Glowing metal heated by a single frequency laser is black body radiation which has a continuum of frequencies around the visible range that follows Planck's law. The emisivity may not be unity. Of course we are talking about black body radiation.

Why bother...you will just make up something as always...

I will give a reference to anything that you think is misrepresented on the list. Just run and hide if you doubt it.


.

 

[Wuwei]

This is a perfect example of why you so seldom put anything down in your own words. You have screwed up royally and painted yourself into a corner.

Most likely you simply do not understand. Any material absorbs some types of radiation and has the ability to emit the exact same frequencies that it can absorb.

The problem is that outside source of radiation may be a different temperature than the receiving material. Temperature of the material in question is the limiting factor in how energetic a photon it can produce.

Visible light may warm the soil underfoot but until it is 5000K it will never emit its own visible light. Instead it emits infrared, just as you would predict from its temperature.

Anyways, it's time for you to run away from this thread now. Bye bye.

I really don't know what he is thinking at this point. His limited understanding of physics seems to be in retrograde right now. It should have been obvious to him that the one major example is the one you gave about the hot sun warming the earth.

 

[SSDD]

That's a lie. Nobody assumes the second term is always smaller.

And the tedium of correcting you never ends...lies and made up facts...that is all you have...

These texts, which tend to be found in the hard science classrooms of physics, meteorology, geology, chemistry, etc do not present your bullshit SB equation

Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis by Goody and Yung
Radiative Heat Transfer by Modest
Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar
3D Radiative Transfer in Cloudy Atmospheres by Marshak-Davis
An Introduction to Radiative Transferby Peraiah

These books which tend to be found in the soft science classrooms of climate science do provide your bullshit SB equation...the bullshit version seems to be an ad hoc invention of climate science, invented for the purpose of supporting an alarmist narrative.

An Introduction to Atmospheric Physic by Andrews
A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation by Petty
The Greenhouse Effect by Lindzen (Big surprise there)
Assessing Climate Change by Rapp
Advancing the Science of Climate Change 2010, NRC


The tedium never ends...and neither, apparently do the lies...

 

[SSDD]

This is a perfect example of why you so seldom put anything down in your own words. You have screwed up royally and painted yourself into a corner.

Most likely you simply do not understand. Any material absorbs some types of radiation and has the ability to emit the exact same frequencies that it can absorb.

The problem is that outside source of radiation may be a different temperature than the receiving material. Temperature of the material in question is the limiting factor in how energetic a photon it can produce.

Visible light may warm the soil underfoot but until it is 5000K it will never emit its own visible light. Instead it emits infrared, just as you would predict from its temperature.

Anyways, it's time for you to run away from this thread now. Bye bye.

I really don't know what he is thinking at this point. His limited understanding of physics seems to be in retrograde right now. It should have been obvious to him that the one major example is the one you gave about the hot sun warming the earth.

It is funny when you guys try and stroke each other's fragile little egos by pretending that you have any idea of what you are talking about...both of you really should at least try to learn what is real...and what is not..

 

[boedicca]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's a lie. Nobody assumes the second term is always smaller.

And the tedium of correcting you never ends...lies and made up facts...that is all you have...

These texts, which tend to be found in the hard science classrooms of physics, meteorology, geology, chemistry, etc do not present your bullshit SB equation

Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis by Goody and Yung
Radiative Heat Transfer by Modest
Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar
3D Radiative Transfer in Cloudy Atmospheres by Marshak-Davis
An Introduction to Radiative Transferby Peraiah

These books which tend to be found in the soft science classrooms of climate science do provide your bullshit SB equation...the bullshit version seems to be an ad hoc invention of climate science, invented for the purpose of supporting an alarmist narrative.

An Introduction to Atmospheric Physic by Andrews
A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation by Petty
The Greenhouse Effect by Lindzen (Big surprise there)
Assessing Climate Change by Rapp
Advancing the Science of Climate Change 2010, NRC


The tedium never ends...and neither, apparently do the lies...

Any of those "texts" explicitly agree with your "one-way only" flow of photons? DURR

 

[Wuwei]

And the tedium of correcting you never ends...lies and made up facts...that is all you have...

These texts, which tend to be found in the hard science classrooms of physics, meteorology, geology, chemistry, etc do not present your bullshit SB equation

Try googling
View attachment 251992

These texts, which tend to be found in the hard science classrooms of physics, meteorology, geology, chemistry, etc do not present your bullshit SB equation

It's not my equation. Let me guess the equation that those books represent is some form of this equation:

That is the real Stefan Boltzmann equation that is derived. Look up stefan boltzmann equation in google and you will see that practically all the hits show that as the SB equation.

In fact it is the energy radiated by every object no matter what temperatures are in the vicinity. You will not find a reference that states otherwise.

If you say otherwise, you are badly mistaken, a liar, or a troll. You choose.

Give us a reference to your bullshit interpretation and quit stalling by saying it's tedious. It's about time for you to own up.


.

 

[SSDD]

It's not my equation. Let me guess the equation that those books represent is some form of this equation:

All this really is way over your head...isn't it. That equation is for a black body radiating in a vacuum....it is not the equation used for a radiator in the presence of other matter.. the equation for a radiator in the presence of other matter is.....

Been through all this before over and over...you just can't get it...you can't get past the fact that your beliefs are blinding you to reality...in real physics texts...as opposed to those used in the soft science of climate science where an alarmist narrative is taught as an integral part of the pseudoscience, the equation above is used for radiators in the presence of matter...one way gross energy movement...

 

[Wuwei]

It's not my equation. Let me guess the equation that those books represent is some form of this equation:

All this really is way over your head...isn't it. That equation is for a black body radiating in a vacuum....it is not the equation used for a radiator in the presence of other matter.. the equation for a radiator in the presence of other matter is.....

Been through all this before over and over...you just can't get it...you can't get past the fact that your beliefs are blinding you to reality...in real physics texts...as opposed to those used in the soft science of climate science where an alarmist narrative is taught as an integral part of the pseudoscience, the equation above is used for radiators in the presence of matter...one way gross energy movement...

Nope you are totally wrong. This is the equation that is derived by Boltzmann.

You didn't look up stefan boltzmann equation in google to see that practically all the hits show that as the SB equation.

You are correct that this equation works for radiation in a vacuum. But it is also the equation used in the presence of other matter.

It refers to emitted radiation from a body at temperature T. There are no other constraints about what is in the vicinity. It is up to you to find a reference that states otherwise. You simply can't. Right?


.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's been observed countless times.

You are an absolute idiot if you believe that...let me guess..you do.

Nope. Look up the physics definition of spontaneous emission. Look up luminescence. You will find many examples of photons moving anywhere.

Already did...which is why I can say with perfect confidence that none of your nut job examples was spontaneous...

Do let me know when they change the 2nd law of thermodynamics to reflect what you believe...f'ing idiot...

You are getting ill-tempered again. Nope, you didn't look up the definition of luminescence. Here it is.
Luminescence | physics
Luminescence, emission of light by certain materials when they are relatively cool. It is in contrast to light emitted from incandescent bodies, such as burning wood or coal, molten iron, and wire heated by an electric current.

.

I know what luminescence is....Tell me...do you think the IR emitted by your body is spontaneous? Or perhaps, do you think work has to be done in order for your body to emit said IR?

Or perhaps, do you think work has to be done in order for your body to emit said IR?

Or perhaps, do you think work has to be done in order for the Earth's surface to emit IR?

 

[SSDD]

It's not my equation. Let me guess the equation that those books represent is some form of this equation:

All this really is way over your head...isn't it. That equation is for a black body radiating in a vacuum....it is not the equation used for a radiator in the presence of other matter.. the equation for a radiator in the presence of other matter is.....

Been through all this before over and over...you just can't get it...you can't get past the fact that your beliefs are blinding you to reality...in real physics texts...as opposed to those used in the soft science of climate science where an alarmist narrative is taught as an integral part of the pseudoscience, the equation above is used for radiators in the presence of matter...one way gross energy movement...

Nope you are totally wrong. This is the equation that is derived by Boltzmann.

You didn't look up stefan boltzmann equation in google to see that practically all the hits show that as the SB equation.

You are correct that this equation works for radiation in a vacuum. But it is also the equation used in the presence of other matter.

It refers to emitted radiation from a body at temperature T. There are no other constraints about what is in the vicinity. It is up to you to find a reference that states otherwise. You simply can't. Right?


.

I bet you actually believe that. Do you find it easy to get whipped up into episodes of self deception where you actually believe the bullshit you write?

 

[emilynghiem]

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 burins 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.


I have been asking for just a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the claims of climate alarmists for decades now and have never received the first piece.

I see alarmists claiming that such evidence exists all the time...sometimes they even post what passes for evidence in their minds like THIS. There is certainly observed, and measured data there, but none of it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, and none of it even begins to establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...those things are certainly assumed in the example linked to, but there certainly is no evidence to support the assumption. And there is no paper there in which the hypothesized warming due to our production of CO2 has been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called greenhouse gasses. Again, it is assumed, but assumptions based on lose correlation over a very short period of geological time are less than worthless in any scientific examination of an entity as large, variable, and chaotic as the global climate.

So there you go...I have stuck my chin out...I have made 3 very deliberate, and concise statements regarding the state of climate science and the evidence that mankind is having an effect on the global climate.

It is the complete absence of evidence challenging the 3 statements above that explain why I am a skeptic.

Prove me wrong. Don't tell me about the evidence that exists......don't tell me about the evidence you might believe you have produced...Step up to the plate and produce the evidence that I have quite clearly declared does not exist...

And when you can't, ask yourself why it is that you believe what you do regarding man made climate change.

Dear SSDD and BlackFlag
Can anyone explain to me how we expect to isolate WHICH causes of climate change
are coming from WHICH factors to WHAT degree, when all these are concurrent.

As I understand scientific study, you'd have to isolate CONTROL group factors,
and isolate "one variable at a time" to prove which ones are causing what changes,
WHILE THE OTHER VARIABLES REMAIN CONSTANT.

How in the UNIVERSE can this be done -- when all these factors co-influencing the planet's climate
CANNOT be isolated as constants to determine which factors are causing what degree of change?

????

Isn't this FAITH BASED which assessments and interpretations of data
are more accurate than others? Please explain if I am missing the obvious here.

????

 

[miketx]

It's funny all the libbys who base their claims about global warming on science and claim those who disagree are uneducated science deniers while they scream gender is a choice.

 

[SSDD]

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 burins 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.


Dear SSDD and BlackFlag
Can anyone explain to me how we expect to isolate WHICH causes of climate change
are coming from WHICH factors to WHAT degree, when all these are concurrent.

I don't know if you looked through this entire thread or not, but stated that 3 pretty basic bits of information were completely missing if one wanted to claim mankind is responsible for any part of the small change in global climate we have seen.

I agree that we have very little idea of how the various factors in play affect the climate and affect each other...a thorough understanding of the natural factors that have an effect on the global climate would be the primary area of study if the goal were to gain actual scientific knowledge and understand the climate... That, however is not the goal..it never has been. Instead, the leap was made directly to claiming capitalism for the changing climate and politicians of a left leaning nature have jumped on the climate change bandwagon in droves...

Can you point to any other field of science where politicians have become so personally involved in promoting action based on the findings of a field of science that is still in its infancy?

As I understand scientific study, you'd have to isolate CONTROL group factors,
and isolate "one variable at a time" to prove which ones are causing what changes,
WHILE THE OTHER VARIABLES REMAIN CONSTANT.

And none of the variables remain constant..our climate is chaotic..every variable is in a state of constant change and always has been. The key fact to keep in mind is that nothing whatsoever is happening in the present climate that even approaches the limits of natural variability...every claim of "unprecedented" weather, sea level rise, warmth, cold, precipitation etc is a bald faced lie.

How in the UNIVERSE can this be done -- when all these factors co-influencing the planet's climate
CANNOT be isolated as constants to determine which factors are causing what degree of change?

It can be done to a large degree....like any field of science in which a large number of chaotic factors are responsible for observations, it is going to take many decades...perhaps centuries of study with laser focus on the natural factors at play rather than the terribly flawed approach of blaming mankind for climate change for no other reason than political power and money.

Isn't this FAITH BASED which assessments and interpretations of data
are more accurate than others? Please explain if I am missing the obvious here.

????

The complete absence of any of the 3 key pieces of evidence that would be necessary to even start making a case that man is responsible for altering the global climate indicate that the position of those who believe in man made climate change are holding a position based on faith...there is just no actual evidence supporting the belief.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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 burins 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.


I have been asking for just a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the claims of climate alarmists for decades now and have never received the first piece.

I see alarmists claiming that such evidence exists all the time...sometimes they even post what passes for evidence in their minds like THIS. There is certainly observed, and measured data there, but none of it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, and none of it even begins to establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...those things are certainly assumed in the example linked to, but there certainly is no evidence to support the assumption. And there is no paper there in which the hypothesized warming due to our production of CO2 has been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called greenhouse gasses. Again, it is assumed, but assumptions based on lose correlation over a very short period of geological time are less than worthless in any scientific examination of an entity as large, variable, and chaotic as the global climate.

So there you go...I have stuck my chin out...I have made 3 very deliberate, and concise statements regarding the state of climate science and the evidence that mankind is having an effect on the global climate.

It is the complete absence of evidence challenging the 3 statements above that explain why I am a skeptic.

Prove me wrong. Don't tell me about the evidence that exists......don't tell me about the evidence you might believe you have produced...Step up to the plate and produce the evidence that I have quite clearly declared does not exist...

And when you can't, ask yourself why it is that you believe what you do regarding man made climate change.

Dear SSDD and BlackFlag
Can anyone explain to me how we expect to isolate WHICH causes of climate change
are coming from WHICH factors to WHAT degree, when all these are concurrent.

As I understand scientific study, you'd have to isolate CONTROL group factors,
and isolate "one variable at a time" to prove which ones are causing what changes,
WHILE THE OTHER VARIABLES REMAIN CONSTANT.

How in the UNIVERSE can this be done -- when all these factors co-influencing the planet's climate
CANNOT be isolated as constants to determine which factors are causing what degree of change?

????

Isn't this FAITH BASED which assessments and interpretations of data
are more accurate than others? Please explain if I am missing the obvious here.

????

You have just uncovered why climate sciecne is no where near settled sciecne. Right now it is in its infancy due to the may interacting systems, many of which we still do not understand. It is shear lunacy to say CO2 drives anything when all empirical evidence shows it lags the temperature change by 80-200 years on average. A lagging indicator is caused by the what ever initially caused the temperature to change, most likely the suns output in some respect.

 

[jc456]

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 burins 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.


I have been asking for just a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the claims of climate alarmists for decades now and have never received the first piece.

I see alarmists claiming that such evidence exists all the time...sometimes they even post what passes for evidence in their minds like THIS. There is certainly observed, and measured data there, but none of it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, and none of it even begins to establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...those things are certainly assumed in the example linked to, but there certainly is no evidence to support the assumption. And there is no paper there in which the hypothesized warming due to our production of CO2 has been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called greenhouse gasses. Again, it is assumed, but assumptions based on lose correlation over a very short period of geological time are less than worthless in any scientific examination of an entity as large, variable, and chaotic as the global climate.

So there you go...I have stuck my chin out...I have made 3 very deliberate, and concise statements regarding the state of climate science and the evidence that mankind is having an effect on the global climate.

It is the complete absence of evidence challenging the 3 statements above that explain why I am a skeptic.

Prove me wrong. Don't tell me about the evidence that exists......don't tell me about the evidence you might believe you have produced...Step up to the plate and produce the evidence that I have quite clearly declared does not exist...

And when you can't, ask yourself why it is that you believe what you do regarding man made climate change.

Dear SSDD and BlackFlag
Can anyone explain to me how we expect to isolate WHICH causes of climate change
are coming from WHICH factors to WHAT degree, when all these are concurrent.

As I understand scientific study, you'd have to isolate CONTROL group factors,
and isolate "one variable at a time" to prove which ones are causing what changes,
WHILE THE OTHER VARIABLES REMAIN CONSTANT.

How in the UNIVERSE can this be done -- when all these factors co-influencing the planet's climate
CANNOT be isolated as constants to determine which factors are causing what degree of change?

????

Isn't this FAITH BASED which assessments and interpretations of data
are more accurate than others? Please explain if I am missing the obvious here.

????

You have just uncovered why climate sciecne is no where near settled sciecne. Right now it is in its infancy due to the may interacting systems, many of which we still do not understand. It is shear lunacy to say CO2 drives anything when all empirical evidence shows it lags the temperature change by 80-200 years on average. A lagging indicator is caused by the what ever initially caused the temperature to change, most likely the suns output in some respect.

Billy, if CO2 is so powerful, why is it missing the Northern Hemisphere? I mean, I woke up to 42F today, a buddy of mine told me this morning 3 degrees C in Montreal. It's fking June 3? And did you see the forecast of the water vapor throughout the US North? holy fk I feel bad for those in the midwest, all due to this fking cooler jet stream that doesn't wish to leave. I'm sorry, but someone be drinking wayyyy too many koolaids on the warmers tables.