No Evidence

[Billy_Bob]

That's correct s0n.....its all about the WINNING!! Being a climate crusader these days bLoWs!

When you we're a kid, did you have to wear hockey equipment, but you weren't on a team?

Mr Limp Wrist is projecting it's own short comings again...

 

[Billy_Bob]

But we were talking about radiation!!! It is radiation emission impinging on molecules that gives higher average velocities that in turn increases the temperature. Therefore absorption of radiation warms the atmosphere. Talk about spoon feeding physics!

Only convection and conduction warms the atmosphere. The atmosphere is transparent to LWIR and does not warm it.

You have no concept of LWIR and its FREQUENCY. You folks post up the bandpass graph and you fail to understand that 99.4% of energy emitted from the ground is emitted in a LWIR band above 10um. Only water will react to it in our atmosphere and then only long enough to cool due to the evaporation process rendering it impotent (which is why there is no tropospheric hot spot).

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can warm an Object that is 32 deg F? Trenbreth's cartoon is a fantasy derived from failed QED modeling. Less energetic (lower frequency) energy causes cooling in more energetic (higher frequency) molecules.

This is why I sit back and watch you folks go round and round about energy transfer that not one of you can prove and empirical observations say is not happening. Whom to believe, Your UN-provalbe mathematical constructs which fail empirical test or observations which disprove your theroy/hypothesis.?

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can warm an Object that is 32 deg F?

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can cause an Object that is 32 deg F to cool more slowly than if the -80F object weren't there?

What???

It involves the Stefan-Boltzmann formula.
Don't worry about it.

AN equation you have no proof is correct by empirical evidence..

 

[Billy_Bob]

But we were talking about radiation!!! It is radiation emission impinging on molecules that gives higher average velocities that in turn increases the temperature. Therefore absorption of radiation warms the atmosphere. Talk about spoon feeding physics!

Only convection and conduction warms the atmosphere. The atmosphere is transparent to LWIR and does not warm it.

You have no concept of LWIR and its FREQUENCY. You folks post up the bandpass graph and you fail to understand that 99.4% of energy emitted from the ground is emitted in a LWIR band above 10um. Only water will react to it in our atmosphere and then only long enough to cool due to the evaporation process rendering it impotent (which is why there is no tropospheric hot spot).

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can warm an Object that is 32 deg F? Trenbreth's cartoon is a fantasy derived from failed QED modeling. Less energetic (lower frequency) energy causes cooling in more energetic (higher frequency) molecules.

This is why I sit back and watch you folks go round and round about energy transfer that not one of you can prove and empirical observations say is not happening. Whom to believe, Your UN-provalbe mathematical constructs which fail empirical test or observations which disprove your theroy/hypothesis.?

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can warm an Object that is 32 deg F?

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can cause an Object that is 32 deg F to cool more slowly than if the -80F object weren't there?

The decay rate of the warmer object is unchanged until it reaches the thermal equilibrium of the cooler mass.

You want to try again?

The decay rate of the warmer object is unchanged

The warmer body loses heat at the same rate with a -80F object radiating toward it as it would if it were just radiating into the vacuum of space at -450F?

HE CAN BE TAUGHT!

Until equilibrium is reached the warm object will not slow its decay rate..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But we were talking about radiation!!! It is radiation emission impinging on molecules that gives higher average velocities that in turn increases the temperature. Therefore absorption of radiation warms the atmosphere. Talk about spoon feeding physics!

Only convection and conduction warms the atmosphere. The atmosphere is transparent to LWIR and does not warm it.

You have no concept of LWIR and its FREQUENCY. You folks post up the bandpass graph and you fail to understand that 99.4% of energy emitted from the ground is emitted in a LWIR band above 10um. Only water will react to it in our atmosphere and then only long enough to cool due to the evaporation process rendering it impotent (which is why there is no tropospheric hot spot).

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can warm an Object that is 32 deg F? Trenbreth's cartoon is a fantasy derived from failed QED modeling. Less energetic (lower frequency) energy causes cooling in more energetic (higher frequency) molecules.

This is why I sit back and watch you folks go round and round about energy transfer that not one of you can prove and empirical observations say is not happening. Whom to believe, Your UN-provalbe mathematical constructs which fail empirical test or observations which disprove your theroy/hypothesis.?

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can warm an Object that is 32 deg F?

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can cause an Object that is 32 deg F to cool more slowly than if the -80F object weren't there?

What???

It involves the Stefan-Boltzmann formula.
Don't worry about it.

AN equation you have no proof is correct by empirical evidence..

Try that again, in English.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But we were talking about radiation!!! It is radiation emission impinging on molecules that gives higher average velocities that in turn increases the temperature. Therefore absorption of radiation warms the atmosphere. Talk about spoon feeding physics!

Only convection and conduction warms the atmosphere. The atmosphere is transparent to LWIR and does not warm it.

You have no concept of LWIR and its FREQUENCY. You folks post up the bandpass graph and you fail to understand that 99.4% of energy emitted from the ground is emitted in a LWIR band above 10um. Only water will react to it in our atmosphere and then only long enough to cool due to the evaporation process rendering it impotent (which is why there is no tropospheric hot spot).

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can warm an Object that is 32 deg F? Trenbreth's cartoon is a fantasy derived from failed QED modeling. Less energetic (lower frequency) energy causes cooling in more energetic (higher frequency) molecules.

This is why I sit back and watch you folks go round and round about energy transfer that not one of you can prove and empirical observations say is not happening. Whom to believe, Your UN-provalbe mathematical constructs which fail empirical test or observations which disprove your theroy/hypothesis.?

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can warm an Object that is 32 deg F?

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can cause an Object that is 32 deg F to cool more slowly than if the -80F object weren't there?

The decay rate of the warmer object is unchanged until it reaches the thermal equilibrium of the cooler mass.

You want to try again?

The decay rate of the warmer object is unchanged

The warmer body loses heat at the same rate with a -80F object radiating toward it as it would if it were just radiating into the vacuum of space at -450F?

HE CAN BE TAUGHT!

Until equilibrium is reached the warm object will not slow its decay rate..

The warmer body, at 32F, loses heat at the same rate with a -80F object radiating toward it as it would if it were just radiating into the vacuum of space at -450F?

Try answering the question.

 

[Billo_Really]

Mr Limp Wrist is projecting it's own short comings again...

I'm just calling your lame, fossil fuel rap for what it is.

 

[skookerasbil]

600 pages of pwn.....

More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

4 billion links!

 

[IanC]

But we were talking about radiation!!! It is radiation emission impinging on molecules that gives higher average velocities that in turn increases the temperature. Therefore absorption of radiation warms the atmosphere. Talk about spoon feeding physics!

Only convection and conduction warms the atmosphere. The atmosphere is transparent to LWIR and does not warm it.

You have no concept of LWIR and its FREQUENCY. You folks post up the bandpass graph and you fail to understand that 99.4% of energy emitted from the ground is emitted in a LWIR band above 10um. Only water will react to it in our atmosphere and then only long enough to cool due to the evaporation process rendering it impotent (which is why there is no tropospheric hot spot).

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can warm an Object that is 32 deg F? Trenbreth's cartoon is a fantasy derived from failed QED modeling. Less energetic (lower frequency) energy causes cooling in more energetic (higher frequency) molecules.

This is why I sit back and watch you folks go round and round about energy transfer that not one of you can prove and empirical observations say is not happening. Whom to believe, Your UN-provalbe mathematical constructs which fail empirical test or observations which disprove your theroy/hypothesis.?

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can warm an Object that is 32 deg F?

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can cause an Object that is 32 deg F to cool more slowly than if the -80F object weren't there?

The decay rate of the warmer object is unchanged until it reaches the thermal equilibrium of the cooler mass.

You want to try again?

The decay rate of the warmer object is unchanged

The warmer body loses heat at the same rate with a -80F object radiating toward it as it would if it were just radiating into the vacuum of space at -450F?

HE CAN BE TAUGHT!

Until equilibrium is reached the warm object will not slow its decay rate..

Billy Bob is a dolt.

An object radiates away energy at the rate defined by the SB equation. At all times. According to its temperature and emissivity.

Only the rate of change for temperature of the object is affected by the temperature of the environment.

ie. A room temperature object rapidly cools in a freezer, less rapidly in a fridge, no change on the countertop, and warms in the oven. In all locations the object is radiating the same amount of energy, until the temperature changes.

How does the temperature change? If more energy is being received from the environment than is being lost by radiation then heating takes place (oven). For the opposite, then cooling happens (fridge).

Bonus thought to ponder. What is the difference between an object and an environment?

delta (object) >> delta (environment).

 

[Wuwei]

Billy Bob is a dolt.

He is way off base on 95% of what he posts. He replies are so full of petty insults that I think he is a troll.

 

[skookerasbil]

Keep popping back in here to check.....but still no evidence.

Weak

 

[jc456]

Only convection and conduction warms the atmosphere. The atmosphere is transparent to LWIR and does not warm it.

You have no concept of LWIR and its FREQUENCY. You folks post up the bandpass graph and you fail to understand that 99.4% of energy emitted from the ground is emitted in a LWIR band above 10um. Only water will react to it in our atmosphere and then only long enough to cool due to the evaporation process rendering it impotent (which is why there is no tropospheric hot spot).

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can warm an Object that is 32 deg F? Trenbreth's cartoon is a fantasy derived from failed QED modeling. Less energetic (lower frequency) energy causes cooling in more energetic (higher frequency) molecules.

This is why I sit back and watch you folks go round and round about energy transfer that not one of you can prove and empirical observations say is not happening. Whom to believe, Your UN-provalbe mathematical constructs which fail empirical test or observations which disprove your theroy/hypothesis.?

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can warm an Object that is 32 deg F?

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can cause an Object that is 32 deg F to cool more slowly than if the -80F object weren't there?

The decay rate of the warmer object is unchanged until it reaches the thermal equilibrium of the cooler mass.

You want to try again?

The decay rate of the warmer object is unchanged

The warmer body loses heat at the same rate with a -80F object radiating toward it as it would if it were just radiating into the vacuum of space at -450F?

HE CAN BE TAUGHT!

Until equilibrium is reached the warm object will not slow its decay rate..

Billy Bob is a dolt.

An object radiates away energy at the rate defined by the SB equation. At all times. According to its temperature and emissivity.

Only the rate of change for temperature of the object is affected by the temperature of the environment.

ie. A room temperature object rapidly cools in a freezer, less rapidly in a fridge, no change on the countertop, and warms in the oven. In all locations the object is radiating the same amount of energy, until the temperature changes.

How does the temperature change? If more energy is being received from the environment than is being lost by radiation then heating takes place (oven). For the opposite, then cooling happens (fridge).

Bonus thought to ponder. What is the difference between an object and an environment?

delta (object) >> delta (environment).

An object radiates away energy at the rate defined by the SB equation. At all times. According to its temperature and emissivity.

I believe the comment was whether there is evidence of that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can warm an Object that is 32 deg F?

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can cause an Object that is 32 deg F to cool more slowly than if the -80F object weren't there?

The decay rate of the warmer object is unchanged until it reaches the thermal equilibrium of the cooler mass.

You want to try again?

The decay rate of the warmer object is unchanged

The warmer body loses heat at the same rate with a -80F object radiating toward it as it would if it were just radiating into the vacuum of space at -450F?

HE CAN BE TAUGHT!

Until equilibrium is reached the warm object will not slow its decay rate..

Billy Bob is a dolt.

An object radiates away energy at the rate defined by the SB equation. At all times. According to its temperature and emissivity.

Only the rate of change for temperature of the object is affected by the temperature of the environment.

ie. A room temperature object rapidly cools in a freezer, less rapidly in a fridge, no change on the countertop, and warms in the oven. In all locations the object is radiating the same amount of energy, until the temperature changes.

How does the temperature change? If more energy is being received from the environment than is being lost by radiation then heating takes place (oven). For the opposite, then cooling happens (fridge).

Bonus thought to ponder. What is the difference between an object and an environment?

delta (object) >> delta (environment).

An object radiates away energy at the rate defined by the SB equation. At all times. According to its temperature and emissivity.

I believe the comment was whether there is evidence of that.

DERP!

 

[jc456]

The decay rate of the warmer object is unchanged until it reaches the thermal equilibrium of the cooler mass.

You want to try again?

The decay rate of the warmer object is unchanged

The warmer body loses heat at the same rate with a -80F object radiating toward it as it would if it were just radiating into the vacuum of space at -450F?

HE CAN BE TAUGHT!

Until equilibrium is reached the warm object will not slow its decay rate..

Billy Bob is a dolt.

An object radiates away energy at the rate defined by the SB equation. At all times. According to its temperature and emissivity.

Only the rate of change for temperature of the object is affected by the temperature of the environment.

ie. A room temperature object rapidly cools in a freezer, less rapidly in a fridge, no change on the countertop, and warms in the oven. In all locations the object is radiating the same amount of energy, until the temperature changes.

How does the temperature change? If more energy is being received from the environment than is being lost by radiation then heating takes place (oven). For the opposite, then cooling happens (fridge).

Bonus thought to ponder. What is the difference between an object and an environment?

delta (object) >> delta (environment).

An object radiates away energy at the rate defined by the SB equation. At all times. According to its temperature and emissivity.

I believe the comment was whether there is evidence of that.

DERP!

DE-DERP. Still waiting on the evidence. why hasn't any been provided yet? You all keep spewing the SB equation, now post the experiment that shows it works as written. still waiting. sooo many threads in here.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The decay rate of the warmer object is unchanged

The warmer body loses heat at the same rate with a -80F object radiating toward it as it would if it were just radiating into the vacuum of space at -450F?

HE CAN BE TAUGHT!

Until equilibrium is reached the warm object will not slow its decay rate..

Billy Bob is a dolt.

An object radiates away energy at the rate defined by the SB equation. At all times. According to its temperature and emissivity.

Only the rate of change for temperature of the object is affected by the temperature of the environment.

ie. A room temperature object rapidly cools in a freezer, less rapidly in a fridge, no change on the countertop, and warms in the oven. In all locations the object is radiating the same amount of energy, until the temperature changes.

How does the temperature change? If more energy is being received from the environment than is being lost by radiation then heating takes place (oven). For the opposite, then cooling happens (fridge).

Bonus thought to ponder. What is the difference between an object and an environment?

delta (object) >> delta (environment).

An object radiates away energy at the rate defined by the SB equation. At all times. According to its temperature and emissivity.

I believe the comment was whether there is evidence of that.

DERP!

DE-DERP. Still waiting on the evidence. why hasn't any been provided yet? You all keep spewing the SB equation, now post the experiment that shows it works as written. still waiting. sooo many threads in here.

You're waiting on evidence that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is correct?

DUDE!

 

[jc456]

HE CAN BE TAUGHT!

Until equilibrium is reached the warm object will not slow its decay rate..

Billy Bob is a dolt.

An object radiates away energy at the rate defined by the SB equation. At all times. According to its temperature and emissivity.

Only the rate of change for temperature of the object is affected by the temperature of the environment.

ie. A room temperature object rapidly cools in a freezer, less rapidly in a fridge, no change on the countertop, and warms in the oven. In all locations the object is radiating the same amount of energy, until the temperature changes.

How does the temperature change? If more energy is being received from the environment than is being lost by radiation then heating takes place (oven). For the opposite, then cooling happens (fridge).

Bonus thought to ponder. What is the difference between an object and an environment?

delta (object) >> delta (environment).

An object radiates away energy at the rate defined by the SB equation. At all times. According to its temperature and emissivity.

I believe the comment was whether there is evidence of that.

DERP!

DE-DERP. Still waiting on the evidence. why hasn't any been provided yet? You all keep spewing the SB equation, now post the experiment that shows it works as written. still waiting. sooo many threads in here.

You're waiting on evidence that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is correct?

DUDE!

so friend, do you have an experiment for:

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can cause an Object that is 32 deg F to cool more slowly than if the -80F object weren't there?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Billy Bob is a dolt.

An object radiates away energy at the rate defined by the SB equation. At all times. According to its temperature and emissivity.

Only the rate of change for temperature of the object is affected by the temperature of the environment.

ie. A room temperature object rapidly cools in a freezer, less rapidly in a fridge, no change on the countertop, and warms in the oven. In all locations the object is radiating the same amount of energy, until the temperature changes.

How does the temperature change? If more energy is being received from the environment than is being lost by radiation then heating takes place (oven). For the opposite, then cooling happens (fridge).

Bonus thought to ponder. What is the difference between an object and an environment?

delta (object) >> delta (environment).

An object radiates away energy at the rate defined by the SB equation. At all times. According to its temperature and emissivity.

I believe the comment was whether there is evidence of that.

DERP!

DE-DERP. Still waiting on the evidence. why hasn't any been provided yet? You all keep spewing the SB equation, now post the experiment that shows it works as written. still waiting. sooo many threads in here.

You're waiting on evidence that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is correct?

DUDE!

so friend, do you have an experiment for:

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can cause an Object that is 32 deg F to cool more slowly than if the -80F object weren't there?

No. Why, do I need one?

 

[jc456]

An object radiates away energy at the rate defined by the SB equation. At all times. According to its temperature and emissivity.

I believe the comment was whether there is evidence of that.

DERP!

DE-DERP. Still waiting on the evidence. why hasn't any been provided yet? You all keep spewing the SB equation, now post the experiment that shows it works as written. still waiting. sooo many threads in here.

You're waiting on evidence that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is correct?

DUDE!

so friend, do you have an experiment for:

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can cause an Object that is 32 deg F to cool more slowly than if the -80F object weren't there?

No. Why, do I need one?

Why not? That’s supporting evidence. Isn’t that science?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

DERP!

DE-DERP. Still waiting on the evidence. why hasn't any been provided yet? You all keep spewing the SB equation, now post the experiment that shows it works as written. still waiting. sooo many threads in here.

You're waiting on evidence that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is correct?

DUDE!

so friend, do you have an experiment for:

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can cause an Object that is 32 deg F to cool more slowly than if the -80F object weren't there?

No. Why, do I need one?

Why not? That’s supporting evidence. Isn’t that science?

I need to support a law that's been "on the books" for over 130 years? Why?

 

[jc456]

DE-DERP. Still waiting on the evidence. why hasn't any been provided yet? You all keep spewing the SB equation, now post the experiment that shows it works as written. still waiting. sooo many threads in here.

You're waiting on evidence that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is correct?

DUDE!

so friend, do you have an experiment for:

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can cause an Object that is 32 deg F to cool more slowly than if the -80F object weren't there?

No. Why, do I need one?

Why not? That’s supporting evidence. Isn’t that science?

I need to support a law that's been "on the books" for over 130 years? Why?

science? I mean, isn't science proving a theory?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're waiting on evidence that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is correct?

DUDE!

so friend, do you have an experiment for:

Tell me, Do you think an object radiating at -80 F (12-16um frequency) can cause an Object that is 32 deg F to cool more slowly than if the -80F object weren't there?

No. Why, do I need one?

Why not? That’s supporting evidence. Isn’t that science?

I need to support a law that's been "on the books" for over 130 years? Why?

science? I mean, isn't science proving a theory?

What theory do you feel I need to prove? Why?