Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[SSDD]

Yes, the sensor is cooling off.
You think you can see an object based on photons moving away from the camera, with no
photons moving toward the camera?

You think you are observing an image that has anything to do with observing photons....you aren't.. you are seeing an image derived from nothing more than the sensor array detecting its own temperature change...that is all it can detect...it doesn't know whether energy is incoming or outgoing..it only knows that its temperature is changing...

All the rest is just a story you tell about it because you don't know, or understand what is being measured or how the image is being derived.

 

[Wuwei]

Why not simply state that we really don't grasp the underlying mechanism for energy flow rather than bore us with your attempt at bullshitting what we do know into what we don't know? Is bullshitting the only tool at your disposal?

Insults? That is your only response?

You don't grasp the underlying mechanism for energy flow? Science does. I tried to make it as simple as possible. There are many kinds of energy flow. Just which ones do you think science does not grasp, and what more is needed to “grasp” the mathematical codification of observed experimental knowledge?

Science knows that energy flows...it really doesn't know how or why it flows. Science sees the effect of energy flow...science has learned to manipulate energy flow to do work...but the how and why remain unknown.

Clearly you don't grasp the concept of an underlying mechanism. Rather than go through the painful process of trying to describe to you the difference between having a grasp (no matter how tenuous) of what is happening and understanding why it is happening, I will just ask you a few very basic questions about energy and its movement which you will not be able to answer because there are no answers. Perhaps from that exercise you may grasp that we really don't know that much about energy, or how it moves...or maybe not. Anyone who would view models as reality might have a difficult time recognizing the reality of the very large gaps in our knowledge. I doubt that you even grasp that energy itself is an indirectly observed quantity...Hell, you probably don't even know what that means. So, without further adieu...I look forward to seeing your attempts to answer these very basic questions about energy and its movement.

1. Why can energy not be created?

2. Why can energy not be destroyed?

3. How can a photon be present at every point along its path simultaneously?

5. What is the mechanism by which a vibration is translated to radiation?

6. How is it that energy can exist (not to be confused with simply transferring through) a vacuum?

These are just a couple of basic questions that arise from our observation of the effects of energy...they go straight to things we are a very long way from understanding. But your answers should be entertaining. I enjoy watching you wackos pretending to know things that at present are unknowable.

You are playing the troll again – big time. I told you the reasons from basic physics that one way energy flow violates the many repeatable, observations, measurements and experiments tested time and again. And what do you do? The standard troll gambit of changing the subject. Your digression to philosophy of science does not answer any practical questions on radiation exchange.

My only conclusion is that you know you are wrong and you have absolutely no argument. The science of equilibrium energy exchange is right and you are wrong, and that turns you to trolldom as your only recourse.

 

[Crick]

Same Shit, why don't YOU detail a situation - just make one up - that would satisfy you that two way transfer has taken place.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

^
Just the most recent.

Let me know when you find anyone who agrees with SSDD about one-way only flow.

Years of claiming it doesn't make it so. No one agrees with him. Not even his own links.

Weird.

Again....fooled by instrumentation...that sensor array detects nothing more than its own temperature change...that change is converted to an electrical signal and then translated to an image....if you believe it was detecting two way energy flow, then you clearly don't have any idea what the instrument was recording.

You provide an illustration of a mathematical model and say that it is evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow...you are a dupe.

that sensor array detects nothing more than its own temperature change..

Exactly. The change involves net flux. As the drawing shows.

if you believe it was detecting two way energy flow, then you clearly don't have any idea what the instrument was recording.

If you believe the Handbook of Modern Sensors was wrong in showing net thermal flux (flux from the object minus flux from itself) you should notify them of their error.
Be sure to post their response.

You're still alone in your misinterpretation of the 2nd Law.

You're still alone in your misinterpretation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

You still, after years of being asked, haven't posted a single source that agrees
with your claim of one-way only flow of radiation. You're all by yourself. ​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here's another that agrees with me. Disagrees with SSDD.
You'll ignore it, of course.


.

Once again fooled by instrumentation...measured with an instrument that was cooled to -80 degrees...all that is is a measurement of energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.

Once again fooled by instrumentation...measured with an instrument that was cooled to -80 degrees...all that is is a measurement of energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.

And there come your smart photons again. All by yourself.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All you have to do is ignore the dozens of examples given.

The only examples you guys have provided are examples of how easily you are fooled by instruments.

Still no examples of one-way only flow.

You're very lonely.

 

[jc456]

^
Just the most recent.

Let me know when you find anyone who agrees with SSDD about one-way only flow.

Years of claiming it doesn't make it so. No one agrees with him. Not even his own links.

Weird.

Again....fooled by instrumentation...that sensor array detects nothing more than its own temperature change...that change is converted to an electrical signal and then translated to an image....if you believe it was detecting two way energy flow, then you clearly don't have any idea what the instrument was recording.

You provide an illustration of a mathematical model and say that it is evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow...you are a dupe.

that sensor array detects nothing more than its own temperature change..

Exactly. The change involves net flux. As the drawing shows.

if you believe it was detecting two way energy flow, then you clearly don't have any idea what the instrument was recording.

If you believe the Handbook of Modern Sensors was wrong in showing net thermal flux (flux from the object minus flux from itself) you should notify them of their error.
Be sure to post their response.

You're still alone in your misinterpretation of the 2nd Law.

You're still alone in your misinterpretation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

You still, after years of being asked, haven't posted a single source that agrees
with your claim of one-way only flow of radiation. You're all by yourself. ​

still no two way energy flow observation eh? hmmmmmmm

 

[SSDD]

Same Shit, why don't YOU detail a situation - just make one up - that would satisfy you that two way transfer has taken place.

How about a measurement of a discrete frequency of radiation...say 15 microns made from the surface with an instrument pointed toward open sky...and that instrument being at ambient temperature.....should be no problem since you guys claim that more radiation is coming back from the atmosphere than comes in from the sun.

 

[jc456]

Same Shit, why don't YOU detail a situation - just make one up - that would satisfy you that two way transfer has taken place.

How about a measurement of a discrete frequency of radiation...say 15 microns made from the surface with an instrument pointed toward open sky...and that instrument being at ambient temperature.....should be no problem since you guys claim that more radiation is coming back from the atmosphere than comes in from the sun.

I'm confident you'll get Crickets. get it? LOL

 

[SSDD]

You are playing the troll again – big time. I told you the reasons from basic physics that one way energy flow violates the many repeatable, observations, measurements and experiments tested time and again. And what do you do? The standard troll gambit of changing the subject. Your digression to philosophy of science does not answer any practical questions on radiation exchange.

So asking you very basic questions about the nature of energy, and its movement which you can't answer makes me a troll? You get more laughable every day. You claim that science knows all and sees all with regard to energy and how it moves about....those questions were foundational..very basic and the truth is we just can't answer them because we don't know nearly as much as you think we do. We have lots of stories which you take as truth but which lack any sort of empirical support.

And of course you told me that one way energy flow violates those stories that you believe so fervently...which is what prompted me to continue to ask you for some empirical evidence to support your claims that one way energy movement violated reality... And I am not changing the subject...the subject is still energy and how it moves about...you claim knowledge that we don't possess...I ask questions which give you the opportunity to demonstrate what we know and you can't answer...

The question of how a vibration translates to radiation is about as basic a question as could be asked and yet...we don't know. For that matter, the matter of vibrations remains open to discussion as we have never had a good look at a molecule such that we could verify or directly measure their vibration...vibration seems to be a reasonable cause for the observations we make but vibrations by no means is an observed, proven fact.

Like I have said...much...in fact most of what you claim to be knowledge is nothing more than stories we tell about what we observe...and in many cases, stories we tell about what may be happening which we have never observed...such as two way spontaneous energy exchange. The only thing one way energy exchange violates is your mythology...that being the case, the very second law of thermodynamics violates your mythology..

And you keep claiming that one way energy flow violates observations, measurements and experiments...when I ask which observations, measurements, and experiments you can't seem to produce any. If there are many, why don't you seem to be able to produce even one?

My only conclusion is that you know you are wrong and you have absolutely no argument. The science of equilibrium energy exchange is right and you are wrong, and that turns you to trolldom as your only recourse.

Of course that would be your conclusion....I have questioned your faith and you would rather call me wrong that face the fact that you can't support your faith with any sort of empirical evidence. I would expect nothing less from a zealot. A thinking person might wonder if his faith were misplaced if he couldn't produce any actual evidence to support it but a zealot?....never. The first instinct of a zealot is to attack those who question his faith....

 

[Crick]

Same Shit, why don't YOU detail a situation - just make one up - that would satisfy you that two way transfer has taken place.

How about a measurement of a discrete frequency of radiation...say 15 microns made from the surface with an instrument pointed toward open sky...and that instrument being at ambient temperature.....should be no problem since you guys claim that more radiation is coming back from the atmosphere than comes in from the sun.

You failed to state what time of day this would be done. And where do you believe that 15 micron radiation would be coming from? The Sun? The stratosphere? The troposphere? The air directly in front of the instrument? The sensor itself? How would you know the identity and temperature of the source?

Obviously, taking such a measurement would be akin to taking photographs of wildlife at night with a flashlight aimed down your lens barrel. You might capture the eyes of a rabbit, but it would hardly be the optimal method to do so.

Why don't you check out these sites and explain to us why the measurements in this study have changed precisely in pace with CO2 levels in the atmosphere over the last 11 years.

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO₂ from 2000 to 2010
and
First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect

 

[jc456]

Same Shit, why don't YOU detail a situation - just make one up - that would satisfy you that two way transfer has taken place.

How about a measurement of a discrete frequency of radiation...say 15 microns made from the surface with an instrument pointed toward open sky...and that instrument being at ambient temperature.....should be no problem since you guys claim that more radiation is coming back from the atmosphere than comes in from the sun.

You failed to state what time of day this would be done. And where do you believe that 15 micron radiation would be coming from? The Sun? The stratosphere? The troposphere? The air directly in front of the instrument? The sensor itself? How would you know the identity and temperature of the source?

Obviously, taking such a measurement would be akin to taking photographs of wildlife at night with a flashlight aimed down your lens barrel. You might capture the eyes of a rabbit, but it would hardly be the optimal method to do so.

Why don't you check out these sites and explain to us why the measurements in this study have changed precisely in pace with CO2 levels in the atmosphere over the last 11 years.

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO₂ from 2000 to 2010
and
First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect

What does this statement from the report actually mean from your first link?

"We measured radiation in the form of infrared energy. Then we controlled for other factors that would impact our measurements, such as a weather system moving through the area," says Feldman.

Read more at: First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect

 

[SSDD]

You failed to state what time of day this would be done. And where do you believe that 15 micron radiation would be coming from? The Sun? The stratosphere? The troposphere? The air directly in front of the instrument? The sensor itself? How would you know the identity and temperature of the source?

I said quite clearly open sky...makes no difference what time of day or night as there will be none to measure.. 15 micron radiation relates to a temperature of about -80 degrees and unless the ground is colder than that, you won't be recording any 15 micron radiation coming from open sky...

Obviously, taking such a measurement would be akin to taking photographs of wildlife at night with a flashlight aimed down your lens barrel. You might capture the eyes of a rabbit, but it would hardly be the optimal method to do so.

You wack jobs claim that almost as much radiation is being absorbed by the surface of the earth in the form of back radiation as is absorbed from the sun...shouldn't be any problem whatsoever to measure it...you certainly wouldn't have any problem photographing the sun the lens barrel.

Why don't you check out these sites and explain to us why the measurements in this study have changed precisely in pace with CO2 levels in the atmosphere over the last 11 years.

there are no measurements of back radiation made with instruments at ambient temperature..and any measurement made with a cooled instrument is not a measurement of energy moving from the cooler sky to the warmer surface...it would be a measurement of energy moving from the warmer sky to the cooler instrument.

Tell me crick...what do you think the emissivity of CO2 is?

 

[Wuwei]

So asking you very basic questions about the nature of energy, and its movement which you can't answer makes me a troll?

No. Ignoring the physics of how vibrating charges must radiate and changing the subject to something that has absolutely no practical value makes you a troll.

you can't support your faith with any sort of empirical evidence

The reasons vibrating charges must radiate came from countless observations, tests, and measurements, not faith.

 

[MPS777]

The reasons vibrating charges must radiate came from countless observations, tests, and measurements, not faith.

I’ve found this site to be a good summary of how moving charges create electromagnetic radiation:
Larmor Radiation

 

[Wuwei]

The reasons vibrating charges must radiate came from countless observations, tests, and measurements, not faith.

I’ve found this site to be a good summary of how moving charges create electromagnetic radiation:
Larmor Radiation

I agree. It's all on one page. The problem is SSDD doesn't believe mathematical models of physics. He likes to play games with "reality".

 

[SSDD]

No. Ignoring the physics of how vibrating charges must radiate and changing the subject to something that has absolutely no practical value makes you a troll.

Once again...you are telling me what you believe...not how, or why theoretical vibration (since we never saw a molecule vibrate) translates to energy. Why can't you simply admit that we don't know. Is it that tough for you to acknowledge how much science doesn't know at this point in history?

The reasons vibrating charges must radiate came from countless observations, tests, and measurements, not faith.

What observation did we ever make of a vibrating molecule? And saying that rocks must fall when dropped because of observations, tests, and measurements does not even begin to explain why rocks must fall when dropped... You are employing the most basic and flawed type of circular reasoning. Can you see yourself? Why not just admit that we don't know? Would your faith crumble around you if you were to acknowledge that we really don't know how or why energy transfers, how vibrations are translated to energy...and any number of other basic questions regarding energy, its nature, and how it moves around?

 

[SSDD]

The reasons vibrating charges must radiate came from countless observations, tests, and measurements, not faith.

I’ve found this site to be a good summary of how moving charges create electromagnetic radiation:
Larmor Radiation

First point on your page...Maxwell's equations "imply"...they don't prove anything...they are simply a mathematical statement suggesting an explanation for observations....prior to being updated by new knowledge, practically all the stories we told to explain what we observed were supported by something, be it myth or mathematical formula that "implied" what we though was going on...almost invariably, it turned out that the story we told didn't really touch to hard on reality. Such is the nature of stories.

 

[SSDD]

The reasons vibrating charges must radiate came from countless observations, tests, and measurements, not faith.

I’ve found this site to be a good summary of how moving charges create electromagnetic radiation:
Larmor Radiation

I agree. It's all on one page. The problem is SSDD doesn't believe mathematical models of physics. He likes to play games with "reality".

Actually it is you who likes to play games with reality...models are not reality...particularly models that aren't borne out by observation and measurement. Now you keep claiming that spontaneous two way energy flow happens, and as evidence you hold up nothing more than models...do you have any actual observation or measurement of spontaneous two way energy flow? The answer to that is a simple no...and the evidence is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics still states that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The reasons vibrating charges must radiate came from countless observations, tests, and measurements, not faith.

I’ve found this site to be a good summary of how moving charges create electromagnetic radiation:
Larmor Radiation

I agree. It's all on one page. The problem is SSDD doesn't believe mathematical models of physics. He likes to play games with "reality".

Actually it is you who likes to play games with reality...models are not reality...particularly models that aren't borne out by observation and measurement. Now you keep claiming that spontaneous two way energy flow happens, and as evidence you hold up nothing more than models...do you have any actual observation or measurement of spontaneous two way energy flow? The answer to that is a simple no...and the evidence is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics still states that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm.

So lonely...........