The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[Sunsettommy]

Your question is framed in a nonsensical way. Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold.

So you keep saying...but you don't seem to be able to come up with an observed, measured example of it...what you come up with in spades is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.

And if all this were as simple as your "mind" experiments suggest, surely there would be observed, measured examples...we both know that there aren't...because your mind experiments are terribly flawed.

What a confusing statement this is:

"Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold."

How does it become net when energy flows in ONE direction from high to low, hot to cold and so on.

I am sorry you are so easily confused.

All heat is energy but energy is not always heat.

This conversation is mainly concerned with radiation. Radiation does not need matter to transport energy, only to produce it and to accept it. Unlike conduction and convection.

Therefore energy via radiation can, and does, travel in both (all) directions at the same time. Matter mediated energy transfer is only in one direction, at the level of the net competing energies.

SSDD thinks the temperature of the first object controls the production of radiation in the second object. And vice versa.

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

No Heat is NOT energy itself as shown here to help you out:

Heat shows up in boundary situations otherwise it is not called heat at all.

From Wikipedia is this easy to understand statement:

"n thermodynamics, heat is energy transferred from one system to another as a result of thermal interactions.[1] The amount of heat transferred in any process can be defined as the total amount of transferred energy excluding any macroscopic work that was done and any transfer of part of the object itself.[2][3][4][5][6] When two systems with different temperatures are put in contact, heat flows spontaneously from the hotter to the colder system. Transfer of energy as heat can occur through direct contact, through a barrier that is impermeable to matter (as in conduction), by radiation between separated bodies, by way of an intermediate fluid (as in convective circulation), or by a combination of these.[7][8][9] By contrast to work, heat involves the stochastic (random) motion of particles (such as atoms or molecules) that is equally distributed among all degrees of freedom, while work is confined to one or more specific degrees of freedom such as those of the center of mass."

bolding mine

Energy at rest shows NO heat at all, when it is being transferred it show up as heat, a simple concept you stumble over.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When I first joined these conversations I thought SSDD was wrong,

I'll pray for your recovery from your recent brain injury.

If we could "color" the cooler energy, we'd see it evident in the warmer area.

It is evident.
By the slower cooling of the warmer body.

Then it occurred to me that going from warmer to cooler is a natural state of the Universe

The natural state is everything emitting in every direction, all the time.
Until you reach 0K.

You say so, but that's like a bowling ball floating up to the ceiling when it's released cuz yannow it radiates in all directions

You say so,

Science says so. Stefan-Boltzmann says so. Entropy says so.

but that's like a bowling ball floating up to the ceiling when it's released

No, blackbody radiation is not like that. Not even a little.

The bowling ball is ignoring the call of gravity and radiating toward the lower gravitational field at the ceiling

Matter isn't ignoring anything when it radiates in all directions.
Even when it radiates toward something warmer.

So some portion of the bowling ball is actually moving towards the ceiling? 50%? What portion?

Nope.

The “Black Body” Spectrum: a Hole in the Oven
Any body at any temperature above absolute zero will radiate to some extent, the intensity and frequency distribution of the radiation depending on the detailed structure of the body. To begin analyzing heat radiation, we need to be specific about the body doing the radiating: the simplest possible case is an idealized body which is a perfect absorber, and therefore also (from the above argument) a perfect emitter. For obvious reasons, this is called a “black body”.

But we need to check our ideas experimentally: so how do we construct a perfect absorber? OK, nothing’s perfect, but in 1859 Kirchhoff had a good idea: a small hole in the side of a large box is an excellent absorber, since any radiation that goes through the hole bounces around inside, a lot getting absorbed on each bounce, and has little chance of ever getting out again. So, we can do this in reverse: have an oven with a tiny hole in the side, and presumably the radiation coming out the hole is as good a representation of a perfect emitter as we’re going to find. Kirchhoff challenged theorists and experimentalists to figure out and measure (respectively) the energy/frequency curve for this “cavity radiation”, as he called it (in German, of course: hohlraumstrahlung, where hohlraum means hollow room or cavity, strahlung is radiation). In fact, it was Kirchhoff’s challenge in 1859 that led directly to quantum theory forty years later!

What Was Observed: Two Laws
The first quantitative conjecture based on experimental observation of hole radiation was:

Stefan’s Law (1879):

Black Body Radiation

 

[Sunsettommy]

Lets see if confused people can absorb this better?

HEAT

"Heat is a transfer of thermal energy caused by a difference in temperature. This temperature difference is also called a temperature gradient. Since heat is a movement of energy, it is measured in the same units as energy: joules (J). It should also be noted that work and heat are closely related (see heat vs work for more information)."

bolding mine

Surely that should clear up your confusion.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your question is framed in a nonsensical way. Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold.

So you keep saying...but you don't seem to be able to come up with an observed, measured example of it...what you come up with in spades is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.

And if all this were as simple as your "mind" experiments suggest, surely there would be observed, measured examples...we both know that there aren't...because your mind experiments are terribly flawed.

What a confusing statement this is:

"Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold."

How does it become net when energy flows in ONE direction from high to low, hot to cold and so on.

I am sorry you are so easily confused.

All heat is energy but energy is not always heat.

This conversation is mainly concerned with radiation. Radiation does not need matter to transport energy, only to produce it and to accept it. Unlike conduction and convection.

Therefore energy via radiation can, and does, travel in both (all) directions at the same time. Matter mediated energy transfer is only in one direction, at the level of the net competing energies.

SSDD thinks the temperature of the first object controls the production of radiation in the second object. And vice versa.

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

No Heat is NOT energy itself as shown here to help you out:

Heat shows up in boundary situations otherwise it is not called heat at all.

From Wikipedia is this easy to understand statement:

"n thermodynamics, heat is energy transferred from one system to another as a result of thermal interactions.[1] The amount of heat transferred in any process can be defined as the total amount of transferred energy excluding any macroscopic work that was done and any transfer of part of the object itself.[2][3][4][5][6] When two systems with different temperatures are put in contact, heat flows spontaneously from the hotter to the colder system. Transfer of energy as heat can occur through direct contact, through a barrier that is impermeable to matter (as in conduction), by radiation between separated bodies, by way of an intermediate fluid (as in convective circulation), or by a combination of these.[7][8][9] By contrast to work, heat involves the stochastic (random) motion of particles (such as atoms or molecules) that is equally distributed among all degrees of freedom, while work is confined to one or more specific degrees of freedom such as those of the center of mass."

bolding mine

Energy at rest shows NO heat at all, when it is being transferred it show up as heat, a simple concept you stumble over.

Thanks for the link. I liked this part.

Transfer of energy as heat can occur through direct contact, through a barrier that is impermeable to matter (as in conduction), by radiation between separated bodies

This picture was nice as well.

Wow! The Earth sends radiation back to the Sun.
And they mention "net amount".

 

[Sunsettommy]

Now we learn what Energy is

"In physics, energy is the quantitative property that must be transferred to an object in order to perform work on, or to heat, the object.[note 1] Energy is a conserved quantity; the law of conservation of energy states that energy can be converted in form, but not created or destroyed. The SI unit of energy is the joule, which is the energy transferred to an object by the work of moving it a distance of 1 metre against a force of 1 newton.

Common forms of energy include the kinetic energy of a moving object, the potential energy stored by an object's position in a force field (gravitational, electric or magnetic), the elastic energy stored by stretching solid objects, the chemical energy released when a fuel burns, the radiant energy carried by light, and the thermal energy due to an object's temperature."

Energy can be stored for later use, you can't do that with heat...…

Finally understand the difference?

 

[SSDD]

SSoDDumb, there is nobody on this board with a modicum of education that accepts your nonsense concerning radiation and energy. All you have is total ignoramuses like Silly Billy and his 'negative' energy agreeing with you.

So what you are saying is that no...you can't provide the first piece of observed measured data to support your beliefs...but maybe if you attack me, no one will notice that your claims remain unsupported by anything like actual observed measure evidence...

 

[SSDD]

Your question is framed in a nonsensical way. Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold.

So you keep saying...but you don't seem to be able to come up with an observed, measured example of it...what you come up with in spades is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.

And if all this were as simple as your "mind" experiments suggest, surely there would be observed, measured examples...we both know that there aren't...because your mind experiments are terribly flawed.

What a confusing statement this is:

"Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold."

How does it become net when energy flows in ONE direction from high to low, hot to cold and so on.

I am sorry you are so easily confused.

All heat is energy but energy is not always heat.

This conversation is mainly concerned with radiation. Radiation does not need matter to transport energy, only to produce it and to accept it. Unlike conduction and convection.

Therefore energy via radiation can, and does, travel in both (all) directions at the same time. Matter mediated energy transfer is only in one direction, at the level of the net competing energies.

SSDD thinks the temperature of the first object controls the production of radiation in the second object. And vice versa.

Alas it is you who is confused ian. You are confused at the most fundamental level and that error trickles up into, and pollutes your more complex ideas...

And again, it isn't what I think...it is what the physical law states. Once again...

...change the difference between T and Tc and P changes. There is no expression for net within that equation. Your notion that all matter radiates according to its temperature only applies if that matter happens to be a perfect black body perfectly alone in a perfect vacuum...the fact that you can't admit your error on that basic fact pollutes every thing you have to say on the topic.

 

[Wuwei]

So then you can provide observed, measured examples of energy moving spontaneously from cool regions to warm regions? Of course you can't...but you just had to speak up anyway didn't you?

Are you still on that? Don't forget that the cold cosmic microwave background has penetrated our warm planet. That is "observed, measured examples of energy moving spontaneously from cool regions to warm regions"

 

[Wuwei]

And again, it isn't what I think...it is what the physical law states. Once again...

...change the difference between T and Tc and P changes. There is no expression for net within that equation. Your notion that all matter radiates according to its temperature only applies if that matter happens to be a perfect black body perfectly alone in a perfect vacuum...the fact that you can't admit your error on that basic fact pollutes every thing you have to say on the topic.

That equation is totally compatible with net flow. Do you want to see the derivation of that again?

 

[SSDD]

So then you can provide observed, measured examples of energy moving spontaneously from cool regions to warm regions? Of course you can't...but you just had to speak up anyway didn't you?

Are you still on that? Don't forget that the cold cosmic microwave background has penetrated our warm planet. That is "observed, measured examples of energy moving spontaneously from cool regions to warm regions"

Go learn what a resonant radio frequency is and try and grasp that it is not IR radiation.

 

[Wuwei]

Go learn what a resonant radio frequency is and try and grasp that it is not IR radiation.

The usual non-sequitur.

 

[SSDD]

And again, it isn't what I think...it is what the physical law states. Once again...

...change the difference between T and Tc and P changes. There is no expression for net within that equation. Your notion that all matter radiates according to its temperature only applies if that matter happens to be a perfect black body perfectly alone in a perfect vacuum...the fact that you can't admit your error on that basic fact pollutes every thing you have to say on the topic.

That equation is totally compatible with net flow. Do you want to see the derivation of that again?

You mean the derivation where you apply the distributive property to an already elegant equation? Show me where that is a normal practice in mathematics...the fact is it is shitty mathematics and absolutely deplorable science...as if you could make energy go both ways by applying an inappropriate algebraic property to an equation that is reduced to its lowest terms.

Here...from the thought Co...a description of what the distributive property is and when you might need to use it.

"The distributive property law of numbers is a handy way of simplifying complex mathematical equations by breaking them down into smaller parts. It can be especially useful if you are struggling to understand algebra. "

Here is a clue for you...only a top shelf putz would consider it somehow beneficial to apply the distributive property to an already elegant equation...a real top shelf putz.

 

[SSDD]

Go learn what a resonant radio frequency is and try and grasp that it is not IR radiation.

The usual non-sequitur.

Let me guess...after all the discussion you still think a resonant radio frequency is IR radiation?

 

[Wuwei]

You mean the derivation where you apply the distributive property to an already elegant equation? Show me where that is a normal practice in mathematics...the fact is it is shitty mathematics and absolutely deplorable science...as if you could make energy go both ways by applying an inappropriate algebraic property to an equation that is reduced to its lowest terms.

Here is how it is derived.
For a substance at temperature T₁ and the background at temperature T₂.

Emission: Rₑ = eσT₁⁴

Absorption: Rₐ =eσT₂⁴

The net rate:

Rnet = Rₑ - Rₐ = eσT₁⁴ - eσT₂⁴ = eσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

That is an elegant derivation.

 

[Wuwei]

Let me guess...after all the discussion you still think a resonant radio frequency is IR radiation?

I will break it down to six easy to understand steps for you.

1. Radiation comes from a cold cosmic source at 2.7 degrees above absolute zero.
   
   
2. It penetrates to the earth surface at 300 degrees above absolute zero.
   
   
3. It then strikes a reflector at 300 degrees above absolute zero.
   
   
4. It focuses on a resonantly tuned amplifier at 4 degrees above absolute zero.
   
   
5. The resonant radio frequency is recorded at several frequencies.
   
   
6. It is seen to match the BB curve for the CMB at 2.7K
   
   
7. It was an observed, measured, repeatable experiment of radiation of a colder source hitting a warmer object.
   

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So then you can provide observed, measured examples of energy moving spontaneously from cool regions to warm regions? Of course you can't...but you just had to speak up anyway didn't you?

Are you still on that? Don't forget that the cold cosmic microwave background has penetrated our warm planet. That is "observed, measured examples of energy moving spontaneously from cool regions to warm regions"

Go learn what a resonant radio frequency is and try and grasp that it is not IR radiation.

Go learn what a resonant radio frequency is

Is that when a signal is detected on the Earth's surface without coming through our atmosphere?

Your photons just keep getting smarter....you keep getting dumber.

and try and grasp that it is not IR radiation.

Radiation can go from cool to warm as long as it isn't IR?
Or are you still confused about radio photons?

 

[SSDD]

You mean the derivation where you apply the distributive property to an already elegant equation? Show me where that is a normal practice in mathematics...the fact is it is shitty mathematics and absolutely deplorable science...as if you could make energy go both ways by applying an inappropriate algebraic property to an equation that is reduced to its lowest terms.

Here is how it is derived.
For a substance at temperature T₁ and the background at temperature T₂.

Emission: Rₑ = eσT₁⁴

Absorption: Rₐ =eσT₂⁴

The net rate:

Rnet = Rₑ - Rₐ = eσT₁⁴ - eσT₂⁴ = eσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

That is an elegant derivation.

sorry guy..not elegant and not complete...this is what it looks like when it is finished..

 

[SSDD]

Let me guess...after all the discussion you still think a resonant radio frequency is IR radiation?

I will break it down to six easy to understand steps for you.

1. Radiation comes from a cold cosmic source at 2.7 degrees above absolute zero.
   
   
2. It penetrates to the earth surface at 300 degrees above absolute zero.
   
   
3. It then strikes a reflector at 300 degrees above absolute zero.
   
   
4. It focuses on a resonantly tuned amplifier at 4 degrees above absolute zero.
   
   
5. The resonant radio frequency is recorded at several frequencies.
   
   
6. It is seen to match the BB curve for the CMB at 2.7K
   
   
7. It was an observed, measured, repeatable experiment of radiation of a colder source hitting a warmer object.

You still don't get it.. and no matter how you torture it a resonant radio frequency is never going to be CMB.

 

[IanC]

Your question is framed in a nonsensical way. Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold.

So you keep saying...but you don't seem to be able to come up with an observed, measured example of it...what you come up with in spades is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.

And if all this were as simple as your "mind" experiments suggest, surely there would be observed, measured examples...we both know that there aren't...because your mind experiments are terribly flawed.

What a confusing statement this is:

"Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold."

How does it become net when energy flows in ONE direction from high to low, hot to cold and so on.

I am sorry you are so easily confused.

All heat is energy but energy is not always heat.

This conversation is mainly concerned with radiation. Radiation does not need matter to transport energy, only to produce it and to accept it. Unlike conduction and convection.

Therefore energy via radiation can, and does, travel in both (all) directions at the same time. Matter mediated energy transfer is only in one direction, at the level of the net competing energies.

SSDD thinks the temperature of the first object controls the production of radiation in the second object. And vice versa.

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

No Heat is NOT energy itself as shown here to help you out:

Heat shows up in boundary situations otherwise it is not called heat at all.

From Wikipedia is this easy to understand statement:

"n thermodynamics, heat is energy transferred from one system to another as a result of thermal interactions.[1] The amount of heat transferred in any process can be defined as the total amount of transferred energy excluding any macroscopic work that was done and any transfer of part of the object itself.[2][3][4][5][6] When two systems with different temperatures are put in contact, heat flows spontaneously from the hotter to the colder system. Transfer of energy as heat can occur through direct contact, through a barrier that is impermeable to matter (as in conduction), by radiation between separated bodies, by way of an intermediate fluid (as in convective circulation), or by a combination of these.[7][8][9] By contrast to work, heat involves the stochastic (random) motion of particles (such as atoms or molecules) that is equally distributed among all degrees of freedom, while work is confined to one or more specific degrees of freedom such as those of the center of mass."

bolding mine

Energy at rest shows NO heat at all, when it is being transferred it show up as heat, a simple concept you stumble over.

Thanks for the link. I liked this part.

Transfer of energy as heat can occur through direct contact, through a barrier that is impermeable to matter (as in conduction), by radiation between separated bodies

This picture was nice as well.

View attachment 202447

Wow! The Earth sends radiation back to the Sun.
And they mention "net amount".

I had to check on who you were quoting. It looks like Tommy has been learning from SSDD on how to link up articles that support the opposition's case.

 

[SSDD]

So you keep saying...but you don't seem to be able to come up with an observed, measured example of it...what you come up with in spades is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.

And if all this were as simple as your "mind" experiments suggest, surely there would be observed, measured examples...we both know that there aren't...because your mind experiments are terribly flawed.

What a confusing statement this is:

"Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold."

How does it become net when energy flows in ONE direction from high to low, hot to cold and so on.

I am sorry you are so easily confused.

All heat is energy but energy is not always heat.

This conversation is mainly concerned with radiation. Radiation does not need matter to transport energy, only to produce it and to accept it. Unlike conduction and convection.

Therefore energy via radiation can, and does, travel in both (all) directions at the same time. Matter mediated energy transfer is only in one direction, at the level of the net competing energies.

SSDD thinks the temperature of the first object controls the production of radiation in the second object. And vice versa.

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

No Heat is NOT energy itself as shown here to help you out:

Heat shows up in boundary situations otherwise it is not called heat at all.

From Wikipedia is this easy to understand statement:

"n thermodynamics, heat is energy transferred from one system to another as a result of thermal interactions.[1] The amount of heat transferred in any process can be defined as the total amount of transferred energy excluding any macroscopic work that was done and any transfer of part of the object itself.[2][3][4][5][6] When two systems with different temperatures are put in contact, heat flows spontaneously from the hotter to the colder system. Transfer of energy as heat can occur through direct contact, through a barrier that is impermeable to matter (as in conduction), by radiation between separated bodies, by way of an intermediate fluid (as in convective circulation), or by a combination of these.[7][8][9] By contrast to work, heat involves the stochastic (random) motion of particles (such as atoms or molecules) that is equally distributed among all degrees of freedom, while work is confined to one or more specific degrees of freedom such as those of the center of mass."

bolding mine

Energy at rest shows NO heat at all, when it is being transferred it show up as heat, a simple concept you stumble over.

Thanks for the link. I liked this part.

Transfer of energy as heat can occur through direct contact, through a barrier that is impermeable to matter (as in conduction), by radiation between separated bodies

This picture was nice as well.

View attachment 202447

Wow! The Earth sends radiation back to the Sun.
And they mention "net amount".

I had to check on who you were quoting. It looks like Tommy has been learning from SSDD on how to link up articles that support the opposition's case.

Dream on ian..the more you talk, the more obvious how little you know becomes. Your whole belief system is polluted with your flawed understanding of the basics.