The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[Wuwei]

Funny...coming from someone who can't even state what an equation describing a physical phenomenon is saying in plain english.

Want to try again?

Power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boatsman constant times the area of the object times what?

This is in all text books and lectures. You have seen it dozens of times. It is really quite simple. It is amazing that you are still pretending you don't understand it.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~physics/l...oltzmann.law/stefan.boltzmann.law.writeup.pdf

 

[Wuwei]

Here is the text that you are pretending to ignore.

 

[SSDD]

Please explain how you rearrange the terms in the SB equation to get a rate of cooling.

Not going to help you ian....interesting though, that you think it is not possible to calculate the rate at which an object is cooling.

 

[IanC]

Cut out the troll crap. We have told you time and again how the equation is derived. Your reading differs from all text books, lectures, and journals, and you know it. Crick's above post challenges you to come up with some valid scientific justification, but you don't understand why you believe your crap. That makes you a troll.

So you still either can't read an equation or won't actually speak it either...still interesting

So you still pretend to believe science is fairy dust. Troll.

Funny...coming from someone who can't even state what an equation describing a physical phenomenon is saying in plain english.

Want to try again?

Power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boatsman constant times the area of the object times what?

It says-

Pnet = Pwarm - Pcool

There is no net...there is only one way gross energy flow...but do feel free to provide a measurement of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...your models don't mean jack if they can't reflect reality.

Thanks for acknowledging that you can't read an equation either....you guys are a hoot...for all your bullshit, none of you can bring yourselves to actually speak the equation in plain english...willful ignorance at its zenith.

Physics is the study of cause and effect.

An object radiates according to how much energy it contains, always. The net loss of energy per unit of time is calculated by subtracting the externally produced radiation being absorbed from the internally produced radiation being emitted by the object.

You have confused cause and effect. You claim the amount of radiation an object emits is controlled by other external objects, no matter how far away.

You give no explanation how this could happen. On the other hand my statement is easily explained by moving charged particles, an internal condition unrelated to other external conditions.

 

[IanC]

Please explain how you rearrange the terms in the SB equation to get a rate of cooling.

Not going to help you ian....interesting though, that you think it is not possible to calculate the rate at which an object is cooling.

I never said you couldn't calculate a cooling rate. I said you couldn't derive it from the SB equation. You said you could so prove it

 

[SSDD]

Here is the text that you are pretending to ignore.

Yep...seen it before. The actual SB law assumes that T > Tc. In your equation, it is possible to set T>Tc.

Further, The SB law is a direct extension of Planck's law...care to show me the two way version of Planck's law? Didn't think so. And you equation simply assumes net...got any actual measurement of two way spontaneous net energy flow? Didn't think so.

You are a dupe and you will always be a dupe.

 

[SSDD]

Physics is the study of cause and effect.

So you have no measurement of spontaneous energy movement from a cool object to a warmer object...that's what I said.

An object radiates according to how much energy it contains, always. The net loss of energy per unit of time is calculated by subtracting the externally produced radiation being absorbed from the internally produced radiation being emitted by the object.

If it is a perfect black body, all alone in a perfect vacuum, sure....but if it isn't, then it doesn't...it radiates according to the difference between its own temperature and that of its surroundings.

All measurements of energy flow support my position, while none support yours...cause and effect in the real world...

 

[Wuwei]

Further, The SB law is a direct extension of Planck's law...care to show me the two way version of Planck's law? Didn't think so. And you equation simply assumes net...got any actual measurement of two way spontaneous net energy flow? Didn't think so.

Non-sequitur.

You are a dupe and you will always be a dupe.

You are calling all scientists dupes. Only a troll would do that.

 

[SSDD]

Please explain how you rearrange the terms in the SB equation to get a rate of cooling.

Not going to help you ian....interesting though, that you think it is not possible to calculate the rate at which an object is cooling.

I never said you couldn't calculate a cooling rate. I said you couldn't derive it from the SB equation. You said you could so prove it

I never said that either....you are as bad as wuwei with regard to altering what someone said and then arguing with your version of what was said...

I only said that if you know how much energy an object is losing that you could calculate its rate of cooling...you disagree with that statement?

 

[SSDD]

Non-sequitur.

Says the guy who can't read a simple equation and state in plain english what it is describing.

 

[Wuwei]

Says the guy who can't read a simple equation and state in plain english what it is describing.

Says the guy who knows what the science of the SB equation is, but lies about it.

 

[SSDD]

Says the guy who can't read a simple equation and state in plain english what it is describing.

Says the guy who knows what the science of the SB equation is, but lies about it.

I can bring myself to say what the equation says....I don't have a religious belief in something that requires that I not actually say it. How does that feel?...to not be able to read an equation and say what the equations says because it would conflict with your beliefs?

And again, the SB law assumes that T> or =Tc ALWAYS...any form of the equation that would allow that assumption to be violated is false...perhaps texts used to support the AGW hoax might use it, and not bother to tell the students about the whole T>=Tc thing, but then then honesty isn't all that important when you are supporting a hoax, is it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not when you ignore how much energy it's absorbing.

Got any measurements of a warm object absorbing energy spontaneously emitted from a cooler object? Didn't think so.

Not when you ignore how much energy it's absorbing.

All by yourself. Weird.

I don't need anyone to agree with me in order to be confident of my position..You know who is only comfortable with being part of a group that agrees with them? Sheep. Lets hear a great big old baaahhhh toddster....say it once...bbbaaaaaahhhhhh.

I will wait for you to provide an observed measured example of zero energy movement between two objects at equilibrium..

Any measurement made of objects of the same temperature will do...they will all show the same thing...and it isn't an exchange of energy.

Got any measurements of a warm object absorbing energy spontaneously emitted from a cooler object?

Got anyone who agrees with your ridiculous one way claims?
Got anyone explaining the mechanism behind your dimmer switch theory of radiating?

I don't need anyone to agree with me in order to be confident of my position..

Yes, you have that in common with the deeply ignorant and the mentally ill.

You know who is only comfortable with being part of a group that agrees with them?

I am comfortable being part of a group that includes Einstein, Kirchoff, Wien and Planck.....
versus you, all by yourself. Very comfortable.

Any measurement made of objects of the same temperature will do...they will all show the same thing...and it isn't an exchange of energy.

Any link explicitly stating that? Because I have plenty that say "at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Says the guy who can't read a simple equation and state in plain english what it is describing.

Says the guy who knows what the science of the SB equation is, but lies about it.

I can bring myself to say what the equation says....I don't have a religious belief in something that requires that I not actually say it. How does that feel?...to not be able to read an equation and say what the equations says because it would conflict with your beliefs?

And again, the SB law assumes that T> or =Tc ALWAYS...any form of the equation that would allow that assumption to be violated is false...perhaps texts used to support the AGW hoax might use it, and not bother to tell the students about the whole T>=Tc thing, but then then honesty isn't all that important when you are supporting a hoax, is it?

And again, the SB law assumes that T> or =Tc ALWAYS

Nope. Wrong.

Stefan-Boltzmann Law

While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying net radiative transfer to the object.

 

[Wuwei]

And again, the SB law assumes that T> or =Tc ALWAYS...any form of the equation that would allow that assumption to be violated is false...perhaps texts used to support the AGW hoax might use it, and not bother to tell the students about the whole T>=Tc thing, but then then honesty isn't all that important when you are supporting a hoax, is it?

Say, Troll, that is a lie. Look at the last paragraph of the following text that is accepted by all scientists:

.

 

[Crick]

Same Shit, give IT UP

 

[SSDD]

And again, the SB law assumes that T> or =Tc ALWAYS...any form of the equation that would allow that assumption to be violated is false...perhaps texts used to support the AGW hoax might use it, and not bother to tell the students about the whole T>=Tc thing, but then then honesty isn't all that important when you are supporting a hoax, is it?

Say, Troll, that is a lie. Look at the last paragraph of the following text that is accepted by all scientists:

.

Does your "version" of the equation allow you to set T to a temperature greater than Tc? If so, then it allows you to violate the assumption in the SB law that T is always greater than or equal to Tc and therefore is an invalid equation...

Once again...fooled by bullshit...got any actual measurement of that hypothetical spontaneous two way net energy flow? Didn't think so but every measurement ever made supports the actual SB law which describes one way gross energy movement. Unless you have something new, this has all been said before and you have demonstrated adequately your willingness to ignore all of reality in favor of unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable models...there really is no need to go through it again.

 

[SSDD]

Same Shit, give IT UP

You are probably right...you guys are so thoroughly duped that you will probably die as dupes...sad, but that is observable, measurable reality.

 

[Crick]

Given two interpretations of SB that, for the most part, provide the same results, why do you choose the one that requires unexplainable phenomena?

 

[SSDD]

Given two interpretations of SB that, for the most part, provide the same results, why do you choose the one that requires unexplainable phenomena?

Because it is the actual physical law..and is supported by every observation and measurement ever made...we have never recorded "net" energy flow between objects...all measurements ever made show one way gross energy flow. Why do you accept a formula other than the actual SB law...a formula in which Tc can be set to a higher temperature than T which violates a basic tenet of the SB law, and a formula which has no observed, measured evidence to back it up?

We all know why you accept it skidmark...because you are a putz.