The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[Crick]

Show us ANY REFERENCE that states the temperature inequality in SB has to be in a specific direction. ANY REFERENCE? You claim it is a tenet of the law. Surely someone, somewhere would have told us that. Let's see it fool.

Of course, textbooks have already been posted here discussing the inequality going in either direction. But you want to pretend they don't exist, that they weren't posted here for all to read. What sort of fucking world do you live in dude. I think you need to get some help.

 

[SSDD]

Show us ANY REFERENCE that states the temperature inequality in SB has to be in a specific direction. ANY REFERENCE? You claim it is a tenet of the law. Surely someone, somewhere would have told us that. Let's see it fool.

Of course, textbooks have already been posted here discussing the inequality going in either direction. But you want to pretend they don't exist, that they weren't posted here for all to read. What sort of fucking world do you live in dude. I think you need to get some help.

Sorry you can't read an equation...it is right there in black and white if you weren't to stupid to read it.

 

[Crick]

Were you too stupid to read Wuwei textbook extract discussing it going in both directions? I guess so...

 

[Wuwei]

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..

It said right in the text that I cited that you are wrong. It is amazing that you think you know what the SB equation is. Stefan even disagrees with you in his seminal paper.

 

[SSDD]

No point talking to you till such time as you demonstrate that you can read a simple equation...let me know when you learn how.

 

[Wuwei]

No point talking to you till such time as you demonstrate that you can read a simple equation...let me know when you learn how.

You can't give any scientific reference can you. No wonder you want to abort the discussion. Your'e all alone in an embarrassing situation of mocking all science.

 

[SSDD]

That isn't what the equation says.....try again.

 

[Wuwei]

That isn't what the equation says.....try again.

Look at the paper I cited. It doesn't say your crap. You are lying again.

 

[SSDD]

Try again....till such time as you state, in plain english what this equation says, we have nothing else to talk about.

Power equals the emissivity of the object, times the S-B constant times the area of the object times.......

 

[Wuwei]

Try again....till such time as you state, in plain english what this equation says, we have nothing else to talk about.

Power equals the emissivity of the object, times the S-B constant times the area of the object times.......

This is what it says. It is in plain English. It is what all scientists know, and you don't. We have gone through this many times and you have no observed experimental proof it is wrong. Troll.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

assumption in the SB law that T is always greater than or equal to Tc and therefore is an invalid equation...

The equation only works when an object is hotter than it's surroundings?

That's hilarious! Much dumber than your usual errors.

That's JC456 level dumb.

 

[Crick]

Claes Johnson, unpublished (in climate science) Swedish mathematician-at-large says it is so.

 

[Wuwei]

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...

There is no separate "version" of the SB law. You already know that Tc can be larger. It simply shows that the object under question is colder than the background and is heating up. You are lying again.

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.

Wrong again. One way energy flow violates quantum mechanics.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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...

There is no separate "version" of the SB law. You already know that Tc can be larger. It simply shows that the object under question is colder than the background and is heating up. You are lying again.

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.

Wrong again. One way energy flow violates quantum mechanics.

Two way flows mean the lower temperature object must LOSE temperature at some point during the exchange, has this ever been observed in what we call reality?

 

[Wuwei]

Try again....till such time as you state, in plain english what this equation says, we have nothing else to talk about.

Power equals the emissivity of the object, times the S-B constant times the area of the object times.......

..... times the differences between the fourth power of temperatures. If P is positive it is radiating more power to the background than it receiving. If P is negative it is receiving more power from the background than it is radiating.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Try again....till such time as you state, in plain english what this equation says, we have nothing else to talk about.

Power equals the emissivity of the object, times the S-B constant times the area of the object times.......

..... times the differences between the fourth power of temperatures. If P is positive it is radiating more power to the background than it receiving. If P is negative it is receiving more power from the background than it is radiating.

If it were a net exchange, you'd need infinite time to reach equilibrium

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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...

There is no separate "version" of the SB law. You already know that Tc can be larger. It simply shows that the object under question is colder than the background and is heating up. You are lying again.

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.

Wrong again. One way energy flow violates quantum mechanics.

Two way flows mean the lower temperature object must LOSE temperature at some point during the exchange, has this ever been observed in what we call reality?

Two way flows mean the lower temperature object must LOSE temperature at some point during the exchange,

The lower temperature object receives more power than it emits. That's why it warms.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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...

There is no separate "version" of the SB law. You already know that Tc can be larger. It simply shows that the object under question is colder than the background and is heating up. You are lying again.

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.

Wrong again. One way energy flow violates quantum mechanics.

Two way flows mean the lower temperature object must LOSE temperature at some point during the exchange, has this ever been observed in what we call reality?

Two way flows mean the lower temperature object must LOSE temperature at some point during the exchange,

The lower temperature object receives more power than it emits. That's why it warms.

So it's a gross flow, not a net flow

 

[Wuwei]

If it were a net exchange, you'd need infinite time to reach equilibrium

That's right. The temperature changes follow an exponential decreasing law. There is a point where it is unmeasurably small.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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...

There is no separate "version" of the SB law. You already know that Tc can be larger. It simply shows that the object under question is colder than the background and is heating up. You are lying again.

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.

Wrong again. One way energy flow violates quantum mechanics.

Two way flows mean the lower temperature object must LOSE temperature at some point during the exchange, has this ever been observed in what we call reality?

Two way flows mean the lower temperature object must LOSE temperature at some point during the exchange,

The lower temperature object receives more power than it emits. That's why it warms.

So it's a gross flow, not a net flow

Both objects radiate.