There is no Magic....Time to Wake up to the Fact.

[SSDD]

you never explain in your own words what you think is happening, so I have a hard time figuring out where you are going wrong. perhaps you could give me run through of what you think happens in a non-GHG atmosphere. do you think it moderates the high and low temperature swings, how? do you think the average temp is higher than without an atmosphere, why?

Just go ahead and make up an argument for me and argue against that Ian, you have been arguing against your own fabricated arguments rather than my own position since I first got here. Why stop now?

Your own comment regarding planets with no atmosphere is evidence enough of my statement. The links I provided pretty much cover my position. The temperature of the planet can be derived without a manufactured greenhouse effect...and by the same process, the temperature of every other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere can be accurately derived while deriving the temperature using the greenhouse effect as described by climate science only works here and then only by constant tweaking and judicious injections of magical thinking.

You believe in magic.. I get it. You believe. You believe. You believe. You believe in hypothesis and theory even when observation don't agree...you believe in hypothesis and theory over your own eyes. You believe. I can't do much about that.

I knew you would be afraid to reply.

Reply to what? Your distorted interpretation of what I have already said...to which you would then further distort and ask for more replies? As I said, the links I provided pretty much sum up my position. Argue that the magical greenhouse effect as described by climate science is more likely than the atmospheric thermal effect predicted by and supported by the actual laws of physics. No magical multipliers needed.

 

[IanC]

you never explain in your own words what you think is happening, so I have a hard time figuring out where you are going wrong. perhaps you could give me run through of what you think happens in a non-GHG atmosphere. do you think it moderates the high and low temperature swings, how? do you think the average temp is higher than without an atmosphere, why?

Just go ahead and make up an argument for me and argue against that Ian, you have been arguing against your own fabricated arguments rather than my own position since I first got here. Why stop now?

Your own comment regarding planets with no atmosphere is evidence enough of my statement. The links I provided pretty much cover my position. The temperature of the planet can be derived without a manufactured greenhouse effect...and by the same process, the temperature of every other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere can be accurately derived while deriving the temperature using the greenhouse effect as described by climate science only works here and then only by constant tweaking and judicious injections of magical thinking.

You believe in magic.. I get it. You believe. You believe. You believe. You believe in hypothesis and theory even when observation don't agree...you believe in hypothesis and theory over your own eyes. You believe. I can't do much about that.

I knew you would be afraid to reply.

Reply to what? Your distorted interpretation of what I have already said...to which you would then further distort and ask for more replies? As I said, the links I provided pretty much sum up my position. Argue that the magical greenhouse effect as described by climate science is more likely than the atmospheric thermal effect predicted by and supported by the actual laws of physics. No magical multipliers needed.

I have been asking for YOUR interpretation since you arrived at this MB. All you ever give is links to someone else's opinion. Your deference to authority is greater than Crick's.

 

[SSDD]

I have been asking for YOUR interpretation since you arrived at this MB. All you ever give is links to someone else's opinion. Your deference to authority is greater than Crick's.

I don't have an interpretation....that is, in large part, your problem. You apparently feel the need to interpret everything to suit what you believe. You interpret hypothesis and theory...you interpret physical laws....you interpret what I, and others say. You don't seem to be able to take anything at face value. That is where we diverge.

And since all of our disagreement revolves around physical laws, and their applications, deference to the literal statement of physical law is not deference to authority. When the physical laws can explain a thing, a convoluted, contrived failing hypothesis is not necessary unless you have some underlying issues.

Climate models are the greenhouse hypothesis, and the AGW hypothesis incarnate....and they are failing. They are failing for warmer wackaloons and they are failing for luke warmers such as yourself. They prove that what you believe is not true every day and the further they diverge from observation...even tampered observation the more they prove that what you believe is untrue and that the physical laws, and derivations arrived from them are correct.

So interpret till your hearts content....but take note that the hypothesis based on your beliefs and interpretations drifts further away from reality every day. The only thing the models have succeeded at is to show that the hypothesis was flawed.

 

[IanC]

Why are you afraid to state, in your own words, what you believe?

You seem to strongly believe in certain things to the exclusion of anything else.

Eg. your 150 year old version of thermodynamic laws are fine for systems with many objects but are wrong for atomic events. QM was discovered to explain the inconsistencies.

Eg. mass and gravity are an excellent starting point to derive the basic range of surface temperatures but that does not exclude variations due to water or other GHGs.

The more you dodge discussing the ancillary details the more I think you are just a Cliff Clavin, a poser who spouts a story but has no concept of what it means. I wouldn't care except it gives a black eye to real skeptics.

 

[SSDD]

Why are you afraid to state, in your own words, what you believe?

I have Ian...over and over and you promptly interpret them to be something other than what I have said. I have said that personally, I don't think photons exist....I think EM energy travels in waves and that photons are an ad hoc construct that were necessary because we don't fully understand the characteristics of waves.

You seem to strongly believe in certain things to the exclusion of anything else.

And you don't?....geez Ian wake up and look around. You believe the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science only to a lesser degree....you believe it to the exclusion of actual observation which should tell you that the hypothesis is wrong. You believe your interpretation of QM being real and proven over every observation ever made regarding the movement of energy from warm to cool and the non movement of energy from cool to warm.

Me, I take the statements of the physical laws at face value till observation proves otherwise. I don't accept mathematical models over observation.

Eg. your 150 year old version of thermodynamic laws are fine for systems with many objects but are wrong for atomic events. QM was discovered to explain the inconsistencies.

My version of thermodynamic laws? I don't have a version. There is only one version and that version is still standing....they have not been changed, altered, or modified because they are still true. QM makes unmeasured, unobserved, untestable claims regarding them but people with any sense at all know that it is theory...not fact. The laws of thermodynamics still say what they have always said because nothing has come along to change them. Your belief certainly hasn't changed them.

And QM was invented, not discovered...and it was invented as an attempt to explain things we didn't, and still don't understand. Your belief that QM is somehow proven is just sad. If it were, the laws of thermodynamics would have been changed to reflect the claims of QM...they haven't.

Eg. mass and gravity are an excellent starting point to derive the basic range of surface temperatures but that does not exclude variations due to water or other GHGs.

There is no observational evidence whatsoever that so called GHG's have any effect whatsoever on temperature....none whatsoever. Your belief that they do is not rooted in observation, it is rooted in your mistaken belief that QM is the actual explanation for anything. QM is a series of ad hoc constructs that are little more than place holders till we can progress to the point where technology will allow us to actually get a real glimpse (as opposed to a mathematical glimpse) into what is happening. Again, your belief that QM is offering factual statements of what is happening at the subatomic level is truly sad.

The more you dodge discussing the ancillary details the more I think you are just a Cliff Clavin, a poser who spouts a story but has no concept of what it means. I wouldn't care except it gives a black eye to real skeptics.

And the more you talk about QM as if it is making factual statements, the more like a Cliff Clavin poser you seem to be. You seem quite incapable of even acknowledging that QM is theory.....unproven, unobserved, untested, contradiction riddled theory that offers up ever changing explanations for things that science still does not understand. You talk about QM as if it were physical law which it isn't and will never be in its present form and you believe it to the point that you are willing to disregard actual physical laws in favor of it. And you claim that I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer?

 

[IanC]

Hahahahaha

No photons and no QM, because everyone knows there hasn't been ANY experiments done!

Hahahahaha


Is there some way of explaining an MRI machine without QM and photons?

 

[SSDD]

Hahahahaha

No photons and no QM, because everyone knows there hasn't been ANY experiments done!

So show me the proof that photons exist Ian.....actual science, unlike you knows that photons are theoretical particles...you, on the other hand talk about them as if you knew for a fact that they are real, proven entities and that you know just what they are doing at all times.

Tell me Ian, what's your solution to Maxwell's Demon?

 

[mamooth]

Those who don't believe in magic simply point out that Maxwell's Demon invokes magic.

For a true believer in hands-waving magic like SSDD, it presents a problem. If molecules intelligently emit photons only when you want them to, then molecules that self-segregate by temperature only when you want them to are also a possibility. That is, the SSDD theory of physics-as-magic allows both for intelligent photons and Maxwell's Demon.

Oh, the field of Quantum Optics is concerned entirely with light at the photon level. There a gobs of single-photon experiments out there. Good to see SSDD declaring that yet another field of physics is completely fraudulent. One only wonders why SSDD hasn't written up his new master theory of physics and collected his Nobel prize.

 

[SSDD]

Those who don't believe in magic simply point out that Maxwell's Demon invokes magic.

Maxwell knew that if you want energy to move from cool to warm, you must employ magic. Geez hairball, go learn something.

For a true believer in hands-waving magic like SSDD, it presents a problem. If molecules intelligently emit photons only when you want them to, then molecules that self-segregate by temperature only when you want them to are also a possibility. That is, the SSDD theory of physics-as-magic allows both for intelligent photons and Maxwell's Demon.

Sorry for you hairball. Clearly you don't get it. First, lets see the proof that photons have been elevated from theoretical particles to actual, proven entities. Good luck with that. Second, again, Maxwell's demon thought experiment is saying that if you want energy to move from cold to warm, as you and yours believe, you will need to employ magic to make it happen.

Oh, the field of Quantum Optics is concerned entirely with light at the photon level. There a gobs of single-photon experiments out there. Good to see SSDD declaring that yet another field of physics is completely fraudulent. One only wonders why SSDD hasn't written up his new master theory of physics and collected his Nobel prize.

And not one of them proves the existence of photons....photons are simply an ad hoc explanation for something that is as yet, not completely understood. Anyone who believes unconditionally that photons exist is a believer, not a knower. Let me know when photons have been actually proven to exist rather than mathematically theorized.

 

[mdk]

I bet the OP is a Muggle. lol

 

[IanC]

Thermodynamics states that net energy always flows from warm to cold. It does not constrain individual events. Everything radiates according to its temperature. Energy out minus energy in equals net transfer. A cup of coffee cools faster outside at 0 C than inside at 20 C (convection and conduction effects aside).

 

[IanC]

Maxwell's Daemon applies to your odd interpretation of thermodynamics, not mine. Have you ever actually taken a physics course? You seem to be ignorant of some of the basics and all of the rest. Has there been anything studied as deeply as light and photons? Newton's Laws were found to be wrong and were supplanted by Einstein's Relativity. Relativity and QM may be supplanted in the future but, like Newton's Laws, they will still be applicable in most scenarios.

 

[IanC]

Hahahahaha

No photons and no QM, because everyone knows there hasn't been ANY experiments done!

So show me the proof that photons exist Ian.....actual science, unlike you knows that photons are theoretical particles...you, on the other hand talk about them as if you knew for a fact that they are real, proven entities and that you know just what they are doing at all times.

Tell me Ian, what's your solution to Maxwell's Demon?

aaaaahhhh, I see where you got the Maxwell's Daemon thing from. THE HOCKEY SCHTICK Maxwell s Demon proves why cold gases cannot make hot bodies hotter

you do realize that example is dealing with molecules rather than radiation, right? matter and light have different properties, did you know that? of course not, otherwise you wouldnt always be comparing photons to rocks or water hoses or air in tires.

the reason I have brought up Maxwell's Daemon in our discussions is because you seem to think some entity decides whether a molecule can emit a photon in a certain direction or not. preordained knowledge of the whole universe and the 'intellect' to make every decision.

the rest of us just think that every object emits random radiation according to its temperature.

 

[SSDD]

Thermodynamics states that net energy always flows from warm to cold. It does not constrain individual events.

You keep saying that but there never has been an observation or a measurement of it happening. Believe anything other than energy moving only from warm to cool and that is all you have....belief.

 

[SSDD]

Maxwell's Daemon applies to your odd interpretation of thermodynamics, not mine. Have you ever actually taken a physics course? You seem to be ignorant of some of the basics and all of the rest. Has there been anything studied as deeply as light and photons? Newton's Laws were found to be wrong and were supplanted by Einstein's Relativity. Relativity and QM may be supplanted in the future but, like Newton's Laws, they will still be applicable in most scenarios.

And even though nothing has been studied as deep;y as light and photons....photons remain theoretical particles. Their existence remains a construct...a place holder to explain a thing that couldn't be explained otherwise.

 

[SSDD]

you do realize that example is dealing with molecules rather than radiation, right? matter and light have different properties, did you know that? of course not, otherwise you wouldnt always be comparing photons to rocks or water hoses or air in tires.

I don't compare photons to anything since photons are theoretical particles that are not known to exist at this time. I compare the movement of energy to rocks and tires because those things also show energy moving downhill...as every possible observation shows. Only in unmeasurable, untestable, unobservable mathematical models does energy move uphill to a state of less entropy.

 

[IanC]

you do realize that example is dealing with molecules rather than radiation, right? matter and light have different properties, did you know that? of course not, otherwise you wouldnt always be comparing photons to rocks or water hoses or air in tires.

I don't compare photons to anything since photons are theoretical particles that are not known to exist at this time. I compare the movement of energy to rocks and tires because those things also show energy moving downhill...as every possible observation shows. Only in unmeasurable, untestable, unobservable mathematical models does energy move uphill to a state of less entropy.

you dont seem to be concerned with the loss of entropy that accompanies all the lost radiation that you say doesnt happen from cooler objects or between objects of the same temperature.

 

[IanC]

what do CCDs detect, or photographic plates detect? if not photons, what?

 

[IanC]

what do LEDs emit, if not photons? care to explain LEDs without QM? transistors? any sophisticated electronic devices?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

you do realize that example is dealing with molecules rather than radiation, right? matter and light have different properties, did you know that? of course not, otherwise you wouldnt always be comparing photons to rocks or water hoses or air in tires.

I don't compare photons to anything since photons are theoretical particles that are not known to exist at this time. I compare the movement of energy to rocks and tires because those things also show energy moving downhill...as every possible observation shows. Only in unmeasurable, untestable, unobservable mathematical models does energy move uphill to a state of less entropy.

You never explained what back conduction was and why you felt it was important to the discussion.