"Settled Science"??

[palerider]

Climate Activists Uncaged

Finally, someone has come up with a way to settle the debate over climate change: Put the people on the wrong side of the argument in cages.

A writer for the website Gawker recently penned a self-described “rant” on the pressing need to arrest, charge, and imprison people who “deny” global warming.

This is a great column by Jonah Goldberg that really puts into perspective the communist anti-American wackos behind the Global Warming Hoax!

And a hoax it is. It is all smoke and mirrors and a bald faced power grab with nothing whatsoever to do with science.

 

[dogtowner]

And a hoax it is. It is all smoke and mirrors and a bald faced power grab with nothing whatsoever to do with science.

kind of a giveaway to its being a scam when the only solution offered is taxes.

 

[Lagboltz]

Howdy Pale,
I see you have increased your personal insult count – around 5 or 6.

wiki is not a useful reference. Perhaps you remain unaware of the amount of fraud, lies, and gatekeeping happening at wiki.

You will find wiki closely follows physics text books on thermodynamics theory.

The SB equation, written as it was by SB means something....it describes a particular physical process...altering the equation alters the physical process it describes and even though the answer is the same, the process has been changed from what is real, to a fantasy process...and why?....to support a half assed, piss poor hypothesis that CO2 is the control knob of the climate.

Nobody altered the SB equations in wiki. The equations have been around years before atmospheric CO2 became the big topic it is now. You seem to believe that Stefan had climate science in mind when he formulated his equation 150 years ago.

...how about you expound on the definition of the application of an algebraic quality to an already elegant equation...which by the way describes a particular process.

Nobody altered the SB equation. Tell me exactly how you think the equation was altered.

....some idiotic bullshit regarding two way energy flow which has never once in the history of the universe been observed????...an idiots dream that happens only within the realm of bastardized mathematics?

So you are calling Albert Einstein radiation's exchange theory idiotic bullshit. Well, that sure is consistent with your anti-science stance, and your belief that modern physics is fantasy.

And I gave you the second law which says that energy doesn't move from a cooler object to a warmer object. And then asked you to construct a method, procedure, formula, or diagram to describe why a dropped rock doesn't fall up. You said gravity, but that is all that you can say because we don't really have a handle on gravity. We know it works because of observation, but we don't understand beyond hypothesis why.

Your question is easy to answer. The downward force, F, on a dropped rock is
F = ( G x Me x Mo ) / d^2
G = gravitational constant, Me is the mass of the earth, Mo is the mass of the object, and d the distance.

In short it is the inverse square law. We covered this all before. Why don't you remember it?

With that type of explanation in mind, what force, theory, hypothesis, or method in physics would inhibit black body radiation from transmitting in all directions allowed by the black body radiation experiments to anything else in the universe.

You are promoting faith...not observation...not experience....not anything but hypothesis.....hypothesis based upon an alteration (without definition) of an elegant physical equation.

Oh yes, I certainly have faith that the current theory of quantum mechanics will not be soon violated by any earthly experiment or observation. Many top scientists think QM is incomplete, but they also say that the theory is mathematically accurate to one part per trillion. Any new theory would have to be consistent with experiment to at least that accuracy, so it's quite safe to use it the way it is.

You seem to think faith is a bad word in science. When a theory like QM is so powerfully in agreement with quantifiable repeatable experiments, scientists will certainly gain faith that the equations will work. The word "faith" is often used in religion where there is absolutely no quantifiable repeatable evidence to support it.

You have to clearly explain how that "elegant physical equation" was altered.

Again, your phrase, "simply doesn't attempt" is a phrase that has no scientific basis for denying the quantum theory of radiation. Try to be more robust in your explanation.

 

[palerider]

Howdy Pale,
I see you have increased your personal insult count – around 5 or 6.

The irony literally drips. You are perhaps one of the most insulting posters on this board and yet, you carefully keep track of how many times you are insulted....typical liberal.

will find wiki closely follows physics text books on thermodynamics theory.

What I, and others have found is that wiki is unreliable due to a blatant bias among its keepers. Literally thousands of articles (including pure science and mathematics) have been altered or deleted when they called the AGW hypothesis into question. It simply is not reliable and those who think it is are quite stupid.

Nobody altered the SB equations in wiki. The equations have been around years before atmospheric CO2 became the big topic it is now. You seem to believe that Stefan had climate science in mind when he formulated his equation 150 years ago.

Of course they did. There is the equation that SB penned which shows a one way gross flow of energy from the radiator to the background assuming that

.

and then there is the bastardized version which describes radiative transfer as a two way net flow of energy from

(from the radiator to the background) and

(the background to the radiator)

While both of these equations will give the same answer, they describe two different things. The actual SB equation above describes a one way gross flow of energy from the radiator to the background...the altered version which SB did not write, describes a two way net flow with the radiator radiating to the background and then the background becoming the radiator and the radiator becoming the background for the purpose of energy flow in the other direction. The altered SB equation is not found in classical physics texts...it may only be found in texts promoting the AGW hypothesis...such as the soft science physics that is required by climate science majors.

altered the SB equation. Tell me exactly how you think the equation was altered.

Of course they did...as I have shown above although I doubt very seriously that you will be able to tell the difference as you have no grasp of physics. You don't understand the subject and can't see past the algebra to the physical process being described by the original SB equation and the fantasy process being described via the application of an undefined algebraic property. That's the difference between you and me lagboltz...I actually understand the topic and you are a poser.

you are calling Albert Einstein radiation's exchange theory idiotic bullshit. Well, that sure is consistent with your anti-science stance, and your belief that modern physics is fantasy.

Einstein wasn't to happy with it either, which you would know if you were familiar with the topic. He didn't believe that two way net flow was the answer....and it still hasn't been observed.

The question is easy to answer. The downward force, F, on a dropped rock is
F = ( G x Me x Mo ) / d^2
G = gravitational constant, Me is the mass of the earth, Mo is the mass of the object, and d the distance.

In short it is the inverse square law. We covered this all before. Why don't you remember it?

I remember it fine but it still doesn't explain how it happens. The answer to your question is

. Like your answer, it describes what happens (in this case SB's description of what happens) but in no way describes what causes it to happen.

that type of explanation in mind, what force, theory, hypothesis, or method in physics would inhibit black body radiation from transmitting in all directions allowed by the black body radiation experiments to anything else in the universe.

There is no crayon function on this board so that I can make it simpler for you. I have outlined the physical process that the ACTUAL SB equation describes, ie gross one way energy flow from a radiator to a cooler background...and have told you why the altered version describing two way net flow between radiator and background and background and radiator is wrong....and have pointed out that the application of the distributive property to the SB equation has never been defined, nor is it to be found in hard physics texts. Beyond that, actual understanding and comprehension is up to you.

yes, I certainly have faith that the current theory of quantum mechanics will not be soon violated by any earthly experiment or observation. Many top scientists think QM is incomplete, but they also say that the theory is mathematically accurate to one part per trillion.

As I have shown above, mathematics alone are not enough. Mathematics, as I have shown above can be made to lie. While the actual SB equation and the altered SB equation will give the same answer, one describes a non physical process that violates the second law. That is post modern science in a nutshell and why, in the end, it will fail.

 

[palerider]

kind of a giveaway to its being a scam when the only solution offered is taxes.

You have that right. The degree to which alarmists will prostitute their intellect to defend such an obvious hoax is genuinely startling....or the profound stupidity which allows them to believe...take your pick. There are some who are obviously bright enough to know better and support the scam due to an "ends justify the means" mindset and then there are the useful idiots who parrot whatever misinformation of the day that climate science puts out with wholehearted, stary eyed faith.

 

[Lagboltz]

Howdy Pale,

What I, and others have found is that wiki is unreliable due to a blatant bias among its keepers. Literally thousands of articles (including pure science and mathematics) have been altered or deleted when they called the AGW hypothesis into question. It simply is not reliable and those who think it is are quite stupid.

What I posted is universally accepted by physicists much before AGW was a question. Whether you like it or not wiki is correct in their explanation of exchange radiation, and that's a fact. Here is the same concept published long before wiki or the internet, or AGW. This is what Max Planck said in 1914.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
Page 31: The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.

Page 2: For the sake of brevity [we] speak of the "color" of a heat ray in order to denote it's wavelength or period.
Pages 49-50: When any emitting and absorbing bodies are in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, the part of the energy of definite color emitted by a body A, which is absorbed by another body B, is equal to the part of the energy of the same color emitted by B which is absorbed by A.

Page 50: "...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other..."

Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

While both of these equations will give the same answer, they describe two different things.

Different things? Really Pale is that the best you can do? You are wrong wrong wrong. Pauli, Einstein and every physicist after them will disagree with you.

You don't understand the subject and can't see past the algebra to the physical process being described by the original SB equation and the fantasy process being described via the application of an undefined algebraic property. That's the difference between you and me lagboltz...I actually understand the topic and you are a poser.

Pale, Pale, you are making up your own version of accepted science. Your problem is that you can't see past the science and think the very very simple algebra has a different meaning.

Einstein wasn't to happy with it either, which you would know if you were familiar with the topic. He didn't believe that two way net flow was the answer....and it still hasn't been observed.

Really? Seriously? See the quote from Albert above. He was quite happy with his explanation of thermal equilibrium. Your problem is that his view doesn't match the the fantasy you are making up.

There is no crayon function on this board so that I can make it simpler for you. I have outlined the physical process that the ACTUAL SB equation describes, ie gross one way energy flow from a radiator to a cooler background...and have told you why the altered version describing two way net flow between radiator and background and background and radiator is wrong....and have pointed out that the application of the distributive property to the SB equation has never been defined, nor is it to be found in hard physics texts. Beyond that, actual understanding and comprehension is up to you.

You don't need crayons. My altered version? Your version is altered from Pauli and Einstein. I'm only posting what they said, which is accepted science. It’s too bad they are not alive so you could send a crayon drawing to them to set them straight. Here is a better suggestion: use a red crayon with squiggly lines to show radiation from the hotter body to the colder body and use a blue crayon to show the EXCHANGE RADIATION from the colder to the hotter. Be sure to have more red lines because that will show that the total flow of energy (the algebraic difference) is transferred from the hotter to the colder. With a big black crayon be sure to say that your picture shows that the second law of thermodynamics is intact. That will show what is meant by the subtraction in the SB algebraically derived equation.

As I have shown above, mathematics alone are not enough. Mathematics, as I have shown above can be made to lie. While the actual SB equation and the altered SB equation will give the same answer, one describes a non physical process that violates the second law. That is post modern science in a nutshell and why, in the end, it will fail.

You have shown nothing, except that you don't understand the physics of radiation exchange. Your problem is that you are calling modern science fantasy when actually you are the one making everything up in a flurry of fantasy. C'mon Pale, get out of the dark ages of fantasy, and join the modern world of physics as understood by the real physicists. It should be fun.

 

[palerider]

What I posted is universally accepted by physicists much before AGW was a question.

I said that wiki is an unreliable source. The fact that you use it speaks volumes whether the particular information you bring from it is factual or not.

Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

OK...show me an actual measured observation rather than a mathematical model.

things? Really Pale is that the best you can do? You are wrong wrong wrong. Pauli, Einstein and every physicist after them will disagree with you.

Actually, I am not but you have proven that you don't understand physics at all. Do you really think that because two equations result in the same answer that they describe the same process?

, Pale, you are making up your own version of accepted science. Your problem is that you can't see past the science and think the very very simple algebra has a different meaning.

Sorry again, but the equation I posted is what is found in hard physics texts...the equation you posted, with the application of the distributive property is not. One is the actual SB equation...the other is not...one describes actual physical reality...one does not as evidenced by the fact that you can provide no measured observation of the physical process your version describes.

don't need crayons. My altered version?

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that you altered the SB equation to show two way energy flow...I don't give you nearly enough credit to be smart enough to do that. You grabbed what some alarmist blog said proved your point and used it without the slightest idea of what it actually meant.

Your version is altered from Pauli and Einstein.

I don't have a version. The equation I posted is a derivative of the actual SB law....yours is not. The version I posted is observed, measured physical law. Yours is not.

have shown nothing, except that you don't understand the physics of radiation exchange. Your problem is that you are calling modern science fantasy when actually you are the one making everything up in a flurry of fantasy. C'mon Pale, get out of the dark ages of fantasy, and join the modern world of physics as understood by the real physicists. It should be fun.

So far I have shown that you are operating from a position of faith rather than actual science....I have shown that you remain blissfully unaware that science doesn't know half of what you think it does....I have shown that you are unable to see, even when shown concrete, undeniable evidence, that science doesn't know what you think it knows....and I have shown that you don't have any real grasp of physics at all but are just a clever poser who doesn't know that the mathematical language of an equation describes a real physical process and if you alter the equation, you describe a different process. I have shown that you think that two equations which yield the same answer describe the same process. Thus far, I have shown all that I intended to show and most importantly, I have shown that you avoid talking about the actual science behind the AGW hoax because you will be shown, yet again, to be a poser. You play this game rather than engage on the actual topic of the thread.
Less chance that people will recognize you as a mathematical fraud than as a fraud when the topic is the more understood and observable predictions made by the AGW hypothesis.

Let me know when you are ready to discuss the actual topic as opposed to the fantasy of two way net energy exchange. You were given ample opportunity to show an observed measured example...as predicted, you failed because there is no measured observed example. You failed and I succeeded on that point as well. You have a mathematical equation which is an altered version of one derived from the physical law, and no actual observation and I have observation and measurement and the second law of thermodynamics and the SB law in support of my position. When asked for an observed, measured example to prove me wrong...you can't produce.

 

[Lagboltz]

I said that wiki is an unreliable source. The fact that you use it speaks volumes whether the particular information you bring from it is factual or not.

You seem to be concluding that any science article in wiki is unreliable. Well that certainly fits with your anti-science view.

OK...show me an actual measured observation rather than a mathematical model.

Electrons, photons and neutrons, etc were never observed directly. They are inferred through mathematical models and theory. So I take it you don't believe they exist either. Blips from detectors, are never particles, they are just voltage blips. The QM wave function was never detected either, so I take it you also think it is a nonexistent fantasy. My gosh how did scientists invent nuclear reactors if the particles were never actual measured observation. It must be magic to you.

Actually, I am not but you have proven that you don't understand physics at all. Do you really think that because two equations result in the same answer that they describe the same process?

The Stefan law P= sigma T*^4 is the fundamental equation, it is used to derive the other. It's simple algebra. So find a source that supports your fantasy theory mathematically. You have proven that you don't understand that equation at all.

Sorry again, but the equation I posted is what is found in hard physics texts...the equation you posted, with the application of the distributive property is not. One is the actual SB equation...the other is not...one describes actual physical reality...one does not as evidenced by the fact that you can provide no measured observation of the physical process your version describes.

Pale, Pail Pale you are saying that according to your misinterpretation, radiation between two objects at the same temperature cancels out so that there is no radiation between the two objects. That means you are going back to your conclusion that the light between two light bulbs cancels out to zero. Shame on you for such an unobservable unrepeatable fantasy.

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that you altered the SB equation to show two way energy flow...I don't give you nearly enough credit to be smart enough to do that. You grabbed what some alarmist blog said proved your point and used it without the slightest idea of what it actually meant.

I don't have a version. The equation I posted is a derivative of the actual SB law....yours is not. The version I posted is observed, measured physical law. Yours is not.

I suggest you take your two light bulbs to the next school science fair and show your version of the "observed physical" effect that there is a black streak between the two filaments. Be prepared for kids laughing and throwing spit balls at you.

So far I have shown that you are operating from a position of faith rather than actual science.

Sure I do have faith in modern physics theory explaining anything to do with thermodynamics. Why don't you drop your fantasy and join the physics community.

I have shown that you remain blissfully unaware that science doesn't know half of what you think it does.

No you haven't. I have shown that you remain unaware of the power of modern science.

I have shown that you are unable to see, even when shown concrete, undeniable evidence, that science doesn't know what you think it knows.

No you haven't. I have shown that you are unable to see, even when shown concrete, undeniable evidence, that you think the pioneers of thermodynamics are frauds and idiots. (Your words not mine.)

I have shown that you don't have any real grasp of physics at all but are just a clever poser who doesn't know that the mathematical language of an equation describes a real physical process and if you alter the equation, you describe a different process.

No you haven't. I have shown that you don't have any real grasp of physics at all but are just a naive poser who doesn't know that the mathematical language of an equation describes what every physicist knows, but what you think is fantasy.

I have shown that you think that two equations which yield the same answer describe the same process.

No you haven't. I have shown that what you think are two equations are one and the same and agree with modern theory (or what you consider fantasy.)

I have shown that you avoid talking about the actual science behind the AGW hoax because you will be shown, yet again, to be a poser. You play this game rather than engage on the actual topic of the thread.

No you haven't. How can you even begin to think about AGW when you are not able to understand very basic thermodynamics, and call the well established theory Einstein and Pauli promoted "idiotic bullshit".

You play this game rather than engage on the actual topic of the thread.

Aha! You have just discovered that this is actually a game that you started.

Palerider, the anti-science guy who thinks all modern science is fantasy and whose mind is clouded by intense bitterness about AGW. The guy who will go to any length to make up "theories" about canceling radiation.

Versus

Lagboltz, the guy who has faith that the QM models of modern physics have been found to work under any circumstance for which they were tested.

Yes, you are playing a game and I am having fun with it yanking you around from one idiotic misunderstanding of physics to another. GBfan got it right many posts ago when he referred to the game and said "Mine is bigger than yours."

Let me know when you are ready to discuss the actual topic as opposed to the fantasy of two way net energy exchange. You were given ample opportunity to show an observed measured example...as predicted, you failed because there is no measured observed example. You failed and I succeeded on that point as well. You have a mathematical equation which is an altered version of one derived from the physical law, and no actual observation and I have observation and measurement and the second law of thermodynamics and the SB law in support of my position. When asked for an observed, measured example to prove me wrong...you can't produce.

Let me know when you are ready to present a mathematical theory or model that shows why the theory of thermodynamic equilibrium fails. You have been avoiding that. Tell me exactly what you actually think your interpretation of the SB equation stands for. From what I understand you are saying, two bodies at the same temperature results in P=0 which means there is zero radiation between the bodies. If that is not what you think P stands for, then say it explicitly. For many posts the topic has been exchange radiation between two objects. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand anything about radiation physics.

C'mon Pale. Have faith in modern physics theory, it will help you think better. Then we can get away from this game and go on to the more fun topic of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[palerider]

Electrons, photons and neutrons, etc were never observed directly. They are inferred through mathematical models and theory.

Precisely as I said....not real...not proven...theorized based on mathematical models...which I also showed can be misleading.

Really not much point in going on, you are just retreating to battle grounds you have already lost....I have not only proven my points, but accurately predicted your reaction. You have been pwned and anyone who bothers to take the time to follow our conversation knows it...How does it feel?

When you get ready to talk about the reality of climate science and its colossal failure, let me know.

By the way. The second law says one way energy flow...not two way net flow. When it is proven to be otherwise...and the second law is changed to reflect that, post a thread with a link to the observed, measured evidence.

How about one more prediction.....You will continue to attempt to do battle on ground which you already lost.

 

[Lagboltz]

Precisely as I said....not real...not proven...theorized based on mathematical models...which I also showed can be misleading.

So you believe that mathematical models are misleading. You say electrons, photons and neutrons etc are "not real" because they are based on modern mathematical models that are misleading, and fantasy.

Let's tally that up: Physics abounds with other mathematical models. So you are suspicious of the existence of electrons, photons, neutrons, protons, helium, hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, and carbon dioxide. None of those have been observed at the molecular level. The structure of CO2 and most other substances comes from models inferred from global experimental properties, such as x-ray diffraction, spectroscopy, etc. It is strange that you want to talk about climate science which involves concepts and substances that you think are fantasy and unreal. Your inconsistency in reasoning is so juvenile and obvious to anyone but you.

Really not much point in going on, you are just retreating to battle grounds you have already lost....I have not only proven my points, but accurately predicted your reaction.

You are not going on? Oh please come back. We are having such great conversation!

Who me retreating? It sounds like you are retreating. I stayed consistently on the knowledge of modern science, quantum mechanics, thermodynamic equilibrium, radiation physics, etc and I never retreated from that.

The points you have proven are that you idolize the second law of thermodynamics of refrigerators, scorn radiation thermodynamics, and all the rest of modern science. You ironically idolize Stefan's law, but dislike the conclusions of it.

You have been pwned and anyone who bothers to take the time to follow our conversation knows it...How does it feel?

How does it feel? I feel great. How about you. You are always so bitter and angry. Try a hot bath and a shot of bourbon.

When you get ready to talk about the reality of climate science and its colossal failure, let me know.

Pale, Pale, why on earth do you want to talk about that. It involves mathematical models in modern science, which you said "left the realm of reality and entered into a fantasy land." You have a very strange view of reality.

By the way. The second law says one way energy flow...not two way net flow. When it is proven to be otherwise...and the second law is changed to reflect that, post a thread with a link to the observed, measured evidence.

Sorry Pale, your mantra on the second law is futile. Your version of the second law has never ever been proven for thermal radiation. If you try to prove it you need to use modern radiation physics models which you abhor.

How about one more prediction.....You will continue to attempt to do battle on ground which you already lost.

Right! I'm still doing battle! I always will do battle with anyone who has such a profane idea of science as you. But wrong; you have lost. You have an above average knowledge of science, but you are way below average on understanding what to do with it analytically. You search the web, and copy and paste phrases into a colloquial English that makes no analytic sense in science. You wallow in your dark cave of self-imposed ignorance while explaining physical forces by using an incantation that an object "doesn't even try"to move against a law of gravity, electric field, or quantum radiation. Even a child would ask for a better explanation than that.

See ya soon.

 

[palerider]

Predicted...

When you are ready to discuss the colossal failure of climate science, let me know. Till then rant on till your heart's content. I no longer feel like rattling your cage. I have proven my points and you have fulfilled my predictions. What more could I want?

 

[Lagboltz]

When you are ready to discuss the colossal failure of climate science, let me know. Till then rant on till your heart's content. I no longer feel like rattling your cage. I have proven my points and you have fulfilled my predictions. What more could I want?

Yes you have proven that you think modern science is bullshit. Oh, I am ready to discuss climate science, but how could you possibly discuss climate science if you think the science is fraudulent bullshit?

You had a long essay on the smell of poop, where you said:

... Personally I like the smell of aged manure in a barn....horse or cow...
I think that you could conclude that poop does indeed smell good.

When it comes to your view of modern science, it is interesting that you think science "bullshit" smells, but you actually like the smell of real bullshit. Go figure.

 

[Cruella]

Deepening divide over climate change sparks fierce debate

"The dirty little secret is , we are now at 17 years and 8 months of no global warming," says Roger Pilon, Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Cato Institute. "Their models have failed year in and year out, " he says of the scientists who comprise the 97 percent consensus the administration frequently cites.

 

[palerider]

Yes you have proven that you think modern science is bullshit. Oh, I am ready to discuss climate science, but how could you possibly discuss climate science if you think the science is fraudulent bullshit?

You had a long essay on the smell of poop, where you said:

When it comes to your view of modern science, it is interesting that you think science "bullshit" smells, but you actually like the smell of real bullshit. Go figure.

Keep tilting those windmills......poser. When you get ready to discuss the epic failure of climate science...speak up.

 

[Lagboltz]

Keep tilting those windmills......poser. When you get ready to discuss the epic failure of climate science...speak up.

I already said I would, but you didn't answer my question which is how could you possibly discuss climate science if you think the science is fraudulent bullshit? It's a legitimate and fair question. If you are going to maintain the attitude that the QM is bullshit, it will simply turn into another game.