Another Epic Fail for Climate Science

[Toddsterpatriot]

We're talking because you made another idiotic claim. This one was that the atmosphere itself generates heat.
Are you so bad at math you can't show me? Try again.

Who would have thought that the T in PV=nRT was superfluous? Here I was believing that if you know what P,V,n, & R were, you could calculate T (average). Maybe you should call science and tell them that the T is an error and P,V,n & R are all that is necessary in the ideal gas law...T is not truly part of the equation.

Previous times through it you claimed an object stops radiating when a warmer object is nearby, now you're trying to squirm out.

never said anything like that...you are repeating your interpretation of what I said...ie you are a liar who apparently can't read words, absorb them, and repeat them without making some sort of change to them.

Who would have thought that the T in PV=nRT was superfluous?

Only a moron would think that.

Maybe you should call science and tell them that the T is an error and P,V,n & R are all that is necessary in the ideal gas law...T is not truly part of the equation.

That would be a stupid thing to do.
In the mean time, I'm waiting for you to show how "the atmosphere itself generates heat"
You have the ideal gas law, so prove your claim.

Start here, you have 2 liters of N2 at 12 atm, how much heat does it generate?
Show all your work.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Algebraically, how are these formulas different?

Algebraically, they are not different...we aren't discussing algebra though, we are discussing physics. Equations are the language of physics....equations describe physical processes... The first equation describes a one way energy flow with the magnitude of that flow being determined by the difference between T and Tc. The second equation describes a two way net flow with the magnitude of the net being determined by the difference between A(sigma T4)and A(sigma T4c)....the two equations describe different processes...in physics, if you are going to apply an algaebraic property to an equation describing a physical process, you must first justify the application of the property. Can you show in your textbook, or any of those I listed a justification for applying the distributive property to the SB equation....for that matter, if the equation didn't specifically describe a one way energy flow, why not just use the SB equation and claim that it describes a two way energy flow?

Thanks for the names of the the textbooks, what about a link to where they say one way flow?

You are under the impression that textbooks are published in their entirety on the internet? And again, if

did not describe a one way energy flow as I have been pointing out to you for all this time, why rewrite it this way

in the textbooks claiming two way energy flow? Why not simply write it as originally written and claim a two way flow as you do? Answer: because people who have some clue will point out that the actual equation describes a one way energy flow.

Can you show in your textbook, or any of those I listed a justification for applying the distributive property to the SB equation....

Absolutely. All matter above 0K radiates.
Still waiting for you to disprove this, it's the only thing that could help your claim.

You are under the impression that textbooks are published in their entirety on the internet?

I'm under the impression that if there was only a one way flow of energy, you'd be able to find at least 2 references for your claim. So far, you've shown none.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

so, are you saying that a warm object absorbs from a cooler one? Or, does the cooler object absorb from the warmer object? Or, are you saying they absorb equally?

What he is saying is that he believes in magic.

Yes. The magic that says when you place a 600K object next to a 400K object,
the 400K object "simply doesn't radiate in the direction" of the hotter object. Magic!

Oh, wait, that was your claim.

 

[jc456]

so, are you saying that a warm object absorbs from a cooler one? Or, does the cooler object absorb from the warmer object? Or, are you saying they absorb equally?

What he is saying is that he believes in magic.

Yes. The magic that says when you place a 600K object next to a 400K object,
the 400K object "simply doesn't radiate in the direction" of the hotter object. Magic!

Oh, wait, that was your claim.

So again, does the 600K object become warmer due to the radiated energy from the 400K object? Or is it the 400K object that becomes warmer?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

so, are you saying that a warm object absorbs from a cooler one? Or, does the cooler object absorb from the warmer object? Or, are you saying they absorb equally?

What he is saying is that he believes in magic.

Yes. The magic that says when you place a 600K object next to a 400K object,
the 400K object "simply doesn't radiate in the direction" of the hotter object. Magic!

Oh, wait, that was your claim.

So again, does the 600K object become warmer due to the radiated energy from the 400K object? Or is it the 400K object that becomes warmer?

Since the 600K object radiates more/faster toward the 400K object than the 400K object radiates toward the 600K object, the 600K object cools and the 400K object warms.
But, the 600K object will cool more slowly than if the 400K object were not nearby.

 

[SSDD]

In the mean time, I'm waiting for you to show how "the atmosphere itself generates heat"
You have the ideal gas law, so prove your claim.

You don't think pressure on a gas generates heat? Like I said, you should call science and tell them the T is not necessary.

Start here, you have 2 liters of N2 at 12 atm, how much heat does it generate?
Show all your work.

Tell you what....you show how the greenhouse effect produces 33degrees of heat and show all your work....Be sure to include all the feedbacks, both negative and positive....and show precisely how energy moves through the system...

 

[SSDD]

Absolutely. All matter above 0K radiates.

You don't think SB knew that all matter above 0K radiates?...and yet, the law is written as a one way energy movement.

I'm under the impression that if there was only a one way flow of energy, you'd be able to find at least 2 references for your claim. So far, you've shown none.

As if the second law of thermodynamics weren't enough....at this point toddster, I am only talking to you to see how much further out there you can get.

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In the mean time, I'm waiting for you to show how "the atmosphere itself generates heat"
You have the ideal gas law, so prove your claim.

You don't think pressure on a gas generates heat? Like I said, you should call science and tell them the T is not necessary.

Start here, you have 2 liters of N2 at 12 atm, how much heat does it generate?
Show all your work.

Tell you what....you show how the greenhouse effect produces 33degrees of heat and show all your work....Be sure to include all the feedbacks, both negative and positive....and show precisely how energy moves through the system...

You don't think pressure on a gas generates heat?

Why are you changing the subject?
Show how "the atmosphere itself generates heat"
Use the Ideal Gas Law if you think it helps your claim.
Start here, you have 2 liters of N2 at 12 atm, how much heat does it generate?

Or admit your idiotic claim is wrong.

 

[SSDD]

so, are you saying that a warm object absorbs from a cooler one? Or, does the cooler object absorb from the warmer object? Or, are you saying they absorb equally?

What he is saying is that he believes in magic.

Yes. The magic that says when you place a 600K object next to a 400K object,
the 400K object "simply doesn't radiate in the direction" of the hotter object. Magic!

Oh, wait, that was your claim.

So again, does the 600K object become warmer due to the radiated energy from the 400K object? Or is it the 400K object that becomes warmer?

Well now, that's where the magic comes in. The second law says that neither heat nor energy can move from cool to warm without doing some work to make it happen...see above...but Toddster et al seem to believe that the second law doesn't actually mean what it says...

 

[SSDD]

Why are you changing the subject?
Show how "the atmosphere itself generates heat"

Sorry, it is you who is changing the subject...you don't think the weight of the atmosphere creates pressure? Strange....I always thought that it did. Maybe you should call science and tell them that it doesn't...tell them that according to your magic, the weight of the atmosphere itself doesn't result in atmospheric pressure.

You are obviously grabbing at straws now Toddster...you are looking pathetic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Absolutely. All matter above 0K radiates.

You don't think SB knew that all matter above 0K radiates?...and yet, the law is written as a one way energy movement.

I'm under the impression that if there was only a one way flow of energy, you'd be able to find at least 2 references for your claim. So far, you've shown none.

As if the second law of thermodynamics weren't enough....at this point toddster, I am only talking to you to see how much further out there you can get.

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

You don't think SB knew that all matter above 0K radiates?...

I think they did. And that you are wrong when you claim an object simply stops radiating toward a warmer object.

and yet, the law is written as a one way energy movement.

And yet, it isn't.

As if the second law of thermodynamics weren't enough....

You'll have to show where the 2nd Law says energy only flows one way.

at this point toddster, I am only talking to you to see how much further out there you can get.

I'm only talking to you to point out your many errors.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why are you changing the subject?
Show how "the atmosphere itself generates heat"

Sorry, it is you who is changing the subject...you don't think the weight of the atmosphere creates pressure? Strange....I always thought that it did. Maybe you should call science and tell them that it doesn't...tell them that according to your magic, the weight of the atmosphere itself doesn't result in atmospheric pressure.

You are obviously grabbing at straws now Toddster...you are looking pathetic.

and then there is the heat generated by the mass of the atmosphere itself.

Still funny.
How much heat is generated by 10kg of atmosphere?
Is twice as much generated by 20kg?

Why does a 400K object cease radiating toward a 600K object?
Why have I never seen such a claim, except from you?
Why would both objects cease radiating, when they reach equilibrium?
Why have I never seen such a claim, except from you?

 

[SSDD]

And yet, it isn't.

Sorry, but the equation does describe a one way energy flow....if you can't even catch up to that point,even when you have been shown what an equation describing two way flow looks like, we really don't have anything else to talk about.

You'll have to show where the 2nd Law says energy only flows one way.

Can't read?
not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow.

Pretty straight forward statement describing heat flow in one direction.

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Again, pretty straight forward statement describing energy flow in one direction....if you have a problem with the statement take it up with the physics department at the Georgia State University.

I'm only talking to you to point out your many errors

And yet it seems that it is you who has failed at every turn to prove your point while the statements of the physical laws support me 100%....hell you don't seem to be able to get past a direct statement that neither heat nor energy move from cold to warm...if you can't get past that, you can't even really get in the conversation.

 

[SSDD]

Why are you changing the subject?
Show how "the atmosphere itself generates heat"

Sorry, it is you who is changing the subject...you don't think the weight of the atmosphere creates pressure? Strange....I always thought that it did. Maybe you should call science and tell them that it doesn't...tell them that according to your magic, the weight of the atmosphere itself doesn't result in atmospheric pressure.

You are obviously grabbing at straws now Toddster...you are looking pathetic.

and then there is the heat generated by the mass of the atmosphere itself.

How much heat is generated by 10kg of atmosphere?

How much pressure?

Is twice as much generated by 20kg?

Again, how much pressure. Are you really this stupid? Are you really so far behind the curve that you don't begin to grasp the ideal gas laws? Do you really think that the weight of the atmosphere and gravity don't result in pressure which results in heat? Do you really think that radiative heat flow is the dominant force in the atmosphere?

Again, you can't argue my points so you make up some that you attribute to me in which to argue. If dishonesty is the best you can do, and the only way you can communicate, we really are done. One more lie, or mischaracterization of my position and you will be the first person I ever put on ignore. We can't talk because the whole discussion is little more than me trying to untwist what you claim I have said. If you are that big a liar I really am not interested in talking to you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And yet, it isn't.

Sorry, but the equation does describe a one way energy flow....if you can't even catch up to that point,even when you have been shown what an equation describing two way flow looks like, we really don't have anything else to talk about.

You'll have to show where the 2nd Law says energy only flows one way.

Can't read?
not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow.

Pretty straight forward statement describing heat flow in one direction.

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Again, pretty straight forward statement describing energy flow in one direction....if you have a problem with the statement take it up with the physics department at the Georgia State University.

I'm only talking to you to point out your many errors

And yet it seems that it is you who has failed at every turn to prove your point while the statements of the physical laws support me 100%....hell you don't seem to be able to get past a direct statement that neither heat nor energy move from cold to warm...if you can't get past that, you can't even really get in the conversation.

Sorry, but the equation does describe a one way energy flow....

The equation shows net flow.

not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body

You're still using heat instead of energy.

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

SB says that source is incorrect.

All objects above 0K spontaneously emit constantly, even if a warmer object is nearby.
Of course the low temperature object will receive more energy from the warmer object than it will emit toward the warmer object (net flow) .

Again, pretty straight forward statement describing energy flow in one direction....if you have a problem with the statement take it up with the physics department at the Georgia State University.

That's funny.

One approach to the definition of temperature is to consider three objects, say blocks of copper, iron and alumninum which are in contact such that they come to thermal equilibrium. By equilibrium we mean that they are no longer transferring any net energy to each other. We would then say that they are at the same temperature, and we would say that temperature is a property of these objects which implies that they will no longer transfer net energy to one another.

Hmmmm...Georgia State mentioning net flow.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why are you changing the subject?
Show how "the atmosphere itself generates heat"

Sorry, it is you who is changing the subject...you don't think the weight of the atmosphere creates pressure? Strange....I always thought that it did. Maybe you should call science and tell them that it doesn't...tell them that according to your magic, the weight of the atmosphere itself doesn't result in atmospheric pressure.

You are obviously grabbing at straws now Toddster...you are looking pathetic.

and then there is the heat generated by the mass of the atmosphere itself.

How much heat is generated by 10kg of atmosphere?

How much pressure?

Is twice as much generated by 20kg?

Again, how much pressure. Are you really this stupid? Are you really so far behind the curve that you don't begin to grasp the ideal gas laws? Do you really think that the weight of the atmosphere and gravity don't result in pressure which results in heat? Do you really think that radiative heat flow is the dominant force in the atmosphere?

Again, you can't argue my points so you make up some that you attribute to me in which to argue. If dishonesty is the best you can do, and the only way you can communicate, we really are done. One more lie, or mischaracterization of my position and you will be the first person I ever put on ignore. We can't talk because the whole discussion is little more than me trying to untwist what you claim I have said. If you are that big a liar I really am not interested in talking to you.

Again, how much pressure.

Changing your claim from mass to pressure?

 

[Saigon]

.if you have a problem with the statement take it up with the physics department at the Georgia State University.

It's good to know they are reliable.

ATLANTA — Georgia State University will use a recently awarded $499,950 grant from NASA to help improve learning about global climate change for high schoolers, undergraduates and teachers in training, in addition to purchasing a unique urban carbon dioxide monitor to further research and teaching in the field.

“Education about global climate change is essential for everyone in today’s world, and doing it in the compelling context of NASA research motivates learning in science, math and reading,” said Cherilynn Morrow, professor of physics and astronomy and leader of the Georgia State initiative.

Georgia State University News Events

 

[jc456]

.if you have a problem with the statement take it up with the physics department at the Georgia State University.

It's good to know they are reliable.

ATLANTA — Georgia State University will use a recently awarded $499,950 grant from NASA to help improve learning about global climate change for high schoolers, undergraduates and teachers in training, in addition to purchasing a unique urban carbon dioxide monitor to further research and teaching in the field.

“Education about global climate change is essential for everyone in today’s world, and doing it in the compelling context of NASA research motivates learning in science, math and reading,” said Cherilynn Morrow, professor of physics and astronomy and leader of the Georgia State initiative.

Georgia State University News Events

Well here's hoping they do the experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 does to temperatures. I think they could do it with those funds.

 

[SSDD]

Changing your claim from mass to pressure?

You don't think the two are connected? You stuck your foot in your mouth and now are trying to save some face. If you don't think mass and pressure are related, explain how that might work.

 

[SSDD]

The equation shows net flow.

So you keep saying but alas it isn't true. If we can't get past that point, we can go nowhere. Even when shown what a two way net flow equation looks like, you can't get it.

SB says that source is incorrect.

No, SB says that the magnitude of P is determined by the difference between the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of its surroundings....set the difference to zero....what does that make P? You are guilty of misinterpreting several physical laws....they are quite clear and literal...the literal statements don't support your belief so you interpret them incorrectly in an effort to support your belief. Neither energy nor heat move from cool to warm...so sayeth the physical laws. Believe what you want...I will stick with the physical laws as they are supported by every observation ever made.

Hmmmm...Georgia State mentioning net flow.

Again, faulty interpretation...net flow as an implication...not fact as you seem to believe.