Climatologists Trade Tips on Destroying Evidence, Evangelizing Warming

[OohPooPahDoo]

Now, about the significance of that radiation pressure you tried to discuss?

That's not a question

You do know that only a specific amount of the IR range is absorbed by CO2, right?

Wow, really? How earth shattering. No, I didn't know that. Really. Its not like that greenhouse effect 101 or anything.

And, as I defer to the experts, and physics is not my expertise, how about enlightening us on the significance of the rest of the radiation pressure on CO2 molecules in the atmosphere in IR range that is not absorbed?

If it is not absorbed its not significant.

I mean, they way you were going on about it, it must be quite significant, no?

What "way" is that?

 

[Si modo]

....

If it is not absorbed its not significant.

....

Exactly.

OK, Wirebender; you have your answer.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

....

If it is not absorbed its not significant.

....

Exactly.

OK, Wirebender; you have your answer.

The answer to what? Why the fuck do you always speak in riddles?

 

[wirebender]

Pressure does work shit for brains.[/quote]

Pressure represents the potential for work, not work. I love name calling by opponents. It is a clear indication of distress.

I didn't say pressure is work. I said it does work. dW = p dV. Basic thermo.

It might be best for you to bow out of this now. The more you talk, the more evident it becomes that you don't have a clue and are certainly not what you claim to be. Here, learn something about work and what constitutes it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(thermodynamics)

CLIP - "Not to be confused with the subset of energy transfered between systems by means of a force acting though a distance work (physics).

In thermodynamics, work performed by a system is the energy transferred to another system that is measured by the external generalized mechanical constraints on the system. As such, thermodynamic work is a generalization of the concept of mechanical work in mechanics. Thermodynamic work encompasses mechanical work plus many other types of work. It does not include energy transferred between systems by heat, as heat is modeled distinctly in thermodynamics. Therefore, all energy changes in a system not a result of heat transfer into or out of the system are thermodynamic work.
"

NOT A RESULT OF HEAT TRANSFER INTO OUR OUT OF THE SYSTEM. Got that? Your arguments are dropping like flies. Absorption and emission of IR by CO2 molecules, or any other so called greenhouse gas as IR exits the system into space is not, does not, and never has constitued work. The second law of thermodynamics will not be violated no matter how strong your faith might be.

Photons do work on the atoms or molecules they strike. Their momentum is transfered to the particle that they strike. Its basic physics. Sorry.

No they don't and it is clear that you don't have a clue when it comes to basic physics. (a problem that is rampant in climate science) How could it be that you are about to get a phD in astrophysics and remain unaware that energy transfers moving heat into or out of a system do not constitute thermodynamic work?

For that matter, how couild you remain unware that if you apply the physics upon which the models of the earth climate are based to other planets within our system, they don't even come close to predicting the temperatures of those planets? The fact that the one used for earth comes close is no more than coincidence.

 

[wirebender]

How the hell can infrared radiation heat something without transferring its momentum and energy to the object its heating?

You are the victim of a very basic misunderstanding of thermodynamics. Energy transfers moving heat into or out of a system do not constitute work therefore no work is being done, therefore no heat can flow from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The greenhouse effect is a myth. It is a fabrication. A fiction. Not physical and not supported, or predicted by the laws of physics.

 

[wirebender]

....

If it is not absorbed its not significant.

....

Exactly.

OK, Wirebender; you have your answer.

I had my answer already. My bet is that now that you have led him to his, it still won't matter. He holds his position as a matter of faith and a complete misunderstanding of the laws of physics and thermodynamics.

The big question now is how long before OohPooPahDoo disappears to be replaced by a screen name whose crediblity has not been damaged beyond repair and who, perhaps, is not pursuing a phD in one of the hard sciences. Maybe a phD in classical French poetry or something like that.

 

[wirebender]

There's no debate. Someone posted a bunch of emails and that in and of itself constitutes proof of wrongdoing. Scientists shouldn't be sending emails, its unscientific.

When the likes of Pielke Sr see and speak up on evidence of wrongdoing, you can bet that there has been wrongdoing.

Significance Of Climategate #2 – Further Evidence Of The Failure Of An Appropriate and Accurate Assessment Of Climate Science | Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

 

[Si modo]

....

If it is not absorbed its not significant.

....

Exactly.

OK, Wirebender; you have your answer.

I had my answer already. My bet is that now that you have led him to his, it still won't matter. He holds his position as a matter of faith and a complete misunderstanding of the laws of physics and thermodynamics.

The big question now is how long before OohPooPahDoo disappears to be replaced by a screen name whose crediblity has not been damaged beyond repair and who, perhaps, is not pursuing a phD in one of the hard sciences. Maybe a phD in classical French poetry or something like that.

I never was much of a fan of questioning someone's education. It's just ends up being nothing but a pissing contest. He has shared some info with me and I am now convinced that he is what he says he is and I congratulate him.

Which makes it rather a shame that he cannot speak out about scientific misconduct.

 

[konradv]

I don't believe you're applying those laws correctly to this situation. Please show how it isn't possible for a photon re-emitted by a CO2 molecule to travel towards earth. DO NOT use mathematical formulas in your answer. If you're correct, you should be able to lay this to rest solely by describing the mechanism.

I already have konradv. Repeating over and over for you is not going to help you understand it any better though. I have explained it to you in the simplest terms that I could think of and you still didn't get it.

The second law of thermodynamics states: "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."

The earth is warmer than the atmosphere. Which part of "not possible" and "will not" do you believe means "possible" for heat to flow from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth in direct contradiction to the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

I was talking about PHOTONS. What prevents a photon from traveling in whatever direction it is emitted? By your analysis, I shouldn't be able to see the moon during the day. A photon is a photon, heat is molecular movement. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. The photon doesn't become heat until it contributes to molecular movement and that doesn't occur until it interacts with matter, like EARTH!!!

 

[wirebender]

I was talking about PHOTONS. What prevents a photon from traveling in whatever direction it is emitted? By your analysis, I shouldn't be able to see the moon during the day. A photon is a photon, heat is molecular movement. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. The photon doesn't become heat until it contributes to molecular movement and that doesn't occur until it interacts with matter, like EARTH!!!

Photons are precisely the energy I was talking about konradv. When I talk about IR radiation, I am talking about photons. Your lack of understanding extends to the most basic level of the discussion.

Your argument about the moon has been explained to you as well and still you persist in repeating a completely invalid argument. You see the moon in the visible spectrum. The energy exchanges between the earth, the atmosphere, and space are for the most part in the IR spectrum though some take place in the SW spectrum. If you try to look at the moon during the day with an infrared camera, even though you can see the moon in the visible spectrum, you will not be able to see it in the IR spectrum.

You have a very basic misunderstanding of the physics konradv and I have explained this to you repeatedly. The fact that you maintain your misunderstanding tells me that either you are A) not quite bright enough to grasp this topic or B) not willing to let go of your emotional attachment to AGW. Take your pick. One is excuseable, the other is not.

 

[wirebender]

I never was much of a fan of questioning someone's education. It's just ends up being nothing but a pissing contest. He has shared some info with me and I am now convinced that he is what he says he is and I congratulate him.

Good enough, but he has made some very fundamental errors. How couild a phD in astrophysics not know that heat moving in or out of a system does not constitute work; work which he claimed was being done to facilitate an energy transfer from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Which makes it rather a shame that he cannot speak out about scientific misconduct.

Or perhaps he did know and engaged in some misconduct of his own in an attempt to forward an argument that he knew was nonsense. Either way, he is reading pretty low on my RESPECT-O-METER.

 

[konradv]

I never was much of a fan of questioning someone's education. It's just ends up being nothing but a pissing contest. He has shared some info with me and I am now convinced that he is what he says he is and I congratulate him.

Good enough, but he has made some very fundamental errors. How couild a phD in astrophysics not know that heat moving in or out of a system does not constitute work; work which he claimed was being done to facilitate an energy transfer from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Which makes it rather a shame that he cannot speak out about scientific misconduct.

Or perhaps he did know and engaged in some misconduct of his own in an attempt to forward an argument that he knew was nonsense. Either way, he is reading pretty low on my RESPECT-O-METER.

But we're not saying that heat transfers from a colder to a warmer area. We're saying photons can move in any direction. You seem to be confusing the two. If as you say the moon doesn't emit IR, then it's because it was all absorbed. That's irrelevant to the subject in question, i.e. absorption and re-emission by CO2 or other gases.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Pressure does work shit for brains.

Pressure represents the potential for work, not work. I love name calling by opponents. It is a clear indication of distress.

I didn't say pressure represents work - I SAID IT DOES WORK. Three times now. You still cannot read.

I didn't say pressure is work. I said it does work. dW = p dV. Basic thermo.

It might be best for you to bow out of this now. The more you talk, the more evident it becomes that you don't have a clue and are certainly not what you claim to be. Here, learn something about work and what constitutes it.

I do apologize for using math, I didn't mean to confuse you. dU = dQ - p dV. That's basic thermo asshat. The last term on the RHS is work, the first is heat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(thermodynamics)

CLIP - "Not to be confused with the subset of energy transfered between systems by means of a force acting though a distance work (physics).

In thermodynamics, work performed by a system is the energy transferred to another system that is measured by the external generalized mechanical constraints on the system. As such, thermodynamic work is a generalization of the concept of mechanical work in mechanics. Thermodynamic work encompasses mechanical work plus many other types of work. It does not include energy transferred between systems by heat, as heat is modeled distinctly in thermodynamics. Therefore, all energy changes in a system not a result of heat transfer into or out of the system are thermodynamic work.
"

NOT A RESULT OF HEAT TRANSFER INTO OUR OUT OF THE SYSTEM. Got that? Your arguments are dropping like flies. Absorption and emission of IR by CO2 molecules, or any other so called greenhouse gas as IR exits the system into space is not, does not, and never has constitued work. The second law of thermodynamics will not be violated no matter how strong your faith might be.

That's not my argument. I never said energy transfered by heat is work. I said radiation pressure does work.

Photons do work on the atoms or molecules they strike. Their momentum is transfered to the particle that they strike. Its basic physics. Sorry.

No they don't and it is clear that you don't have a clue when it comes to basic physics.

Is this a joke? When a billiard ball strikes another billiard ball it transfers some or all of its momentum and energy to that billiard ball. The same thing happens when a photon hits an atom or molecule.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The greenhouse effect is a myth. It is a fabrication. A fiction.

Great. Then you come up with a better explanation for why the Earth isn't -18 Centigrade at its surface.

 

[Si modo]

I never was much of a fan of questioning someone's education. It's just ends up being nothing but a pissing contest. He has shared some info with me and I am now convinced that he is what he says he is and I congratulate him.

Good enough, but he has made some very fundamental errors. How couild a phD in astrophysics not know that heat moving in or out of a system does not constitute work; work which he claimed was being done to facilitate an energy transfer from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Which makes it rather a shame that he cannot speak out about scientific misconduct.

Or perhaps he did know and engaged in some misconduct of his own in an attempt to forward an argument that he knew was nonsense. Either way, he is reading pretty low on my RESPECT-O-METER.

But we're not saying that heat transfers from a colder to a warmer area. We're saying photons can move in any direction. You seem to be confusing the two. If as you say the moon doesn't emit IR, then it's because it was all absorbed. That's irrelevant to the subject in question, i.e. absorption and re-emission by CO2 or other gases.

CO2 re-emits? This is not fluorescence.

CO2 absorbs a certain amount of IR radiation, a small portion of the mid IR spectrum. When that absorption happens, CO2 vibrates, internally, in a certain manner. THAT vibration is kinetic in nature. Kinetic energy causes some heat.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

There's no debate. Someone posted a bunch of emails and that in and of itself constitutes proof of wrongdoing. Scientists shouldn't be sending emails, its unscientific.

When the likes of Pielke Sr see and speak up on evidence of wrongdoing, you can bet that there has been wrongdoing.

Significance Of Climategate #2 – Further Evidence Of The Failure Of An Appropriate and Accurate Assessment Of Climate Science | Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

Well if someone said its true it must be true - no need to investigate the evidence yourself.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I never was much of a fan of questioning someone's education. It's just ends up being nothing but a pissing contest. He has shared some info with me and I am now convinced that he is what he says he is and I congratulate him.

Good enough, but he has made some very fundamental errors. How couild a phD in astrophysics not know that heat moving in or out of a system does not constitute work; work which he claimed was being done to facilitate an energy transfer from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Which makes it rather a shame that he cannot speak out about scientific misconduct.

Or perhaps he did know and engaged in some misconduct of his own in an attempt to forward an argument that he knew was nonsense. Either way, he is reading pretty low on my RESPECT-O-METER.

Hey lets just make baseless accusations about people we don't even know.

 

[westwall]

There's no debate. Someone posted a bunch of emails and that in and of itself constitutes proof of wrongdoing. Scientists shouldn't be sending emails, its unscientific.

When the likes of Pielke Sr see and speak up on evidence of wrongdoing, you can bet that there has been wrongdoing.

Significance Of Climategate #2 – Further Evidence Of The Failure Of An Appropriate and Accurate Assessment Of Climate Science | Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

Well if someone said its true it must be true - no need to investigate the evidence yourself.

That last statement you made describes why the AGW fraud was able to continue for so long. That's the problem with consensus science in a nutshell.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

When the likes of Pielke Sr see and speak up on evidence of wrongdoing, you can bet that there has been wrongdoing.

Significance Of Climategate #2 – Further Evidence Of The Failure Of An Appropriate and Accurate Assessment Of Climate Science | Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

Well if someone said its true it must be true - no need to investigate the evidence yourself.

That last statement you made describes why the AGW fraud was able to continue for so long. That's the problem with consensus science in a nutshell.

Yeah that's why the theory of AGW and evidence supported it is covered in the scientific literature in literally hundreds of papers by hundreds of different authors from different nations at different institutions all coming to basically the same conclusion.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Good enough, but he has made some very fundamental errors. How couild a phD in astrophysics not know that heat moving in or out of a system does not constitute work; work which he claimed was being done to facilitate an energy transfer from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.



Or perhaps he did know and engaged in some misconduct of his own in an attempt to forward an argument that he knew was nonsense. Either way, he is reading pretty low on my RESPECT-O-METER.

But we're not saying that heat transfers from a colder to a warmer area. We're saying photons can move in any direction. You seem to be confusing the two. If as you say the moon doesn't emit IR, then it's because it was all absorbed. That's irrelevant to the subject in question, i.e. absorption and re-emission by CO2 or other gases.

CO2 re-emits? This is not fluorescence.

CO2 absorbs a certain amount of IR radiation, a small portion of the mid IR spectrum. When that absorption happens, CO2 vibrates, internally, in a certain manner. THAT vibration is kinetic in nature. Kinetic energy causes some heat.

That heat is re-emitted as radiation in proportion to T^4. When a beam of photons hits an opaque gas, it heats the gas, and the heated gas then re-emits the photons as blackbody radiation.