mann made global warming

[wirebender]

MODTRAN is just a program that uses measured data for the optical effects of gases, built up from many layers to resemble the atmosphere. if you dont think we can do that then you must think that satellite temperature data is completely useless as well.

It is a computer model based on assumptions and biases. No more, no less. It's output does not mirror reality and is useless for making predictions.

as far as your question about 2LOTD....you did understand my comment that explicitly states that it is the sun that warms the surface right?

I understand the question perfectly and understand that you have made up your own source for global warming that is different from that supported by the so called climate science community. Now can you answer the question or not?

The climate science community says that CO2 radiates absorbed energy to the surface of the earth where it is re-absorbed and reheats the earth.

FAQ 1.3 - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science

Clip: The Sun powers Earth’s climate, radiating energy at very short wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ultraviolet) part of the spectrum. Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is reflected directly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.

So believe what you want, and make up as much as you like as you go. That clip represents what the IPCC and de facto climate science has to say on the matter of the so called greenhouse effect.

Now can you recite 2nd law of thermodynamics or not, and tell me what that law has to say about the "official" greenhouse theory if you can get through it without choking on the words.

 

[Flopper]

Seems that Dr. Spencer's latest examination of USHCN reveals that virtually all of the warming claimed by the church of CAGW is the result of tampering with the temperature record.

USHCN Surface Temperatures, 1973-2012: Dramatic Warming Adjustments, Noisy Trends « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Clip: Virtually all of the USHCN warming since 1973 appears to be the result of adjustments NOAA has made to the data, mainly in the 1995-97 timeframe.

The next logical step in Dr. Spencer's personal growth is to step on up and acknowldege that the evidence shows that CO2 does not, in fact, have any effect on the global temperature and that he was mistaken when he eroneously claimed that cooler objects could, in fact, further warm warmer objects.

Spencer is a member of the right wing, Heartland Institute, which has opposed environmental regulations for over 25 years, a contributor to the George C. Marshall Institute, funded by oil and gas interests, a big proponent of intelligent design, a "scientific adviser" to the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance", and a favorite on the Limbaugh and Beck shows.

You sound like Rdean.

What does that have to do with exposing how the Decline Hiders are manipulating data to fit their foregone conclusion?

Spenser is clearly biased and is in bed with the oil and gas industry. However, the real problem is the same as with all conspiracy theorist. Ignore the huge amount of research from multiple disciplines that supports the theory. Find small inconsistencies and use them to discredit the theory.

Even after all the denial by naysayers on the Internet, millions spent by the oil and gas industry to discredit global warming research, virtually every scientific academy and creditable society in the world agree that the planet is warming and all but a few credit man as the major culprit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy -- Official Policy of the IPCC

 

[Old Rocks]

Seems that Dr. Spencer's latest examination of USHCN reveals that virtually all of the warming claimed by the church of CAGW is the result of tampering with the temperature record.

USHCN Surface Temperatures, 1973-2012: Dramatic Warming Adjustments, Noisy Trends « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Clip: Virtually all of the USHCN warming since 1973 appears to be the result of adjustments NOAA has made to the data, mainly in the 1995-97 timeframe.

The next logical step in Dr. Spencer's personal growth is to step on up and acknowldege that the evidence shows that CO2 does not, in fact, have any effect on the global temperature and that he was mistaken when he eroneously claimed that cooler objects could, in fact, further warm warmer objects.

Spencer is correct to point out that much of the warming trend is from arbitrary and poorly processed adjustments. an audit of stations and their data and conditions by an independent agency is long past due. as it stands, different datasets are adjusted by one source, then imported and adjusted again by a different dataset until temps have been homogenized into a meaningless mess.

Spencer is also correct (hence wirebender is wrong) to state that cooler objects can change the equilibrium of a system so that the original source of energy flows differently. CO2 has an effect on surface temperatures by restricting heat loss into space, the actual warming is done by the sun. there is no conflict with the second law of thermodynamics because the energy involved for heating is not coming from the atmosphere.


Someone else brought up Spencer's belief in intelligent design. some people mistakenly think that this is a disbelief in evolution but it is not. once the original spark of life is present only then can evolution proceed to change it. there is no reasonable means in the theory of evolution to produce that spark of life so that means there is something else necessary to explain the emergence of life on this planet.

Nobody has demonstrated that any such 'spark' is needed. That is a article of faith, by you and by Spencer.

 

[IanC]

really?

from past experience I realize there is no point arguing evolution because everyone has their own definition of the term and it changes to suit their needs.

in a world overrun by a successful version of life it is very difficult to identify 'protolife' possibilities. evolution as we know it only really kicks in once there is information carried forward during growth and reproduction.

how do you define evolution? is it an anti-entropy mechanism that operates when there is available energy, substrates and chance coincidence? or is it an anti-entropy mechanism that works by chance coincidence when there is available energy and substrates?

so if you are calling the vanishingly small odds coincidences at the bottlenecks of non-life turning into life evolution, then yes evolution explains it all. if you are calling evolution the mechanism that takes advantage of amazing coincidences, then no, evolution does not have enough explanitory power.

I am an atheist with some agnostic leanings so I would rather leave the origins of life as 'unknown' rather than attribute it to a higher power but it certainly wasnt created by evolution, which only comes into play once life has started. but you can and will define things as you wish, just as I have.

 

[edthecynic]

he was mistaken when he eroneously claimed that cooler objects could, in fact, further warm warmer objects.

You're the only one that says that.

Yeah, me and that nasty old 2nd law of thermodynamics:

Second Law of Thermodynamics: 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.

Of course as the expert on physics that you pretend to be, you do know that the SLoT ONLY applies to a CLOSED THERMODYNAMIC SYSTEM!!!! Which means you are claiming there is no outside source of energy to the atmosphere!

 

[edthecynic]

Seems that Dr. Spencer's latest examination of USHCN reveals that virtually all of the warming claimed by the church of CAGW is the result of tampering with the temperature record.

USHCN Surface Temperatures, 1973-2012: Dramatic Warming Adjustments, Noisy Trends « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Clip: Virtually all of the USHCN warming since 1973 appears to be the result of adjustments NOAA has made to the data, mainly in the 1995-97 timeframe.

The next logical step in Dr. Spencer's personal growth is to step on up and acknowldege that the evidence shows that CO2 does not, in fact, have any effect on the global temperature and that he was mistaken when he eroneously claimed that cooler objects could, in fact, further warm warmer objects.

If anyone knows how to cook the data it certainly is Fudge Master Spencer!!!

 

[IanC]

Seems that Dr. Spencer's latest examination of USHCN reveals that virtually all of the warming claimed by the church of CAGW is the result of tampering with the temperature record.

USHCN Surface Temperatures, 1973-2012: Dramatic Warming Adjustments, Noisy Trends « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Clip: Virtually all of the USHCN warming since 1973 appears to be the result of adjustments NOAA has made to the data, mainly in the 1995-97 timeframe.

The next logical step in Dr. Spencer's personal growth is to step on up and acknowldege that the evidence shows that CO2 does not, in fact, have any effect on the global temperature and that he was mistaken when he eroneously claimed that cooler objects could, in fact, further warm warmer objects.

If anyone knows how to cook the data it certainly is Fudge Master Spencer!!!

I can't understand how you can be so affronted by Spencer and yet seemingly unaffected by the obvious distortions produced by such luminaries as Mann, Jones and Hansen. such false moral equivalence is curious.

 

[wirebender]

Spenser is clearly biased and is in bed with the oil and gas industry. However, the real problem is the same as with all conspiracy theorist. Ignore the huge amount of research from multiple disciplines that supports the theory. Find small inconsistencies and use them to discredit the theory.

And still you are unable to address spencer's claims and you certainly do fit the profile for conspiracy theorists. You handily ignore the plethora of examples of data manipulation, fabrication and outright lies in favor of your quasireligious faith in pseudoscience.

Even after all the denial by naysayers on the Internet, millions spent by the oil and gas industry to discredit global warming research, virtually every scientific academy and creditable society in the world agree that the planet is warming and all but a few credit man as the major culprit.

Now that is laughable. If the amount of money being spent is the basis of your mistrust, then consider that the warming industry outspends skeptics by more than 1000 to 1. Considering the disparity in spending, it is a clear indication of the frailty of climate science that there is a healthy and growing skeptical side to the discussion.

 

[wirebender]

Nobody has demonstrated that any such 'spark' is needed. That is a article of faith, by you and by Spencer.

Really? So why has science failed for all these years to create even the most rudimentary life form in the laboratory.

Poor rocks, your religion is falling down around your ears and you are just too stupid to see. Mann made climate change is on the rocks and recently, no less than Webster Hubble has stated that the theory of an expanding universe has run its course and is no longer viable so the big bang is on its way out as well. Of course that was predictable as belief in the big bang theory took more unthinking faith by far than belief in mann made global warming.

 

[wirebender]

Of course as the expert on physics that you pretend to be, you do know that the SLoT ONLY applies to a CLOSED THERMODYNAMIC SYSTEM!!!! Which means you are claiming there is no outside source of energy to the atmosphere!

The second law of thermodynamics is a law of nature, not a law of systems. It applies across the board. To suggest that the laws of nature change depending on what sort of system they are applied to is the crappiest sort of pseudoscience.

It is not possible for heat to spontaneously transfer from a cool object to a warm object no matter what sort of system they find themselves in.

 

[wirebender]

I can't understand how you can be so affronted by Spencer and yet seemingly unaffected by the obvious distortions produced by such luminaries as Mann, Jones and Hansen. such false moral equivalence is curious.

On that we agree. When spencer's error was pointed out, he corrected it immediately, in public. How many millions have mann et al now spent trying to hide their deliberate machinations from the public?

The bald faced hyprocy of folks like edthecynic is astounding.

 

[wirebender]

I can't understand how you can be so affronted by Spencer and yet seemingly unaffected by the obvious distortions produced by such luminaries as Mann, Jones and Hansen. such false moral equivalence is curious.

On that we agree. When spencer's error was pointed out, he corrected it immediately, in public. How many millions have mann et al now spent trying to hide their deliberate machinations from the public?

The bald faced hyprocy of folks like edthecynic is astounding.

 

[IanC]

Of course as the expert on physics that you pretend to be, you do know that the SLoT ONLY applies to a CLOSED THERMODYNAMIC SYSTEM!!!! Which means you are claiming there is no outside source of energy to the atmosphere!

The second law of thermodynamics is a law of nature, not a law of systems. It applies across the board. To suggest that the laws of nature change depending on what sort of system they are applied to is the crappiest sort of pseudoscience.

It is not possible for heat to spontaneously transfer from a cool object to a warm object no matter what sort of system they find themselves in.

you are incorrect. the second law only applies to systems, not individual particles or photons. the second law does not physically forbid anything it only describes the statistics.

 

[edthecynic]

Of course as the expert on physics that you pretend to be, you do know that the SLoT ONLY applies to a CLOSED THERMODYNAMIC SYSTEM!!!! Which means you are claiming there is no outside source of energy to the atmosphere!

The second law of thermodynamics is a law of nature, not a law of systems. It applies across the board. To suggest that the laws of nature change depending on what sort of system they are applied to is the crappiest sort of pseudoscience.

It is not possible for heat to spontaneously transfer from a cool object to a warm object no matter what sort of system they find themselves in.

This is a perfect example of the total ignorance of CON$ervoFascist know-it-alls!!!

The SLoT begins with the very words, "IN A CLOSED THERMODYNAMIC SYSTEM, entropy never decreases."

That means there can be no outside forces working on the system, which would mean for the SLoT to be applied as you did that there are no outside forces acting on the Earth and its atmosphere!!!

 

[edthecynic]

Seems that Dr. Spencer's latest examination of USHCN reveals that virtually all of the warming claimed by the church of CAGW is the result of tampering with the temperature record.

USHCN Surface Temperatures, 1973-2012: Dramatic Warming Adjustments, Noisy Trends « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Clip: Virtually all of the USHCN warming since 1973 appears to be the result of adjustments NOAA has made to the data, mainly in the 1995-97 timeframe.

The next logical step in Dr. Spencer's personal growth is to step on up and acknowldege that the evidence shows that CO2 does not, in fact, have any effect on the global temperature and that he was mistaken when he eroneously claimed that cooler objects could, in fact, further warm warmer objects.

If anyone knows how to cook the data it certainly is Fudge Master Spencer!!!

I can't understand how you can be so affronted by Spencer and yet seemingly unaffected by the obvious distortions produced by such luminaries as Mann, Jones and Hansen. such false moral equivalence is curious.

Of course, the deniers who claim Mann, Jones and Hansen distorted the data based their unproven accusations on the proven to be fudged Spencer and Christy cooked data, so your moral equivalency is bogus from the outset.

 

[wirebender]

This is a perfect example of the total ignorance of CON$ervoFascist know-it-alls!!!

The SLoT begins with the very words, "IN A CLOSED THERMODYNAMIC SYSTEM, entropy never decreases."

Great. Another one who makes it up as he goes. Neither the Clausius statement, nor the Kelvin statement say anything about closed vs open systems. Again, the 2nd law is a law of nature, not a law of systems. Sorry you are so hopelessly confused and so full of kookaid that you are unable to see it.

 

[wirebender]

you are incorrect. the second law only applies to systems, not individual particles or photons. the second law does not physically forbid anything it only describes the statistics.

Making it up as you go does not alter the fact. Neither the Clausius, nor the Kelvin statements say anything about the law only applying to certain systems. The 2nd law applies to both open and closed systems. Too bad you imbibed so heavily of the kook aid.

And again, recite the 2nd law and then tell me it doesn't forbid anything. When you speak ian, it is the kook aid speaking. What do you think statements like NOT POSSIBLE and WILL NOT mean? No wiggle room there ian, they say what they say.

 

[edthecynic]

This is a perfect example of the total ignorance of CON$ervoFascist know-it-alls!!!

The SLoT begins with the very words, "IN A CLOSED THERMODYNAMIC SYSTEM, entropy never decreases."

Great. Another one who makes it up as he goes. Neither the Clausius statement, nor the Kelvin statement say anything about closed vs open systems. Again, the 2nd law is a law of nature, not a law of systems. Sorry you are so hopelessly confused and so full of kookaid that you are unable to see it.

See my sig!

Here is the text book expression of the SLoT:

Processes in which the entropy of an isolated system would decrease do not occur, or, in every process taking place in an isolated system, the entropy of the system either increases or remains constant

- An Introduction to Thermodynamics, the Kinetic Theory of Gases, and Statistical Mechanics (2nd edition), by Francis Weston Sears, Addison-Wesley, 1950, 1953, page 111 (Chapter 7, "the Second Law of Thermodynamics").

 

[IanC]

you are incorrect. the second law only applies to systems, not individual particles or photons. the second law does not physically forbid anything it only describes the statistics.

Making it up as you go does not alter the fact. Neither the Clausius, nor the Kelvin statements say anything about the law only applying to certain systems. The 2nd law applies to both open and closed systems. Too bad you imbibed so heavily of the kook aid.

And again, recite the 2nd law and then tell me it doesn't forbid anything. When you speak ian, it is the kook aid speaking. What do you think statements like NOT POSSIBLE and WILL NOT mean? No wiggle room there ian, they say what they say.

I am sorry that your understanding of physics is so flawed. the second law of thermodynamics is driven only by the statistics of large numbers. it has no magical power to stop a CO2 molecule from expelling a photon towards the earth like you claim. it only states that the warmer body will produce more radiation than the cooler one, therefore after the similar radiation cancels out (the net effect cancels out, not the actual photons) there will be extra radiation from the warmer body that will be left over to warm the cooler body.

here are two blackbody curves for different temperatures. the area under the dotted line shows the radiation which is cancelled out between the two bodies. the area above the dotted line up to the solid line defines the radiation which is available to warm the cooler body.

it is simple to see why the net flow of energy goes from warm to cold but that does not mean that there is no flow away from the colder body, just that the net flow is always in one direction.

there is no physical process which stops the cooler body from radiating. it does radiate. all of the cooler body's radiation is perfectly matched and cancelled out by the same radiation from the warmer body. only the excess radiation from the warmer body produces a change.

the second law of thermodynamics is bookkeeping not a physical process that affects individual bits of matter.