Nye's Quadrant

[Uncensored2008]

Thread summary:

Deniers can't discuss actual science, so they're deflecting by pouting about media personalities. At least they're broadening their horizons, and pouting about someone other than Gore.

Have you asked Curry how much fossil fuel money her mysterious "forecasting company" is taking? You know, the one that doesn't name any clients, or show anything that it's "forecast". It sure looks like a way to take fossil fuel cash on the sly. Curry hasn't done any actual science for a long time, because she can't. She fled the science field in disgrace over her failures and unethical behavior, and now she's embarking on a new career as a paid propagandist.

Mamooth, you get your ignorant ass kicked each and every time actual science is discussed.

The quest for federal grants is not the purpose of actual science.

 

[SSDD]

Polarbear attributes crazy statements to me, and then attacks them. Strawman fallacy.

So now that you are in the first class section of the AGW crazy train, you are going to behave like them as well?...Projecting is what the hairball is best at...accusing others of here very trademark tactic...you routinely make up arguments for others and then argue against them...accusing someone else of the behavior when it is you who does it doesn't help your argument.

 

[Crick]

Thread summary:

Deniers can't discuss actual science, so they're deflecting by pouting about media personalities. At least they're broadening their horizons, and pouting about someone other than Gore.

Have you asked Curry how much fossil fuel money her mysterious "forecasting company" is taking? You know, the one that doesn't name any clients, or show anything that it's "forecast". It sure looks like a way to take fossil fuel cash on the sly. Curry hasn't done any actual science for a long time, because she can't. She fled the science field in disgrace over her failures and unethical behavior, and now she's embarking on a new career as a paid propagandist.

Mamooth, you get your ignorant ass kicked each and every time actual science is discussed.

The quest for federal grants is not the purpose of actual science.

Mamooth very regularly kicks ass on science around here. I haven't seen him topped by anyone. Be that as it may, his comments about Curry are accurate but have nothing to do with actual science. Deniers seem to believe that the entire field of climate science, world wide, is driven so hard by the desire for grant money that they have all formed a massive, massively disciplined and massively secret conspiracy to pass global warming off with no real science behind them at all. They seem to believe that grant money is simply a remunerative award given to scientists who produce favorable results and has noting to do with the cost of research, paying salaries, travel, equipment costs and the like. It all just goes into their pockets.

 

[SSDD]

Mamooth very regularly kicks ass on science around here. I haven't seen him topped by anyone. Be that as it may, his comments about Curry are accurate but have nothing to do with actual science. Deniers seem to believe that the entire field of climate science, world wide, is driven so hard by the desire for grant money that they have all formed a massive, massively disciplined and massively secret conspiracy to pass global warming off with no real science behind them at all. They seem to believe that grant money is simply a remunerative award given to scientists who produce favorable results and has noting to do with the cost of research, paying salaries, travel, equipment costs and the like. It all just goes into their pockets.

The hairball is an idiot..and so are you if you really believe she ever wins on any scientific point...and recently she has been displaying a stunning ignorance of political philosophy as well.

 

[IanC]

Polarbear attributes crazy statements to me, and then attacks them. Strawman fallacy.

So now that you are in the first class section of the AGW crazy train, you are going to behave like them as well?...Projecting is what the hairball is best at...accusing others of here very trademark tactic...you routinely make up arguments for others and then argue against them...accusing someone else of the behavior when it is you who does it doesn't help your argument.

There is a significant difference between showing why a person's actual statement is wrong, and polarbear's habit of misstating of what a person said and then attacking the misstatement.

If you ever feel that I have misconstrued your position just tell me, and explain your thoughts in more detail so that I don't have to fill in the gaps of your incomplete logic with assumptions as to what you are thinking.

For example, you are a champion of N&Z's estimates of surface temperature. Yet you refuse to discuss any of the mechanisms. I have no idea if you have any grasp of the basics that lead to their reasonable figures even if they are a product of circular reasoning. If you did know the basics then you wouldn't make such stupid statements about the surface/atmosphere thermodynamics.

How do YOU think an atmosphere leads to a warmer surface? You do think an atmosphere leads to warmer surface temperature, right? Once you explain the mechanism, how do you defend it against being called a violation of the SLoT? I have done both, numerous times. Yet dullards like you and polarbear continue to strawman my position by refusing to address my actual words, but instead make up a bizarre misinterpretation.

 

[SSDD]

If you ever feel that I have misconstrued your position just tell me, and explain your thoughts in more detail so that I don't have to fill in the gaps of your incomplete logic with assumptions as to what you are thinking.

I have...over....and over.....and over...ad nauseum. Which is why I constantly remind you that you simply make up arguments for your opponent and then argue against your own points...

For example, you are a champion of N&Z's estimates of surface temperature. Yet you refuse to discuss any of the mechanisms.

What is to discuss? They are thoroughly discussed in the paper.

 

[IanC]

If you ever feel that I have misconstrued your position just tell me, and explain your thoughts in more detail so that I don't have to fill in the gaps of your incomplete logic with assumptions as to what you are thinking.

I have...over....and over.....and over...ad nauseum. Which is why I constantly remind you that you simply make up arguments for your opponent and then argue against your own points...

For example, you are a champion of N&Z's estimates of surface temperature. Yet you refuse to discuss any of the mechanisms.

What is to discuss? They are thoroughly discussed in the paper.

If you are incapable of putting down the energy exchange mechanism at the surface/atmosphere boundary in your own words, then simply cut and paste it from the paper. I didn't see it, but I could have missed it.

 

[IanC]

If you ever feel that I have misconstrued your position just tell me, and explain your thoughts in more detail so that I don't have to fill in the gaps of your incomplete logic with assumptions as to what you are thinking.

I have...over....and over.....and over...ad nauseum. Which is why I constantly remind you that you simply make up arguments for your opponent and then argue against your own points...

.

I don't think I do that, but you may feel that way because you are frustrated by not having any legitimate defense against my criticisms.

Example. You have often said something like "greenhouse gases are like holes in a blanket, the atmosphere would be warmer without GHGs".

I counter with the GHGs absorb more energy at near surface levels than they release at near TOA levels, so what happened to the missing energy if it did'nt warm the atmosphere?

You then counter with "absorption and emission don't equal warming", completely ignoring the missing energy.

When I press you for details you bring up that conversation with Happer or Brown, that says absorption and emission in a single CO2 molecule only happens once in a billion times.

When I point out that means the energy is thermalized into the total energy of the atmosphere, and by definition means an increase in temperature, then you just run away or change the subject.


You are now saying I am creating strawmen of your statements, I see it as simple criticisms of your statements, that you cannot answer with an explanation. You consider running away from explaining yourself as 'winning', and the next time you are asked the same inconvenient question you reply that you already answered it and won't repeat yourself.

 

[SSDD]

I don't think I do that, but you may feel that way because you are frustrated by not having any legitimate defense against my criticisms.

Such wild and crazy mental masturbation you engage in...keep kidding yourself.

 

[Crick]

Shit, on the topics discussed on this board, you have no legitimate defense against anyone's criticisms.

 

[IanC]

I don't think I do that, but you may feel that way because you are frustrated by not having any legitimate defense against my criticisms.

Such wild and crazy mental masturbation you engage in...keep kidding yourself.

Insults aren't answers. But it seems that is all you have.

One simple, basic question you have been asked literally dozens of times is "The Sun only delivers about 200w of input to the surface yet it radiates at 400w. Where does the extra energy come from?"

The one time you even tried to answer was "what about geothermal". I said it was insignificant, on the order of 2w. Is that still your best answer? How does the geothermal energy move through the oceans unnoticed? 200w is a lot to go undetected. Is it easier to detect on land? Do you have some evidence?

Or are you just talking out your ass? Again.

 

[SSDD]

Your 200w to the surface number is bullshit...the sun would deliver 200w to the surface of a flat disk that was not rotating and was 4 times further away from the sun than the earth.

 

[polarbear]

...he is showing you real world, observable, measurable, testable examples of how you are wrong and you flatly reject them because they don't agree with your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...

Do you mean his copper block experiment? He described it poorly (a link would have been useful), then he fudged on the results only to recant afterwards when I pointed out it couldn't happen the way he said it did.

It would seem that I corrected him, not the other way around.

Polarbear attributes crazy statements to me, and then attacks them. Strawman fallacy.

I have repeatedly asked him to directly quote my statements but he refuses because he can't refute the ideas I put forth. The only time he actually quotes me is when finds a grammatical mistake, ignoring the context and main thought. Remember his rant about how there are no air molecules, only molecules of air? How petty is that?

I have repeatedly asked him to directly quote my statements but he refuses because he can't refute the ideas I put forth. The only time he actually quotes me is when finds a grammatical mistake, ignoring the context and main thought. Remember his rant about how there are no air molecules, only molecules of air? How petty is that?
Like your "irrefutable air molecule idea" ?
"Air molecules" was a "grammatical mistake"?
N2,O2,O3,H20 and CO2 are molecules. Air is a mixture there is no molecular bond between these molecules. You might as well have said potato molecules. Why should I take science lessons from any person who is talking about air molecules ?
Now you say that it was "only a grammatical error" and that I allegedly said "there are only molecules of air". I said no such thing, but you must insist because you claim it was not a gross technical error, but "only a grammatical error" and "fixed it" by changing "air molecules" to "molecules of air".
"How petty is that"? Try and submit a chemistry patent and find out how "petty" the examination process is if you claim that by adding more of something to air you made novel "air molecules".
It`s a bitch isn`t it, if your own words became your prison....and calling entire sections of chemistry and physics that deal with molecular bonding nothing more than a "rant" is not the way out either.

 

[IanC]

...he is showing you real world, observable, measurable, testable examples of how you are wrong and you flatly reject them because they don't agree with your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...

Do you mean his copper block experiment? He described it poorly (a link would have been useful), then he fudged on the results only to recant afterwards when I pointed out it couldn't happen the way he said it did.

It would seem that I corrected him, not the other way around.

Polarbear attributes crazy statements to me, and then attacks them. Strawman fallacy.

I have repeatedly asked him to directly quote my statements but he refuses because he can't refute the ideas I put forth. The only time he actually quotes me is when finds a grammatical mistake, ignoring the context and main thought. Remember his rant about how there are no air molecules, only molecules of air? How petty is that?

I have repeatedly asked him to directly quote my statements but he refuses because he can't refute the ideas I put forth. The only time he actually quotes me is when finds a grammatical mistake, ignoring the context and main thought. Remember his rant about how there are no air molecules, only molecules of air? How petty is that?
Like your "irrefutable air molecule idea" ?
"Air molecules" was a "grammatical mistake"?
N2,O2,O3,H20 and CO2 are molecules. Air is a mixture there is no molecular bond between these molecules. You might as well have said potato molecules. Why should I take science lessons from any person who is talking about air molecules ?
Now you say that it was "only a grammatical error" and that I allegedly said "there are only molecules of air". I said no such thing, but you must insist because you claim it was not a gross technical error, but "only a grammatical error" and "fixed it" by changing "air molecules" to "molecules of air".
"How petty is that"? Try and submit a chemistry patent and find out how "petty" the examination process is if you claim that by adding more of something to air you made novel "air molecules".
It`s a bitch isn`t it, if your own words became your prison....and calling entire sections of chemistry and physics that deal with molecular bonding nothing more than a "rant" is not the way out either.

I made a cursory search for the original comments but they might be in a different thread. Perhaps you could find them easier as you post fewer comments.

I believe your rant was in response to my claim that it takes a lot of energy to put the mass of the atmosphere into the gravity field above the surface. The first of several numbered points.

Air is a mixture of various components. There are both molecules and atoms present. I am surprised that you did not call me out for that imprecision of language as well.

As my claim dealt primarily with mass, not bonding, I find your reference to writing a chemistry patent to be specious.

This is a message board with conversational exchanges of ideas. There is no expectation of journal quality precision and conciseness. Your petty nitpicking over terminology while ignoring the central idea is annoying. I am not proud that I stooped to your level and started to return insults. If I used your level of intelligence and knowledge as the cutoff for being stupid then the vast majority of posters here would be labeled stupid.

Now that you have had time to mull over my claim that energy stored in the atmosphere is the source of energy returning to the surface, has your position changed at all?

 

[IanC]

Your 200w to the surface number is bullshit...the sun would deliver 200w to the surface of a flat disk that was not rotating and was 4 times further away from the sun than the earth.

It is easy to calculate the amount of solar radiation intercepted by the Earth. Divide that by the surface area and you get a first estimate of input. Then you must factor in albedo, the amount of solar input that simply bounces away unabsorbed. Then...

I am reasonably confident that the estimates for average solar input at the surface are accurate in a bookkeeping sense. My use of 200w is actually high because I like to use rough estimates with few significant figures so I can easily make mental calculations that put me in the ballpark without making ridiculous claims of precision. Trenberth's cartoon claims it is 165w if memory serves.

Solar input is quite stable. Surface output is not. There is the whole temperature to the fourth power thing going on. Add in conduction and the water cycle convection thing as alternate routes for output and the complexity multiplies quickly. But we know the total input must match the total output to a fine degree or there would be warming or cooling. The imbalance causing a 1C change over a 100+ year period is probably beyond our ability to accurately measure it.

 

[IanC]

SSDD is fond of claiming that there is only a gross one way only flow of radiation between two objects. Not a net flow, with the radiation from one being subtracted from the other. This leads to the absurd conclusion that no radiation is emitted at all when they are both at the same temperature. He is also fond of making analogies with matter related processes, like air coming out of a tire.

So let's use a matter related analogy with the surface and atmosphere. Air molecules come into contact with the surface traveling at various speeds, a wide but finite range. Some of these molecules impart energy to the surface in the collision, some take away more energy than they arrived with. In SSDD'S world this could not happen. Assuming that the surface is warmer, only collisions adding energy to the air molecules is allowed, according to his bizarre interpretation of the second law of thermodynamic. So if the temperatures of each are equal, then either no collisions take place (!?!?), or only collisions that exactly match input and output are permitted.


This constant transfer of energy back and forth between the surface and atmosphere by molecular collision is, of course, one of the major pathways that atmospheric energy is either stored or released. The net energy transfer is towards the cooler atmosphere but that does not mean that there is no downward transfer.

 

[SSDD]

Have your fun...and when you are done, let me know when they alter the language of the 2nd law to state net flow...then it will actually agree with your position rather than mine.

 

[IanC]

Have your fun...and when you are done, let me know when they alter the language of the 2nd law to state net flow...then it will actually agree with your position rather than mine.

I'm sure this has been shown to you before but I don't think I ever actually read it myself-

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Nice and succinct.

 

[IanC]

Wikipedia gives a history of how the SLoT was originally conceived, and its evolution towards the modern definition which is couched in terms of entropy.

The version SSDD uses dates back to the 1850's, before microscopic processes were known.

"


The German scientist Rudolf Clausius laid the foundation for the second law of thermodynamics in 1850 by examining the relation between heat transfer and work.[22]His formulation of the second law, which was published in German in 1854, is known as the Clausius statement:

Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.[23]

The statement by Clausius uses the concept of 'passage of heat'. As is usual in thermodynamic discussions, this means 'net transfer of energy as heat', and does not refer to contributory transfers one way and the other.
"

 

[IanC]

Thermodynamics is an interesting topic.

Energy sources are not equal in their ability to do work. A bucket of warm water has more energy than a battery but which has more usable outcomes? The warm water can dissipate its heat to the environment but not much else, the highly ordered stored electricity in the battery can do many things.

Solar radiation is highly ordered and high energy density. It can power many processes as its energy travels through the Earth system. With each transformation it becomes more disordered and less energy dense until it escapes into space as practically useless diffuse IR. All the order has been used up, entropy has increased. The actual amount of energy is equal as input matches output but the quality of energy is decreased.

Climate models consider all energy as equal. They just count up the joules going in either direction. The increase of diffuse IR (or equivalent) returning from the atmosphere because of more GHGs is considered to be equivalent to more solar radiation. It is not. The order has been used up, entropy has already increased, the quality of energy is much lower. IR radiation is a placeholder for balancing the energy budget, not a driver of processes.