Physics question pertinent to global warming

[Crick]

"You believe that you know the truth and those who don't beleve what you believe must be wrong"

The only member of the "those who don't beleve" set is you.

 

[SSDD]

"You believe that you know the truth and those who don't beleve what you believe must be wrong"

The only member of the "those who don't beleve" set is you.

Hardly true, but if you believe it, it must be true...right?

 

[Crick]

You have never presented a single opinion from anyone, expert or ignoramus, who believes as you believe.

 

[IanC]

SSDD SAID-
↑
give wildly inappropriate examples, like air leaking out of a tire or a rock falling down (ignoring the earth falling up?), when you are discussing energy exchange by photon (radiation). you are absurd.
All observations of energy moving towards the direction of more entropy are wildly inappropriate?...interesting. Got any evidence that the earth is falling anywhere?

so now you are denying that the earth is constantly falling towards the sun? or that there is no wobble caused by the moon orbiting the earth?

air leaking out of a tire is inappropriate because there is a physical constraint. two pieces of matter cannot occupy the same space at the same time without transferring energy, photons can. entropy, the arrow of time, is a by-product of quantum statistics. it is a symptom, not a cause.

 

[IanC]

SSDD said-
"
↑
bring 'appeal to authority' to new heights. the statements laid down over a hundred years ago describing thermodynamics are so perfect that they even describe the microscopic world which the scientists knew next to nothing about then. you are absurd.
So ONCE AGAIN...lets see the observed, measured example of energy spontaneously moving from a cool object to a warm object....lets see the actual measured example that proves that that quaint old statement is out of date and due to be rewritten....lets see the hard evidence, not a mathematical model proving that the minds that laid down the second law were wrong.

Or not."

Thermodynamic Laws do not need to be rewritten because they describe macroscopic events very well. It is only you who is claiming that it is appropriate to use macroscopic statistical laws to define whether individual atomic events are possible or not.

you say you want a direct measured example of an individual atomic event going against a temperature gradient but you know that we cannot measure things that small without impacting them with our measuring devices.

if we measure the radiation coming off two objects, using detectors which are powered and doing work, we can find the radiation coming off both of them but then you just invoke your catch-22 whereby the radiation is magically retarded into just a one way net flow when the detectors are removed. of course you have no explanation how or why this happens. 'falling rocks' seems to be as good a reason as you can come up with.

 

[SSDD]

you say you want a direct measured example of an individual atomic event going against a temperature gradient but you know that we cannot measure things that small without impacting them with our measuring devices.

Of course I know...I also know that your claims of fact are best guesses at describing a world we don't have access to...and I also know that if we ever do get to look inside, it will in all probability surprise us all at how different it is from what we thought. You have become a zealot proclaiming your belief as if it were fact.

we measure the radiation coming off two objects, using detectors which are powered and doing work, we can find the radiation coming off both of them but then you just invoke your catch-22 whereby the radiation is magically retarded into just a one way net flow when the detectors are removed. of course you have no explanation how or why this happens. 'falling rocks' seems to be as good a reason as you can come up with.

You might have noted that we can only measure radiation coming off objects if the instruments are cooled to temperatures lower than that of the objects being measured....wonder why the instruments must be cooler than the objects in order to measure radiation coming from them?

 

[Crick]

That must explain why I can't take a photograph of an ice cube.

 

[Billy_Bob]

That must explain why I can't take a photograph of an ice cube.

There is a big difference in reflected light (photons) and emitted photons

 

[SixFoot]

Holy crap, did I just stumble in to an episode of The Big Bang Theory?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Holy crap, did I just stumble in to an episode of The Big Bang Theory?

Come on in a feel the love!

I'm debating a reply right now. It seems that some have issues with what is 'law' and what is theroy.. Or at least they are having trouble discerning the two. Where is physics Hunter when you need him?

 

[SixFoot]

Holy crap, did I just stumble in to an episode of The Big Bang Theory?

Come on in a feel the love!

I'm debating a reply right now. It seems that some have issues with what is 'law' and what is theroy.. Or at least they are having trouble discerning the two. Where is physics Hunter when you need him?

Oh, I feel the entertainment alright. I'm just going to be mostly spectating on this one.

 

[Crick]

That must explain why I can't take a photograph of an ice cube.

There is a big difference in reflected light (photons) and emitted photons

No kidding?

Do you agree with SSDD's interpretation of radiative heat transfer or are you with the rest of the world?

He could use a friend about now.

 

[flacaltenn]

OMG.. Not this again.. You will not get a concession. Look at the poster name !!! SSDD has got the thermodynamics part.. But apparently never took the Field and Waves course. He Rejects BackRadiation. Probably doesn't know how the GreenHouse theory works..

Skip to the fucking Cliff Notes.. BACKRADIATION from atmospheric heating is REAL. Net transfer of surface heat is ALWAYS to the sky. It RETARDS the rate of heat loss from the surface..

End of discussion..
Why the fuck is this so important to CrickHam??
Does he think this is World of Extreme Wrestling or something?
There's a MOUNTAIN RANGE of stuff that HE doesn;'t get right every day. This forum is a remix of GroundHog Day and One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest..

 

[flacaltenn]

That must explain why I can't take a photograph of an ice cube.

There is a big difference in reflected light (photons) and emitted photons

No kidding?

Do you agree with SSDD's interpretation of radiative heat transfer or are you with the rest of the world?

He could use a friend about now.

HE has many friends. And they dont dog his dogma -- sport...

 

[Crick]

That must explain why I can't take a photograph of an ice cube.

There is a big difference in reflected light (photons) and emitted photons

No kidding?

Do you agree with SSDD's interpretation of radiative heat transfer or are you with the rest of the world?

He could use a friend about now.

HE has many friends. And they dont dog his dogma -- sport...

I've watched multiple folks from YOUR side of the argument trying to talk some sense into him. I've wonder why you haven't joined them. Do you agree with SSDD's physics?

 

[flacaltenn]

That must explain why I can't take a photograph of an ice cube.

There is a big difference in reflected light (photons) and emitted photons

No kidding?

Do you agree with SSDD's interpretation of radiative heat transfer or are you with the rest of the world?

He could use a friend about now.

HE has many friends. And they dont dog his dogma -- sport...

I've watched multiple folks from YOUR side of the argument trying to talk some sense into him. I've wonder why you haven't joined them. Do you agree with SSDD's physics?

I've been at it 3 times with him. About 12 pages worth.. Unlike you -- I know when to stop.. For the sake of others on this forum -- for me -- it aint a shooting war -- or personal...

That's also why I don't engage much you anymore either. You continually FORGET conversations and facts that don't match the skepticalscience holybook...

 

[SSDD]

That must explain why I can't take a photograph of an ice cube.

What is the temperature of the light source lighting up the ice cube so you can take a photo of it...put it in a dark room with no flash and take a picture...let me know what you see.

 

[SSDD]

That must explain why I can't take a photograph of an ice cube.

There is a big difference in reflected light (photons) and emitted photons

No kidding?

Do you agree with SSDD's interpretation of radiative heat transfer or are you with the rest of the world?

He could use a friend about now.

Actually, I don't "need" anything....I have stated that energy only flows in one direction...that being from warm to cool.....I can ask you for examples proving otherwise with complete confidence that you will be able to provide none....while I can provide every observation ever made to support my position.

 

[SSDD]

Skip to the fucking Cliff Notes.. BACKRADIATION from atmospheric heating is REAL. Net transfer of surface heat is ALWAYS to the sky. It RETARDS the rate of heat loss from the surface..

So where is the tropospheric hot spot? It must exist if what you claim is true....so where is it?

 

[Crick]

Why would you have a problem with backradiation? The surface of the Earth is warmer than space and IT KNOWS IT...