Second Law of Thermodynamics Declared Wrong....

[Uncensored2008]

The AGW computer models totally contradict the Second Suggestion of Thermodynamics

Ever get the feeling that World Of Warcraft better models the climate than Michael Mann does?

 

[NLT]

This whole thread is just one big nerd fight. Its like two bald men fighting over a comb.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This whole thread is just one big nerd fight. Its like two bald men fighting over a comb.

The Cult comes unglued when their faith is questioned.

Science and AGW are not compatible. So the forum warmists get very upset when infidels toss in scientific fact.

 

[RollingThunder]

Actually, SSoooDDuuumb, you're "on the crazy train" of being too retarded to understand the difference between conductive transfer of heat and radiative transfer of energy and then fantasizing that you understand the science better than all of the world's actual scientists. You poor confused retard!

Do you believe that energy can spontaneously move from any given entropy state to a lower entropy state. It is a yes or no question.

Does a blanket keep your body warmer on a cold night than sleeping naked would? It is a yes or no question.

Is the blanket in a higher "entropy state than your body?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Does a blanket keep your body warmer on a cold night than sleeping naked would? It is a yes or no question.

Are you claiming that the Carbon sins of AGW are like a blanket? That there is a physical barrier to convection?

Really?

 

[SSDD]

Does a blanket keep your body warmer on a cold night than sleeping naked would? It is a yes or no question.

The blanket stops convection and conduction allowing my body to warm the air under the blanket...my body temperature does not increase...I don't get a fever every night just because I cover up.

Is the blanket in a higher "entropy state than your body?

With that question, it becomes painfully obvious that this topic is way over your head...with your refusal to answer a simple yes or no question, it also becomes clear that you simply don't grasp the subject matter, and finally, your attempt to equate the blocking of convection and conduction with energy moving spontaneously to a lower entropy state makes it inarguable that this subject is just beyond you.

Now, do you want to answer the simple yes or no question or go on the record as not having the slightest clue which would lead you to either a yes or no answer.

 

[SSDD]

Does a blanket keep your body warmer on a cold night than sleeping naked would? It is a yes or no question.

Are you claiming that the Carbon sins of AGW are like a blanket? That there is a physical barrier to convection?

Really?

Every time he tries to speak in his own words rather than his typical cut and paste, that is the sort of bilge that comes out. The topic is so far over his head that he can't even state in yes or no terms whether he thinks energy can spontaneously move to a lower entropy state.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The second law of thermodynamics isn't a theory...it is a fundamental law of nature. Feel free to try and prove it wrong.

It is both.

 

[SSDD]

The second law of thermodynamics isn't a theory...it is a fundamental law of nature. Feel free to try and prove it wrong.

It is both.

theory - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena

law - A statement that describes invariable relationships among phenomena under a specified set of conditions.

It is a law...not to be confused with theory. The words have two different meanings.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It is both.

theory - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena

law - A statement that describes invariable relationships among phenomena under a specified set of conditions.

It is a law...not to be confused with theory. The words have two different meanings.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is a testable principle. Its part of thermodynamic theory. This is obvious.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Does entropy decrease within an isolated system reaching equilibrium?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Does entropy decrease within an isolated system reaching equilibrium?

Nope.

 

[mamooth]

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is a testable principle. Its part of thermodynamic theory. This is obvious.

Yes, and one can test that it doesn't hold on the level of individual atoms.

In classical thermodynamics -- the old way, the one thought up before they knew about atoms -- the second law is a postulate or axiom, something to be accepted as true by definition.

In statistical thermodynamics -- the new way -- the second law is an observation of the statistically average behavior of a system of zillions of atoms. And nothing in it constrains individual atoms or photons from going against the average.

If people want to deny the last century of thermodynamics because their political cult has ordered them too, we can't stop them. But we will point out how absurd they look.

 

[Sunshine]

Entropy requires no maintenance.

Don't get too broken up about entropy.

Lose no sleep over the fact that it never rests, either.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzoPtNa5c3c]Everything Put Together Falls Apart - Paul Simon (original) - YouTube[/ame]

You have just describe my falling apart body!

 

[Sunshine]

Very interesting to see those that think their grasp of science is so much better than that of working scientists displaying the depths of their ignorance.

Hey, I'm a nurse, an NP. Anyone and everyone can tell me how to do my job. And did you ever see an old maid who didn't know more about raising children than anybody!

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Why not?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes, and one can test that it doesn't hold on the level of individual atoms.

In classical thermodynamics -- the old way, the one thought up before they knew about atoms -- the second law is a postulate or axiom, something to be accepted as true by definition.

In statistical thermodynamics -- the new way -- the second law is an observation of the statistically average behavior of a system of zillions of atoms. And nothing in it constrains individual atoms or photons from going against the average.

If people want to deny the last century of thermodynamics because their political cult has ordered them too, we can't stop them. But we will point out how absurd they look.

You might want to check again, sparky.

Quarks are not atoms. Photons are not atoms. The behavior of sub-atomic particles is not the behavior of full fledged atoms.

 

[SSDD]

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is a testable principle. Its part of thermodynamic theory. This is obvious.

Rattle on as much as you like....it won't change the fact that it is a law. Were it theory, it would be called the second theory of thermodynamics.

What is it that makes warmers such idiots that you take impossibly stupid stands and then try to defend them?

 

[SSDD]

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is a testable principle. Its part of thermodynamic theory. This is obvious.

Yes, and one can test that it doesn't hold on the level of individual atoms.

So lets see a paper on the observed, measured results of such a test.

Don't worry. None is expected because none exists because no such test is possible.

 

[mamooth]

Yep. Like I said, most of the denialists are determined to ignore the last century of science, simply because their political cult commands it.

And that would be why most of the planet correctly classifies them as cultists.