The Uninhabitable Earth

[Toddsterpatriot]

I trust a scientist's explanation of why it is changing more than I trust right wing radio's explanation.

Really?

Did you trust the tens of thousands of scientists who told you that cholesterol caused heart disease....they were wrong

Did you trust the scientists who told you that stress caused ulcers....they were wrong

Did you trust the scientists who told you that salt caused high blood pressure....the were wrong...

Did you trust the scientists who told you that the earth was expanding....they were wrong...

Did you trust the sceintiists who thought that light transmitted through the universe via aether.....they were wrong

Did you trust the scientists who said that phrenology was real....they were wrong

Did you trust the scientists who told you that there were strong genetic differences between the races....they were wrong

Did you trust the scientists who told you that neanderthals didn't exist alongside humans....they were wrong

See a pattern developing here?

Did you trust the scientists who told you that earth might be the only place in the solar system where water exists....they were wrong...

Did you believe the scientists who told you that complex organisms have more genes than a simple organism like an amoeba......they were wrong

Seeing the pattern yet?

Dod you believe the scientists who told you that the universe was 13.7 billion years old?....they were wrong

Did you believe the scientists who said that black holes couldn't exist near young stars...apparently they were wrong...

The fact is that science has been wrong on nearly every scientific topic there is...and the newer the field of science, the more likely they are to be wrong. Climate science is in its infancy...you really believe it is the only field of science ever to spring forth complete and without error? Really?

You are just one more face in an ocean of faces who are very easily fooled...and the sad thing is that you aren't even aware of it.

Did you believe the scientists that said photons can only more from warmer matter to cooler matter?

 

[Crick]

Have you seen his interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? SSDD claims that matter does not radiate IR ini the direction of cooler matter. It somehow knows the temperature of all the other matter in the universe and just stops. When you ask him how that happens, he says we will probably never know. Somehow, though, Planck, Wien, Stefan and Boltzman knew since he uses an absurd intepretation of the Second Law in an attempt to support his insanity.

Now this knowledge about warmer matter in the surroundings transcends several different complicating factors: motion, distance, time and change. A piece of hot iron in a smithy's forge knows where hotter objects will be when its photons would have reached them. It knows the future of objects its radiation might not reach for millions of years. The claim is insane and he has been repeatedly informed of its insanity but refuses to recant. A certain sign of a troll.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Have you seen his interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? SSDD claims that matter does not radiate IR ini the direction of cooler matter. It somehow knows the temperature of all the other matter in the universe and just stops. When you ask him how that happens, he says we will probably never know. Somehow, though, Planck, Wien, Stefan and Boltzman knew since he uses an absurd intepretation of the Second Law in an attempt to support his insanity.

Now this knowledge about warmer matter in the surroundings transcends several different complicating factors: motion, distance, time and change. A piece of hot iron in a smithy's forge knows where hotter objects will be when its photons would have reached them. It knows the future of objects its radiation might not reach for millions of years. The claim is insane and he has been repeatedly informed of its insanity but refuses to recant. A certain sign of a troll.

Don't forget, photons can't move from cooler to hotter, unless work is done.
That would mean that 40C matter can't radiate toward 70C matter.....but if you do work to bring the
temperature up to 41C, now it can radiate toward 70C matter.

I want to know how the matter knows that work has been done?

How does "natural 41C matter" know it can't radiate but "work added 41C matter" knows it can?

Too many epicycles for me.

 

[mamooth]

He also went incoherent when I pointed out uncooled IR cameras take fine photos that differentiate between the cold clouds and colder sky.

He said it's because bits of the camera knew to radiate more or less based on the temperature of the sky or cloud they were pointed at.

Obviously, by such insane standards, it would mean the ground or ocean should also know to radiate more or less at the sky, based on sky temperature. The greenhouse effect would still work, albeit in an idiot backasswards way.

No, not his theory. Apparently, camera molecules are smart enough to know how to adjust their IR output, but molecules in the ground or ocean aren't that smart. No word on what gives camera molecules special intelligence.

 

[Pilot1]

Please convert to Kelvin, then get back to me. Show your work.

 

[SSDD]

Have you seen his interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

Everything you say is a lie...what's the matter with you?

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.

I agree with every word of that statement...exactly as it is written. Do you? Of course you don't....because you are the one who has some altered version of the second law of thermodynamics you subscribe to. Tell us how you alter the statement above in order to agree with your beliefs...

I have no "interpretation" It is you who has an interpretation...I am in perfect agreement with the statement as it is written.

 

[SSDD]

He also went incoherent when I pointed out uncooled IR cameras take fine photos that differentiate between the cold clouds and colder sky.

Sorry that you interpret someone telling you how an IR camera works as incoherent...sorry that you didn't know that when an uncooled camera produces an image of a cooler object, it is the result of the sensor array cooling down....ie, loosing energy to the cooler object...that is why uncooled cameras don't produce images of objects that are cooler than ambient temperature as well as cooled cameras...the image is much better when the array is receiving energy from the object than when it is losing energy to the object...

It isn't as if it were rocket science...quite simple actually, and it has been explained to you over and over with supporting documentation but you just don't seem to be able to grasp it.

 

[Crick]

Are you seeing this Bulldog?

SSDD uses this nonsense to claim that there is no greenhouse effect. He or Billy Bob or both have claimed that CO2 emits infrared but cannot absorb it and so acts as a cooling agent. If you ask them what, then, has warmed the Earth for the last 150 years they will tell you it is the result of lying scientists.

SSDD is a TROLL

 

[mamooth]

Sorry that you interpret someone telling you how an IR camera works as incoherent...sorry that you didn't know that when an uncooled camera produces an image of a cooler object, it is the result of the sensor array cooling down....ie, loosing energy to the cooler object...

Yes, we agree that's your lunatic theory.

Now we need to discuss why that same strange theory doesn't apply to the ground.

If the ground sees sky that is somewhat warmer due to the CO2 in that sky absorbing IR radiation, the ground will thus radiate less towards the sky, just like the camera, right?

 

[SSDD]

Are you seeing this Bulldog?

SSDD uses this nonsense to claim that there is no greenhouse effect. He or Billy Bob or both have claimed that CO2 emits infrared but cannot absorb it and so acts as a cooling agent. If you ask them what, then, has warmed the Earth for the last 150 years they will tell you it is the result of lying scientists.

SSDD is a TROLL

More lies.....you are the biggest liar on the board skidmark...but I understand...lately you have been lying out of frustration and anger...having your ass handed to you all the time must get tiring....

So prove that you are not a liar and provide a quote by me saying that CO2 does not absorb IR...lying about what people say is just common skidmark...have you become common now?

 

[SSDD]

Sorry that you interpret someone telling you how an IR camera works as incoherent...sorry that you didn't know that when an uncooled camera produces an image of a cooler object, it is the result of the sensor array cooling down....ie, loosing energy to the cooler object...

Yes, we agree that's your lunatic theory.

Now we need to discuss why that same strange theory doesn't apply to the ground.

If the ground sees sky that is somewhat warmer due to the CO2 in that sky absorbing IR radiation, the ground will thus radiate less towards the sky, just like the camera, right?

Here hairball...from The Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications:

If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: the heat goes from the sensor to the object. This may happen when a person walks into a warm room from the cold outside. Surface of her clothing will be cooler than the sensor and thus the flux becomes negative. In the following discussion, we will consider that the object is warmer than the sensor and the flux is positive

The passage above is on page 307, section 7.8...the page is visible through google books

 

[SSDD]

Sorry that you interpret someone telling you how an IR camera works as incoherent...sorry that you didn't know that when an uncooled camera produces an image of a cooler object, it is the result of the sensor array cooling down....ie, loosing energy to the cooler object...

Yes, we agree that's your lunatic theory.

Now we need to discuss why that same strange theory doesn't apply to the ground.

If the ground sees sky that is somewhat warmer due to the CO2 in that sky absorbing IR radiation, the ground will thus radiate less towards the sky, just like the camera, right?

CO2 doesn't cause warming...but if you believe you can provide some observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, by all means, lets see it.

We both know that no such evidence will be forthcoming as CO2 only causes warming in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...

 

[Wuwei]

CO2 doesn't cause warming...but if you believe you can provide some observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, by all means, lets see it.

We both know that no such evidence will be forthcoming as CO2 only causes warming in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models..

Still trolling that crap. Where do you think the IR energy goes. It's absorbed by CO2 and disappears? You want to violate the conservation of energy?

What happens to the 16000 W/m2 IR radiation from the surface of Venus. Does that disappear too?

 

[mamooth]

If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: the heat goes from the sensor to the object.

And that's correct, being that heat is a macroscopic statistical quality, so it includes quantum-level energy flow going both directions.

That's century-old science. It's what I took junior year in Statistical Mechanics class. You would flunk out of an undergrad physics curriculum.

That's also still an evasion on your part. The point here is your inconsistency concerning the camera and the ground.

You say the camera radiates less if the background is warmer. If your insane theory was consistent, the ground would also radiate less if the sky is warmer.

Since you just screamed that CO2 does absorb IR, you are saying more CO2 makes the sky warmer (unless you're denying conservation of energy). If your theory is consistent, the ground should radiate less as CO2 increases, retain more heat, and thus warm, which is a greenhouse effect, albeit in an idiot backasswards way.

But no, your magical universe isn't consistent. The camera understands it must radiate less at a warmer background, but the ground doesn't. What gives the camera molecules that special intelligence which the ground molecules lack?

 

[SSDD]

CO2 doesn't cause warming...but if you believe you can provide some observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, by all means, lets see it.

We both know that no such evidence will be forthcoming as CO2 only causes warming in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models..

Still trolling that crap. Where do you think the IR energy goes. It's absorbed by CO2 and disappears? You want to violate the conservation of energy?

What happens to the 16000 W/m2 IR radiation from the surface of Venus. Does that disappear too?

That is your interpretation...and I already told you all about the energy on venus...sorry that you are too stupid to grasp what you were told...

 

[SSDD]

If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: the heat goes from the sensor to the object.

And that's correct, being that heat is a macroscopic statistical quality, so it includes quantum-level energy flow going both directions.

That's century-old science. It's what I took junior year in Statistical Mechanics class. You would flunk out of an undergrad physics curriculum.

That's also still an evasion on your part. The point here is your inconsistency concerning the camera and the ground.

You say the camera radiates less if the background is warmer. If your insane theory was consistent, the ground would also radiate less if the sky is warmer.

Since you just screamed that CO2 does absorb IR, you are saying more CO2 makes the sky warmer (unless you're denying conservation of energy). If your theory is consistent, the ground should radiate less as CO2 increases, retain more heat, and thus warm, which is a greenhouse effect, albeit in an idiot backasswards way.

But no, your magical universe isn't consistent. The camera understands it must radiate less at a warmer background, but the ground doesn't. What gives the camera molecules that special intelligence which the ground molecules lack?

You are so far off the mark on this hairball that I doubt that it would be possible to explain it to you even if you weren't genetically predisposed to shun the truth in favor of your cultish beliefs...and it never fails to give me a chuckle when you wacos start going on about non sentient things needing to be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics...imagine, smart rocks that know to fall...intelligent air that knows it can't flow into a flat tire....and on and on..

 

[Flash]

It is absolutely time to panic about climate change
It is absolutely time to panic about climate change

Author David Wallace-Wells on the dystopian hellscape that awaits us


"It is, I promise, worse than you think."

That was the fist line of David Wallace-Wells horrifying 2017 essay in New York Magazine* about climate change. It ws an attempt to pain a very real picture of our not-too-distant future, a future filled with famines, political chaos, economic collapse, fierce resource competition and a sun that cooks us

* When Will the Planet Be Too Hot for Humans? Much, Much Sooner Than You Imagine.

Wallace-Wells has developed his essay into a new book: The Uninhabitable Earth.

You should check out the Vox article at the top link. The first of many points: the difference between constraining the temperature rise to 1.5C rather than 2C would be the deaths of 150 million people, from air pollution alone.

I thought that clown Al Gore said 20 years ago that we would all would be dead by now by global warming?

In the meantime we are all doing fine except for the fact that all the credible climate scientists are predicting a solar minimum that will put us into a mini ice age for the next 30-50 years.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: the heat goes from the sensor to the object.

And that's correct, being that heat is a macroscopic statistical quality, so it includes quantum-level energy flow going both directions.

That's century-old science. It's what I took junior year in Statistical Mechanics class. You would flunk out of an undergrad physics curriculum.

That's also still an evasion on your part. The point here is your inconsistency concerning the camera and the ground.

You say the camera radiates less if the background is warmer. If your insane theory was consistent, the ground would also radiate less if the sky is warmer.

Since you just screamed that CO2 does absorb IR, you are saying more CO2 makes the sky warmer (unless you're denying conservation of energy). If your theory is consistent, the ground should radiate less as CO2 increases, retain more heat, and thus warm, which is a greenhouse effect, albeit in an idiot backasswards way.

But no, your magical universe isn't consistent. The camera understands it must radiate less at a warmer background, but the ground doesn't. What gives the camera molecules that special intelligence which the ground molecules lack?

You are so far off the mark on this hairball that I doubt that it would be possible to explain it to you even if you weren't genetically predisposed to shun the truth in favor of your cultish beliefs...and it never fails to give me a chuckle when you wacos start going on about non sentient things needing to be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics...imagine, smart rocks that know to fall...intelligent air that knows it can't flow into a flat tire....and on and on..

and it never fails to give me a chuckle when you wacos start going on about non sentient things needing to be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics..

Besides your smart photons or smart emitters, which other things are allowed to predict the future and violate causality....in order to obey your confused version of the laws of physics?

 

[Wuwei]

That is your interpretation...and I already told you all about the energy on venus...sorry that you are too stupid to grasp what you were told...

Nope, you never said what happens to the 16000 W/m2 IR radiation from the surface of Venus. Give me a link or admit you are lying again.

 

[SSDD]

That is your interpretation...and I already told you all about the energy on venus...sorry that you are too stupid to grasp what you were told...

Nope, you never said what happens to the 16000 W/m2 IR radiation from the surface of Venus. Give me a link or admit you are lying again.

I gave you all you needed....but here it is again as if you would be capable of grasping it this time....it goes against what you believe so you reject it...never mind that the numbers prove the point...

Quite simply; temperature is just a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a gas. Convection occurs in any atmosphere when the pressure is >10kPa.

Convection (and the action of auto-compression) causes potential energy to convert enthalpy, pressure and hence to kinetic energy in the 50% of gas that is descending in the Venusian atmosphere. This occurs in accord with the following equation;

H = PV + U

Where;
H = enthalpy (J/kg)
P = pressure (Pa)
V = specific volume (m³)
U = specific internal energy (kinetic energy)

50% of the huge mass of the Venusian atmosphere holds a LOT of potential energy, hence the 16,000W/m2 at surface.