Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Funny you should mention that...the models that climate science is using depict the earth as a flat disk which doesn't rotate and is 4 times further away from the earth than it actually is.
Erm, exactly which model is it that depicts the Earth as being 4 times further away from THE EARTH than it actually is?
Any model based on trenberth's energy budget...in other words...all of them.
I suspect you are referring to the factor of 4 used in the calculation of solar energy received by the Earth's sphere? You failed geometry, didn't you
ps: the calculation is not Trenberth's. It predates him by a few thousand years.
Not at all...my statement stands. You on the other hand can't even read the simplest of graphs.
the 100+ years of detailed obsevation and experimentation has led to exquisite understanding of the properties of light.
Really...show me the proof of photons? No proof of photons...no evidence that science has anything like an exquisite understanding of light. Lets see it.
your 150 year old definition of the second law of thermodynamics is correct in a general way but does not incorporate the knowledge of the microscopic interactions that we know to exist today. Newton's F=ma is a reasonable description of everyday physics but we know it to be wrong today.
You believe in an unmeasurable, untestable, unobservable mathematical model...I don't.
the 100+ years of detailed obsevation and experimentation has led to exquisite understanding of the properties of light.
Really...show me the proof of photons? No proof of photons...no evidence that science has anything like an exquisite understanding of light. Lets see it.
your 150 year old definition of the second law of thermodynamics is correct in a general way but does not incorporate the knowledge of the microscopic interactions that we know to exist today. Newton's F=ma is a reasonable description of everyday physics but we know it to be wrong today.
You believe in an unmeasurable, untestable, unobservable mathematical model...I don't.
Have you figured out yet if a satellite in orbit can take a picture of the Earth's sunlit side?
And if so, why doesn't that violate your version of the 2nd Law?
Heat flows from hot areas to cold, not the other way. If its energy is to flow from cold to hot, it needs additional energy.
he Second Law of Thermodynamics can be rephrased in several ways. Fundamentally, it says that heat always flows from hot objects to cold objects (unless work is exerted to make it flow the other direction).
The application of the second law describes why heat is transferred from the hot object to the cool object. Let us assume that the heat is transferred from the hot object (object 1) at temperature T1 to the cold object (object 2) at temperature T2. The amount of heat transferred is Q and the final equilibrium temperature for both objects we will call Tf. The temperature of the hot object changes as the heat is transferred away from the object. The average temperature of the hot object during the process we will call Th and it would be the average of T1 and Tf.
Th = (T1 + Tf) / 2
Similarly, for the cold object, the final temperature is Tf and the average temperature during the process is Tc which is the average of Tf and T2.
Tc = (T2 + Tf) / 2
Th will always be greater than Tc, because T1 is greater than T2.
Th > Tc
the 100+ years of detailed obsevation and experimentation has led to exquisite understanding of the properties of light.
Really...show me the proof of photons? No proof of photons...no evidence that science has anything like an exquisite understanding of light. Lets see it.
your 150 year old definition of the second law of thermodynamics is correct in a general way but does not incorporate the knowledge of the microscopic interactions that we know to exist today. Newton's F=ma is a reasonable description of everyday physics but we know it to be wrong today.
You believe in an unmeasurable, untestable, unobservable mathematical model...I don't.
Have you figured out yet if a satellite in orbit can take a picture of the Earth's sunlit side?
And if so, why doesn't that violate your version of the 2nd Law?
Second Law of Thermodynamics
Here, one apparently closer to your grade level
Physics4Kids.com Thermodynamics Heat Second Law of Thermodynamics
Heat flows from hot areas to cold, not the other way. If its energy is to flow from cold to hot, it needs additional energy.
Second Law of Thermodynamics - Physics Video by Brightstorm
he Second Law of Thermodynamics can be rephrased in several ways. Fundamentally, it says that heat always flows from hot objects to cold objects (unless work is exerted to make it flow the other direction).
Second Law of Thermodynamics
The application of the second law describes why heat is transferred from the hot object to the cool object. Let us assume that the heat is transferred from the hot object (object 1) at temperature T1 to the cold object (object 2) at temperature T2. The amount of heat transferred is Q and the final equilibrium temperature for both objects we will call Tf. The temperature of the hot object changes as the heat is transferred away from the object. The average temperature of the hot object during the process we will call Th and it would be the average of T1 and Tf.
Th = (T1 + Tf) / 2
Similarly, for the cold object, the final temperature is Tf and the average temperature during the process is Tc which is the average of Tf and T2.
Tc = (T2 + Tf) / 2
Th will always be greater than Tc, because T1 is greater than T2.
Th > Tc
Note the one way equations...
Have you figured out yet if a satellite in orbit can take a picture of the Earth's sunlit side?
And if so, why doesn't that violate your version of the 2nd Law?
Have you figured out yet if a satellite in orbit can take a picture of the Earth's sunlit side?
What is the temperature of the light source?
And if so, why doesn't that violate your version of the 2nd Law?
Is the light source warmer than the camera? You just get more slow all the time...frustration and desperation to avoid defeat can do that to you...or so I have heard. Personally, I tend not to engage in battles I am not sure I have won before I even begin....like this one...as evidenced by your continued failure to provide the observed measured example of energy moving from cool to warm....
You know, you might consider the question of wavelength and frequency....picture a radiator radiating out at 70 µm into an atmosphere of 100% CO2....Is any of that energy absorbed by the CO2?
Funny you should mention that...the models that climate science is using depict the earth as a flat disk which doesn't rotate and is 4 times further away from the earth than it actually is.
Erm, exactly which model is it that depicts the Earth as being 4 times further away from THE EARTH than it actually is?
Any model based on trenberth's energy budget...in other words...all of them.
I suspect you are referring to the factor of 4 used in the calculation of solar energy received by the Earth's sphere? You failed geometry, didn't you
ps: the calculation is not Trenberth's. It predates him by a few thousand years.
Not at all...my statement stands. You on the other hand can't even read the simplest of graphs.
My question still stands: "Erm, exactly which model is it that depicts the Earth as being 4 times further away from THE EARTH than it actually is?" Exactly how can the Earth be ANY distance away from itself?
Funny you should mention that...the models that climate science is using depict the earth as a flat disk which doesn't rotate and is 4 times further away from the earth than it actually is.
Erm, exactly which model is it that depicts the Earth as being 4 times further away from THE EARTH than it actually is?
Any model based on trenberth's energy budget...in other words...all of them.
I suspect you are referring to the factor of 4 used in the calculation of solar energy received by the Earth's sphere? You failed geometry, didn't you
ps: the calculation is not Trenberth's. It predates him by a few thousand years.
Not at all...my statement stands. You on the other hand can't even read the simplest of graphs.
My question still stands: "Erm, exactly which model is it that depicts the Earth as being 4 times further away from THE EARTH than it actually is?" Exactly how can the Earth be ANY distance away from itself?
Bump. You have still not responded to my query.
He never would address the way that LEDs destroy his wacky theory. He just pretends the takedown never happened.
That is, if an LED is cool, its light should not be able to illuminate a warmer object. But it does illuminate such objects.
And saying "But the itty-bitty light emitting parts inside of the LED are hot!" is clearly false. If the LED was hot, it would be emitting a continuous radiation spectrum of light in the visible spectrum, in accordance with Planck's law. It does not. Therefore, the LED is absolutely positively not hot.
And therefore, SSDD's theory craters hard. He knows it, but will never admit it, because he'd also have to admit his entire religion was bogus.
Or your failure to say whether a satellite in orbit can take a picture of the Earth's sunlit side.
Or your failure to say whether a satellite in orbit can take a picture of the Earth's sunlit side.
If the sunlit side of the earth is reflecting light from a heat source far warmer than the camera, why do you think it is a mystery?...Energy obviously moving from warm to cool. Now perhaps you could explain why if you get on the other side of the satellite and move towards the sun, you would reach a point where you could no longer see the satellite and eventually reach a point where the earth itself would no longer be visible.
He never would address the way that LEDs destroy his wacky theory. He just pretends the takedown never happened.
That is, if an LED is cool, its light should not be able to illuminate a warmer object. But it does illuminate such objects.
And saying "But the itty-bitty light emitting parts inside of the LED are hot!" is clearly false. If the LED was hot, it would be emitting a continuous radiation spectrum of light in the visible spectrum, in accordance with Planck's law. It does not. Therefore, the LED is absolutely positively not hot.
And therefore, SSDD's theory craters hard. He knows it, but will never admit it, because he'd also have to admit his entire religion was bogus.
Guess you just can't grasp why an LED would need such an enormous heat sink....sorry you are so stupid...testament to the failing educational system.
He never would address the way that LEDs destroy his wacky theory. He just pretends the takedown never happened.
That is, if an LED is cool, its light should not be able to illuminate a warmer object. But it does illuminate such objects.
And saying "But the itty-bitty light emitting parts inside of the LED are hot!" is clearly false. If the LED was hot, it would be emitting a continuous radiation spectrum of light in the visible spectrum, in accordance with Planck's law. It does not. Therefore, the LED is absolutely positively not hot.
And therefore, SSDD's theory craters hard. He knows it, but will never admit it, because he'd also have to admit his entire religion was bogus.
Guess you just can't grasp why an LED would need such an enormous heat sink....sorry you are so stupid...testament to the failing educational system.
Or your failure to say whether a satellite in orbit can take a picture of the Earth's sunlit side.
If the sunlit side of the earth is reflecting light from a heat source far warmer than the camera, why do you think it is a mystery?...Energy obviously moving from warm to cool. Now perhaps you could explain why if you get on the other side of the satellite and move towards the sun, you would reach a point where you could no longer see the satellite and eventually reach a point where the earth itself would no longer be visible.
you really should do some basic research. incandescent bulbs are the only ones that follow the whole Planck Curve/ temperature defines radiation thing
Just goes to show how beyond gone these AGW freaks are.......they claim to be staunch environmentalists.........but on the subject of mercury? Their attitude is "meh".
fucking phonies........
Just goes to show how beyond gone these AGW freaks are.......they claim to be staunch environmentalists.........but on the subject of mercury? Their attitude is "meh".
fucking phonies........
Skook, is there a even single moron conspiracy theory anywhere that you haven't fallen for?
You're just a profoundly stupid human being. And there's nothing wrong with that, as long as you know your limits. There is, however, something wrong with your belligerent ignorance, which is inexcusable.
So, any other other deniers want to hop on skook's "Vaccines cause autism!" idiot bandwagon?
Like on 9/11??!!!
