AGW: atmospheric physics

[polarbear]

Any particular reason you failed to understand the word "simplified"? Was it due to ignorance of the word, or deliberate misinterpretation?

And your body temperature doesn't increase as a result of being under the blankets. The air trapped under the blanket with you warms, but that is a result of blocking convection and conduction...two factors which have nothing at all to do with the claimed greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is based entirely on radiation.

body under a blanket, and planet under an atmosphere are fundementally different. a body regulates its temperature and uses less food to create heat under a blanket. a planet has a consistent heat source therefore the equilibrium temperature at the surface will change when radiation is impeded and thus a higher temperature is needed to force energy past the blockage.

A planet with oceans also regulates the temperature just like a body sweating, it evaporates water, which consumes 2260 KJ/kg.
If your sweat can`t evaporate you overheat and get a "heat stroke". Lowering the metabolism can`t make up for blocking evaporation when convection is blocked.
Moist air is lighter than dry air and above 50% RH convective updrafts of over 3000 feet per minute up to well over 30 000 feet are not uncommon.
H2O vapor then condenses and dissipates the latent heat way above the path length were CO2 laden air would allow any IR transmittance back down at the wavelength CO2 absorbed it.
The only thing that can block it is an inversion layer of "Chinese aerosol" which acts like a roof on a "greenhouse" ...not as climatologists claim as a radiation strictly up-reflector like a bunch of aligned particle mirrors of a magnitude that can cool the globe.

 

[SSDD]

Well, present some evidence, and let's take a look.

Expecting people to simply take your word for it doesn't seem a terribly useful starting point.

NASA data shows thickest and oldest Arctic ice is melting | Reuters

SSDD -

Thanks, that's an interesting article:

This is particularly shocking;

"Some 965,300 square miles (2.5 million sq kms) of perennial ice have been lost -- about one and a half times the area of Alaska -- a 50 percent decrease between February 2007 and February 2008, Meier said."

Only shocking if you fail to put the facts into the context of the present sea ice (since about 1998) being greater in size than it has been for most of the past 9000 years.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper: Current Arctic Sea Ice is More Extensive than Most of the past 9000 Years

A peer-reviewed paper published in the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences finds that western Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the 20th century was more extensive than most of the past 9000 years. The paper also finds that the western Arctic sea ice extent was on a declining trend over the past 9000 years, but recovered beginning sometime over the past 1000 years and has been relatively stable and extensive since. The paper also demonstrates that even though western annual sea ice extent has been less than the present throughout most of the last 9000 years, low sea ice has consistently failed to cause a planetary albedo 'tipping point' claimed by warmists.

http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

If we stick to scientific facts and leave the gossip to one side, the situation in the Arctic is clearly catastrophic - so say your own sources.

For every research paper claiming the Arctic is thriving, there are 100 others from far stronger sources claiming the opposite, and you know it. You won't read them, of course, but you know as well as I do that Arctic melt has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't want to be on the wrong side of this argument.. So let me just state -- there IS a Greenhouse effect. Problem with some of the analysis from both sides here is that we have this thing called "day" and another called "night". And the way the greenhouse works is INDEPENDENT of day and night, but it's instructive to look at each scenario separately..

There is NO DOUBT that nighttimes are cooler under a clear sky. This is where the rate of cooling is INCREASED due to the absence of water vapor blanket. Anyone want to contest this so far?

There is no difference in THIS blanket than any other thermal resistance. They tend to restrict the rate of cooling. And that is what IanC was saying. The sun pumps energy in that is largely UNIMPEDED by the CO2 in the air. Whereas the black body IR radiation that results from surface heating IS in the right frequencies to consider the GGases as an insulator going out. This results in a reservoir of energy (over time) being retained by the black body.

Blankets work as insulators in both directions. The GGases don't. Because the energy is converted to longer wave IR at the surface where the HEAT is stored. HEAT is NOT ElectroMagnetic. A warm object just has the ability to shed energy thru IR emissions..

I wouldn't want SSDD designing a power amp for my stereo if he believes that throwing a blanket over it has no effect on the temperature of the amp..

 

[mamooth]

You said that the greenhouse effect was the result of so called greenhouse gasses slow down radiative heat transfer away from the earth. That is an entirely different scenario than is claimed by climate science.

Yep, which is the simplified version of what climate science says, regardless of your bizarre take on it. I understand the various conductive, convective and radiative effects. The point is that if you restrict heat flow away from a generating body in any way, temperature rises.

Slowing down the rate of heat transfer means a slowed rate of cooling.

That's correct if the object is not generating heat. That's not the case for the earth, which is "generating" heat in the sense it's converting visible light to heat, or for a body under a blanket.

Are you claiming that you get a fever when you get under the covers in your bed?

If you cocooned yourself in a massive layers of high-quality insulators all-around, and stayed in it long enough, then absolutely yes, you would get a fever. This doesn't happen to people in beds because:

A. They don't use that many blankets, and the blankets aren't that perfect of insulators.
B. They remove blankets if they get too warm.
C. They don't have blankets underneath or over their face, so significant heat flows into the mattress or out their head, no matter how many blankets they use.

Are you claiming that your hot coffee gets hotter when you put it in a thermos?

Is a cup of coffee generating new heat energy? Since the answer is "no", that strawman has nothing to do with the issue.

The laws of thermodynamics ...

... absolutely and positively say you're totally wrong. Heat energy has to go somewhere. If it's not flowing out as quickly as it's generated, it builds up and increases temperature. Eventually, the greater delta-T will "push" the heat outward faster, and a new equilibrium will be reached at a higher temperature.

Turn on a light bulb till it gets hot...measure its temperature. Turn it off and measure its temperature as it cools down arne record the results every minute. Now turn it back on till it gets hot again...turn it off and place an insulating blanket over it. Measure its temperature. It will cool down at a lower rate, but it will never get warmer than the temperature it was when you initially turned it off. Slowed rate of cooling does not equal warming.

Since the bulb isn't generating heat when it's turned off, that example has nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you were to place that insulating blanket around the light bulb when it was turned on, then it would absolutely, positively get much hotter.

 

[flacaltenn]

Heat differentials are the thermal moving potential. Temperature is an effect that depends on time-rate of transfers or ENERGY. Coffee stays hotter LONGER in a thermos. Any doubters?

Don't forget the time variable...

 

[IanC]

body under a blanket, and planet under an atmosphere are fundementally different. a body regulates its temperature and uses less food to create heat under a blanket. a planet has a consistent heat source therefore the equilibrium temperature at the surface will change when radiation is impeded and thus a higher temperature is needed to force energy past the blockage.

Take a heating pad...roll it up...put a wireless grill thermometer (accurate to 0.1 degrees) inside....turn it on....give it time to reach whatever setting you put it on....then put the whole thing under as many blankets as you like and the temperature of that heating pad still won't increase. I did the experiment myself during a cookout last summer to prove to a luke warmer friend that a blanket can't make a warm object warmer. We put the heating pad under a total of 3 quilts and 2 down comforters, each folded in half and a second time with one of those thin mylar gold on one side silver on the other emergency blankets under the quilts and blankets after an objection was raised about the "reflective" qualities of cloth. That should have been enough coverage to cause the heating pad to get warmer than it was in open air if warming were physically possible.

If you turn the heating pad off and record its cool down period in the open air, and under blankets, it will cool down slower under the blaket, but again, reduced rate of cooling is not warming.

By the way, a planet does not have a consistent heat source. GCM's assume a consistent heat source, but real life is quite different. The output of the sun is variable....the amount of incoming radiation reaching the ground is variable due to clouds and other atmospheric phenomena...the amount of energy coming in is variable to the extreme due to the rotation of the earth....radiation from the surface is variable because of the physical geography of the planet...etc, etc, etc. The energy output of the planet is no more fixed and stable than that of your own body. It doesn't really matter though because the heating pad experiment proves that a blanket can not cause a self heating object to warm which takes the whole "body" question out of the picture.

??? "give it time to reach whatever setting you put it on"??? did you check to see how much power it was drawing?

throw a blanket over any powered up piece of electronics and it will heat up.

the energy coming from the Sun is very stable. complaining that atmospheric equilibrium effects that are powered by the Sun are then interefering with incoming radiation is somewhat dishonest when you refuse to allow me to point out atmospheric equilibrium effects are interfering with outgoing radiation.

 

[SSDD]

Yep, which is the simplified version of what climate science says, regardless of your bizarre take on it. I understand the various conductive, convective and radiative effects. The point is that if you restrict heat flow away from a generating body in any way, temperature rises.

No, the greenhouse effect you claimed is not a simplified version...it is entirely different. Yours claims a slowing down of radiation leaving the surface into space....the other claims radiation is recycled back to the surface of the earth where it is absorbed, further warming the surface beyond the temperature that the sun can produce. Those are two entirely different senarios. If you can't understand that,then as I said, we are already over your head.

That's correct if the object is not generating heat. That's not the case for the earth, which is "generating" heat in the sense it's converting visible light to heat, or for a body under a blanket.

Its correct evenif the object is generating heat. A self warming object radiates at some X amount of wattage per square inch or meter or kilometer. Throwing a blanket over that object will not increase the X at all. It will slow down the rate of cooling till such time as the blanket reaches the same temperature as the radiating object (equilibrium) at which time the outside of the blanket begins to act as the outermost surface of the radiating object. The radiating object will never radiate more because the blanket was placed over it.

If you cocooned yourself in a massive layers of high-quality insulators all-around, and stayed in it long enough, then absolutely yes, you would get a fever. This doesn't happen to people in beds because:

You would never get a fever because the insulation is not an energy source. You can't reflect an object's energy back to it and increase its output.....ever. If you could, then you would have a perpetual motion machine.

A. They don't use that many blankets, and the blankets aren't that perfect of insulators.

How many does it take? And even the poorest blanket is a better insulator than air so if the greenhouse effect only works when you are dealing with a perfect insulator, then that hypothesis is out the door...DOA.

B. They remove blankets if they get too warm.

You are confusing how you feel with actual temperature changes. The air under the blanket will eventually warm to a temperature close to your body temperature because you have blocked convection and conduction...The air will never become warmer than your body temperature and your body temperature will never increase. For most people, 98 degrees or so is not a comfortable sleeping temperature. If you can't seperate what you feel from what is, then again, we are already over your head.

C. They don't have blankets underneath or over their face, so significant heat flows into the mattress or out their head, no matter how many blankets they use.

Wouldn't matter if they completely covered themselves and stayed under till the CO2 became so concentrated that they passed out...their body temperature would never rise. Get in bed, cover yourself up and take your temperature every 15 minutes from now till dooms day and you will never develop a fever.

Is a cup of coffee generating new heat energy? Since the answer is "no", that strawman has nothing to do with the issue.

Is the earth receiving energy from the sun after nighfall? No it is not so the issue is valid. The greenhouse hypothesis claims that the greenhouse effect is working 24 hours a day.

... absolutely and positively say you're totally wrong. Heat energy has to go somewhere. If it's not flowing out as quickly as it's generated, it builds up and increases temperature. Eventually, the greater delta-T will "push" the heat outward faster, and a new equilibrium will be reached at a higher temperature.

A warm object can't further warm itself. Law of conseration of energy. In order to warm an object beyond its temperature, more energy must be applied to it. If you want a light bulb to put out more light, you must increase the power coming in from the cord...you can't hold a mirror up to it and increase the amout of light it is putting out by reflecting light back to it.

Since the bulb isn't generating heat when it's turned off, that example has nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you were to place that insulating blanket around the light bulb when it was turned on, then it would absolutely, positively get much hotter.

Since the earth has day and night, it is applicable to the issue. Throw a blanket over a lit light bulb and still, the temperature of the fillament will not increase. A 100 watt lightbulb will not put out any more light, or heat because you cover it up. Point an infrared thermometer (if they register that high) at the filament when you put a blanket over it and the temperature of the filament will remain the same.

You can test these things on your own and see that you can't make the temperature of things increase simply by covering them up.

 

[SSDD]

I wouldn't want SSDD designing a power amp for my stereo if he believes that throwing a blanket over it has no effect on the temperature of the amp..

The issue with the amplifer is that it is processing more wattage than it can effectively handle...that is to say that its operating temperature must be kept lower than the temperature that it is capable of generating and therefore must be actively cooled down. This requires more suface area (heat sinks) to bleed off heat. Give the amplifier 50x more surface area so that its operating temperature is higher, or at least the same as the heat it generates and then you can throw all the blankets over it you like and you wont warm it up...but then who wants a stereo amplifier that is the size of a refrigerator?

 

[SSDD]

Heat differentials are the thermal moving potential. Temperature is an effect that depends on time-rate of transfers or ENERGY. Coffee stays hotter LONGER in a thermos. Any doubters?

Don't forget the time variable...

Slower cooling does not equal warming. That thermos will never make the coffee warmer than it was when it was poured in.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Heat differentials are the thermal moving potential. Temperature is an effect that depends on time-rate of transfers or ENERGY. Coffee stays hotter LONGER in a thermos. Any doubters?

Don't forget the time variable...

Slower cooling does not equal warming. That thermos will never make the coffee warmer than it was when it was poured in.

Thermos: it keeps cold drinks cold and hot drinks warm.

"How does it know?"

 

[mamooth]

Its correct even if the object is generating heat. A self warming object radiates at some X amount of wattage per square inch or meter or kilometer. Throwing a blanket over that object will not increase the X at all.

So far, so good.

It will slow down the rate of cooling

Here's where you start to go badly wrong. There is no "cooling". There is only differing amounts of heat flow.

till such time as the blanket reaches the same temperature as the radiating object (equilibrium)

No, no, no. That violates basic thermodynamics, Fourier's heat flow equation. Conductive heat flow is proportional to the delta-T gradient. If the blanket is the same temp as the object, there will be no delta-T gradient, so no heat will flow. The object must get hotter than the blanket in order to keep radiating away the same amount of heat.

Again, this is basic thermodynamics. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Me? I just used to run nuclear reactors. What could I possible know about heat flow? And who knew that Fourier's Law on heat flow from 1822 was actually totally wrong? Good thing you're here to correct the misconceptions of the entire industrial age.

 

[SSDD]

??? "give it time to reach whatever setting you put it on"??? did you check to see how much power it was drawing?

Didn't have the equipment to do that...We turned the thing to medium and it went up to about 103.4 degrees and held that temperature for about 30 minutes...I figured that was as warm as it was going to get. It never got over 103.4 with all the blankets piled on top of it. The blankets aren't a heat source so they couldn't possibly warm it up.

throw a blanket over any powered up piece of electronics and it will heat up.

Like I told flacalten...the operating temperature of most electronics is lower than the heat it is capable of generating. Ergo all the heat sinks. Take away the heat sinks and let it heat up to the actual temperature it is capable of reaching and then throw a blanket over it and it won't warm further.... or make the electronics large enough so that they have enough surface area so that the temperatue they are capable of producing is less than their maximum operating temperature and again, you can throw all the blankets over them you like and they won't get warmer.

the energy coming from the Sun is very stable. complaining that atmospheric equilibrium effects that are powered by the Sun are then interefering with incoming radiation is somewhat dishonest when you refuse to allow me to point out atmospheric equilibrium effects are interfering with outgoing radiation.

So called GHG's are a transport mechanism for IR, not a storage mechanism. When this whole argument plays itself out and eventually it will, we are going to find that the socalled greenhose gasses act as a cooling mechanism because they transport OLR much faster than non radiative gasses. If there were no radiative gasses in the atmosphere emissivity would be lower and then we would be stuck with only convection and conduction and heat would move out more slowly.

 

[SSDD]

It will slow down the rate of cooling

Here's where you start to go badly wrong. There is no "cooling". There is only differing amounts of heat flow.

Heat flowing out is cooling.

till such time as the blanket reaches the same temperature as the radiating object (equilibrium)

No, no, no. That violates basic thermodynamics, Fourier's heat flow equation. Conductive heat flow is proportional to the delta-T gradient. If the blanket is the same temp as the object, there will be no delta-T gradient, so no heat will flow. The object must get hotter than the blanket in order to keep radiating away the same amount of heat.

Interesting how you cut off the most important part of my statement. I said:

It will slow down the rate of cooling till such time as the blanket reaches the same temperature as the radiating object (equilibrium) at which time the outside of the blanket begins to act as the outermost surface of the radiating object. The radiating object will never radiate more because the blanket was placed over it.

If you are going to use my words, then use my words. Don't take them out of context to try and make some point. Heat will continue to flow because the outside of the blanket...you know...the part exposed to the outside air will not be in equilibrium with the rest of the room and therefore energy will continue to flow at that point from the blanket to the outside air.

Again, this is basic thermodynamics. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Obviously it is you who doesn't know what you are talking about...assuming that because the blanket and your body have reached equlibrium that energy won't flow from the blanket on out into the surrounding atmosphere.

Me? I just used to run nuclear reactors. What could I possible know about heat flow?

Apparently very little if you believe that covering up at night in bed will give you a fever...or that putting a blanket over a warm object will make it warmer.

And who knew that Fourier's Law on heat flow from 1822 was actually totally wrong? Good thing you're here to correct the misconceptions of the entire industrial age.

Obviously you don't know how to apply Fourier's law because you assumed that the blanket which had reached equilibrium with your body temperature would not radiate out into the bedroom. When you bring information that you don't understand, you will never fail to make a fool of yourself. The blanket will radiate out into the room. Repeat that 100 times.

 

[mamooth]

Heat will continue to flow because the outside of the blanket...you know...the part exposed to the outside air will not be in equilibrium with the rest of the room and therefore energy will continue to flow at that point from the blanket to the outside air.

Makes zero difference. You still and have always said the inside of the blanket warms up to the radiating object temp. And that still means no delta-T gradient between the radiating object and blanket is zero. And that means zero heat flow. That is, until the radiating object gets hotter, which would be why a radiating object always gets hotter when you insulate it.

Remember everyone, feel free to remove the heatsinks from your computer boards, and wrap your circuit boards in a blanket. After all, SSDD here says it won't increase the temperature. He has rewritten the laws of thermodynamics, and the physical laws of the universe now obey his edicts.

 

[polarbear]

Its correct even if the object is generating heat. A self warming object radiates at some X amount of wattage per square inch or meter or kilometer. Throwing a blanket over that object will not increase the X at all.

So far, so good.

It will slow down the rate of cooling

Here's where you start to go badly wrong. There is no "cooling". There is only differing amounts of heat flow.

till such time as the blanket reaches the same temperature as the radiating object (equilibrium)

No, no, no. That violates basic thermodynamics, Fourier's heat flow equation. Conductive heat flow is proportional to the delta-T gradient. If the blanket is the same temp as the object, there will be no delta-T gradient, so no heat will flow. The object must get hotter than the blanket in order to keep radiating away the same amount of heat.

Again, this is basic thermodynamics. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Me? I just used to run nuclear reactors. What could I possible know about heat flow? And who knew that Fourier's Law on heat flow from 1822 was actually totally wrong? Good thing you're here to correct the misconceptions of the entire industrial age.

Reactors as in plural. Name one "you used to run".
Then tell me which type of fuel rods you "used to use" and who your fuel rod supplier "used to be"?
What was the coating and the unit weight?
What`s the name of the systems control software that you "used to use"?

There is no "cooling". There is only differing amounts of heat flow.

Conductive heat flow is proportional to the delta-T gradient. If the blanket is the same temp as the object, there will be no delta-T gradient, so no heat will flow. The object must get hotter than the blanket in order to keep radiating away the same amount of heat.

Why "must the object get hotter"..and radiate the same amount of heat?
The only way it would get hotter is if you feed it more heat than it has at the equilibrium.
If you heat the object to a higher T and you got heat CONDUCTION between the blanket and the object radiative heat transfer between 2 solid object is already ruled out over the entire contact area.
And once the blanket got hotter it radiates by a factor of (+delta)T^4 more heat.

Do the math for a 10" diameter solid copper slug 10" thick at 90 C
which comes in contact with another slug, same dimensions but is at 0 C
I bet you don`t have the foggiest idea unless you manage to find a FAQ + online calculator.
You would be one of Roy Spencer`s idiots who cut off the cooling fins on a heat sink, because they "back-radiate" at each other and cause transistors to overheat.

You haven`t got a clue what`s going on in a cooling tower else you would know what the rate of cooling is at the reactor`s SOP for max-recommended power output. No SOP manual ever calls it "heat flow" and there is no instrument on any control panel with that label.
You were at best a swab if you were ever on an aircraft carrier or inside a nuclear power plant.
I worked for a while at the Whiteshell Nuclear Reactor...Its a nuclear research facility & power plant...but I`ve also been inside others and know what`s what.
So I`ll call your bluff. Let`s put our cards on the table.
I`ll scan in a few documents after you show me your`s..you can blot out your name...I won`t.
But I bet the best you have to offer is some lame excuse that you "can`t do that for security reasons"

 

[SSDD]

Makes zero difference. You still and have always said the inside of the blanket warms up to the radiating object temp. And that still means no delta-T gradient between the radiating object and blanket is zero. And that means zero heat flow. That is, until the radiating object gets hotter, which would be why a radiating object always gets hotter when you insulate it.

You really don't get any of this, do you? Are you claiming that if you point an infrared thermometer at the outside of the covers over a sleeping person, they will be no warmer than say the carpet on the floor? Heat moves from warm to cool and so long as there is a place for it to go (ie radiating out into the roorm) there will be heat flow.

Remember everyone, feel free to remove the heatsinks from your computer boards, and wrap your circuit boards in a blanket. After all, SSDD here says it won't increase the temperature. He has rewritten the laws of thermodynamics, and the physical laws of the universe now obey his edicts.

I have explained this twice already to people who actually knew the reason that throwing a blanket over electronics causes them to warm up..I guess one more time to someone who doesn't have a clue should be expected.

The electronics in your computer, or radio, or stereo don't have enough surface area to effectively radiate the power they have coming in and still be at a temperature at which they will operate. That is the reson for the heat sinks. Let the electronic part rise to the maximum temperature the incoming power will allow it to reach and of course it will stop working as an amplifier and simply be a block of radiating metal or plastic. Once it reaches that maximum temperature, however, you can then throw a blanket over it and it won't get any warmer because the blanket isn't an energy source. Or you could give the components enough surface area so that they could effectlvely radiate the energy they have coming in without reaching a temperature that makes them inoperable as whatever their function is and again, throwing a blanket over them would cause no warming. Electronics are not an apt analogy to the claimed greenhouse effect.

My explanations are predicted by the laws of thermodynamics...it is yours that involves an object radiating more energy out than it has coming in is the fantasy.

 

[SSDD]

Reactors as in plural. Name one "you used to run".
Then tell me which type of fuel rods you "used to use" and who your fuel rod supplier "used to be"?
What was the coating and the unit weight?
What`s the name of the systems control software that you "used to use"?

Good luck getting answers to those questions..mamooth has to be one of the dullest knives in the drawer here.

The really funny thing is that siagon just applauded her idiotic statement.

The only way it would get hotter is if you feed it more heat than it has at the equilibrium.

Or if it were being artifically cooled due to the fact that it's effective operating temperature is lower than the temperature it would reach due to surface area restrictions such that if left to radiate naturally, it would reach such a high temperature that it would no longer perform the actual function it was designed to do.

Take the heat sinks off your stereo amp and it will stop functioning as an amp at some time and simply become a block of metal radiating heat...let it warm up to the temperature the incoming energy allows it to reach then throw a blanket (perhaps fireproof) over it and it won't warm up further because the blanket is not an incoming energy source. The blanket will then warm up to (or very near) the temperature of the amplifier and then radiate out into the space beyond.

 

[Saigon]

It's a very good thing that SSDD threw out the 2nd law of thermodynamics, because he wasn't using it anyway.

You know, it doesn't surprise me that posters here do not understand laws of physics. That seems natural enough.

What AMAZES me is that some kind with high school physics can honestly believe that he has discovered something about physics (using a blanket and a heater, no les!!) that has evaded every university and research unit in the world.

SSDD honestly believes - or at least pretends to - that he has re-written the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

All I can say, SSDD, is perhaps you really should phone your local university as soon as you can, because they will want to know that they have this wrong!!

I am actually going to avoid pointing out the error in your thinking. I imagine post people have spotted it already, and I have enjoyed watching yoursel digging the hole deeper and deeper!

But in the interests of fair play, I'll add in one question:


Why is the surface temperature of the earth not 0?

From that, the massive error in SSDD's thinking should be apparent.

 

[polarbear]

It's a very good thing that SSDD threw out the 2nd law of thermodynamics, because he wasn't using it anyway.

You know, it doesn't surprise me that posters here do not understand laws of physics. That seems natural enough.

What AMAZES me is that some kind with high school physics can honestly believe that he has discovered something about physics (using a blanket and a heater, no les!!) that has evaded every university and research unit in the world.

SSDD honestly believes - or at least pretends to - that he has re-written the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

All I can say, SSDD, is perhaps you really should phone your local university as soon as you can, because they will want to know that they have this wrong!!

I am actually going to avoid pointing out the error in your thinking. I imagine post people have spotted it already, and I have enjoyed watching yoursel digging the hole deeper and deeper!

But in the interests of fair play, I'll add in one question:


Why is the surface temperature of the earth not 0?

From that, the massive error in SSDD's thinking should be apparent.

No he has`nt "re-written" any thermodynamic laws...it`s you who fails to comprehend them. If I had to knit-pick him I would have to hair-split his statements but the substance is for the most part correct.
It is you forum AGWarmists who continue to quote stuff that AGW climatologists have already backed away from....speak "corrected".
Your problem is that you are stuck reading the spoon-food interpretations from bloggers that had painted themselves into a corner and can`t revise for fear of loosing face..
That goes for "earth cooling Chinese aerosols", tree ring proxy thermometers, pollen proxy thermometers, Roy Spencer "Yes Virginia physics" and Arrhenius average mis-calculations that still are the core of today`s computer model forecasts.