AGW: atmospheric physics

[mamooth]

Appeal to authority doesn't constitute a rational argument and since you are the one making the claim that I am wrong, of course it falls to you to prove it.

Your extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back them up. You're saying the rest of planet is wrong. If you want to overturn that, you'll have to do a bit better than endless repetitions of "BECAUSE I SAY SO!".

Of course they can, and do. But not spontaneously. Some work must be done to move them from a low energy state to a high energy state.

Molecule absorbs backradiation photon, jumps to higher vibrational state. It's not complicated. You've just got this emotional block. You don't understand because you willfully don't want to understand.

You claimed that the second law only covered convection

Even accounting for your convection/conduction gaffe, I still didn't say that. I said that one particular phrasing of the second law (there are many different ways to say it), the one saying heat flows from hot to cold, refers only to conduction. And that's correct.

Radiative heat flows from hot to hotter quite freely. Deny it all you want, but the universe isn't going to pay attention to your kook rambling.

 

[SSDD]

And so we come back to your ludicrous claim that an insulator won't raise the temperature of a heat-creating body, something that the entire industrialized world would be very surprised to learn.

An insulator slows cooling...nothing more. In order to raise temperature, it wouild have to be an energy source. It isn't. The more I talk to you people, the more I see why you believe in the hoax.

Irrelevant, since the rice isn't creating new heat. A body creating heat will absolutely positively get warmer if you insulate it. Blankets make people warmer. A layer of dust will make your CPU overheat.

Of course it is relavent. If the blanket can cause backradiation to be absorbed by the radiator and cause its temperature to rise, why does it matter whether the source is powered or not? If backradiation exists, it should raise the temperature of the rice if even for only a very short time. The fact is that it won't.

Many people have told you many times how laughably wrong that statement is, being it's based on your whackaloon misinterpretation of the second law. Since you fail hard at that step, all your subsequent claims are also totally fail.

Ok....lets narrow this conversation down to just this, since this is the crux of the whole argument. Is it your contention that radiation from the atmosphere is at the same frequency as radiation emitting from the surface of the earth? A simple yes or no will do.

 

[Saigon]

Ok....lets narrow this conversation down to just this, since this is the crux of the whole argument. Is it your contention that radiation from the atmosphere is at the same frequency as radiation emitting from the surface of the earth? A simple yes or no will do.

That is not what you claimed.

You claimed that climate change science breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics - which is simply false.

Your error was based on a fairly basic misunderstanding of what the law says, as it seems a half dozen posters have explained to you.

The fact that you are now trying to twist the debate on to something else is fairly clear evidence that you understand that your original point was false - although to be fair, I think everyone realised that a week ago!

 

[SSDD]

Your extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back them up. You're saying the rest of planet is wrong. If you want to overturn that, you'll have to do a bit better than endless repetitions of "BECAUSE I SAY SO!".

I am not making extraordinary claims. I am stating that the second law means that backradiation is not possible. You are claiming that it is. I admit that evidence of backradiation would be extraordinary, but that is all you have to provide to prove me wrong. Backradiation measured at ambient temperature.

Molecule absorbs backradiation photon, jumps to higher vibrational state. It's not complicated. You've just got this emotional block. You don't understand because you willfully don't want to understand.

Molecule can only absorb a photon at a higher frequency than itself. Lower frequencies are not absorbed.

Even accounting for your convection/conduction gaffe, I still didn't say that. I said that one particular phrasing of the second law (there are many different ways to say it), the one saying heat flows from hot to cold, refers only to conduction. And that's correct.

The gaffe was yours, claiming that the second law of thermodynamics only applied to convection rather than every energy transfer in the universe. Then you went on to claim that energy transferrs such as water over a dam, a dropped rock, air escaping a tire, electricity running down a wire, and rolling marbles were not examples of the second law in action. The fact is that you don't know enough about the topic to even speak to it.

Radiative heat flows from hot to hotter quite freely. Deny it all you want, but the universe isn't going to pay attention to your kook rambling.

Then show a single measurable, observable example of it happening spontaneously. You keep making the claim and keep being unable to provide any bonafied example.

 

[SSDD]

Ok....lets narrow this conversation down to just this, since this is the crux of the whole argument. Is it your contention that radiation from the atmosphere is at the same frequency as radiation emitting from the surface of the earth? A simple yes or no will do.

That is not what you claimed.

You claimed that climate change science breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics - which is simply false

I claimed that backradiation violates the second law of thermodynamics. Backradiation can not happen because once energy is radiated, it is at a lower frequency and after it has done any kind of work, it is at a lower frequency still.

Your error was based on a fairly basic misunderstanding of what the law says, as it seems a half dozen posters have explained to you.

I have posted half a dozen different statements of the second law. As of yet, none of you have pointed out anything that I have said that is contrary to any one of them. Feel free to bring a quote forward from me that is contrary to the second law.

The fact that you are now trying to twist the debate on to something else is fairly clear evidence that you understand that your original point was false - although to be fair, I think everyone realised that a week ago!

Evidence of how far over your head this discussion is. The frequency of energy is at the foundation of the whole discussion. Backradiation can't happen because radiation from the atmosphere is at a lower frequency (or energy state since you obviously don't grasp the topic) than energy stored in the earth. Because of that, it can not be reabsorbed by the surface of the earth.

 

[Saigon]

I claimed that backradiation violates the second law of thermodynamics. Backradiation can not happen because once energy is radiated, it is at a lower frequency and after it has done any kind of work, it is at a lower frequency still.

Yes, that is what you claimed.

And how many scientific papers which explain exactly why you are wrong need to be posted before you will read one of them?

We both know that posters here could present a dozen pieces of research from professors of physics, and you'll just carry on posting "No, no, no , no, no!"

It's what you do.

 

[mamooth]

Ok....lets narrow this conversation down to just this, since this is the crux of the whole argument.

How so?

Is it your contention that radiation from the atmosphere is at the same frequency as radiation emitting from the surface of the earth? A simple yes or no will do.

No. The earth and atmosphere will be slightly different temps, so their radiation emission curves will not be the same.

Now let's explore your theory.

Imagine a binary star system with a red star and a blue star. The blue star is much hotter than the red star.

The red star emits photons in the direction of the blue star. Under your theory, the blue star can't absorb those photons, because it's hotter. So just what happens to those photons and all the energy they carry?

 

[SSDD]

Yes, that is what you claimed.

And how many scientific papers which explain exactly why you are wrong need to be posted before you will read one of them?

The greenhouse hypothesis is based on flawed atmospheric physics. The second law says that energy won't spontaneously move from a low energy state to a higher energy state therefore backradition which is energy at a lower state in the atmospehre can not move to the surface of the earth which is at a higher energy state.

We both know that posters here could present a dozen pieces of research from professors of physics, and you'll just carry on posting "No, no, no , no,

Hell, I bet that you could produce papers from a hundred different professors...maybe a thousand...but not one piece of observed, empirical evidence. You can't produce a single instance of observed, measured backradiation at ambient temperature so no, I don't believe what the professors are saying.

Climate science claims that more than twice as much energy is radiating back from the atmosphere to be absorbed by the surface of the earth than is coming in from the sun. We have no problem measuring incoming solar radiation because it is physical..it is energy transferrring from a warmer source (the sun) to a cooler source (the surface of the earth); and even though the claim is that more than twice as much energy is absorbed by the surface of the earth from the atmosphere than from the sun, not a single measurement of that backradiation has ever been made at ambient temperature for one reason...it does not exist.

It's what you do.

Insist on some actual evidence when someone claims that energy can radiate spontaneously from a cool area to a warm area...of course I want to see some evidence. I am not going to believe something like that just because someone says so.

 

[Saigon]

I bet that you could produce papers from a hundred different professors...maybe a thousand...but not one piece of observed, empirical evidence.

It's been posted THREE times already, actually.

Here is for you again a 4th time:

Some of Earth’s accumulated energy is exported via evapotranspiration (latent and sensible heat loss to atmosphere), clouds form from condensing water vapor, some precipitation occurs and (to make it really obvious) some rain falls on glaciers (snow, ice fields&#8230. The liquid water precipitating out of (falling from) the atmosphere is warmer than our glacier (or snow or ice fields) and by melting same it is undeniably returning some of Earth’s previously exported energy back to Earth – this is a feedback. Does precipitation then falsify the 2nd Law? It doesn’t, of course, since Earth is exporting more heat than it is receiving via feedback and heat flow is still from warmer to cooler but undeniably the atmosphere is returning some energy to Earth and thus keeping it from cooling as rapidly as it otherwise would.

Is there a conflict between Greenhouse Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics? | JunkScience.com

Honestly what is the point of you pretending you don't get this?

 

[mamooth]

Typical. You get caught with your b.s. and if somebody reads you back your own words then you deny you said it and call others a "lying sack of shit".

But you _are_ a lying sack of shit.

I specifically said computer-controlled turbines could operate in parallel.

---
Humans aren't fast enough to compensate for that, you need computers. Since there were no computers, generators were not run in parallel.
---

You deliberately ignored my statement that the computer-controlled computers could operate in parallel. You then cherrypicked another statement, out-of-context, where I was talking about shipboard turbines with a primitive analog frequency control, and used that to pretend I said the opposite of what I actually said.

In other words, you were a lying sack of shit. Though if you'd like to admit you were just mistaken, I can accept that. However, since you're a manchild who is incapable of admitting any error, ever, you won't do that, and we'll have to go with "lying sack of shit".

By the way, how are you going with your quest to locate your balls?

Not so well, given how you still haven't told us which computers were running your magical control software in 1960, as you claimed was the case.

 

[SSDD]

No. The earth and atmosphere will be slightly different temps, so their radiation emission curves will not be the same.

Then the whole idea of backradiation is out the window. Energy won't move spontaneously from a low temperature area to a high temperature area.

Now let's explore your theory.

Imagine a binary star system with a red star and a blue star. The blue star is much hotter than the red star.

The red star emits photons in the direction of the blue star. Under your theory, the blue star can't absorb those photons, because it's hotter. So just what happens to those photons and all the energy they carry?

You are assuming that the red star must emit photons in the direction of the blue star. There is no law that says that an object must radiate in every possible direction. The second law says 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. It further states that energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I don't know why this is so difficult for you to grasp. Suppose the blue star absorbed energy from the red star...that would cause the blue star to burn hotter which would mean that it would radiate more which would mean that the red star would absorb more energy and become hotter and radiate more energy to the blue star which would absorb it and become hotter and then radiate more which the red star would absorb and become even hotter and radiate more which the blue star would absorb and become hotter and radiate more which the red star would absorb....

See where this is going? If things happened as you seem to believe they do, then you would have an infinite positive feedback loop where eventually both stars would become infinitely hot. From observation, we know that this doesn't happen in bianary systems so obviously the red star isn't radiating in the specific direction from which it is receiving energy from the blue star.

Again, no law says that energy must radiate from an object in all directions. Saying that a cooler object will not radiate towards a warmer object is no different than saying that a marble won't spontaneously roll up hill, or that the atmosphere at 14 psi won't cause a punctured tire with 32 psi inside to increase pressure. The second law predicts that a marble will roll down an incline, and that air will flow out of the tire till such time as the pressure inside and outside reach equilibrium...the second law also predicts that energy won't move from the cooler star to the warmer star.

 

[mamooth]

Instead of calling us names show us some proof, a document , a badge or a picture.

I've got my DD214 right in front of me, listing all the schools I attended. It's got "NUCLEAR POWER SCHOOL" and "NUCLEAR POWER UNIT, BALLSTON SPA, NEW YORK" and "CGN-36" typed very clearly.

However, before I post it, I'm going to require you accept a wager.

I post the DD214. If it's legit, you have to publicly apologize for lying about me, and then leave the board forever and never return.

If it's not legit, I'll leave and never return.

If you want to pre-squeal that it's a forgery, let's get it out of the way now. Tell me what I have to do with the image to get you to accept it's legit. And give me a bit of time, as I've been procrastinating on my taxes.

Oh, that also goes for the rest of my psychostalkers. If you're going to question my credentials, you need to sign on to the bet. If you don't, I'll be telling you to chow down on a big can of spotted dick if you ever raise the topic again.

 

[SSDD]

I bet that you could produce papers from a hundred different professors...maybe a thousand...but not one piece of observed, empirical evidence.

It's been posted THREE times already, actually.

Here is for you again a 4th time:

Some of Earth’s accumulated energy is exported via evapotranspiration (latent and sensible heat loss to atmosphere), clouds form from condensing water vapor, some precipitation occurs and (to make it really obvious) some rain falls on glaciers (snow, ice fields…). The liquid water precipitating out of (falling from) the atmosphere is warmer than our glacier (or snow or ice fields) and by melting same it is undeniably returning some of Earth’s previously exported energy back to Earth – this is a feedback. Does precipitation then falsify the 2nd Law? It doesn’t, of course, since Earth is exporting more heat than it is receiving via feedback and heat flow is still from warmer to cooler but undeniably the atmosphere is returning some energy to Earth and thus keeping it from cooling as rapidly as it otherwise would.

Is there a conflict between Greenhouse Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics? | JunkScience.com

Honestly what is the point of you pretending you don't get this?

What you aren't getting is that that paper isn't talking about the greenhouse effect. It is talking about very localized feedbacks like lightning striking the ground and rain on an ice field. That is not backradiation which is the backbone of the greenhouse effect.

Without backradiation, you have no greenhoue effect...RAIN AND LIGHTNING ARE NOT THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Your guy has built a couple of strawmen to fight, but completely avoids the issue of backradiation. Backradiation is not even mentioned in his paper. All he talks about are a couple of feedbacks that no one would argue with. The discussion is about backradiation where it is claimed that the cooler atmosphere causes the warmer surface of the earth to warm even further.

Here, again from the pages of the IPCC's own documents:

Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.

If you aren't talking about backradiation from the atmosphere you aren't talking about the greenouse effect. A couple of feedbacks that are predicted by the second law are not the same as backradiation which is not.

 

[mamooth]

You are assuming that the red star must emit photons in the direction of the blue star. There is no law that says that an object must radiate in every possible direction

This. Is. Insane.

You're telling me the red star magically knows not to emit photons towards the blue star? Could you describe the physical process behind that?

Heck, the red star would have to know how to not emit photons towards every warmer star in the universe, even the ones that hadn't formed yet, but which would form by the time the light arrived. Could you describe the physical process behind that?

 

[Saigon]

What you aren't getting is that that paper isn't talking about the greenhouse effect.

Perhaps if you ***shudder*** read the report before commenting on it?

This is the OPENING LINE of the report, genius:

Sporadically we are challenged over the reality of Earth’s Greenhouse Effect (GE) on the grounds this represents a heat flow from a cooler to a warmer body and hence violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2nd Law).

 

[IlarMeilyr]

What you aren't getting is that that paper isn't talking about the greenhouse effect.

Perhaps if you ***shudder*** read the report before commenting on it?

This is the OPENING LINE of the report, genius:

Sporadically we are challenged over the reality of Earth’s Greenhouse Effect (GE) on the grounds this represents a heat flow from a cooler to a warmer body and hence violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2nd Law).

Learn how to properly use the quote function so that it will provide a link to the "quote" in question. It really is not difficult. It shouldn't be difficult even for you.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Does Earth's atmosphere serve as a kind of blanket to help keep some of the energy (warmth) that it takes in from the Sun here instead of having it all transmitted back out to the cold of space?

Sure.

Those who deny the AGW Faither's claims do not deny and do not need to deny that the atmosphere can act like a blanket. If this was all that was meant by the Greenhouse Effect, there would probably be no disagreement.

But that is not what the AGW Faithers say -- at least not alone.

No. THEY maintain that man-made or man-caused release of "carbon" into the atmosphere (amongst other so-called "greenhouse gasses") significantly changes the degree to which the atmosphere serves as a heat-trapping blanket resulting in the slow "cooking" of planet Earth.

What they have yet to demonstrate by reputable science (as opposed to their contrived "proxy data" and computer models) is that any increase of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere from human sources has any appreciable impact on the "greenhouse effect."

 

[gslack]

Gslack -

Unfortunately much of your last post is simply gibberish.

No we understand exactly what it is, you are the one told that it's non-political. By the same politicians and political bodies, running the same paid for scientists and studies, that have lied to you repeatedly..

Seriously, what on earth are you talking about? Are you suggesting that politicians are telling people that climate change is not political?

Try and post with a little common sense. Climate change is not a political issue in much of the world, because politicians and political parties are in general agreement about the science.

This is proven by the fact that the conservative parties of almost every western country have climate change policies on their websites and in their manifestos. By all means go and check.

Until you understand that, you are never going to get to grips with this topic at all.

And again - there has never been as much as an allegation of fraug against any Finnish scientific institude involved in climate change - you are just making up stories and presenting them as facts.

Try and present facts, actual examples and real information - not just your own paranoid conspiracy theories.

Don't like the truth so pretend nothing made sense. Old tactic, and just as lame as usual..

Can't argue the logic of it? What does it take a chart and some nonsense that you really can't grasp, with a simple explanation of it all, all simple and easy for you? If that's the case, stop using the word science,because you are incapable of understanding it..

Thanks for confirming you can't think critically, and you certainly don't understand the implications and reality of what you are supporting.. Nice..

 

[SSDD]

This. Is. Insane.

You're telling me the red star magically knows not to emit photons towards the blue star? Could you describe the physical process behind that?

It doesn't "know" which way to emit photons any more than a rock "knows" which way to fall, or a marble on an incline "knows" which way to roll, or air in a tire "knows" which way to move out of a hole. The laws of physics determine what will happen given any particular circumstance.

Heck, the red star would have to know how to not emit photons towards every warmer star in the universe, even the ones that hadn't formed yet, but which would form by the time the light arrived. Could you describe the physical process behind that?

Does the rock have to know which way to fall when you drop it? Can you describe the physical process behind that...there is a nobel in it for you if you can actually describe the physical process of gravity. And since most of space is empty, emitting in the direction of cooler space isn't a problem.

 

[SSDD]

What you aren't getting is that that paper isn't talking about the greenhouse effect.

Perhaps if you ***shudder*** read the report before commenting on it?

This is the OPENING LINE of the report, genius:

Sporadically we are challenged over the reality of Earth’s Greenhouse Effect (GE) on the grounds this represents a heat flow from a cooler to a warmer body and hence violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2nd Law).

Water is warmer than ice...water falling on ice transfers heat to the ice...not the greenhouse effect.

Lighting, being hotter than the surface of the sun is warmer than the surface of the earth...not the greenhouse effect.

The greenhouse effect is specifically the claim that the cooler atmosphere radiating IR back to the surface of the earth where it is absorbed and in turn cause the surface of the earth to warm further. Point out to me anywhere in your paper where the author addresses backradiation. He believes that because he can point out a couple of feedbacks that he has proven the greenhouse effect when he doesn't even touch on the mechanism that is claimed to be the cause of the greenhouse effect...ie backradiation