AGW: atmospheric physics

[Saigon]

Gslack -

I was not referring to myself, Nunan or Mammoth - I was referring to the posters who do not accept AGW and who have scolded you on your absolutely woeful posting recently.

Read back through the last couple of pages of this thread if you haven't noticed the comments I am referring to.

 

[gslack]

Gslack -

I was not referring to myself, Nunan or Mammoth - I was referring to the posters who do not accept AGW and who have scolded you on your absolutely woeful posting recently.

Read back through the last couple of pages of this thread if you haven't noticed the comments I am referring to.

Aww, so which sock are you referring to then?

point them out please, I will address them directly....

I'll wait...

Several minutes later.....Waiting....

 

[Saigon]

Gslack -

I apologise to Ian for re-posting this (because I think it is really up to him whether or not he wants to press you on it), but given you apparently did not see the post -

you should let people who can think do the commenting. are you really as clueless as the gibberish you write down?

while I do not agree with Trenberth's energy budget, it is a reasonable place to start. it states that 161 W/m2 solar radiation is absorbed by the surface. it also has surface loss as 17 thermal, 80 evaporation and 396 radiation, for a total of 493. 493-161=332 w/m2 loss. so why isnt the surface cooling?

the other significant point is that solar radiation is shortwave and highly ordered. the IR radiation both from the surface and the atmosphere is disordered and incapable of doing work because there is no appreciable temperature differential.

 

[gslack]

Gslack -

I apologise to Ian for re-posting this (because I think it is really up to him whether or not he wants to press you on it), but given you apparently did not see the post -

you should let people who can think do the commenting. are you really as clueless as the gibberish you write down?

while I do not agree with Trenberth's energy budget, it is a reasonable place to start. it states that 161 W/m2 solar radiation is absorbed by the surface. it also has surface loss as 17 thermal, 80 evaporation and 396 radiation, for a total of 493. 493-161=332 w/m2 loss. so why isnt the surface cooling?

the other significant point is that solar radiation is shortwave and highly ordered. the IR radiation both from the surface and the atmosphere is disordered and incapable of doing work because there is no appreciable temperature differential.

Ian's fine as long as you agree with his luke-warmer BS, disagree and he's little better than you 3 clowns... And that's not just my take on it, it's common knowledge...

Now you made the claim there were more than one guy who isn't an AGW sympathizer. Ian agrees with backradiation, and argues the same nonsense for it you do. The only difference is he disagrees with Trenberth's budget and the fear mongering... Try again..

 

[Saigon]

Gslack -

I am sure there is no connection at all between the fact that you can scarely read or write, and the negative responses your posts invariably elicit.

Let's blame it on the socks.

 

[gslack]

Gslack -

I am sure there is no connection at all between the fact that you can scarely read or write, and the negative responses your posts invariably elicit.

Let's blame it on the socks.

No socko, I blame you and company for being ignorant...

I have watched you deliberately misrepresent others claims and posts here repeatedly. And I see the same tactics by your clone army. Coincidence? Maybe, you could all be equally stupid, cowardly, and ethically corrupt. And even if it were the case, the point still remains you are all interchangeable in that respect. Does it matter if you are 3 different people when you post the same way, use the same methods, and generally are equally dishonest?

No it doesn't matter. So I call you clones. And I'm not alone...Watched you and admiral poop-deck back-pat and hold hands too many times now..

So go cry about my posting methods weasel. Neg-rep till your fingers ache. I give two-shits what you and the clone army think.

You act stupid, i call you stupid. You misrepresent what people say, I call you on it. You have a kiss-ass session with a clone, I will say so...Don't like it? Tough shit...

Now continue the crying, and I will continue the abusive posts..

 

[gslack]

Putting statistics aside

You can't put statistics aside. That's the point. The 2nd Law is a law of statistical probability. If you put statistics aside, you get it wrong.

You are quite correct.

The 2nd Law is a Statement of Probability, just like describing die rolls. Repeat that to yourself until it sinks in. It is not a magical mystical force that intelligently micromanages individual atoms....

Therefore, if you sum together the results of a gazillion atoms/photons, hot-to-cold must always predominate. On the macro scale, the 2nd law is always obeyed. On the level of single atoms and photons, the 2nd Law doesn't exist.

Oh, as an aside, one can hit molecules with lasers to make them ... colder.

Laser Cooling Puts the Freeze on Fast-Moving Atoms | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference

That apparently violates the 2nd Law as well, yet it clearly happens. Down at the quantum level, the 2nd Law just doesn't hold any more.

Very good, but...

"hot-to-cold must ALMOST always predominate. On the macro scale, the 2nd Law is ALMOST always obeyed."

· · · the Poincaré Recurrence Theorem
.

BTW, numan sock...

Where did that quote come from? You said it was from "Poincaré recurrence theorem" but looking at it, it doesn't say that anywhere...

Poincaré recurrence theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poincaré recurrence theorem

In mathematics, the Poincaré recurrence theorem states that certain systems will, after a sufficiently long time, return to a state very close to the initial state. The Poincaré recurrence time is the length of time elapsed until the recurrence. The result applies to physical systems in which energy is conserved. The theorem is commonly discussed in the context of ergodic theory, dynamical systems and statistical mechanics.
The theorem is named after Henri Poincaré, who published it in 1890.

Another source....

Poincar\'e recurrence theorem | planetmath.org

Funny I don't see that claim anywhere in it... Did you just pull that out of the admirals butt??

You must have...

What did you think? You could continue to pull random and unrelated theorems from other people in and no one would check? Of course you did... Well socko, you have sorely underestimated my OCD and propensity to be anal... Seems my earlier statement about what you were doing was indeed correct despite the claims of your clone army... Like mixing inaccurate wordings of "times arrow" and poincare do you?

You fraud... Shame....

 

[IanC]

were is the description of this mechanism that forbids emission of radiation, and under which circumstances does it take effect?

I never said anything about forbiding radiation. The second law says that energy won't spontaneously move from a cool object to a warm object. Short of the cool object simply not radiating in that direction, what other plausible explanation is there? We know that if we wire a 12 v batter to a 6 v battery, electricity only runs one way along the wire...we know that water only flows one way in a hose...we know that marbles roll down hill, we know that rocks fall when dropped....what is so different about radiation not spontaneously moving from a warm body to a cool one?

this of course is the crux of the matter.

it doesnt seem to sink in for you no matter how many times people point out that radiation is fundementally different than matter, you keep thinking that principles pertaining to matter apply to photons.

every bit of matter in the universe above 0K is playing 'hot potato' by emitting photons to get rid of its energy before photons from elsewhere build it up again. once emitted a photon continues on its path until it reaches another bit of matter. there is no 'cancelling out', and it continues in a straight line in the random direction that it was created on. warmer objects create more photons and at slightly higher energy wavelengths (although the range of wavelengths is almost exactly the same for objects less than 1000K different) than cooler objects. the surplus of photons going in the direction of warm to cold is why the SLOT works (in the radiative conditions that we are discussing). the cooler object does not stop emitting photons in some specific direction, that would require knowing the temperature and position of everything in the universe over an infinite time period. Ockham's Razor would choose a simple method by which every object radiates according to its own characteristics rather than some system where the exact composition of the universe needs to be known at all times.

of course that would mean that you would have to let go of your belief that no radiation ever goes from cool to warm. and instead believe that it is the overal preponderance of photons flowing in the direction of warm to cold which supports the SLOT.

 

[IanC]

Genius? HA!, My 11th grade son just pointed out your BS to me... He took one look at the claims you and admiral socko have been repeating and knew exactly where you got it,and what it really covered....

Yeah he's a smart kid, going to be an engineer or at least that's his plan. He was the youngest kid in the talented and gifted program here at one time. IQ around 160 or so they tell me. He sees your BS for the nonsense it is, keeps me from making a fool of myself on here, and is my consultant when you numans and sockos go insane claiming you can make 2x the energy from 1x the energy with a trace gas...

Now if you want to continue playing super-genius, start using the quotes fairly and as intended boys. We have a 17 yr old with a higher IQ and eager to show off his brain power by slapping fake admirals, and BS scientists...

I sure hope that son is from your wife's previous marriage because otherwise she's got some 'splainin to do!. hahahahaha

 

[SSDD]

'
Well, the pretend-human Turing machines are going berserk vomiting forth their mindless absurdities.

I suppose they are are programmed to do that once their cover is blown.
.

And the frustration grows. I am only stating the second law of thermodyamics. I am not altering it..I am not making claims that it doesn't predict...and I am not wrong.

You on the other hand aren't stating the second law...you are altering it, you are making claims that it doesn't predict...and you are wrong.

Hell, the various statements of the second law don't even support what you claim the second law is about...much less the predictions you make based on your rape of the second law.

 

[SSDD]

So I am not liked by you and your army of one or three? LOL, good. I am doing well then...

My thoughts exactly. The day that sort ever begins to cozy up to me is the day I reevaluate my entire life to see where I have gone wrong.

 

[SSDD]

Gslack -

I was not referring to myself, Nunan or Mammoth - I was referring to the posters who do not accept AGW and who have scolded you on your absolutely woeful posting recently.

Read back through the last couple of pages of this thread if you haven't noticed the comments I am referring to.

Luke warmers do accept the AGW magic. They just don't think it is as powerful as you full blown warmers. Ian believes CO2 causes the climate to warm...he just thinks the sensitivity is much lower than your crew.

 

[IanC]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics IS NOT an absolute law !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Care to prove that?

It is a statistical law --- it is a law of large numbers !!!!!!!!!

I don't see anything about statistics in the law. I see a statement made in absolute terms. Statistical statements re not made in absolute terms. You must be mistaken.

This was proven rigorously in about 1890 by Henri Poincaré in the justly famous Poincaré Recurrence Theorem, which essentially says that in any closed dynamical system, any state of the system will recur infinitely often (within epsilon of its original state, of course) -- given enough time.

Guess you are unaware that the earth and atmosphere are an open system.

I am not saying that SSDD should imitate Boltzmann (after all, SSDD does not resemble the great man in any respect), but he should go to the privacy of his own home and give himself a couple of good, vigorous slaps in the face for being such an ignorant, obstinant conceited fool !!!
.

Nah...I am quite satisfied slapping you around and watching you remain unable to provide even the smallest bit of observed, measured evidence that there is a two way net flow of energy between warm and cool objects. It is good to have faith, but misplaced faith is quite tragic. I am sorry for you.

A few points....

you cannot prove that the SLoT is absolute. it was formulated before quantum theory, etc...

why are you quick to point out that the sun/earth/space path of energy flow is an open system when it suits you but you consider it a closed system when you need that to support your 'understanding'?

there are so many things that seem to be incomprehensible to you. you dont seem to understand the difference between 4000K light from 150M kilometres away and 300K IR from a metre away. if you magnify sunlight you can heat something up to nearly 4000K. sunlight is 'ordered' because it is all going in one direction (relative to us), IR is idffuse and unordered in the atmosphere, and unable to be useful. electricity is even more ordered, which is why it is so useful.

 

[IanC]

Gslack -

I was not referring to myself, Nunan or Mammoth - I was referring to the posters who do not accept AGW and who have scolded you on your absolutely woeful posting recently.

Read back through the last couple of pages of this thread if you haven't noticed the comments I am referring to.

Luke warmers do accept the AGW magic. They just don't think it is as powerful as you full blown warmers. Ian believes CO2 causes the climate to warm...he just thinks the sensitivity is much lower than your crew.

I believe CO2 is capable of disturbing the equilibrium of heat source (Sun)/surface (heatsink)/atmosphere (insulation)/escape to space.

 

[petro]

All the arguments regarding whether human activity is causing a change in climate is pointless. The reality is that American guilt will not stop developing nations from releasing emissions or from breeding like rats. China will only reduce their output as they find they can no longer breath in their cities. As the population of the planet exceeds 10 billion within the next 100 years, we will no doubt use this planets resources up. However, it is arrogant to think that human activity will destroy the planet as life has proved to be quite adaptable to changes in ecosystems. It just takes different forms.
We can't save every species of life at the cost of our own species. Extinction is a part of the natural order. There have been at least 5 major extinction events through-out Earths history some involving major changes in the climate. We are the first that can do something to ensure our survival by colonizing the worlds withing our solar system and beyond.

 

[Saigon]

breeding like rats

It is interesting that you can talk about arrogance, while posting the most arrogant racism imaginable.

 

[Saigon]

I believe CO2 is capable of disturbing the equilibrium of heat source (Sun)/surface (heatsink)/atmosphere (insulation)/escape to space.

Fair enough, Ian. I agree, of course.

 

[petro]

breeding like rats

It is interesting that you can talk about arrogance, while posting the most arrogant racism imaginable.

Jesus Christ. Really? Since I made the statement within the same paragraph as mentioning China that makes it racist. I am speaking of humanity breeding like rats in undeveloped nations in general. I call it like I see it without being crippled by the poison of politically correct thinking, but that is an issue for a different thread.
My concern is the survival of humanity in the long term regardless of race, and as the world becomes more of a global community, humans over the next 1000 years will become more of a single race much as we started before humans were separated by different ecosystems.

 

[Saigon]

Petro -

developing nations from releasing emissions or from breeding like rats

How is that NOT racist?

How is that NOT arrogant?

 

[petro]

Petro -

developing nations from releasing emissions or from breeding like rats

How is that NOT racist?

How is that NOT arrogant?

I stand behind my statements with NO apologies.
Enough said.