AGW: atmospheric physics

[mamooth]

And before the lying Siamese cat who promised to f-off from this forum chimes in again..

I told you to post your crybaby obsessive stalker crap in the Human Footprint thread that you've already trashed. You don't get to trash more than one thread. I'll answer it there.

 

[gslack]

I must admit I feel the same way when I try to dialogue with you. you make an incomprehensible statement and then get pissed off when nobody understands what you are trying to say.

I totally agree.

It's genuinely difficult to respond to comments where most of the post is:

We tried this before and you did the same things... You posted a thought experiment by some ding-dong luke-warmer and when it was shown flawed you altered the parameters in every post.. Seriously man, get a grip.. You're wrong.. Sorry but you just are man..

There is just nothing there worth responding to.

As I said earlier, Gslack, this is not about what you think or believe, it's about posting comments that actually make sense.

Quiet socko, the kid voice isn't working for us...

 

[polarbear]

And before the lying Siamese cat who promised to f-off from this forum chimes in again..

I told you to post your crybaby obsessive stalker crap in the Human Footprint thread that you've already trashed. You don't get to trash more than one thread. I'll answer it there.

So why don`t you f-off to the "numan footprint thread" and stay there.
That`s where liars who got exposed as such belong..
Your definition of "stalking" is as twisted as you are. You pop up within a few minutes wherever and whenever I post and when I remind you of your f-ing lies you call it "stalking".
My guess is that`s why you can`t produce your real DD214 because you were not honorably discharged...
after they gave you a course in "locker repair"...?(like it shows on that DD214)
Did a few wallets go missing and the MP was "stalking" you ?
I`ll rub your shit face into your excrement every time you come here to change the subject.
Especially so after you claimed I was "cowardly running away" when I ignored you.
******* psycho !
Shut the **** up and show us a DD214 with 4 pennies on it...in the"numan footprint" thread...that`ll do just fine.

 

[SSDD]

Every direction all the time. If you want to play word games like Johnson and call it harmonic reflection or whatever, I don't care. The end conclusion is exactly the same simply with an added (superfluous) layer of complexity.

Prove it. Simple as that. Prove it by providing an observed measured example of backradiation at ambient temperature. Otherwise...you are just talking.

 

[gslack]

the second law is not absolute, just statistically probable to the point of absurdity. can you prove otherwise?

in the microscopic world, the possible range of range of radiation wavelengths is large. a molecule, atom, ion or electron may at anytime receive a photon of higher energy than is the statistical norm for the temperature, leading to a fluxuation at that locale. if everything only received average or less than average packets of energy then the temperature would have to be decreasing.

can you point out anyone who has claimed a perpetual motion machine? until you can why dont you let that strawman take a rest.

Don't have to Ian, physicist already have, the world proves it all the time.

Again you are taking the statistical mechanics interpretation used expressly FOR that field, and trying to equate it to situations and parameters where it was not intended.

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Derivation from statistical mechanics

Further information: H-theorem
Due to Loschmidt's paradox, derivations the Second Law have to make an assumption regarding the past, namely that the system is uncorrelated at some time in the past; this allows for simple probabilistic treatment. This assumption is usually thought as a boundary condition, and thus the second Law is ultimately a consequence of the initial conditions somewhere in the past, probably at the beginning of the universe (the Big Bang), though other scenarios have also been suggested.[24][25][26]

Given these assumptions, in statistical mechanics, the Second Law is not a postulate, rather it is a consequence of the fundamental postulate, also known as the equal prior probability postulate, so long as one is clear that simple probability arguments are applied only to the future, while for the past there are auxiliary sources of information which tell us that it was low entropy[citation needed]. The first part of the second law, which states that the entropy of a thermally isolated system can only increase is a trivial consequence of the equal prior probability postulate, if we restrict the notion of the entropy to systems in thermal equilibrium.

Here's the difference in the two...

Clausius statement
The German scientist Rudolf Clausius laid the foundation for the second law of thermodynamics in 1850 by examining the relation between heat transfer and work.[9] His formulation of the second law, which was published in German in 1854, is known as the Clausius statement:
Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.[10]
Heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system, which is evident from ordinary experience of refrigeration, for example. In a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when forced by an external agent, the refrigeration system.

[edit]Kelvin statement
Lord Kelvin expressed the second law as
It is impossible, by means of inanimate material agency, to derive mechanical effect from any portion of matter by cooling it below the temperature of the coldest of the surrounding objects.[11]

[edit]Principle of Carathéodory
Constantin Carathéodory formulated thermodynamics on a purely mathematical axiomatic foundation. His statement of the second law is known as the Principle of Carathéodory, which may be formulated as follows:[12]
In every neighborhood of any state S of an adiabatically isolated system there are states inaccessible from S.[13]

now all those explanations of the second law and none of them not one specifies it as a "statistical" law.. Why? Because they deal with what they can see and experience directly in the real world. The "statistical" interpretation deals with what they cannot see or directly experience in the real world.

Again one is actual and based on real experience, the other is speculation based on mathematical concepts that attempt to explain what they cannot.

You are confusing the two or unaware there is a distinction. Either way, when your theories and mathematical equations conflict with what you can see and experience, it's time to check your math or concepts..

Quantum theory doesn't explain everything, even those working in the field admit this freely. It does answer a lot, but not enough to throw out the natural laws. String theory, and others are attempts to cover these issues in the hopes of one universal theory encompassing quantum and macro. None of these are the full answer yet either.

That's the difference between learning the math, and learning to think...They are not mutually exclusive..

the whole argument against 'back radiation' falls apart simply because you cannot separate the 'back radiation' from the 'forward radiation'. they are both happening continuously and are both part of the same energy transfer, which is net outflow to space. the SLoT also does not forbid changes in equilibrium temperatures at intermediate stages along the way from input to output. you 'back radiation' deniers jump from being too literal, to too general, and confuse one aspect with another. the Sun heats the surface. the atmosphere only affects the radiation loss to space. 'back radiation' only warms the surface if the atmosphere is warmer than the surface. anybody up for a Chinook?

Oh now it's just too late tard... You had the chance to be taken seriously and given some respect you blew it by being a dumbass rather than respond honestly.. Screwed yourself fake mathematician..

A person doesn't have a real understanding of quantum mechanics (statistical or otherwise) until they have a solid understanding of physics and can in the very least follow a simple logic problem. They wouldn't bump a student up to quantum theory and bypass all the preceding material, the person (you) wouldn't have a basis to function from, and his statements would read much like yours do. Blind, lacking context, from and function and not relating to any natural parameters. In short, Such a person would pose a lot of terms that are either out of place, used in inaccurate ways, or completely lacking in the matters proposed.

Just like your posts... One minute you cite obscure quantum or statistical mechanics concepts, and the next you can't follow a simple logic word problem or thought experiment? Does that sound like the behavior of an educated mind, or that of an undisciplined, on-the-fly google taught, fake... I call you another in the long line of posturing idiots with delusions of brilliance, but lacking substance and real education..

I have tested your self-proclaimed brilliance on numerous occasions, and you have failed every single time.. What kind of quantum theory "expert" knows the 2nd laws statistical mechanics reference but not the natural physical law behind it? What educated mathematician knows Stefan-Boltzmann constant, but has no concept when, where and how it applies? NONE!

You're another internet physicist wannabe... From here on out you get no more chances from me. It's pointless, you're an imbecile who has no interest in truth or understanding. All you care about is how it appears...

So, in keeping with this fact... Go take a shit in your hat asshole, it can keep your head warm through "back-radiation.. It will be the most intelligent thing ever done with one of your hats..

 

[gslack]

there is radiation, which is a combination of the range of wavelengths available for the temperature, dispersed in a random direction, by all constituents in the system you are observing. a miasma of radiation. got that? radiation is going in all directions, all of the time. we are mostly interested in the up and down vectors of gross flow but that does not mean that radiation is not flowing in every direction.

And we can measure it, at ambient temperature in every direction but back. Simple as that. It doesn't happen......ever. Moving back would be moving in the direction of less entropy...can't happen. Get yourself a new hypothesis because you can't even break even...much less win.

Every direction all the time. If you want to play word games like Johnson and call it harmonic reflection or whatever, I don't care. The end conclusion is exactly the same simply with an added (superfluous) layer of complexity.

AAAAAHHHH! WRONG TOOL!!!

It goes all directions all the time to what end??? What does it actually do to the higher energy source? Doesn't warm it, doesn't effect real change in that part of the system, so what does it mean? It means its NEGATED shithead...It means exactly what your fake educational claims mean, NADA...

Now hush and stick to licking your socks...

 

[gslack]

The same thing is also happening with a solar fridge that SSDD mentioned and got laughed at + insulted by the numan moron club.

we had a rather prolonged discussion of the solar oven/fridge.

you used your telescope and complained that magnifying cool radiation from the outside (or at least the cool windowpane) did not heat the focal point. in fact it cooled it as I had predicted. you refused to point it at an object warmer than ambient temperature which would have warmed the focal point (and cooled the object).

Quit lying Ian... You can't have prolonged conversations. Your ADD/ADHD won't allow it, we have seen this...

 

[polarbear]

Okay IanC.
Now it`s your turn.
You keep saying how much you know about physics and photons.
Then I gave you a long list how REAL photons behave and all you said that the list was too long...when I showed you how objects can be cooled off to near 0 K with high energy photons.
Then I shortened the list for you and you chose to ignore it because you were stuck explaining Snell`s law and how photons retain their energy while passing through glass at 2/3 rd of c. Or how 2 polarizing filters at 90 deg to each other block out light without getting warm. Instead of facing up to it you started discussing "back radiation" between hot coals with SSDD. Which was thee most ridiculous example of "back-radiation" I have seen to date and told you why it was ridiculous.
Of course that got buried right away by the "Siamese cat"...which shows up like clockwork and claims I`m stalking ugly cats...every time after I discuss something with somebody else.
If all that was too "long" (speak too complicated) for you then do this simple experiment yourself.
The next best thing to a black body is an object coated with black soot .
Take 2 identical water glasses and hold one over an acetylene flame with the oxygen valve off. Coat one glass with black soot and then fill up both glasses with hot water and stick a thermometer in both.
Observe how much more rapidly the "black body" cools off than the "non black" body.
That`s how we explained thermodynamics to freshman physics students at the U.
Would a "black body" not radiate more energy/time than the "non- black body" then all the existing laws of thermodynamics would have been violated.
Because then a warm black body could indeed warm even more drawing on the energy of a cooler object..
Comprendre ?

 

[gslack]

Hey "numan" ...you like using that German term "Die Dummheit der Götter" which you use totally out of context because you don`t know **** about German literature.
Here is what one of these "dumb Gods" just came up with...:

That does it!! I can look with amusement at the childishness of this base, vulgar, frozen-brained technician when he insults me with his lies and distortions, but when he insults one of the greatest poets of the German language by misquoting him and completely twisting his words, it is no longer merely a pleasure to reprove this ignoramus, it becomes a duty!!

The line of the immortal Friedrich von Schiller -- the man whose Ode to Joy provided the text which Beethoven used in the last movement of his Ninth Symphony and which has become the inspiring anthem of the European Community -- the line from Schiller's great poem on The Maid of Orléans, the line which I reverently used as the title of one of my postings, the line which this low cur has insulted, was :

"Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens"

"With stupidity the Gods themselves struggle in vain"

And how true that apothegm is could not be better exemplified by the stupidity of this frozen-brained polar bear both here and throughout this thread which has been ruined by the ravings of global heating Denialists.

This illiterate oaf has twisted the words to mean "the stupidity of the Gods"!! What a bumptious, arrogant twit!

But who can be surprised? I remember my (mercifully limited!!) experience of engineers -- the soiled underwear of the Academic World -- in university. These dregs of the World of Thought were mainly noted for tossing rolls of toilet paper through tree branches, and similar japes and tricks solely intended to make a mess which the overworked janitorial staff then had to clean up.

The frozen-brained arctoid who disgraces these pages is clearly cut from the same cloth.
.

Oh good the other phony...

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH....

Are you a German? No? Why all the pretense then? Oh that's right this is numan sock, super genius with a thesaurus... Forgot.. Carry on with your verbosity, oh maestro of bullshit and purveyor of loquaciousness...

I got a theaurus too... Check me out...LOL

Reading neumans posts are like being assaulted by the inventor of scrabble...

 

[gslack]

I am IanC. I am not a physicist, but I play one on USMB everyday...

 

[polarbear]

I am IanC. I am not a physicist, but I play one on USMB everyday...

I love it...you should have put a "hey hey" chant after I`m IanC then it would rhyme. Seeing that you are back on debunking duty I`ll call it a day and check out what transpired tomorrow when you need a break from bashing retarded gopher heads:

I love pun, see these even have hockey sticks

 

[gslack]

LOL, the MOLES!!!! Hit em!!!!!

 

[gslack]

Ian's previous scientific work...

 

[mamooth]

Then I gave you a long list

You mean you babbled incoherently, posted some random pictures and never came near making a point.

People don't fail to respond to you because you're brilliant. People fail to respond because no one can understand just what you're babbling about or what the point is supposed to be. It's all just senile gibberish. You're not dazzling anyone with your intellect. You're baffling them with bullshit.

The next best thing to a black body is an object coated with black soot.

Um ... not really. Albedo would be irrelevant to your experiment below.

Take 2 identical water glasses and hold one over an acetylene flame with the oxygen valve off. Coat one glass with black soot and then fill up both glasses with hot water and stick a thermometer in both.

They'll cool off at identical rates, as the soot would have no significant insulating effect, and no effect at all on radiation. If the soot did have some insulating effect, the sooty glass would cool off more slowly.

Observe how much more rapidly the "black body" cools off than the "non black" body.

Where do you come up with such barking nonsense? Color will have no effect on heat radiation level. Only temperature matters. A white object and a black object of the same temperature will radiate the same amount.

But let's get this straight. According to you, if I wear dark clothing, it will keep me cooler, because the dark radiates more heat, right? This seems to be yet another entirely new physical phenomenon you've discovered that the entire world has missed up to now.

That`s how we explained thermodynamics to freshman physics students at the U.

Then you did it completely wrong.

Would a "black body" not radiate more energy/time than the "non- black body" then all the existing laws of thermodynamics would have been violated.

You really have _zero_ concept of a what a black body means, or how it works.

Because then a warm black body could indeed warm even more drawing on the energy of a cooler object..
Comprendre ?

Um, no. That last sentence made no sense. The conclusion in no way followed from the premise. It was just more of your inexplicable babble.

 

[gslack]

Then I gave you a long list

inexplicable babble.

There fixed it... It's better this way, more honest... You're welcome admiral...

 

[mamooth]

Gslack, you're psychostalking me across multiple threads. It's creepy and not flattering. And since it will not convince me to **** you in the ass, I don't know why you keep trying.

 

[gslack]

Gslack, you're psychostalking me across multiple threads. It's creepy and not flattering. And since it will not convince me to **** you in the ass, I don't know why you keep trying.

LOL, lighten up admiral. I post where I want, when I want and to whom I want. The fact you are trying to make me like you is irrelevant, just like your paranoid delusions of people stalking you.. When I ignore you post to me or comment about me to others, so whose stalking whom? ROFL

Here ya go, this will cheer you up. A dancing banana with poop sign.. ALways makes me smile..LOL

 

[mamooth]

For someone who said yesterday he wasn't going to talk to me any more, you sure want to talk to me a lot. I know, I attract the weirdos.

Let's do what you hate most, and talk science. That always makes you run. Let's start by going back over your greatest moments of stupidity.

Are you still claiming that if you shine two heat lamps on an object, it won't get any hotter than if you shine one heat lamp on it?

Still claiming that photons magically vanish into a mystery dimension if they see a hot molecule in front of them?

Still claiming that the mystical powers of "equilibrium" can even cause a significant part of a star's energy output to simply vanish?

Still getting the 2nd Law completely wrong in every aspect?

Still creating an entirely new branch of whackaloon physics that the planet has never seen before?

 

[gslack]

For someone who said yesterday he wasn't going to talk to me any more, you sure want to talk to me a lot. I know, I attract the weirdos.

Let's do what you hate most, and talk science. That always makes you run. Let's start by going back over your greatest moments of stupidity.

Are you still claiming that if you shine two heat lamps on an object, it won't get any hotter than if you shine one heat lamp on it?

Sorry admiral you had your shot to show your aptitude you blew it... I don't discuss science with socks, trolls, or children desperate for attention. it's pointless.. All you get from me is scorn...

Now please continue your foot-stomping...

More POOP!!!

 

[mamooth]

Sorry admiral

Nice attempted evasion, you walking lump of chickenshit, but I'm still steering the topic back towards your idiot science. I await to see what new meltdown it elicits from you. If you just want to cry "uncle!", you can do that as well.

Are you still claiming that if you shine two heat lamps on an object, it won't get any hotter than if you shine one heat lamp on it?

Still claiming that photons magically vanish into a mystery dimension if they see a hot molecule in front of them?

Still claiming that the mystical powers of "equilibrium" can even cause a significant part of a star's energy output to simply vanish?

Still getting the 2nd Law completely wrong in every aspect?

Still creating an entirely new branch of whackaloon physics that the planet has never seen before?