how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[Foxfyre]

I see SSaDhD has been freverantly posting. He so desperately wants to be the expert. It is driving him crazy. He just can't accept that he isn't.

One of the reasons that the Dunning-Kruger effect occurs is that the less one knows, the more one has to rely on passion to not get overlooked.

Um, I think you don't have any kind of understanding of what the Dunning-Kruger effect is.

 

[westwall]

I see SSaDhD has been freverantly posting. He so desperately wants to be the expert. It is driving him crazy. He just can't accept that he isn't.

One of the reasons that the Dunning-Kruger effect occurs is that the less one knows, the more one has to rely on passion to not get overlooked.

Um, I think you don't have any kind of understanding of what the Dunning-Kruger effect is.

pimmie doesn't understand anything...

 

[gslack]

Yes we know you don't understand it socko..Not even surprised...

 

[SSDD]

I see SSaDhD has been freverantly posting. He so desperately wants to be the expert. It is driving him crazy. He just can't accept that he isn't.

No goob. I neither want nor claim to be an expert. Those who are can see all to well who is pretending. There are some actual experts here and they are laughing at you and your sock. I am no expert but am educated and am laughing at you in your unwillingness to engage an actual scientific conversation with anyone but your sock. I don't guess you realize how obvious it is.

The questions I am asking you should be easy to answer for the real expert you claim to be. A real expert wouldn't find it necessary to either alter the meaning of a fundamental law of nature or run from the topic.

So keep dodging. There is a bit of entertainment to be had in watching.

 

[SSDD]

I see SSaDhD has been freverantly posting. He so desperately wants to be the expert. It is driving him crazy. He just can't accept that he isn't.

The only ones feverishly posting are you and pimmerz. You guys bring new meaning to the term "bury them with bullshit".

Don't they though? To is funny for all their (his) posing and posturing he won't engage on the fundamental laws of physics which is where the present failure of climate science can be traced to.

 

[IanC]

Two objects of the same temperature, not touching and in a vacuum (no conduction or convection). Do they radiate at each other? If they do I am right ( or at least more correct). If they don't what happened to the radiation and how did the objects know the other was there and what temperature it was at?

Will you answer this time?

If you wonder about the direction of energy transfer, you really don't need to ask me Ian. You know what the second law says regarding energy movement from one location to another. Apply it.

And why do you insist that the objects in question must "know" anything. Does a tennis ball somehow "know" which way to travel once it is struck? Does a falling rock "know" which way to fall? Do the chemicals involved in a reaction somehow "know" how to react with each other? Does the earth "know" how far to maintain itself from the sun and or how long it should take to complete an orbit, or how fast to rotate? Do you believe all of these things somehow "know" what to do, or how to act?

Personally, I think that the natural forces at work simply make things happen as they do and the things themselves have no sort of knowledge or choice of how to act. Connect a battery to a lightbulb...do those free electrons somehow know that they should exit the battery and go cause the light bulb to illuminate?

Get over your childish sarcasm and acknowledge the fact that the Second Law says that it is not possible for energy to move from a high entropy state to a low entropy state. We can no more explain the mechanism of how it is so than we can explain the mechanism of gravity.

Still no answer. Perhaps we should go to an even more basic level.

What is the origin of blacbody radiation? Can one single particle emit it?

One particle, say a CO2 molecule, can absorb and re-emit a photon of IR. But that is not blackbody radiation. One particle does not have a 'temperature'. Why not?

I am only trying to help you reframe the concepts. Unlike gslack, I am certain you have the brainpower to grasp it, if only you would widen your focus.

 

[IanC]

You are doing even worse. You are attempting to mislead people who are not even in the conversation.

I have no bizarre theory. It is you who is operating on unproven theory and hypothesis. My argument is that Second Law of Thermodynamics 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. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Tell me, what is strange and bizarre about my stating the Second Law and saying that I believe it to not only be true, but to mean what it says? What is bizarre Ian, is claiming that it doesn't mean what it says when if science had found it to be proveably wrong then science would have recended it and replace it with a more accurate statement. If the law didn't apply to individual events, and that was a proveable fact, don't you think that qualifier might be inclued in the statement of the law?

Would you think it bizarre if I quoted the Ideal Gas Law in a discussion over whether or not the state of a gas is determined by its pressure, volume and temperature?

Would you accuse me of bizarre theories if I quoted Dalton's Law if we were in disagreement over whether the pressure of a mixture of gasses is equal to the sum of the partial pressures of the component gasses and said that you were wrong if your position were in opposition to the statement of that law?

If you would think that bringing the statements of those laws into those conversations would constitued bizarre beliefs on the part of the one who used them, then you are even further out there than I had suspected....now if the use of those physical laws, in support of an argument are not bizarre, how then could the use of the statement of the most fundamental physical law be any more bizarre? What is bizarre Ian, is to be in disagreement with that statement.




So you keep saying but all I need do is quote the Second Law and ask you how it applies to the greenhouse effect hypotheisis, and you immediately deviate from the statement of the law and go into how it doesn't really mean what it says or that even though it is written in absolute terms it doesn't really mean what it says. If you disagree with it as an absolute statement regarding the movement of energy from one place to another, then you, by definition, think it is wrong.




And that is what it remains. Till some actual evidence, beyond mathematical and computer models proves it wrong, it is what it is. You are trying to replace a law of nature with a theory...it is as simple as that. QM is theoretical and will remain theoretical for longer than either of us have left on this earth and much of what it states today will be found out to be completely wrong. Any thoery that must form an ad hoc solution to explain the orbitals of a hydrogen atom is suspect from the start.



Statistical mechanics is a theory and it ATTEMPTS TO DESCRIBE. There is a fundamental difference between describing a thing not understood in factual, proveable terms and attempting to describe a thing not understood in unproven theoretical ideas. You put far to much faith in things that aren't even beginning to be proven.




There doesn't need to be any such statement for reasons I have already given you. The statement of the Second Law is made in absolute terms. 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. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. A statement like that doesn't need further qualification. There is no need to describe every possible energy exchange from place to place or in quanity.

The statement says that it is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body. Which part of "not possible" is it that you are having problems understanding. A statement like that makes it unnecessary to describe when heat might flow from a cooler object to a warmer object because it is "NOT POSSIBLE". If it were possible, then the statement would say something else, or not exist at all.

"ENERGY WILL NOT FLOW SPONTANEOUSLY FROM A LOW TEMPERATURE OBJECT TO A HIGHER TEMPERATURE OBJECT". That statement does not need a sub statement saying that the law also includes particles. It says that energy WILL NOT flow from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. The law would fill volumes that would fill and overflow the library of congress if it were necessary to clearly state every possible energy exchange.

The statement is that it is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body and energy WILL NOT flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object and it is enough. If you have a theory or hypothesis that runs afoul of that statement, then your theory or hypothesis is doomed no matter how much press it can get and you will, in fact, be the one guilty of bizarre behavior in trying to get around the most fundamental law of nature.

Two objects of the same temperature, not touching and in a vacuum (no conduction or convection). Do they radiate at each other? If they do I am right ( or at least more correct). If they don't what happened to the radiation and how did the objects know the other was there and what temperature it was at?

Will you answer this time?

I think that a more interesting question that you might know the answer to is:

When a GHG molecule absorbs longwave radiation the electron cloud moves to a higher energy state which is unstable. When it stablizes by radiating the excess energy, does a wave of energy really go off in all directions, or does a photon go off in one direction that is randomized only though many such events?

Only one photon means only one direction, at least until it interacts with matter again.

In AGW it is often only the up/down component discussed but radiative processes happen in all direction equally.

 

[IanC]

You are doing even worse. You are attempting to mislead people who are not even in the conversation.

I have no bizarre theory. It is you who is operating on unproven theory and hypothesis. My argument is that Second Law of Thermodynamics 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. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Tell me, what is strange and bizarre about my stating the Second Law and saying that I believe it to not only be true, but to mean what it says? What is bizarre Ian, is claiming that it doesn't mean what it says when if science had found it to be proveably wrong then science would have recended it and replace it with a more accurate statement. If the law didn't apply to individual events, and that was a proveable fact, don't you think that qualifier might be inclued in the statement of the law?

Would you think it bizarre if I quoted the Ideal Gas Law in a discussion over whether or not the state of a gas is determined by its pressure, volume and temperature?

Would you accuse me of bizarre theories if I quoted Dalton's Law if we were in disagreement over whether the pressure of a mixture of gasses is equal to the sum of the partial pressures of the component gasses and said that you were wrong if your position were in opposition to the statement of that law?

If you would think that bringing the statements of those laws into those conversations would constitued bizarre beliefs on the part of the one who used them, then you are even further out there than I had suspected....now if the use of those physical laws, in support of an argument are not bizarre, how then could the use of the statement of the most fundamental physical law be any more bizarre? What is bizarre Ian, is to be in disagreement with that statement.




So you keep saying but all I need do is quote the Second Law and ask you how it applies to the greenhouse effect hypotheisis, and you immediately deviate from the statement of the law and go into how it doesn't really mean what it says or that even though it is written in absolute terms it doesn't really mean what it says. If you disagree with it as an absolute statement regarding the movement of energy from one place to another, then you, by definition, think it is wrong.




And that is what it remains. Till some actual evidence, beyond mathematical and computer models proves it wrong, it is what it is. You are trying to replace a law of nature with a theory...it is as simple as that. QM is theoretical and will remain theoretical for longer than either of us have left on this earth and much of what it states today will be found out to be completely wrong. Any thoery that must form an ad hoc solution to explain the orbitals of a hydrogen atom is suspect from the start.



Statistical mechanics is a theory and it ATTEMPTS TO DESCRIBE. There is a fundamental difference between describing a thing not understood in factual, proveable terms and attempting to describe a thing not understood in unproven theoretical ideas. You put far to much faith in things that aren't even beginning to be proven.




There doesn't need to be any such statement for reasons I have already given you. The statement of the Second Law is made in absolute terms. 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. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. A statement like that doesn't need further qualification. There is no need to describe every possible energy exchange from place to place or in quanity.

The statement says that it is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body. Which part of "not possible" is it that you are having problems understanding. A statement like that makes it unnecessary to describe when heat might flow from a cooler object to a warmer object because it is "NOT POSSIBLE". If it were possible, then the statement would say something else, or not exist at all.

"ENERGY WILL NOT FLOW SPONTANEOUSLY FROM A LOW TEMPERATURE OBJECT TO A HIGHER TEMPERATURE OBJECT". That statement does not need a sub statement saying that the law also includes particles. It says that energy WILL NOT flow from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. The law would fill volumes that would fill and overflow the library of congress if it were necessary to clearly state every possible energy exchange.

The statement is that it is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body and energy WILL NOT flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object and it is enough. If you have a theory or hypothesis that runs afoul of that statement, then your theory or hypothesis is doomed no matter how much press it can get and you will, in fact, be the one guilty of bizarre behavior in trying to get around the most fundamental law of nature.

Two objects of the same temperature, not touching and in a vacuum (no conduction or convection). Do they radiate at each other? If they do I am right ( or at least more correct). If they don't what happened to the radiation and how did the objects know the other was there and what temperature it was at?

Will you answer this time?

Of course another interesting variation is:

Two bodies in space. They are attracted to each other, through the nothing in between them in proportion to their combined masses. How does each one know the mass of the other?

BTW, this is not a trick question. I agree with you on the radiation issue. I'm just curious.

Wonderful question, fun to think about, but I'm not the guy who can answer in any meaningful way.

As a teenager did you grok that photons (or any speed of light entity) just don't have time or distance in their frame of reference? It make electrical fields much easier to imagine, and perhaps gravity as well.

 

[IanC]

Two objects of the same temperature, not touching and in a vacuum (no conduction or convection). Do they radiate at each other? If they do I am right ( or at least more correct). If they don't what happened to the radiation and how did the objects know the other was there and what temperature it was at?

I didn't feel like searching throug the thread to figure out the entire context. The original point may have gotten lost, but I think I got the gist of it, which is why I posted;

"Thermodynamics is a description of net averages. It is not a description of individual particles. The difference can be seen in the random walk of Brownian motion. Refer to Einstien's paper on Brownian Motion, in which he tied the laws of thermodynamics to elementary particles, proved the existence of atoms and molecules as real objects, and demonstrated that the laws of thermodynamics describe the statistical average behavior of large quantities of particles."

You are absolutely correct. *Two systems at thermal disequilibrium do transfer instantaneous energy in both directions. Thermodynamic laws are a description of the statistcal averages for large numbers of particle.

As your example implies, two bodies at different temperatures emit radiation completely independent of each other. The body at a higher temperature does absorb energy from the cooler body. The warmer body, on average, emits more radiation than the cooler body. So, on average, there is a net energy transfer from the warmer to the cooler body.

In terms of gasses and other matter, where the energy is tranfered in the form of kinetic energy, it was not resolved, until Einstein's paper on Brownian motion, if atoms and molecules were a real or theoretical construct. *Einstein showed them to be real and the issue of thermodynamic laws being a statistical macro process was resolved.

It now comes down to probabilities. It is statistically, and really possible, for the net energy movement to be transfered from the cold body to the warm one. *In practice, over large quantities of particles, the probability of this occuring is so increadibly small, as to make it insignificant in practice. In practice, it is practically impossible. It is not absolutely impossible. And there is no way to utilize this to extract energy from the system or violate the macro laws of thermodynamics. *Any device imaginable is part of the thermodynamic system and, as such, cannot change the macroscopic outcome.

Exactly.

Some people here take offense at quantifying the energy flow going in each direction and insist that only net flow be considered. Each event can go in either direction. Only the final result is statistically certain.

 

[PMZ]

I see SSaDhD has been freverantly posting. He so desperately wants to be the expert. It is driving him crazy. He just can't accept that he isn't.

One of the reasons that the Dunning-Kruger effect occurs is that the less one knows, the more one has to rely on passion to not get overlooked.

Um, I think you don't have any kind of understanding of what the Dunning-Kruger effect is.

It's explained at the bottom of each of my posts.

 

[PMZ]

I see SSaDhD has been freverantly posting. He so desperately wants to be the expert. It is driving him crazy. He just can't accept that he isn't.

No goob. I neither want no claim to be an expert. Those who ret can see all to well who is pretending. There are some actual experts here and they are laughing at you and your sock. I am no expert but am educated and am laughing at you in your unwillingness to engage an actual scientific conversation with anyone but your sock. I don't guess you realize how obvious it is.

The questions I am asking you should be easy to answer for the real expert you claim to be. A real expert wouldn't find it necessary to either alter the meaning of a fundamental law of nature or run from the topic.

So keep dodging. There is a bit of entertainment to be had in watching.

There is no possible way that you are educated.

 

[Foxfyre]

One of the reasons that the Dunning-Kruger effect occurs is that the less one knows, the more one has to rely on passion to not get overlooked.

Um, I think you don't have any kind of understanding of what the Dunning-Kruger effect is.

It's explained at the bottom of each of my posts.

But your comment strongly suggested that you still don't have a clue what your cut and pasted exerpt actually means. You see cut and paste and demontrated knowledge are not the same thing. A great many of your posts, however, have been a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I could be tempted to use you as a classic example for illustration purposes.

 

[SSDD]

Still no answer. Perhaps we should go to an even more basic level.

I am never going to give you an answer that you like Ian. We have done this dance before and it goes no where. Tell you what, lets lay all the cards out on the table in as honest a manner as possible.

I make my argument and you know what it is...energy can not move from a high entropy state to a low entropy state. In support of my argument, I have, first and foremost, the Second Law of Thermodynamics as it is stated in every physics textbook I have ever looked in, as well as every scientific dictionary and encyclopedia. Secondly I have every laboratory, and field experiment ever done as well as every observation ever made. All of them say that I am correct in my position that energy will not go from a high entropy state to a lower entropy state.

Now, as honestly as you are capable of, what, exactly do you have in the way of actual physical evidence to support your claim?

I am only trying to help you reframe the concepts. Unlike gslack, I am certain you have the brainpower to grasp it, if only you would widen your focus.

[/quote]

What you are trying to do is reframe the statement of the Second Law from "not possible" and "will not" to "sometimes" or "if the unit of energy is small enough" or some other permuation which changes the fundamental law of nature, to a sometimes, if maybe, sort of law.

 

[SSDD]

[
Only one photon means only one direction, at least until it interacts with matter again.

Only one stone means only one direction as well. Do you think that if I drop enough stones, that statistically, at some point, the force of gravity will "forget" to make the stone fall and will instead allow it to climb? Which other forces of nature do you believe sometimes "forget" to determine the relationships between phenomena?

In AGW it is often only the up/down component discussed but radiative processes happen in all direction equally.

Prove that. If you can, then you can prove the statement of the Second Law is not correct. That's the problem. You believe it fervently...I have no doubt of that. But Ian, there is no proof...not one single observation in the history of science supports your belief.

 

[SSDD]

Exactly.

Some people here take offense at quantifying the energy flow going in each direction and insist that only net flow be considered. Each event can go in either direction. Only the final result is statistically certain.

Cute how you two are scratching each other's itches...but prove it. Provide one observed and measured example of two way energy flow between objects at radiating at different entropy states.

 

[PMZ]

Um, I think you don't have any kind of understanding of what the Dunning-Kruger effect is.

It's explained at the bottom of each of my posts.

But your comment strongly suggested that you still don't have a clue what your cut and pasted exerpt actually means. You see cut and paste and demontrated knowledge are not the same thing. A great many of your posts, however, have been a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I could be tempted to use you as a classic example for illustration purposes.

Unlike cultists, I've never suffered from the delusion that my knowledge is unique. In fact the vast majority of it is "copied and pasted" into my brain from those who taught or reported it. My tag line is copied and pasted as well as it said, in a way that appealed to me, the essence of cult behavior.

Feel free to use me as an example of anything you want. Your words reflect on you, not me.

In the meantime, do you have anything to add to the discussion here?

 

[PMZ]

Two objects of the same temperature, not touching and in a vacuum (no conduction or convection). Do they radiate at each other? If they do I am right ( or at least more correct). If they don't what happened to the radiation and how did the objects know the other was there and what temperature it was at?

Will you answer this time?

I think that a more interesting question that you might know the answer to is:

When a GHG molecule absorbs longwave radiation the electron cloud moves to a higher energy state which is unstable. When it stablizes by radiating the excess energy, does a wave of energy really go off in all directions, or does a photon go off in one direction that is randomized only though many such events?

Only one photon means only one direction, at least until it interacts with matter again.

In AGW it is often only the up/down component discussed but radiative processes happen in all direction equally.

So, when GHG molecules emit the radiation that restores their stability, it is truly wave propagation in all directions, and not photon emission in a single, but random, direction?

 

[SSDD]

There is no possible way that you are educated.

It isn't me who is dodging any conversation on the laws of thermodynamics. It isn't me who can't even bring myself to state the Second Law because it would wreck my belief in an implausible hypothesis.

It is precisely because I am educated that I know precisely which questions will back you against the wall...and precisely because you lack any real education and critical thinking skills that you remain unable to even try to answer the questions I am asking. Those who spoon feed you what you pretend to be education haven't instructed you in how to actually answer the questions. Even Ian, who is obviously far better educated than you will not answer the questions directly because to do so brings his belief in the hypothesis into question.

 

[PMZ]

Two objects of the same temperature, not touching and in a vacuum (no conduction or convection). Do they radiate at each other? If they do I am right ( or at least more correct). If they don't what happened to the radiation and how did the objects know the other was there and what temperature it was at?

Will you answer this time?

Of course another interesting variation is:

Two bodies in space. They are attracted to each other, through the nothing in between them in proportion to their combined masses. How does each one know the mass of the other?

BTW, this is not a trick question. I agree with you on the radiation issue. I'm just curious.

Wonderful question, fun to think about, but I'm not the guy who can answer in any meaningful way.

As a teenager did you grok that photons (or any speed of light entity) just don't have time or distance in their frame of reference? It make electrical fields much easier to imagine, and perhaps gravity as well.

I've always been glad to have lived through a period where so much has been learned, and frustrated that I will never know what's learned after.

 

[SSDD]

Um, I think you don't have any kind of understanding of what the Dunning-Kruger effect is.

It's explained at the bottom of each of my posts.

But your comment strongly suggested that you still don't have a clue what your cut and pasted exerpt actually means. You see cut and paste and demontrated knowledge are not the same thing. A great many of your posts, however, have been a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I could be tempted to use you as a classic example for illustration purposes.

The problem with victims of Dunning-Kruger is that they don't realise that they are victims. For all of his cut and paste "scholarship" he finds that he must completely avoid any discussion of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and how it applies to the greenhouse effect hypothesis. That topic, and relationship should be easy for a truely educated person, but he must avoid it like the plague because the cult sites where he gets his cut and paste also avoid such fundamental issues because the law speaks directly to the greenhouse effect hypothesis as it is stated.