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

[IanC]

I don't actually understand SSDD's reasoning but shouldn't the Moon's gravity shut off when directed at the earth? What is the difference between the net gravity between two objects and the net flow of heat?

I am being sarcastic but the idea and the concepts are interesting.

 

[SSDD]

All objects warmer than absolute zero radiate energy in all directions. Simple physics. They have no mechanism to radiate in selective directions. GHGs absorb radiation incident upon them of the appropriate wave lengths. They have no ability to discriminate except by wavelength. That’s what physics says. Elementary.

You say that as if it were a proven fact. It is not. If you believe it is, then provide the observable experiment that proves it and in turn proves the second law of thermodynamics wrong.

You guys make a lot of statements like that as if they were fact and don't seem to grasp that they are statements of hypothesis that remain unproven.

Your idiot suggestion that there is a selection process is evidence of a complete failure to grasp that there are forces at work in the universe that, while we can't explain them, exist none the less. Do you think a rock has any input in selecting which way it will fall when dropped? Do you think an electron has any input in selecting which way it moves down a wire? If not, why would you believe some selection is available to the direction a molecule radiates when the second law says, and every observation ever made confirms that energy can not move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state?

 

[SSDD]

The problem is that you don't understand the 2ond Law. That simple.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: 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.

I understand the Second Law just fine. It is a straight forward statment with no wiggle room and it defies your AGW hypothesis. I am afraid that it is you who has been misled in regards to the Second Law since you must immediately contradict it whenever you discuss your beliefs.

 

[SSDD]

I don't actually understand SSDD's reasoning but shouldn't the Moon's gravity shut off when directed at the earth? What is the difference between the net gravity between two objects and the net flow of heat?

The force of gravity changes with the inverse square of the distance between objects. Move the moon closer to earth and gravity changes both here and on the moon. Gravity isn't a matter of direction as is the case with radiation but as objects move closer or further away from each other gravity changes just as the temperature differental between objects alters the direction they radiate.

The laws of thermodynamics describe this, but you reject the satements of the laws because they don't mesh with your belief in the magic. You prefer unprovable, unstestable hypothesis instead.

 

[Abraham3]

just as the temperature differental between objects alters the direction they radiate.

I may be getting nitpicky, but this statement is false. All objects radiate on their orthogonal surface vectors based solely on their temperature and the emissivity of their surfaces. What alters in a multibody issue is the net radiative flux.

The laws of thermodynamics describe this, but you reject the satements of the laws because they don't mesh with your belief in the magic. You prefer unprovable, unstestable hypothesis instead.

AGW does not violate the Second Law. And as long we're here, neither does evolution.

 

[SSDD]

just as the temperature differental between objects alters the direction they radiate.

I may be getting nitpicky, but this statement is false. All objects radiate on their orthogonal surface vectors based solely on their temperature and the emissivity of their surfaces. What alters in a multibody issue is the net radiative flux.

Read a bit on poynting vectors. The most obvious application is radio and microwave transmission, but it applies to all radiation.

The laws of thermodynamics describe this, but you reject the satements of the laws because they don't mesh with your belief in the magic. You prefer unprovable, unstestable hypothesis instead.

AGW does not violate the Second Law. And as long we're here, neither does evolution.

If it depends on backradiation it does.

 

[Abraham3]

Your idiot suggestion that there is a selection process is evidence of a complete failure to grasp that there are forces at work in the universe that, while we can't explain them, exist none the less.

Where I come from, they call this La-La-Land. What forces do you believe exist that we cannot explain THAT APPLY TO THE ISSUE OF CLIMATE CHANGE?

Do you think a rock has any input in selecting which way it will fall when dropped? Do you think an electron has any input in selecting which way it moves down a wire? If not, why would you believe some selection is available to the direction a molecule radiates when the second law says, and every observation ever made confirms that energy can not move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state?

A few posts down from here you state that the presence of other bodies will alter the directions in which an object radiates. Here you seem to say the opposite. Is this dichotomy of yours intentional?

 

[PMZ]

All objects warmer than absolute zero radiate energy in all directions. Simple physics. They have no mechanism to radiate in selective directions. GHGs absorb radiation incident upon them of the appropriate wave lengths. They have no ability to discriminate except by wavelength. That’s what physics says. Elementary.

You say that as if it were a proven fact. It is not. If you believe it is, then provide the observable experiment that proves it and in turn proves the second law of thermodynamics wrong.

You guys make a lot of statements like that as if they were fact and don't seem to grasp that they are statements of hypothesis that remain unproven.

Your idiot suggestion that there is a selection process is evidence of a complete failure to grasp that there are forces at work in the universe that, while we can't explain them, exist none the less. Do you think a rock has any input in selecting which way it will fall when dropped? Do you think an electron has any input in selecting which way it moves down a wire? If not, why would you believe some selection is available to the direction a molecule radiates when the second law says, and every observation ever made confirms that energy can not move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state?

How many times do you plan to avoid the experiment that proves how GHGs work. Scienceofdoom.com. You not looking at it doesn't make it go away. It will always be there proving you wrong. We all know that but you hope by hiding from it to avoid learning.

 

[SSDD]

Your idiot suggestion that there is a selection process is evidence of a complete failure to grasp that there are forces at work in the universe that, while we can't explain them, exist none the less.

Where I come from, they call this La-La-Land. What forces do you believe exist that we cannot explain THAT APPLY TO THE ISSUE OF CLIMATE CHANGE?

So you are claiming that you can describe the mechanism by which gravity operates? You can explain the mechanism that brought about the concept of wave/particle duality? I would be very interested in hearing an accurate description of the mechanism behind those phenomena. When you are through with those, I have a few more for you.

A few posts down from here you state that the presence of other bodies will alter the directions in which an object radiates. Here you seem to say the opposite. Is this dichotomy of yours intentional?

My statements are consistent. Sorry you have a comprehension problem. The second law says that energy can not move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state. Place a warmer object in the vicinity of a radiating cooler object and it can not radiate towards the warmer object. If it did, it would be in conflict with the second law of thermodynamics which says that energy can not move from a cooler object to a warmer object.

 

[SSDD]

How many times do you plan to avoid the experiment that proves how GHGs work. Scienceofdoom.com. You not looking at it doesn't make it go away. It will always be there proving you wrong. We all know that but you hope by hiding from it to avoid learning.

There was no experiment. There was an unperformed thought experiment involving a high concentration of gas enclosed in a box. That hardly proves the greenhouse hypothesis. It does prove what happens when radiative gasses in high concentrations are kept in an enclosure. Two different things entirely.

 

[flacaltenn]

Notice how when Ian and now flac, get stuck they try and claim "stops radiating, in that direction, decides not toradiate in that directions, et, so on"

Doesn't matter how manny times we explain, how much of their OWN sources material, text books, and so on say the exact same thing, if spencer and the SOD guy don't agree, or say it means something else that's how it is...

It's ridiculous... For people maintaining claims of science, to be so unscientific when it threatens their heroes...

Absolutely not LyingSack... I (we) don't claim it "stops radiating in that direction".. I was summarizing SSDD's contention and asking for confirmation.. If you don't know the real physics from the 20 pages of debate.. You've got no right to put words in my mouth...

"how many times we explain" ????? You've explained nothing.. You didn't even answer my questions about the thought experiment.. You're chicken..

 

[flacaltenn]

You are simply CONFUSING and MISQUOTING the laws of thermo.. Thermo is actually MORE than one class. And I've told you several times that when heat moves by means of RADIATION it follows different rules than when it moves by Conduction or Convection.

Yep, you have said it more than once but the problem is that the laws of thermodynamics don't say it so if I must choose between your credibility and the credibility of the laws of thermodynamics, I am afraid I must goe with the laws.

The rules for radiation are essentially the same rules for LIGHT PROPAGATION. And folks who ASSUME that the solutions for ALL MODES of thermal propagation are exactly the same are gonna mess up...

The second law defines how radiated energy moves...from lower entropy states to higher entropy states. It isn't confusing and it is a one way street. Energy doesn't move spontaneously from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state. If it did, and could be proven, rather than go on endlessly with these idiotic mind experiments, someone would simply do an experiment that proves it. No such experiment exists because it would be pointless trying to prove something that doesn't happen.



Except that there is....just as soon as you try to move energy from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.



Spencer has had his ass handed to him so many times that now he is asking if a greenhouse works on the greenhouse principle. The man has become a waste. He believes that he is measuring backradiation with his hand held infrared thermometer even after a manufacturer of such devices stated explicitly that they are designed not to detect atmospheric radiation.

Unless you allow the cooler ball to continue to radiate towards the warmer ball, you cannot solve the radiation equations.

DOES NOT MEAN that thermal flow RESULTS in warming of the hotter object. In fact -- the cooler ball will HEAT and increase it's flow out in all directions. But the hotter ball will cool more SLOWLY because of the proximity of the first ball. The flow (or flux) equations work. And no rules are violated.

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. so sayeth the second law. Sorry guy, I just can't take you seriously when you are in opposition to the second law, or any physical law for that matter.

I believe that you believe it, but I don't. When your QM superceeds or causes the second law to be changed (fat chance) then I can take you seriously but till then....sorry.

There is no mechanism for the Ball #1 to stop radiating in the direction of warmer objects. Not for radiative heat flow. If you insist that it does -- tell me how it selectively stops radiating towards warmer objects. What if that warmer object is 10 meters away? Does some of the light not land on "warmer objects"?

There is no more selectivity with regard to the direction an object radiates than there is for which direction a rock falls when dropped, or which way electricity runs down a line, or which direction air moves when a tire is punctured and there is a force that determines all. We can't describe the mechanism but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Radiated energy only moves in the direction of more entropy....period.

You COULD stick with the Thermo laws --- if you TRULY understood how they are to be applied. You don't.. And the mess that results from NOT LISTENING to how this works is gonna gum up your ability to comprehend anything about photons generated from a heated body..

Too bad. That metal ball isn't gonna stop radiating in ANY direction --- just because there's a warmer object 10 meters away..

It's much simpler than the ABSURB picture of every object selectively throwing photons out "because of something like gravity".. That's an OVERINTERPRETATION of the 2nd law.. And it doesn't happen.. What IS --- "that something like gravity"?? There is NO direct thermal conduction in a vacuum.. What FORCE are you invoking?

BTW: BECAUSE this isn't personal --- let's try one more thing..

Photons are NOT heat.. They are ElectroMagnetic Energy.. HEAT flows along potentials of thermal difference. EM energy doesn't care about temperature or thermal gradients. So why should IR photons (light) obey ANYTHING about thermal gradients?? Find me a reference that EM energy propagates according to thermal gradients. Or that EM only propagates from higher to lower entropy.. That statement simply doesn't exist.

 

[PMZ]

How many times do you plan to avoid the experiment that proves how GHGs work. Scienceofdoom.com. You not looking at it doesn't make it go away. It will always be there proving you wrong. We all know that but you hope by hiding from it to avoid learning.

There was no experiment. There was an unperformed thought experiment involving a high concentration of gas enclosed in a box. That hardly proves the greenhouse hypothesis. It does prove what happens when radiative gasses in high concentrations are kept in an enclosure. Two different things entirely.

Can't wait to see some evidence of your claims. In fact, I can't wait to see even the slightest evidence of any of your claims.

Soon?

 

[SSDD]

Can't wait to see some evidence of your claims. In fact, I can't wait to see even the slightest evidence of any of your claims.

Soon?

You are to blind and stupid to see the evidence. All you have to do is look around. No warming for over 15 years now in spite of steadily increasing CO2. Your hypothesis is failing. So called greenhouse gasses aren't doing what your hypothesis claimed they would be doing. The real world is evidence of the failure of the hypothesis.

 

[SSDD]

You COULD stick with the Thermo laws --- if you TRULY understood how they are to be applied. You don't.. And the mess that results from NOT LISTENING to how this works is gonna gum up your ability to comprehend anything about photons generated from a heated body..

I do understand how they are applied...observation bears me out. You on the other hand believe that QM is correct in its entirety and are either unaware, or unwilling to acknowledge that the line of thought is chock full of errors, contradictions and ad hoc fixes. When, and if it ever gets all of its problems worked out, it will bear little resemblence to its appearance today. Hell, at present they are working on a different schrodenger's equation if a different equation could still be called schrodengers.

Too bad. That metal ball isn't gonna stop radiating in ANY direction --- just because there's a warmer object 10 meters away..

So you say, but the second law says differently. Energy can not move from a cooler object to a warmer object.

BTW: BECAUSE this isn't personal --- let's try one more thing..

We are not going to agree. You believe in something that I don't. I don't accept the post modern, unproven, untestable claim that the laws of thermodynamics don't apply at microscopic levels.

Photons are NOT heat.. They are ElectroMagnetic Energy.. HEAT flows along potentials of thermal difference. EM energy doesn't care about temperature or thermal gradients.

Of course it does. The laws of thermodynamics aren't just about heat. Again:

Second Law of Thermodynamics: 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.

Electromagnetic energy, and all other forms of energy, from obey the laws of thermodynamics.

So why should IR photons (light) obey ANYTHING about thermal gradients??

If you are asking that question seriously, then it is you who really needs to bone up on the laws of thermodynamics.

Find me a reference that EM energy propagates according to thermal gradients. Or that EM only propagates from higher to lower entropy.. That statement simply doesn't exist.

As I have said, and you really should learn, heat is only one of the many types of energy transfers that are covered by the second law of thermodynamics....everything from water running downhill to air escaping from a baloon. I repeat...ANY ENERGY TRANSFER....and what are photons if not energy?

 

[PMZ]

Can't wait to see some evidence of your claims. In fact, I can't wait to see even the slightest evidence of any of your claims.

Soon?

You are to blind and stupid to see the evidence. All you have to do is look around. No warming for over 15 years now in spite of steadily increasing CO2. Your hypothesis is failing. So called greenhouse gasses aren't doing what your hypothesis claimed they would be doing. The real world is evidence of the failure of the hypothesis.

How often does the data showing that the Earth's mechanism currently being employed to deal with the imbalance of energy in vs energy out, has way more impact on water and ice than land and atmosphere, have to be shown to you?

We'll probably never know if you're as thick headed as you appear or just an ubber loyal Dittohead.

 

[flacaltenn]

You COULD stick with the Thermo laws --- if you TRULY understood how they are to be applied. You don't.. And the mess that results from NOT LISTENING to how this works is gonna gum up your ability to comprehend anything about photons generated from a heated body..

I do understand how they are applied...observation bears me out. You on the other hand believe that QM is correct in its entirety and are either unaware, or unwilling to acknowledge that the line of thought is chock full of errors, contradictions and ad hoc fixes. When, and if it ever gets all of its problems worked out, it will bear little resemblence to its appearance today. Hell, at present they are working on a different schrodenger's equation if a different equation could still be called schrodengers.

Too bad. That metal ball isn't gonna stop radiating in ANY direction --- just because there's a warmer object 10 meters away..

So you say, but the second law says differently. Energy can not move from a cooler object to a warmer object.



We are not going to agree. You believe in something that I don't. I don't accept the post modern, unproven, untestable claim that the laws of thermodynamics don't apply at microscopic levels.



Of course it does. The laws of thermodynamics aren't just about heat. Again:



Electromagnetic energy, and all other forms of energy, from obey the laws of thermodynamics.

So why should IR photons (light) obey ANYTHING about thermal gradients??

If you are asking that question seriously, then it is you who really needs to bone up on the laws of thermodynamics.

Find me a reference that EM energy propagates according to thermal gradients. Or that EM only propagates from higher to lower entropy.. That statement simply doesn't exist.

As I have said, and you really should learn, heat is only one of the many types of energy transfers that are covered by the second law of thermodynamics....everything from water running downhill to air escaping from a baloon. I repeat...ANY ENERGY TRANSFER....and what are photons if not energy?

Any energy transfer always goes from higher to lower entropy?? So I can't have a radio link if the recieving antenna is warmer than the sending antenna? I can't shine a flashlight on a warmer object?

Gonna make it hard to have phone home from the space station.. Or find that burning hot wire in the dark..

 

[SSDD]

You COULD stick with the Thermo laws --- if you TRULY understood how they are to be applied. You don't.. And the mess that results from NOT LISTENING to how this works is gonna gum up your ability to comprehend anything about photons generated from a heated body..

I do understand how they are applied...observation bears me out. You on the other hand believe that QM is correct in its entirety and are either unaware, or unwilling to acknowledge that the line of thought is chock full of errors, contradictions and ad hoc fixes. When, and if it ever gets all of its problems worked out, it will bear little resemblence to its appearance today. Hell, at present they are working on a different schrodenger's equation if a different equation could still be called schrodengers.



So you say, but the second law says differently. Energy can not move from a cooler object to a warmer object.



We are not going to agree. You believe in something that I don't. I don't accept the post modern, unproven, untestable claim that the laws of thermodynamics don't apply at microscopic levels.



Of course it does. The laws of thermodynamics aren't just about heat. Again:



Electromagnetic energy, and all other forms of energy, from obey the laws of thermodynamics.



If you are asking that question seriously, then it is you who really needs to bone up on the laws of thermodynamics.

Find me a reference that EM energy propagates according to thermal gradients. Or that EM only propagates from higher to lower entropy.. That statement simply doesn't exist.

As I have said, and you really should learn, heat is only one of the many types of energy transfers that are covered by the second law of thermodynamics....everything from water running downhill to air escaping from a baloon. I repeat...ANY ENERGY TRANSFER....and what are photons if not energy?

Any energy transfer always goes from higher to lower entropy?? So I can't have a radio link if the recieving antenna is warmer than the sending antenna? I can't shine a flashlight on a warmer object?

Gonna make it hard to have phone home from the space station.. Or find that burning hot wire in the dark..

If your radio antenna is putting out more radiation than the transmitter then you have a transmitter and certainly are not going to be receiving.

The average temperature of a lightbulb filament is over 5000°. Go ahead and point it at something over 5000° and see if you see the beam hitting it.

 

[SSDD]

You COULD stick with the Thermo laws --- if you TRULY understood how they are to be applied. You don't.. And the mess that results from NOT LISTENING to how this works is gonna gum up your ability to comprehend anything about photons generated from a heated body..

I do understand how they are applied...observation bears me out. You on the other hand believe that QM is correct in its entirety and are either unaware, or unwilling to acknowledge that the line of thought is chock full of errors, contradictions and ad hoc fixes. When, and if it ever gets all of its problems worked out, it will bear little resemblence to its appearance today. Hell, at present they are working on a different schrodenger's equation if a different equation could still be called schrodengers.



So you say, but the second law says differently. Energy can not move from a cooler object to a warmer object.



We are not going to agree. You believe in something that I don't. I don't accept the post modern, unproven, untestable claim that the laws of thermodynamics don't apply at microscopic levels.



Of course it does. The laws of thermodynamics aren't just about heat. Again:



Electromagnetic energy, and all other forms of energy, from obey the laws of thermodynamics.



If you are asking that question seriously, then it is you who really needs to bone up on the laws of thermodynamics.

Find me a reference that EM energy propagates according to thermal gradients. Or that EM only propagates from higher to lower entropy.. That statement simply doesn't exist.

As I have said, and you really should learn, heat is only one of the many types of energy transfers that are covered by the second law of thermodynamics....everything from water running downhill to air escaping from a baloon. I repeat...ANY ENERGY TRANSFER....and what are photons if not energy?

Any energy transfer always goes from higher to lower entropy?? So I can't have a radio link if the recieving antenna is warmer than the sending antenna? I can't shine a flashlight on a warmer object?

Gonna make it hard to have phone home from the space station.. Or find that burning hot wire in the dark..

If your antenna is radiating more than the transmitter antenna then you probably have a transmitter also.and certainly won't be receiving.

And the average temperature of a flashlight bulb filament is over 5000° shine your flashlight at something over 5000° and see if you see the light beam hitting it.

And radio transmissions do you transmit and receive at the same time from a single antenna? Is that burning hot wire more than 5000°? You're a smart guy think about it.

 

[flacaltenn]

I do understand how they are applied...observation bears me out. You on the other hand believe that QM is correct in its entirety and are either unaware, or unwilling to acknowledge that the line of thought is chock full of errors, contradictions and ad hoc fixes. When, and if it ever gets all of its problems worked out, it will bear little resemblence to its appearance today. Hell, at present they are working on a different schrodenger's equation if a different equation could still be called schrodengers.



So you say, but the second law says differently. Energy can not move from a cooler object to a warmer object.



We are not going to agree. You believe in something that I don't. I don't accept the post modern, unproven, untestable claim that the laws of thermodynamics don't apply at microscopic levels.



Of course it does. The laws of thermodynamics aren't just about heat. Again:



Electromagnetic energy, and all other forms of energy, from obey the laws of thermodynamics.



If you are asking that question seriously, then it is you who really needs to bone up on the laws of thermodynamics.



As I have said, and you really should learn, heat is only one of the many types of energy transfers that are covered by the second law of thermodynamics....everything from water running downhill to air escaping from a baloon. I repeat...ANY ENERGY TRANSFER....and what are photons if not energy?

Any energy transfer always goes from higher to lower entropy?? So I can't have a radio link if the recieving antenna is warmer than the sending antenna? I can't shine a flashlight on a warmer object?

Gonna make it hard to have phone home from the space station.. Or find that burning hot wire in the dark..

If your radio antenna is putting out more radiation than the transmitter then you have a transmitter and certainly are not going to be receiving.

The average temperature of a lightbulb filament is over 5000°. Go ahead and point it at something over 5000° and see if you see the beam hitting it.

You're telling me that HEAT is a SUFFICIENT condition to block EMagnetic transmission. So if my earth bound reciever antenna is MERELY WARMER --- than I can't recieve weather satellite??

And a fluorescent tube IS NOT 5000 deg.. Neither is an LED flashlight.