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

[SSDD]

How do you suppose that satellites at frigid space temperatures communicate with earth?

You didn't take my advice and read up on frequency and amplitude did you? Are you aware that both radio and microwave communication are forms of radiation that are also governed by the second law of thermodynamics? Your statements seem to indicate that you aren't.

 

[SSDD]

Your sig line is correct. I assume you are being sarcastic because I know your position but few educated people would disagree with it.

So you think a branch of mathematics is the fundamental mechamism of the most fundamental law of nature? Really? When and if we ever discover what force actually makes energy move from one place to another...you realy think that force will be a branch of mathematics? Are you really that far out there?

It is sad that you can't differentiate between an actual force and an attempt to mathematically describe what that force will do. That is the sort of misunderstanding an uneducated boob might make, but you claim to be educated.

 

[Abraham3]

Your problem with thermo is that you have confused radiation with heat transfer. I can sit here radiating all day long in every direction, but the pork chop in a freezer on the other side of the planet is going to see damn little heat transfer from the act. Radiation takes place irrespective of what will be receiving the radiation. And radiation is not in and of itself, heat transfer.

Is radiation energy?

No. It is a process that energy undergoes. And it is not equivalent to the process of "heat transfer" that energy also undergoes.

 

[Abraham3]

I think Ian's quote was his comment about your bull-headedness.

Get rid of your sig and I'll get rid of mine.

 

[flacaltenn]

I will change my opinion when the 2nd law changes. Last time I looked, it said:

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.

EM radiation is NOT HEAT.. You are misrepresenting the rules for EM propagation here.

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Energy does NOT flow .... from ........... cool to hot.... The net exchange ALWAYS OBEYS this rule.. But this does not say HOW you calculate the net exchange for purely radiative transfers. And that is done on a bidirectional basis. because every object radiates IR EM to some extent. The result of such calculation ---- will NEVER violate this part of your mantra..

Soooooooooooo.. You're safe. And you're just being ornery to INSIST that what nearly everyone is trying to tell you violates ANY PART of these rules..

They don't.. I haven't violated ANY of this..

Do you agree with this statement as stated or not:

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 yes or no answer will do.

YES
I explained why radiative transfers in the form of EM does not violate ANY of those statements.

What has to happen is for you to read the parts where I corrected your false APPLICATION of those statements. That's where the problem is..

1) EM IR (light) is not heat.
2) NET flow will never be from cool to hot.

Everythings cool with the world except #1 and #2..
Now answer MY question.. Do you have PROBLEMS with #1 or #2 ????

Better yet.. I'm not here to beat you into submission.. I just want to show you that Spencer did NOTHING wrong.
So if you don't WANT to discuss this anymore -- don't respond --- and I won't push on you one bit..

 

[SSDD]

I think Ian's quote was his comment about your bull-headedness.

Get rid of your sig and I'll get rid of mine.

I think I will keep mine and you will be getting rid of yours.

 

[SSDD]

YES
I explained why radiative transfers in the form of EM does not violate ANY of those statements.

What has to happen is for you to read the parts where I corrected your false APPLICATION of those statements. That's where the problem is..

1) EM IR (light) is not heat.

2) NET flow will never be from cool to hot.

Everythings cool with the world except #1 and #2..
Now answer MY question.. Do you have PROBLEMS with #1 or #2 ????

Funny, you say yes and then explain why you don't. Guess that is really a no. As stated, the second law doesn't talk about net flows, it is a statement in absolute terms and clearly you don't agree with it.

 

[Abraham3]

I have to assume that you think taking this posture on this question makes you look smarter.

Sorry but you'd be most wrong boot daht.

I listened to your complaints about my creative new sig and I took action. I'm not sure I see the functional difference, but if this makes you happier, who am I to complain.

 

[RollingThunder]

Denier cultist like SSoooDDuuumb cling to the most idiotic misinterpretations of science because of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. He's just too stupid and ignorant to be capable of comprehending how little he knows compared to real scientists.

In Defense of the Greenhouse Effect
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.
April 1st, 2009
(Excerpts)

To briefly review: because water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane in the atmosphere absorb and emit infrared radiation, the atmosphere stays warmer in the lower atmosphere and cooler in the upper atmosphere than it would otherwise be without the greenhouse effect. Even though the physical process involved in this is radiative, the greenhouse blanket around the Earth is somewhat analogous to a real blanket, which we all know tends to hold heat in where it is being generated, and reduce its flow toward the colder surroundings. A blanket – real or greenhouse — doesn’t actually create the separation between hot and cold…it just reduces the rate at which energy is lost by the hot, and gained by the cold. In the case of the Earth, most sunlight is absorbed at the surface, which then heats and moistens the air above it. This solar heating causes the lower atmosphere to warm, and the greenhouse effect of the water vapor thus generated helps keep the lower atmosphere warm by reducing its rate of cooling. (Long before radiation can make the surface too warm, though, convective air currents kick in…e.g. thunderstorms…and transport much of the excess heat from the lower to the upper atmosphere. As a result, the lower atmosphere never gets as warm as the greenhouse effect ‘wants’ to make it.)

So where do the objections to the “greenhouse effect” come in?
- IT VIOLATES THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS -
A second objection has to do with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is claimed that since the greenhouse effect depends partly upon cooler upper layers of the atmosphere emitting infrared radiation toward the warmer, lower layers of the atmosphere, that this violates the 2nd Law, which (roughly speaking) says that energy must flow from warmer objects to cooler objects, not the other way around. There are different ways to illustrate why this is not a valid objection. First of all, the 2nd Law applies to the behavior of whole systems, not to every part within a system, and to all forms of energy involved in the system…not just its temperature. And in the atmosphere, temperature is only one component to the energy content of an air parcel. Secondly, the idea that a cooler atmospheric layer can emit infrared energy toward a warmer atmospheric layer below it seems unphysical to many people. I suppose this is because we would not expect a cold piece of metal to transfer heat into a warm piece of metal. But the processes involved in conductive heat transfer are not the same as in radiative heat transfer. A hot star out in space will still receive, and absorb, radiant energy from a cooler nearby star…even though the NET flow of energy will be in the opposite direction. In other words, a photon being emitted by the cooler star doesn’t stick its finger out to see how warm the surroundings are before it decides to leave. Furthermore, we should not confuse a reduced rate of cooling with heating. Imagine you have a jar of boiling hot water right next to a jar of warm water sitting on the counter. The boiling hot jar will cool rapidly, while the warm jar will cool more slowly. Eventually, both jars will achieve the same temperature, just as the 2nd Law predicts. But what if the boiling hot jar was by all by itself? Then, it would have cooled even faster. Does that mean that the presence of the warm jar was sending energy into the hot jar? No, it was just reducing the rate of cooling of the hot jar. The climate system is like the hot jar having an internal heating mechanism (the sun warming the surface), but its ability to cool is reduced by its surroundings (the atmosphere), which tends to insulate it. Another way the objection is voiced is that a layer of the atmosphere that absorbs infrared energy at a certain rate must then also emit it at the same rate, so how can that layer “trap” any energy to warm? This misconception comes from a misunderstanding of Kirchoffs Law, which only says that the infrared opacity of a layer makes that layer’s ability to absorb and emit IR the same. The actual rate of infrared absorption by a layer depends upon that opacity AND the temperatures of the emitting layers above and below, but the rate of emission depends upon the the same opacity and the temperature of the layer itself. Therefore, the rate of infrared flows in and out of the layer do not have to be equal, and if they are not equal, the layer will either warm or cool radiatively.

 

[SSDD]

I have to assume that you think taking this posture on this question makes you look smarter.

Sorry but you'd be most wrong boot daht.

I listened to your complaints about my creative new sig and I took action. I'm not sure I see the functional difference, but if this makes you happier, who am I to complain.

As I said, I will be keeping my sig line while you will not.

 

[SSDD]

Your problem with thermo is that you have confused radiation with heat transfer. I can sit here radiating all day long in every direction, but the pork chop in a freezer on the other side of the planet is going to see damn little heat transfer from the act. Radiation takes place irrespective of what will be receiving the radiation. And radiation is not in and of itself, heat transfer.

Is radiation energy?

No. It is a process that energy undergoes. And it is not equivalent to the process of "heat transfer" that energy also undergoes.

According to the Woods Hole Institute for Science and Education, radiation is energy that comes from a source and travels through some material or through space.
Definition of Radiation

According to the Health Physics Society, radiation is energy that comes from a source and travels through space and may be able to penetrate various materials.What Is Radiation?

According to the World Nuclear Association, radiation is energy travelling through space.What is Radiation

According to the EPA, radiation is energy given off by some atoms in the form of particles or rays (photons)Why Are Some Atoms Radioactive | Radiation Protection | US EPA

Obviously, you don't even know the basic facts about radiation so anything you have to say on the topic is not worth the band width it takes to post it.

 

[SSDD]

I listened to your complaints about my creative new sig and I took action. I'm not sure I see the functional difference, but if this makes you happier, who am I to complain.

Regarding your tag line... do you believe gravity is magic even though we can't explain the actual mechanism or force at work?

Interesting that you think anything that you can't explain must be magic. Very primitive. Do you sacrifice to the gods of whatever you can't explain that must be magic?

 

[Abraham3]

The question I've got is whether or not you find it uncomfortable or unpleasant in any way to be ridiculed every time I put up a post. I thought such a sensation might invoke in you a sense of empathy.

 

[Abraham3]

Is radiation energy?

No. It is a process that energy undergoes. And it is not equivalent to the process of "heat transfer" that energy also undergoes.

According to the Woods Hole Institute for Science and Education, radiation is energy that comes from a source and travels through some material or through space.
Definition of Radiation

According to the Health Physics Society, radiation is energy that comes from a source and travels through space and may be able to penetrate various materials.What Is Radiation?

According to the World Nuclear Association, radiation is energy travelling through space.What is Radiation

According to the EPA, radiation is energy given off by some atoms in the form of particles or rays (photons)Why Are Some Atoms Radioactive | Radiation Protection | US EPA

Obviously, you don't even know the basic facts about radiation so anything you have to say on the topic is not worth the band width it takes to post it.

Obviously, English is not your first language.

 

[PMZ]

How do you suppose that satellites at frigid space temperatures communicate with earth?

You didn't take my advice and read up on frequency and amplitude did you? Are you aware that both radio and microwave communication are forms of radiation that are also governed by the second law of thermodynamics? Your statements seem to indicate that you aren't.

So how do cold transmition antennas communicate with warm receiver antennas?

 

[SSDD]

The question I've got is whether or not you find it uncomfortable or unpleasant in any way to be ridiculed every time I put up a post. I thought such a sensation might invoke in you a sense of empathy.

No. Since I don't respect you, you have no power to make me feel bad. Your best effort to make me feel bad was a lie which you were called on and your next effort makes you appear to believe any natural phenomenon you can't explain is magic.

What I feel for you is pity.

 

[SSDD]

How do you suppose that satellites at frigid space temperatures communicate with earth?

You didn't take my advice and read up on frequency and amplitude did you? Are you aware that both radio and microwave communication are forms of radiation that are also governed by the second law of thermodynamics? Your statements seem to indicate that you aren't.

So how do cold transmition antennas communicate with warm receiver antennas?

Again, learn about frequency and amplitude. Perhaps then you won't feel the need to ask questions that make you look like an idiot.

 

[mamooth]

I think I will keep mine and you will be getting rid of yours.

I don't see anything wrong with SSDD's sig line. He's advertising my knowledge of the topic, and broadcasting his own ignorance of it. And he doesn't understand that. So what's not to like?

 

[PMZ]

You didn't take my advice and read up on frequency and amplitude did you? Are you aware that both radio and microwave communication are forms of radiation that are also governed by the second law of thermodynamics? Your statements seem to indicate that you aren't.

So how do cold transmition antennas communicate with warm receiver antennas?

Again, learn about frequency and amplitude. Perhaps then you won't feel the need to ask questions that make you look like an idiot.

I know a whole lot about frequency and amplitude. I also know that you can't answer my question, which clearly proves that what you wish the 2ond law of thermo to be is not what it is.

Your version is merely a lie necessary to support the other thing that you wish was true, that Al Gore and the IPCC were wrong, and the biggest bonehead in the world, Rush, was right.

What can I say? You lose all around.

 

[IanC]

Your sig line is correct. I assume you are being sarcastic because I know your position but few educated people would disagree with it.

So you think a branch of mathematics is the fundamental mechamism of the most fundamental law of nature? Really? When and if we ever discover what force actually makes energy move from one place to another...you realy think that force will be a branch of mathematics? Are you really that far out there?

It is sad that you can't differentiate between an actual force and an attempt to mathematically describe what that force will do. That is the sort of misunderstanding an uneducated boob might make, but you claim to be educated.

The second law isn't only describing radiation, it I'd describing many processes both macroscopic and microscopic. The same statistical rules govern photons or ink diffusing in a glass of water.