In Support of the A in AGW

[SSDD]

The second law deals with energy...tell me is thermal energy energy...if not, what is it?

Heat is thermal energy. Not all energy is heat. That is the basis of your confusion.

So again....is heat a form of energy, or is heat the "evidence" that energy is moving from one place to another?

 

[SSDD]

Of course I am right...you on the other hand remain hopelessly lost...not understanding even a fraction of what you think you understand...

Well a while ago you were saying that an adiabatic process is what governs the temperature profile of the earth and all planets.

It is good to see that you are now distancing yourself from that ill-conceived "theory".

Sorry...not distancing my self from anything....the fact is that the gravito thermal effect has been proven in a lab...repeatable, observable and all that..while there isn't the first bit of measured evidence in support of the greenhouse hypothesis...never been measured...it is an ad hoc construct that wouldn't even be close to reality without a "fudge" factor.

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry...not distancing my self from anything....the fact is that the gravito thermal effect has been proven in a lab..

Please define what you mean by "gravito thermal effect". It is not a term in used in thermodynamics publications, but I presume you are referring to compression of the atmosphere under gravity. If there were no external energy in the lab experiments, the air would be at the same temperature no matter the height in a column.

That has nothing do do with the physics of earth's atmosphere.

 

[Crick]

You've missed this one. You'll love this. SSDD and some of his acolytes believe that the compression of gases generates heat forever. C'mon SID, let's hear it. S'plain it to us now.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry...not distancing my self from anything....the fact is that the gravito thermal effect has been proven in a lab..

Please define what you mean by "gravito thermal effect". It is not a term in used in thermodynamics publications, but I presume you are referring to compression of the atmosphere under gravity. If there were no external energy in the lab experiments, the air would be at the same temperature no matter the height in a column.

That has nothing do do with the physics of earth's atmosphere.

well, that's where you are wrong....observable, repeatable experiments have been done in the lab which found a temperature gradient in columns of air....Boltzman and Maxwell were wrong then and they have been proven wrong now....here...have a read....

https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/production-of-electricity-out-of-a-heat-bath.pdf

 

[SSDD]

You've missed this one. You'll love this. SSDD and some of his acolytes believe that the compression of gases generates heat forever. C'mon SID, let's hear it. S'plain it to us now.

And oddly enough, it has been proven in the laboratory...actual observable, measurable, REPEATABLE science....demonstrating exactly what I have been saying...now lets see some actual observable, measurable, REPEATABLE science from the climate alarmist community demonstrating that adding a whiff of a trace gas to the atmosphere will cause catastrophic climate change...hell, lets see an experiment that adding 5000ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause temperatures to rise.

 

[Crick]

See? What'd I tell you? ROTFL. Show us the lab work SID, show us the lab work. C'mon man. Make me eat humble pie. I deserve it. You can do it. C'mon...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

See? What'd I tell you? ROTFL. Show us the lab work SID, show us the lab work. C'mon man. Make me eat humble pie. I deserve it. You can do it. C'mon...

Gravity compresses air, heating it, causing it to rise, making room for more air to be heated by compression?

Is that his idiotic claim?

 

[Wuwei]

well, that's where you are wrong....observable, repeatable experiments have been done in the lab which found a temperature gradient in columns of air....Boltzman and Maxwell were wrong then and they have been proven wrong now....here...have a read....

https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/production-of-electricity-out-of-a-heat-bath.pdf

Thank you. I read your link with great interest. The author also believes Kelvin and Planck are also wrong as you probably saw when you read page 16:

Kelvin-Planck: No device, operating in a cycle, can produce the sole effect of extraction of a quantity of heat from a heat reservoir and the performance of an equal quantity of work.
Perpetual Motion: Perpetuum mobile of the second type are impossible.

My experimental results contradict all of these statements. My experiments have shown:
…a device is possible which extracts heat from a heat reservoir and produces work in the form of electricity…….,

...heat can flow from cold to warm… and

...Perpetuum Mobiles of the Second Kind are possible….. ​

I have only said that energy can be exchanged by cold and warm objects as long as the net energy obeys the 2nd Law. He believes that heat can flow from cold to warm. Furthermore he believes in perpetual motion.

I guess I'm not surprised that you believe such wacko ideas, but what is surprising is that you suddenly changed your mind about heat flowing only from warm to cold.

Yes, it was a very interesting read.

 

[Wuwei]

And oddly enough, it has been proven in the laboratory...actual observable, measurable, REPEATABLE science....demonstrating exactly what I have been saying...now lets see some actual observable, measurable, REPEATABLE science from the climate alarmist community demonstrating that adding a whiff of a trace gas to the atmosphere will cause catastrophic climate change...hell, lets see an experiment that adding 5000ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause temperatures to rise.

So you are going to double down on your reference that has "actual observable, measurable, repeatable evidence" that shows proof that heat can flow from cold to warm, the opposite of what every grade school kid knows. And from this the author invents a perpetual motion machine. Those are not just my words those are his words.

My gosh, you have really gone off the deep end.

 

[SSDD]

See? What'd I tell you? ROTFL. Show us the lab work SID, show us the lab work. C'mon man. Make me eat humble pie. I deserve it. You can do it. C'mon...

Already did skid mark...what's the matter, you can't manage to click on a link? Enjoy your pie.

 

[SSDD]

I have only said that energy can be exchanged by cold and warm objects as long as the net energy obeys the 2nd Law. He believes that heat can flow from cold to warm. Furthermore he believes in perpetual motion.

Energy flow is a one way gross exchange...no observation of two way energy flow has ever been made.

I guess I'm not surprised that you believe such wacko ideas, but what is surprising is that you suddenly changed your mind about heat flowing only from warm to cold.

Guess I am not surprised that even when repeatable lab experiments demonstrate a thing (the gravito thermal effect) you just can't bring yourself to disbelieve your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

And nothing changed my mind....I have always said that neither heat nor energy can flow SPONTANEOUSLY from cool to warm....this isn't happening spontaneously.

Yes, it was a very interesting read.

And even though repeatable lab experiments show that gravity does in fact continue to produce heat in static columns of air, you still deny observed, measured, empirical proof....and since gravity does continuously generate heat in static columns of air, gravity also continuously generates heat in a chaotic column of air...which is then moved throughout the column by air currents...the column of air would never reach equilibrium because gravity itself is generating heat. Where might one find that fact in the GCM models....or the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models of the greenhouse effect?

 

[Crick]

SID, you are so incredibly fucking stupid it just beggars belief. I begin to suspect that your ignorance violates the laws of physics.

And Wuwei, do not be misled by his semantic tomfoolery. All matter is above absolute zero, all matter radiates in all directions. Thermal energy is possessed by all matter and it will conduct away through any contact. That the NET flow is from warm to cold is only the final result.

 

[SSDD]

And oddly enough, it has been proven in the laboratory...actual observable, measurable, REPEATABLE science....demonstrating exactly what I have been saying...now lets see some actual observable, measurable, REPEATABLE science from the climate alarmist community demonstrating that adding a whiff of a trace gas to the atmosphere will cause catastrophic climate change...hell, lets see an experiment that adding 5000ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause temperatures to rise.

So you are going to double down on your reference that has "actual observable, measurable, repeatable evidence" that shows proof that heat can flow from cold to warm, the opposite of what every grade school kid knows. And from this the author invents a perpetual motion machine. Those are not just my words those are his words.

My gosh, you have really gone off the deep end.

You keep leaving out the operative word...I have to wonder whether it is deliberate or more likely that you just can't think deeply enough into the issue for it to occur to you. That word is SPONTANEOUSLY...keep it in mind...energy won't move from cold to warm without some work having been done to accomplish the task...the heat generated by gravity and pressure at the bottom of a column of air is the result of work being done....unlike your claim of back radiation which would constitute a spontaneous movement of energy from cold to warm.

And the author didn't "invent" anything....he said that a thing was theoretically possible...the repeatable results of the experiments are what they are...are you still going to deny that heat is not generated at the bottom of columns of air? You still want to claim that the temperatures in a column of air would be the same throughout the column even though observable, repeatable experimentation shows differently?

 

[Crick]

You've hosed your quotes SID

 

[SSDD]

You are so incredibly fucking stupid it just beggars belief. I begin to suspect that your ignorance violates the laws of physics.

So even in the face of repeatable, observable, measurable laboratory results, you still believe that there is no temperature gradient in columns of air...you believe that the pressure of the atmosphere itself doesn't generate heat at the surface even though experimentation proves otherwise? You are denying repeatable observable experimental results in favor of your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model? ...... unsurprising.

 

[SSDD]

You've hosed your quotes SID

You remain a fake engineer and an imbecile.

 

[Wuwei]

And even though repeatable lab experiments show that gravity does in fact continue to produce heat in static columns of air, you still deny observed, measured, empirical proof....and since gravity does continuously generate heat in static columns of air, gravity also continuously generates heat in a chaotic column of air...which is then moved throughout the column by air currents...the column of air would never reach equilibrium because gravity itself is generating heat. Where might one find that fact in the GCM models....or the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models of the greenhouse effect?

So you believe that your "scientist", Roderich W. Gradff, in the source you cited has an actual observable, measurable, repeatable experiment that shows that heat can flow from a cold object to a hot object and shows an invention of perpetual motion? It's on page 16.

Well I know you are anti-science, but I didn't realize you were that far gone from current science.

 

[Crick]

And you, SID, remain someone who has never had a course in thermodynamics and someone who believes basic physics is dominated by "unknowables".

 

[SSDD]

So you believe that your "scientist", Roderich W. Gradff, in the source you cited has an actual observable, measurable, repeatable experiment that shows that heat can flow from a cold object to a hot object and shows an invention of perpetual motion? It's on page 16.

Again...you leave out the operative word...spontaneously...heat or energy won't move spontaneously from cool to warm...we aren't talking about spontaneous energy movement.