Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change

[Crick]

SSDD,

From having made mistakes myself, I can guarantee you that the best thing to do is admit it and move on. And remember.

 

[IanC]

SSDD will never change his position on the SLoT. he has too much invested into it. not unlike the climate scientists who find it hard to back away from their failed CO2 theory no matter how much evidence piles up.

Like the experiment you would like to see showing that a small increase in CO2 causes warming..which doesn't exist...I would like to see a measured observation of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object at ambient temperature....which would include a measured observation of the warmer object actually absorbing energy.

Let's see it..and no side show slight of hand like the warmers like to use in an effort to prove their invalid point. If the earth is actually absorbing more energy from the atmosphere than it does from the sun as climate science likes to claim, it should be easy to find a measured observation...

we have been over this many times in the past so what could be different this time?

for those readers who have not been through this before-----

SSDD believes that the wording of the Second law of Thermodynamics is sacrosanct and is to be taken literally even though it was written by scientists in the 19th century who had no knowledge of the microscopic world, only the macroscopic world. loosely speaking they found that heat always went from hot to cold unless work was being done.

the explosion of quantum mechanics in the 20th century developed an explanation of the SLoT based on quantum mechanical statistics. they said that movement of energy etc was not prohibited in any way but that the odds for various outcomes was overwhelmingly large when more and more particles were examined.

all objects above absolute zero produce (blackbody) radiation from the molecular collisions that occur. the 'temperature' is simply shorthand for how fast the molecules are moving on average. one molecule in empty space does not have a 'temperature' no matter how fast it is going because it is not colliding with anything.

all objects are made up of molecules with different velocities, which are constantly changing with every collision, and every collision turns some of the momentum transferred into radiation because of the temporary deformation of the electron cloud. the range of radiation is quasi-normal and dependent on the temperature. that is why the Planck curve for every temperature is similar in shape.

all three curves have the same shape, it is only the choice of range on the x-axis that makes any difference.

it is obvious that the actual range of photon wavelength produced overlaps substantially even when the objects are quite different in temperature. it is also obvious that warmer objects radiate more (the area under the curve). when two objects of different temperatures radiate towards each other the common area under the curve results in no net exchange of energy (actually in real life there would be a slight transfer of momentum which precludes a 'perpetual motion machine'). the area between the two curves is the amount of energy available to transfer heat.

any one molecule in either object may absorb a more energetic photon than it emits for any specific time(x) but overall it will radiate more and at more energetic wavelengths if it is in the warmer object, or radiate less and at lower energy wavelengths if it is in the cooler object.

SSDD states that the radiation in the overlapping portion of the curve simply does not happen, according to his interpretation of the SLoT. he does not explain how it does not form. he does not explain how the collisions between the molecules which form the radiation are stopped. he says it is a mystery but true all the same.

I say that all objects radiate all the time, and it is the excess radiation that can transfer net energy which leaves open the possibility that for a very short split second there is occasionally a very,very small locality that may receive more energy even if it is in the warmer object, and viceversa of course. over anything larger picograms and nanoseconds the net flow of energy is always in the direction of warmer to cooler, as is shown by the Planck curves. statistics not dogma.

 

[orogenicman]

I provided a link stating that 70% of the power used by a LED is converted to heat and 30% to light. Further you might consider the fact that in an LED, heat is being converted to light. As much as you wish you were right, alas, you are wrong.

LEDs convert heat to light?

Where do you get this stuff?

lol. He has a vivid imagination. I'll give him that much.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

SSDD will never change his position on the SLoT. he has too much invested into it. not unlike the climate scientists who find it hard to back away from their failed CO2 theory no matter how much evidence piles up.

Like the experiment you would like to see showing that a small increase in CO2 causes warming..which doesn't exist...I would like to see a measured observation of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object at ambient temperature....which would include a measured observation of the warmer object actually absorbing energy.

Let's see it..and no side show slight of hand like the warmers like to use in an effort to prove their invalid point. If the earth is actually absorbing more energy from the atmosphere than it does from the sun as climate science likes to claim, it should be easy to find a measured observation...

we have been over this many times in the past so what could be different this time?

for those readers who have not been through this before-----

SSDD believes that the wording of the Second law of Thermodynamics is sacrosanct and is to be taken literally even though it was written by scientists in the 19th century who had no knowledge of the microscopic world, only the macroscopic world. loosely speaking they found that heat always went from hot to cold unless work was being done.

the explosion of quantum mechanics in the 20th century developed an explanation of the SLoT based on quantum mechanical statistics. they said that movement of energy etc was not prohibited in any way but that the odds for various outcomes was overwhelmingly large when more and more particles were examined.

all objects above absolute zero produce (blackbody) radiation from the molecular collisions that occur. the 'temperature' is simply shorthand for how fast the molecules are moving on average. one molecule in empty space does not have a 'temperature' no matter how fast it is going because it is not colliding with anything.

all objects are made up of molecules with different velocities, which are constantly changing with every collision, and every collision turns some of the momentum transferred into radiation because of the temporary deformation of the electron cloud. the range of radiation is quasi-normal and dependent on the temperature. that is why the Planck curve for every temperature is similar in shape.

all three curves have the same shape, it is only the choice of range on the x-axis that makes any difference.

it is obvious that the actual range of photon wavelength produced overlaps substantially even when the objects are quite different in temperature. it is also obvious that warmer objects radiate more (the area under the curve). when two objects of different temperatures radiate towards each other the common area under the curve results in no net exchange of energy (actually in real life there would be a slight transfer of momentum which precludes a 'perpetual motion machine'). the area between the two curves is the amount of energy available to transfer heat.

any one molecule in either object may absorb a more energetic photon than it emits for any specific time(x) but overall it will radiate more and at more energetic wavelengths if it is in the warmer object, or radiate less and at lower energy wavelengths if it is in the cooler object.

SSDD states that the radiation in the overlapping portion of the curve simply does not happen, according to his interpretation of the SLoT. he does not explain how it does not form. he does not explain how the collisions between the molecules which form the radiation are stopped. he says it is a mystery but true all the same.

I say that all objects radiate all the time, and it is the excess radiation that can transfer net energy which leaves open the possibility that for a very short split second there is occasionally a very,very small locality that may receive more energy even if it is in the warmer object, and viceversa of course. over anything larger picograms and nanoseconds the net flow of energy is always in the direction of warmer to cooler, as is shown by the Planck curves. statistics not dogma.

Great explanation!

SSDD will probably still prefer his smart photon theory.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD will never change his position on the SLoT. he has too much invested into it. not unlike the climate scientists who find it hard to back away from their failed CO2 theory no matter how much evidence piles up.

Like the experiment you would like to see showing that a small increase in CO2 causes warming..which doesn't exist...I would like to see a measured observation of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object at ambient temperature....which would include a measured observation of the warmer object actually absorbing energy.

Let's see it..and no side show slight of hand like the warmers like to use in an effort to prove their invalid point. If the earth is actually absorbing more energy from the atmosphere than it does from the sun as climate science likes to claim, it should be easy to find a measured observation...

we have been over this many times in the past so what could be different this time?

for those readers who have not been through this before-----

SSDD believes that the wording of the Second law of Thermodynamics is sacrosanct and is to be taken literally even though it was written by scientists in the 19th century who had no knowledge of the microscopic world, only the macroscopic world. loosely speaking they found that heat always went from hot to cold unless work was being done.

the explosion of quantum mechanics in the 20th century developed an explanation of the SLoT based on quantum mechanical statistics. they said that movement of energy etc was not prohibited in any way but that the odds for various outcomes was overwhelmingly large when more and more particles were examined.

all objects above absolute zero produce (blackbody) radiation from the molecular collisions that occur. the 'temperature' is simply shorthand for how fast the molecules are moving on average. one molecule in empty space does not have a 'temperature' no matter how fast it is going because it is not colliding with anything.

all objects are made up of molecules with different velocities, which are constantly changing with every collision, and every collision turns some of the momentum transferred into radiation because of the temporary deformation of the electron cloud. the range of radiation is quasi-normal and dependent on the temperature. that is why the Planck curve for every temperature is similar in shape.

all three curves have the same shape, it is only the choice of range on the x-axis that makes any difference.

it is obvious that the actual range of photon wavelength produced overlaps substantially even when the objects are quite different in temperature. it is also obvious that warmer objects radiate more (the area under the curve). when two objects of different temperatures radiate towards each other the common area under the curve results in no net exchange of energy (actually in real life there would be a slight transfer of momentum which precludes a 'perpetual motion machine'). the area between the two curves is the amount of energy available to transfer heat.

any one molecule in either object may absorb a more energetic photon than it emits for any specific time(x) but overall it will radiate more and at more energetic wavelengths if it is in the warmer object, or radiate less and at lower energy wavelengths if it is in the cooler object.

SSDD states that the radiation in the overlapping portion of the curve simply does not happen, according to his interpretation of the SLoT. he does not explain how it does not form. he does not explain how the collisions between the molecules which form the radiation are stopped. he says it is a mystery but true all the same.

I say that all objects radiate all the time, and it is the excess radiation that can transfer net energy which leaves open the possibility that for a very short split second there is occasionally a very,very small locality that may receive more energy even if it is in the warmer object, and viceversa of course. over anything larger picograms and nanoseconds the net flow of energy is always in the direction of warmer to cooler, as is shown by the Planck curves. statistics not dogma.

So what you are saying...in a round about way is that there are no measurements...no observations...no proof. Just a mathematical model and nothing more. OK. If you want to believe...go ahead. I don't...and by your own admission, even if some minute amount of energy did transfer it would be so minute as to be undetectable and make absolutely no difference whatsoever...in which case, the claimed downward radiation would make no difference at all. You want to pick nits..go ahead. I will stick to what the second law actually says till such time as they change the statement at which time I will go with that. At present, it still says that energy won't move from cool to warm and you not correcting idiot claims like those made regarding ice cubes and LED lights is no better than warmers not correcting idiot claims from their own side...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Like the experiment you would like to see showing that a small increase in CO2 causes warming..which doesn't exist...I would like to see a measured observation of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object at ambient temperature....which would include a measured observation of the warmer object actually absorbing energy.

Let's see it..and no side show slight of hand like the warmers like to use in an effort to prove their invalid point. If the earth is actually absorbing more energy from the atmosphere than it does from the sun as climate science likes to claim, it should be easy to find a measured observation...

we have been over this many times in the past so what could be different this time?

for those readers who have not been through this before-----

SSDD believes that the wording of the Second law of Thermodynamics is sacrosanct and is to be taken literally even though it was written by scientists in the 19th century who had no knowledge of the microscopic world, only the macroscopic world. loosely speaking they found that heat always went from hot to cold unless work was being done.

the explosion of quantum mechanics in the 20th century developed an explanation of the SLoT based on quantum mechanical statistics. they said that movement of energy etc was not prohibited in any way but that the odds for various outcomes was overwhelmingly large when more and more particles were examined.

all objects above absolute zero produce (blackbody) radiation from the molecular collisions that occur. the 'temperature' is simply shorthand for how fast the molecules are moving on average. one molecule in empty space does not have a 'temperature' no matter how fast it is going because it is not colliding with anything.

all objects are made up of molecules with different velocities, which are constantly changing with every collision, and every collision turns some of the momentum transferred into radiation because of the temporary deformation of the electron cloud. the range of radiation is quasi-normal and dependent on the temperature. that is why the Planck curve for every temperature is similar in shape.

all three curves have the same shape, it is only the choice of range on the x-axis that makes any difference.

it is obvious that the actual range of photon wavelength produced overlaps substantially even when the objects are quite different in temperature. it is also obvious that warmer objects radiate more (the area under the curve). when two objects of different temperatures radiate towards each other the common area under the curve results in no net exchange of energy (actually in real life there would be a slight transfer of momentum which precludes a 'perpetual motion machine'). the area between the two curves is the amount of energy available to transfer heat.

any one molecule in either object may absorb a more energetic photon than it emits for any specific time(x) but overall it will radiate more and at more energetic wavelengths if it is in the warmer object, or radiate less and at lower energy wavelengths if it is in the cooler object.

SSDD states that the radiation in the overlapping portion of the curve simply does not happen, according to his interpretation of the SLoT. he does not explain how it does not form. he does not explain how the collisions between the molecules which form the radiation are stopped. he says it is a mystery but true all the same.

I say that all objects radiate all the time, and it is the excess radiation that can transfer net energy which leaves open the possibility that for a very short split second there is occasionally a very,very small locality that may receive more energy even if it is in the warmer object, and viceversa of course. over anything larger picograms and nanoseconds the net flow of energy is always in the direction of warmer to cooler, as is shown by the Planck curves. statistics not dogma.

So what you are saying...in a round about way is that there are no measurements...no observations...no proof. Just a mathematical model and nothing more. OK. If you want to believe...go ahead. I don't...and by your own admission, even if some minute amount of energy did transfer it would be so minute as to be undetectable and make absolutely no difference whatsoever...in which case, the claimed downward radiation would make no difference at all. You want to pick nits..go ahead. I will stick to what the second law actually says till such time as they change the statement at which time I will go with that. At present, it still says that energy won't move from cool to warm and you not correcting idiot claims like those made regarding ice cubes and LED lights is no better than warmers not correcting idiot claims from their own side...

in a round about way is that there are no measurements...no observations...no proof.

There is no proof of your smart photon theory.

 

[SSDD]

There is no proof of your smart photon theory.

It is your own silliness that attempts to put some sort of intelligence on photons. Again, do you think a dropped rock must be smart enough to know which way to fall or do the forces of nature simply act upon it? Why must a photon which is subject to the forces of nature decide which direction it will move and a rock can be as "dumb as a rock" and simply move in the only direction it can when dropped?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no proof of your smart photon theory.

It is your own silliness that attempts to put some sort of intelligence on photons. Again, do you think a dropped rock must be smart enough to know which way to fall or do the forces of nature simply act upon it? Why must a photon which is subject to the forces of nature decide which direction it will move and a rock can be as "dumb as a rock" and simply move in the only direction it can when dropped?

It is your own silliness that attempts to put some sort of intelligence on photons.

You're the one who thinks a hot object will suddenly stop emitting photons when a hotter object approaches. Is there any limit to the distance where this hotter object stops those photons? Or can a hotter object light years away have this impact?

Why must a photon which is subject to the forces of nature decide which direction it will move

It's your theory, not mine.

 

[mamooth]

It is your own silliness that attempts to put some sort of intelligence on photons. Again, do you think a dropped rock must be smart enough to know which way to fall or do the forces of nature simply act upon it? Why must a photon which is subject to the forces of nature decide which direction it will move and a rock can be as "dumb as a rock" and simply move in the only direction it can when dropped?

As has been pointed out to you before, you're evading the issue with that rant.

It's not about knowing every _why_. It's about having a theory that is consistent and precisely described for all cases.

The theory of gravity meets that standard.

Your theory doesn't. First, because you won't even tell us exactly what your theory is, exactly when those photons appear and disappear, and what experimental evidence backs up that description. And until you do that, we can't tell if your theory is consistent.

 

[SSDD]

You're the one who thinks a hot object will suddenly stop emitting photons when a hotter object approaches. Is there any limit to the distance where this hotter object stops those photons? Or can a hotter object light years away have this impact?

When you find that you must lie, mischaracterize, or simply make up your opponent's argument, for him, you have well and truly lost.

your theory, not mine.

Actually, it's your mischaracterization of my argument but if lying makes you feel better, have at it.

 

[SSDD]

It is your own silliness that attempts to put some sort of intelligence on photons. Again, do you think a dropped rock must be smart enough to know which way to fall or do the forces of nature simply act upon it? Why must a photon which is subject to the forces of nature decide which direction it will move and a rock can be as "dumb as a rock" and simply move in the only direction it can when dropped?

As has been pointed out to you before, you're evading the issue with that rant.

It's not about knowing every _why_. It's about having a theory that is consistent and precisely described for all cases.

The theory of gravity meets that standard.

Your theory doesn't. First, because you won't even tell us exactly what your theory is, exactly when those photons appear and disappear, and what experimental evidence backs up that description. And until you do that, we can't tell if your theory is consistent.

I don't have a theory...I just have the second law of thermodynamics which says that energy can't move from a cool object to a warm object...it is you guys who have a theory that it does...so prove the second law of thermodynamics wrong.

 

[Crick]

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy.

Where do you see a violation of this principle when we shine Mamooth's LED flashlight into a 400F oven? And, please, the LED is about 90F and has no heat sink and makes no light from heat.

 

[Crick]

I've got a similar thought experiment. Suppose I place myself at a point on the orbit of Mercury such that the Sun, me and the Earth all fall on a line radial from the sun. Thus as I look out at the Earth which is directly in front of me, the sun is directly behind me. Will I be able to see the Earth? All EM radiation coming from the Earth to my retinas is moving directly towards the Sun. Could those warm molecules back on Earth see cold little me in the way? Let's assume that they can. They can see me and they know I'm cool and all the Earth's molecules are allowed to radiate at me. Everything is kosher. Now I move myself to the side a meter or two. What happens? The light takes five minutes to travel from the Earth to Mercury's orbit. Does the Earth disappear from my view till those five minutes have passed? For that matter, when I first arrived at this location, did the Earth not appear to me till five minutes had passed? And for THAT matter, what happens when I start continuously moving?

SSDD, your ideas about radiative heat transfer are simply nonsense. They don't hold up to the most basic of examinations. Your understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is just wrong. Like almost all of your ideas, it fails the sanity test. Multiple people from your side of the AGW argument - fellow rank conservatives - are arguing against you. Give it up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're the one who thinks a hot object will suddenly stop emitting photons when a hotter object approaches. Is there any limit to the distance where this hotter object stops those photons? Or can a hotter object light years away have this impact?

When you find that you must lie, mischaracterize, or simply make up your opponent's argument, for him, you have well and truly lost.

your theory, not mine.

Actually, it's your mischaracterization of my argument but if lying makes you feel better, have at it.

When you find that you must lie,

Where did I lie? Be specific.

mischaracterize,

What did I mischaracterize? Be specific.

or simply make up your opponent's argument,

You argument is that an object at 600 C will emit photons in all directions but if an 800 C object approaches, will emit photons in every other direction except toward that warmer object.

That's not based on the photons "knowing" the temperature of surrounding objects?

Please, tell me what I mischaracterized or made up about your argument.

 

[asterism]

I've got a similar thought experiment. Suppose I place myself at a point on the orbit of Mercury such that the Sun, me and the Earth all fall on a line radial from the sun. Thus as I look out at the Earth which is directly in front of me, the sun is directly behind me. Will I be able to see the Earth? All EM radiation coming from the Earth to my retinas is moving directly towards the Sun. Could those warm molecules back on Earth see cold little me in the way? Let's assume that they can. They can see me and they know I'm cool and all the Earth's molecules are allowed to radiate at me. Everything is kosher. Now I move myself to the side a meter or two. What happens? The light takes five minutes to travel from the Earth to Mercury's orbit. Does the Earth disappear from my view till those five minutes have passed? For that matter, when I first arrived at this location, did the Earth not appear to me till five minutes had passed? And for THAT matter, what happens when I start continuously moving?

SSDD, your ideas about radiative heat transfer are simply nonsense. They don't hold up to the most basic of examinations. Your understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is just wrong. Like almost all of your ideas, it fails the sanity test. Multiple people from your side of the AGW argument - fellow rank conservatives - are arguing against you. Give it up.

You pose an interesting question. I'm not sure if the data specifically addressing your theoretical situation has been collected, but I know that NASA will provide you any of the data they have just by asking. No credentials are required and no vetting of whether you are a "Flat Earther" or "Geocentric Conspiracist" happen.

But when a fully credentialed climatologist can't get the data? That's a problem.

Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: We Lost the Original Data

 

[Crick]

No data is required to answer the questions I pose. The same situation occurs in any room lit by an incandescent light bulb. It is Mamooth's led flashlight shining into a hot oven. It is another of the thousands of common situations that show SSDD's ideas about thermodynamics are utter nonsense based on gross misunderstandings. And given that, his ideas about AGW, with which many of you concur, are of an equivalent merit.

And your attempt to detour the conversation is noted.

 

[Crick]

Does anyone wish to argue whether or not AGW could be falsified?

 

[SSDD]

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy.

Where do you see a violation of this principle when we shine Mamooth's LED flashlight into a 400F oven? And, please, the LED is about 90F and has no heat sink and makes no light from heat.

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.

Clearly, you don't know much about LEDs. As was pointed out to mammoth, the operating temperature of a LED is around 100F. That doesn't mean that the actual temperatures involved don't exceed 100F. The operating temperature of your car's engine is about 212...do you think that the temperature in the combustion chamber never exceeds 212?

And note, the second law says that energy won't move from cool to warm without some work having been done to make it happen..energy won't spontaneously flow from a low temperature object to a warmer object. Consider the words work and spontaneous...and know that energy doesn't naturally move from cool objects to warm objects.

 

[SSDD]

I've got a similar thought experiment. Suppose I place myself at a point on the orbit of Mercury such that the Sun, me and the Earth all fall on a line radial from the sun. Thus as I look out at the Earth which is directly in front of me, the sun is directly behind me. Will I be able to see the Earth?

Where is the light that you see coming from the earth really coming from? Does the earth generate its own light?

 

[SSDD]

When you find that you must lie,

Where did I lie? Be specific.

When did I ever say that an object stops emitting when a warmer object approaches? I said that a cool object doesn't emit towards a warmer object.

What did I mischaracterize? Be specific.

See above for an example. Suggesting that I suppose some intelligence or choice is involved in the movement of energy. Again, does a rock have any choice but to fall when you drop it?

argument is that an object at 600 C will emit photons in all directions but if an 800 C object approaches, will emit photons in every other direction except toward that warmer object.

And you have a problem with that? You can see that sort of thing happening around you if you look.

not based on the photons "knowing" the temperature of surrounding objects?

No, that's based on them not having any choice but to move in the direction in which they are radiated. Do you think that communications engineers can just point antennas and arrays in whatever direction they wish without taking energy coming from other arrays and dishes into consideration? What would happen if a dish with a weaker signal were pointed towards a dish with a stronger signal? Would you receive the weaker signal on the other side of the stronger dish? Would you receive it immediately in front of the stronger dish? Is there any sort of choice, or knowing on the part of the weaker signal that it can't transmit over the stronger signal from the other dish?

This whole thing is a failure of your imagination...You are like a little child trying to prove that the laws of nature don't actually mean what they say. The second law says that energy won't spontaneously move from a cool object to a warm object without some work being done to accomplish the task. Do you think light coming from a bulb, or IR from an emitter is spontaneous movement of energy? The second law is what it is and if you bet against it you will lose every time.