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

[SSDD]

Reflected? I think you mean absorbed and re-emitted.

Better think again....or better think at all. When you see a red apple, why do you see it as red...why not some other color of the spectrum? Do you think it is because it is absorbing all of the colors of the spectrum and then emitting only red? My bet is you see it as red because it is absorbing all of the colors of the spectrum except for the color(s) you are seeing which it is reflecting from the object..

 

[SSDD]

According the the SSDD theory, if I shine my nice cool LED flashlight at the door of a hot oven, the light can't go through the glass, because the oven inside is hotter than the flashlight.

Ever look at an LED light? Guess not. Here is a small one like you might find in your "nice cool" LED flashlight. See that massive heat sink? Any idea why it might be there? Does it raise any questions in that tiny hairball clogged brain of yours why your LED light might feel cool to your touch compared to a standard light bulb with no massive heat sink? You can't beat the second law hairball...no matter how much you wish you could.

, the SSDD theory of "energy can't flow from cool to hot!" is decisively refuted.

Well, someone here is decisively refuted...not me though. Here is a wiki article..you trust wiki...right?....on the topic of keeping LED lights cool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_management_of_high-power_LEDs

(LEDs) can use 350 milliwatts or more in a single LED. Most of the electricity in an LED becomes heat rather than light (about 70% heat and 30% light). If this heat is not removed, the LEDs run at high temperatures, which not only lowers their efficiency, but also makes the LED less reliable. Thus, thermal management of high power LEDs is a crucial area of research and development. It is highly necessary to keep the junction temperature below 120°C to run the LED's for maximum lifetime.

 

[SSDD]

Having designed a bunch of IR cameras, I can tell you that the photons are there. If you INTEGRATED long enough -- you'd see them.

Well, you would see something...not energy coming from the cool object to the warm sensor though.

 

[Crick]

No difference in the rules for propagation of InfraRed. Granted you need to cool an IR camera to see very small IR flux from cold objects. But that action doesn't change the flux coming from the object. It's a matter of detection threshold --- not EM propagation..

Are you sure that the IR flux is moving towards the camera before it is cooled? I mean, you can't see it till the camera is cooled...then bingo...there it is. Where was it before? The camera should be able to see it if it were there, right?

Having designed a bunch of IR cameras, I can tell you that the photons are there. If you INTEGRATED long enough -- you'd see them. We COOL to get shorter exposures and clearer pictures at LOWER levels of IR.. You can clearly detect cooler objects on a 70degF sensor. The issue is if camera reaches 90 or above or if you need better signal/noise of a 40degF source on a 80degF camera.

It's largely a matter of dynamic range against the spatially STATIONARY noise on the sensor that increases with thermal noise.

I am glad to see this discussion taking place between the two of you, but I have to ask: when you say "Having designed a bunch of IR camera", do you not mean that you designed IR camera-bearing systems or IR camera applications or IR camera setups? I suspect that an IR camera, like any camera, is designed by a large number of very specialized people who do almost nothing else.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nah, I am fine with the second law as it is written...energy doesn't move from cool objects to warm objects. How much energy do you believe the warmer surface of the earth absorbs from the cooler atmosphere? How much energy do you believe the warmer surface of the ocean absorbs from the cooler atmosphere?

...energy doesn't move from cool objects to warm objects.

Which is why I can't see anything below the temperature of my eyeball.

You really should stop.

You mean visible light? How warm is the source of the light reflecting off of those cooler surfaces? It is you who really should stop.

I have a white hot piece of metal, in the shade.

I have a huge chunk of ice, nearby, in full sunlight.

How much energy is the metal going to absorb from the ice?

 

[SSDD]

...energy doesn't move from cool objects to warm objects.

Which is why I can't see anything below the temperature of my eyeball.

You really should stop.

You mean visible light? How warm is the source of the light reflecting off of those cooler surfaces? It is you who really should stop.

I have a white hot piece of metal, in the shade.

I have a huge chunk of ice, nearby, in full sunlight.

How much energy is the metal going to absorb from the ice?

Is the white hot metal warmer than the source of light lighting the ice?

 

[mamooth]

According the the SSDD theory, if I shine my nice cool LED flashlight at the door of a hot oven, the light can't go through the glass, because the oven inside is hotter than the flashlight.

Ever look at an LED light? Guess not.

Yes. In my little penlight, there is no heat sink at all. It's clearly not running at 400F, like my oven. I know this because I can actually touch the LED itself.

But keep going, for our amusement. Tell me how hot my LED penlight is actually running at, and then explain why it's not burning me when I touch the LED.

And clarify for us. The LED does shine on a cool piece of metal. According to your theory, as we heat the metal, there will come a point when its temperature rises above that of the LED. At that point, the light from the LED will magically do a U-turn and refuse to touch the metal, right?

It's an easy thing to setup in a lab. You should do so, and collect that Nobel Prize.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You mean visible light? How warm is the source of the light reflecting off of those cooler surfaces? It is you who really should stop.

I have a white hot piece of metal, in the shade.

I have a huge chunk of ice, nearby, in full sunlight.

How much energy is the metal going to absorb from the ice?

Is the white hot metal warmer than the source of light lighting the ice?

No, the metal is not hotter than the Sun.

 

[Crick]

The sunlight and shade make no difference to the amount of energy that radiates from the ice to the metal. The ice and the metal each radiate according to their temperature. Obviously the metal is radiating more energy than is the ice, but the ice is still 273C above the temperature at which all matter begins radiating energy.

In basic thermodynamics, for radiated energy, you learn that all you have to do is compute the algebraic sum of all the radiant energy moving around. The ice radiates heat in all directions. Some of it hits the metal. The metal radiates in all directions. Some of it hits the ice. Since there is so much more energy coming from the metal than the ice, the NET FLOW is from the metal to the ice. That does NOT mean no energy is moving the other way. If you pretend it is not, you will come up with an incorrect answer.

Here. From Wikipedia.

All normal (baryonic) matter emits electromagnetic radiation when it has a temperature above absolute zero. The radiation represents a conversion of a body's thermal energy into electromagnetic energy, and is therefore called thermal radiation. It is a spontaneous process of radiative distribution of entropy.

Conversely all normal matter absorbs electromagnetic radiation to some degree. An object that absorbs all radiation falling on it, at all wavelengths, is called a black body. When a black body is at a uniform temperature, its emission has a characteristic frequency distribution that depends on the temperature. Its emission is called black-body radiation.

 

[skookerasbil]

According the the SSDD theory, if I shine my nice cool LED flashlight at the door of a hot oven, the light can't go through the glass, because the oven inside is hotter than the flashlight.

Ever look at an LED light? Guess not.

Yes. In my little penlight, there is no heat sink at all. It's clearly not running at 400F, like my oven. I know this because I can actually touch the LED itself.

But keep going, for our amusement. Tell me how hot my LED penlight is actually running at, and then explain why it's not burning me when I touch the LED.

And clarify for us. The LED does shine on a cool piece of metal. According to your theory, as we heat the metal, there will come a point when its temperature rises above that of the LED. At that point, the light from the LED will magically do a U-turn and refuse to touch the metal, right?

It's an easy thing to setup in a lab. You should do so, and collect that Nobel Prize.

 

[Crick]

According the the SSDD theory, if I shine my nice cool LED flashlight at the door of a hot oven, the light can't go through the glass, because the oven inside is hotter than the flashlight.

Ever look at an LED light? Guess not.

Yes. In my little penlight, there is no heat sink at all. It's clearly not running at 400F, like my oven. I know this because I can actually touch the LED itself.

But keep going, for our amusement. Tell me how hot my LED penlight is actually running at, and then explain why it's not burning me when I touch the LED.

And clarify for us. The LED does shine on a cool piece of metal. According to your theory, as we heat the metal, there will come a point when its temperature rises above that of the LED. At that point, the light from the LED will magically do a U-turn and refuse to touch the metal, right?

It's an easy thing to setup in a lab. You should do so, and collect that Nobel Prize.

I really want to hear SSDD's response to this.

 

[Andylusion]

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

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

When not refuting the 97 percent of scientists who believe in human-caused global warming, climate change deniers often draw upon the conspiracy that it’s is a fabricated theory invented by those in a position to gain financially or otherwise from efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A Texas-based physicist is turning that notion on its head by offering $10,000 of his own money to anyone who can disprove mainstream, accepted climate science.

Dr. Christopher Keating, a physicist who has taught at the University of South Dakota and the U.S. Naval Academy, says in his blog post that the rules are easy: there is no entry fee, participants must be over 18, and the scientific method must be employed.

“Deniers actively claim that science is on their side and there is no proof of man-made climate change,” Keating told the College Fix by email. “You would think that if it was really as easy as the deniers claim that someone, somewhere would do it.”

Keating is planning to post entries on his blog along with comments. He is willing to field a wide array of submissions and is also offering $1,000 to anyone that can provide any scientific evidence at all that climate change isn’t real. “They are even free to find proof on the Internet and cut and paste it,” he said.

Keating is the author of the recent book “Undeniable: Dialogues on Global Warming,” which employs a Socratic-style discussion between three friends over email in a climate change polemic.

Every day I think the left can't possibly get more idiotic..... and they prove me wrong.

1. No one on the right, or ANYWHERE, is denying that there is "climate change". In fact, we claim there has always been climate change.

2. No one on the right, or ANYWHERE, is denying that man-made gasses do not have some effect.

The difference in our perspective, is on the scale of effect.

A Gerbil consumes oxygen.

Do I buy fifty million tons of poison, and run around to pet stores killing off Gerbils, and Hamsters, and every animal I can find?

GASP! But we might run out of Oxygen!....

No, it consumes a tiny tiny tiny shred of a fraction of the Oxygen in our atmosphere.

GASP! Are you saying they don't have an effect!?!?

No, it does.... but it is so small as to be irrelevant.

GASP! You are denying scientific evidence that Gerbils consume Oxygen!!

No, you are an idiot, that is too ignorant to discuss this topic scientifically.

Yes, humans emit a itty bitty tiny amount of CO2. Yes that CO2 does have some tiny addition to the greenhouse effect.

No, that effect is far far too tiny to be of any relevance to global temperatures.

"$100000000 Billion dollars to the person who proves man made CO2 doesn't cause the Greenhouse effect"

Dur.... no one is going to take you up on that, because no one ever denied it.

Here's the bet I want to see....

'Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Man Made CO2 Is A Significant Portion Of The GreenHouse Effect'

Because someone would provide evidence of that, and real fast. Which is why he didn't make that offer.

 

[Kosh]

This thread is proof beyond shadow of a doubt that AGW is a religion not based on science.

 

[Crick]

Every day I think the left can't possibly get more idiotic..... and they prove me wrong.

1. No one on the right, or ANYWHERE, is denying that there is "climate change". In fact, we claim there has always been climate change.

Big whoop. They (and you) are denying anthropogenic global warming. That is our disagreement. Mischaracterizing the disagreement marks you as deceptive or incompetent. Or both.

2. No one on the right, or ANYWHERE, is denying that man-made gasses do not have some effect.[/B]

We need look no further than the handful of people on this board to falsify that statement.

The difference in our perspective, is on the scale of effect.

That is true for some, but not all on your side of this argument.

A Gerbil consumes oxygen.

Do I buy fifty million tons of poison, and run around to pet stores killing off Gerbils, and Hamsters, and every animal I can find?

GASP! But we might run out of Oxygen!....

No, it consumes a tiny tiny tiny shred of a fraction of the Oxygen in our atmosphere.

If this was supposed to be analogous to CO2 and global warming in some way, it failed. The production of CO2 by the combustion of fossil fuel is not part of any natural cycle as is the O2/CO2 of the flora and the fauna.

GASP! Are you saying they don't have an effect!?!?[/B]
No, it does.... but it is so small as to be irrelevant.
GASP! You are denying scientific evidence that Gerbils consume Oxygen!![/B]
No, you are an idiot, that is too ignorant to discuss this topic scientifically.

I looked up "irony" in Websters and it gave Androw's text above as its first example.

Yes, humans emit a itty bitty tiny amount of CO2. Yes that CO2 does have some tiny addition to the greenhouse effect.

No, that effect is far far too tiny to be of any relevance to global temperatures.

And you have some science, some actual numbers and calculated forcing factors to support that contention, right? And you have some OTHER cause for the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years, right?

"$100000000 Billion dollars to the person who proves man made CO2 doesn't cause the Greenhouse effect"

Dur.... no one is going to take you up on that, because no one ever denied it.

Welcome to the USMB Environment forum. Meet the gang. A fair number of them deny precisely that.

Here's the bet I want to see....

'Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Man Made CO2 Is A Significant Portion Of The GreenHouse Effect'

Because someone would provide evidence of that, and real fast. Which is why he didn't make that offer.

What evidence would that be?

 

[Crick]

Ever look at an LED light? Guess not.

Yes. In my little penlight, there is no heat sink at all. It's clearly not running at 400F, like my oven. I know this because I can actually touch the LED itself.

But keep going, for our amusement. Tell me how hot my LED penlight is actually running at, and then explain why it's not burning me when I touch the LED.

And clarify for us. The LED does shine on a cool piece of metal. According to your theory, as we heat the metal, there will come a point when its temperature rises above that of the LED. At that point, the light from the LED will magically do a U-turn and refuse to touch the metal, right?

It's an easy thing to setup in a lab. You should do so, and collect that Nobel Prize.

I really want to hear SSDD's response to this.

Yes I do. SSDD, you out there?

 

[Crick]

photons dont give a shit about the temperature of where they were produced, where they end up being absorbed, or the intervening space between the two.

SSDD has a simplistic and immature view of thermodynamics but he is not going to listen to any criticism of it, so you are wasting your time. all of us have blind spots of one sort or another, this is one of his.


using LED, chemical florescence, etc in an example of energy transfer by temperature gradient does not disprove that simple law, it only shows that there are complexities and exceptions to everything.

SSDD? Anything to say here?

 

[Crick]

...energy doesn't move from cool objects to warm objects.

Which is why I can't see anything below the temperature of my eyeball.

You really should stop.

You mean visible light? How warm is the source of the light reflecting off of those cooler surfaces? It is you who really should stop.

No difference in the rules for propagation of InfraRed. Granted you need to cool an IR camera to see very small IR flux from cold objects. But that action doesn't change the flux coming from the object. It's a matter of detection threshold --- not EM propagation..

Clearly it's the balance of the EXCHANGE of IR photons that determines the direction of heat flow.. There is no go/nogo threshold for the exchange based on temperature.

Eh? Anything? How about you FCT? Did you stop this discussion just because I said I was glad to see it? Are you now willing that we should assume you're okay with SSDD's thermo?

 

[SSDD]

I have a white hot piece of metal, in the shade.

I have a huge chunk of ice, nearby, in full sunlight.

How much energy is the metal going to absorb from the ice?

Is the white hot metal warmer than the source of light lighting the ice?

No, the metal is not hotter than the Sun.

Then it is receiving no energy from the ice itself but is receiving light reflected from the light source.

 

[SSDD]

Yes. In my little penlight, there is no heat sink at all. It's clearly not running at 400F, like my oven. I know this because I can actually touch the LED itself.

Here is a typical penlight LED bulb...note the large heat sink (within the rear housing). LED light bulbs generate a tremendous amount of heat...70% of the energy they use is converted to heat...30% to light. It takes a heat sink is 10 to 15 times larger than the light itself in order to keep the operating temperature below 110 or so.

You would be amusing if you had something other than bitter to offer with your ignorance.

Or do you really think you have the only LED light ever produced that has no heat sink and violates the laws of thermodynamics?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is the white hot metal warmer than the source of light lighting the ice?

No, the metal is not hotter than the Sun.

Then it is receiving no energy from the ice itself but is receiving light reflected from the light source.

Would light from a source cooler than the metal also be allowed to reflect toward the hotter metal?