We will never convince the deniers.

[SSDD]

Given that we are not currently running short and that more renewables are being built than coal, natural gas or nuclear, it seems that they ARE capable of meeting our demand.

Not even close...not even close to close...but hey, you have already shown that you are very easily fooled....

 

[Crick]

When was the last time you attempted to use facts, evidence or logic to win an argument? All I ever see these days is insults, troll. Most deniers won't be convinced because they're too stupid to comprehend the actual process taking place in the atmosphere. Some deniers won't be convinced because their position is based on politics, not science. And for some, like you, the problem is that you are only here for your own entertainment and couldn't care less about either side of the proposition.

 

[SSDD]

All I ever see these days is insults, troll.

The irony literally drips....you are a joke skidmark...a pathetic joke.

Most deniers won't be convinced because they're too stupid to comprehend the actual process taking place in the atmosphere.

The "actual" process that only happens in unobservable, ummeasurable, untestable models? That "actual" process...I'm laughing at your inability to produce any observed, measured evidence to support your belief....except when I am laughing at whatever nonsense you provide as evidence which is nothing more than evidence of how easily you are fooled...in short...I am always laughing at you skidmark...

 

[Wuwei]

All I ever see these days is insults, troll.

The irony literally drips....you are a joke skidmark...a pathetic joke.

Most deniers won't be convinced because they're too stupid to comprehend the actual process taking place in the atmosphere.

The "actual" process that only happens in unobservable, ummeasurable, untestable models? That "actual" process...I'm laughing at your inability to produce any observed, measured evidence to support your belief....except when I am laughing at whatever nonsense you provide as evidence which is nothing more than evidence of how easily you are fooled...in short...I am always laughing at you skidmark...

The whole body of science is laughing at your self contradictions in thermodynamics and for thinking science is fairy dust.

.

 

[SSDD]

All I ever see these days is insults, troll.

The irony literally drips....you are a joke skidmark...a pathetic joke.

Most deniers won't be convinced because they're too stupid to comprehend the actual process taking place in the atmosphere.

The "actual" process that only happens in unobservable, ummeasurable, untestable models? That "actual" process...I'm laughing at your inability to produce any observed, measured evidence to support your belief....except when I am laughing at whatever nonsense you provide as evidence which is nothing more than evidence of how easily you are fooled...in short...I am always laughing at you skidmark...

The whole body of science is laughing at your self contradictions in thermodynamics and for thinking science is fairy dust.

.

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.


Which part of that statement have I contradicted? You on the other hand contradict it, interpret it, and do your damnedest to get around it...you claim it does not mean what it says and all manner of foolishness...

 

[Wuwei]

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.

Which part of that statement have I contradicted? You on the other hand contradict it, interpret it, and do your damnedest to get around it...you claim it does not mean what it says and all manner of foolishness...

That's not the contradiction. It's when you say that no experiment or reaction is spontaneous if it were-man made or if prior work was involved in the process. You said nuclear emission and luminescence are not spontaneous. You said the sun involves work to create it's emissions and is not spontaneous. Since the sun energy involved in the atmosphere involves prior work atmospheric processes are not spontaneous.

You were unable to name a process that actually is spontaneous. Therefore your phrase "Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object" is moot - of no practical importance. Therefore your interpretation of spontaneous leads to the following:
Since, for most practical processes, energy is allowed to flow from low temperature to high temperatures, the only way to sort out the thermodynamics of energy flow is to use the entropy concept of the second law. So with your fake physics, back radiation is allowed under the entropy concept. That contradicts you misunderstanding that radiation can not flow according to the back body law between bodies at any temperatures.

That is your fundamental self-contradiction
.

 

[SSDD]

That's not the contradiction. It's when you say that no experiment or reaction is spontaneous if it were-man made or if prior work was involved in the process. You said nuclear emission and luminescence are not spontaneous. You said the sun involves work to create it's emissions and is not spontaneous. Since the sun energy involved in the atmosphere involves prior work atmospheric processes are not spontaneous.

Sorry you don't know the definition of spontaneous... you are proof that you can't fix stupid...

 

[koshergrl]

Climate change happens. We should be advancing new technologies whenever possible.

And sometimes it happens because of things that humans are doing. We should be advancing new technologies, particularly if they reduce our GHG emissions.

Feel free to do that..
it's not the government's job, however.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All I ever see these days is insults, troll.

The irony literally drips....you are a joke skidmark...a pathetic joke.

Most deniers won't be convinced because they're too stupid to comprehend the actual process taking place in the atmosphere.

The "actual" process that only happens in unobservable, ummeasurable, untestable models? That "actual" process...I'm laughing at your inability to produce any observed, measured evidence to support your belief....except when I am laughing at whatever nonsense you provide as evidence which is nothing more than evidence of how easily you are fooled...in short...I am always laughing at you skidmark...

The whole body of science is laughing at your self contradictions in thermodynamics and for thinking science is fairy dust.

.

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.


Which part of that statement have I contradicted? You on the other hand contradict it, interpret it, and do your damnedest to get around it...you claim it does not mean what it says and all manner of foolishness...

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


Which is why my 70F walls can emit toward my 98F skin.

Why the change of heart?

 

[Wuwei]

That's not the contradiction. It's when you say that no experiment or reaction is spontaneous if it were-man made or if prior work was involved in the process. You said nuclear emission and luminescence are not spontaneous. You said the sun involves work to create it's emissions and is not spontaneous. Since the sun energy involved in the atmosphere involves prior work atmospheric processes are not spontaneous.

Sorry you don't know the definition of spontaneous... you are proof that you can't fix stupid...

I know the physics definition of spontaneous. What is your definition?

 

[Wuwei]

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

Which is why my 70F walls can emit toward my 98F skin.

Why the change of heart?

Yes, because your walls are man-made. As per SSDD, man-made objects don't emit spontaneously because work was done to make your walls....I'm not sure what SSDD would think if you lived in a cave.

.

 

[Crick]

All you have to do is walk around your cave and smack the walls lightly with your hands. Work done. SSDD's Second Law Lifted!

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry you don't know the definition of spontaneous... you are proof that you can't fix stupid...

What is your physics definition of spontaneous? I'm waiting.

 

[skookerasbil]

When was the last time you attempted to use facts, evidence or logic to win an argument? All I ever see these days is insults, troll. Most deniers won't be convinced because they're too stupid to comprehend the actual process taking place in the atmosphere. Some deniers won't be convinced because their position is based on politics, not science. And for some, like you, the problem is that you are only here for your own entertainment and couldn't care less about either side of the proposition.

Heres your problem. You separate the science from the politics.....you're doing it wrong. It is up to the science to impress the politics which hasn't happened at all to this point. If it had, we'd have seen far greater strides in climate change action than we have, which is to say, we have seen almost none. Just some token laughable goals as taken from these fake climate summits.....results have been a joke.

East Anglia told the world a lot......obviously. It had been thought that the data was impeccable to that date, however, ******* with the data didn't square with the presented science. The fact that the investigation was conducted by people in the field and not an outside entity ( ******* doy ) only reinforced things for folks who make energy policy around the world: if the science is so settled, why the need to rig the data?

Folks beholden to the AGW model miss the whole point on the issue of climate change. If the science were so settled, then why have those who make energy policy completely rejected it? The answer is......because nobody is buying this CO2 as the only causative factor argument. Clearly, the public rejects it...…..its not even debatable.

I just scratch my head about this...….presumably, we are discussing things with adults in this forum. Where did some of these folks miss the memo that words dont mean shit in life......its all about behavior when it comes down to it. Weve heard about the research for decades now...….those are words. The only thing that matters is are those words affecting behavior? Behavior in this case is defined as: climate change action.

You people are like guys who put their car on a dyno and march around taking bows and pointing at the horsepower numbers they've got but never go out and race their car! Nobody cares...…..words are ghey.

You guys have words on a big billboard...........and that's it.

The AGW crowd has been crowing for many years about how deniers are this outlier entity in the world. But where has AGW theory impacted anything in the real world? So.....who are the real outliers?

 

[SSDD]

That's not the contradiction. It's when you say that no experiment or reaction is spontaneous if it were-man made or if prior work was involved in the process. You said nuclear emission and luminescence are not spontaneous. You said the sun involves work to create it's emissions and is not spontaneous. Since the sun energy involved in the atmosphere involves prior work atmospheric processes are not spontaneous.

Sorry you don't know the definition of spontaneous... you are proof that you can't fix stupid...

I know the physics definition of spontaneous. What is your definition?

It is a process which takes place on its own, i.e. there is no external energy required for the process to take place. It is also known as an irreversible process, spontaneous process is one that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings.

 

[SSDD]

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

Which is why my 70F walls can emit toward my 98F skin.

Why the change of heart?

Yes, because your walls are man-made. As per SSDD, man-made objects don't emit spontaneously because work was done to make your walls....I'm not sure what SSDD would think if you lived in a cave.

.

This is why I don't care to talk to you....You interpret, and alter every thing someone says to you...then you argue against the imaginary statement rather than what was actually said...do feel free to provide a quote from me stating that man made objects can't be involved in spontaneous process...or admit that you are a liar and apologize for lying about what I said..

 

[Dale Smith]

No need to "thank" me.

 

[danielpalos]

Climate change happens, regardless.

Learning how to harness fusion (an energy with a future) should be a worthwhile endeavor.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's not the contradiction. It's when you say that no experiment or reaction is spontaneous if it were-man made or if prior work was involved in the process. You said nuclear emission and luminescence are not spontaneous. You said the sun involves work to create it's emissions and is not spontaneous. Since the sun energy involved in the atmosphere involves prior work atmospheric processes are not spontaneous.

Sorry you don't know the definition of spontaneous... you are proof that you can't fix stupid...

I know the physics definition of spontaneous. What is your definition?

It is a process which takes place on its own, i.e. there is no external energy required for the process to take place. It is also known as an irreversible process, spontaneous process is one that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings.

It is a process which takes place on its own, i.e. there is no external energy required for the process to take place.

And that's why a process involving external energy allows photons to travel from cooler to warmer.

So why did it take you so long to realize your error?

 

[Wuwei]

This is why I don't care to talk to you....You interpret, and alter every thing someone says to you...then you argue against the imaginary statement rather than what was actually said...do feel free to provide a quote from me stating that man made objects can't be involved in spontaneous process...or admit that you are a liar and apologize for lying about what I said..

I previously gave an example that a chemical light stick emits spontaneous radiation. This is your reply:

Man made...work went into production...not spontaneous....same old thing..

You don't even remember your own physical "theories".

You don't care to talk to me?? You are one of the most obnoxious posters to talk to, with continual bitter vitriol.

In this next post you said that the emission of energy previously absorbed is not spontaneous. That is totally wrong. No physicist would ever say this.

No...phosphorescence is the re emission of energy previously absorbed...not spontaneous...no absorption of energy...no later emission of energy...We have covered this all before.

With your two statements on spontaneity in physics, you must come to the conclusion that absolutely nothing is spontaneous, unless you can think of a process that emits energy that it has not previously absorbed. That is among the worst fake physics you have come up with.

Therein lies the fundamental tedium of talking to you...the same stupid, poorly thought out, shitty examples of your lack of critical thinking skills over and over and over and over.

That last paragraph I have plagiarized from you. It's your last paragraph of post #457 cited above.


.