AGW: atmospheric physics

[IanC]

Exactly that.

I hadn't expected that SSDD was ever going to have the cojones to admit that he'd been completely conned by his sources when it comes to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but I had thought the discussion might come back to something of substance.

Still waiting for you to point out anything that I have said that results in a violation of the second law...or any law of thermodynamics for that matter. We all know that you won't because you can't. You google till you find something that you think is applicable, post it, and are then completely unable to discuss it. You aren't fooling anyone.

What have I said that violates any law of physics...name one thing...or as many as you believe apply but be prepared to explain. Good luck with that.

You are not waiting, because I pointed it out before, provided links and gave real world examples that you could check yourself.

You ignored the material provided and kept posting the same nonsensical claim.

At that point I figured that you understood that you were wrong, understood why you were wrong, and would then go through your usual ritual of telling everyone how smart you are and how it is not at all so that you were simply wrong. Again. Just as you do on every thread. Just as you will do again now in an attempt to save face. At the end of the day you know you were wrong, and so do I.

For the record, here (again) is where you misunderstood the second law of thermodynamics:

For Greenhouse Effect to be in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics certain conditions must be met:

1) the atmosphere would need to be a discrete body in order to qualify as a “body of lower temperature” and clearly it is not when considering electromagnetic transmission from sun to earth to space and;

2) the 2nd Law would have to preclude any feedback (return of energy in any form from atmosphere to non-gaseous surface) that could slow the cooling of the “body of higher temperature”.

Is there a conflict between Greenhouse Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics? | JunkScience.com

I can understand your frustration with SSDD's irrationality with his concept of the second law of thermodynamics.

can you understand my frustration with your irrationality when it comes to supporting CAGW? lol, of course you can't.

 

[SSDD]

I can understand your frustration with SSDD's irrationality with his concept of the second law of thermodynamics.

Is it irrational to accept the statement of the second law at face value? It is you who believes in a version that has not, nor will it ever be proven. Backradiation is not physical...it is an ad hoc construction with no basis in the real world.

can you understand my frustration with your irrationality when it comes to supporting CAGW? lol, of course you can't.

I need only post the statement of the second law to support my position...siagon on the other hand can post nothing to support his position.

 

[mamooth]

Sigh. I tried to let this drop. I deliberately went a day without responding to PolarBear. And, as expected, this is what my forbearance got me.

I got tired of this a long time ago and tried ignoring this psychotic cat. But the Siamese cat followed me around in every other thread and when I did not respond the cat started screeeeeeaching all kinds of accusations...and said I was "running away squealing".

PolarBear has probably convinced himself this is true, but then PolarBear has demonstrated over and over how he instantly manufactures whatever reality is convenient for him at any given moment. It's a combination of his mental degradation, his "the ends always justify the means for me" ethical code, and his emotional inability to ever admit an error.

I mentioned I ran reactors _once_, in an offhand comment here on 4/2, when I was discussing heat flow with SSDD.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-39.html#post7036879

Compare that to PolarBear's endless mega-picture spamming and irrelevent tales about his experiences. He thinks it's great when he yammers endlessly about his qualifications, but will instantly call anyone else a liar if they briefly mention their own experience. Quite the raging hypocrite, our PolarBear is.

Anyways, after the brief mention, I said nothing about it again. Problem is, I was spanking PolarBear on various topics. He needed some kind of deflection badly, so he decided he'd call me a liar about my qualifications. He started here on 4/2.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-39.html#post7037726

I ignored it for a day, figuring he'd get tired of it and go away. No such luck. By 4/3 PolarBear was in full psycho stalker mode, calling me a liar and coward over multiple threads.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-40.html#post7041445

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/286367-wonder-where-chris-is-3.html#post7041019

"Well fine", I says. "I tried to let it pass. But if the blowhard wants to rumble, he won't be the first bully I've sent home crying to mama".

The rest is history. I sent him home crying to mama. The point here is to document how PolarBear is being his usual eternal-victim lying-sack-of-shit self when he claims I started it.

He's nothing new in the world. Most men can handle growing old gracefully. A few, once they find they can't intimidate people physically any longer, turn into bitter raging assholes to compensate.

 

[mamooth]

Not to mention the cancer clusters associated with them killing off operators at an even faster pace than agent orange exposure is killing off vietnam vets.

I wore a radiation dose monitor (TLD) at all times. There were periods when I was on topside watches, and periods when I was on reactor watches. When I was on topside watches, my radiation doses were _higher_. When I was down below in the engine room, the metal of the ship shielded me from cosmic radation, and the radiation I got from the reactor was small in comparison to that blocked cosmic radiation.

Oh, if you'd have bothered to read any of my sources, you'd have seen that nothing I said wasn't already in published materials. Yes, we all know PolarBear won't ever read any my sources, because if he did, he'd lose his excuses to lie about me.

PolarBear and Westwall have also outdone themselves in the fuktardery department concerning my age, given that I never said or implied in any way I was running a reactor in 1960. I don't know what prompted such a bizarre stupid assumption on their parts. I suspect early senility is a problem with both of them.

Anyways, Westy is no doubt raging he can't neg me again yet to compensate for his vanished manhood. HateStalking people is about the only thrill that bitter cranks like Westy and PolarBear can get any more.

 

[SSDD]

Not to mention the cancer clusters associated with them killing off operators at an even faster pace than agent orange exposure is killing off vietnam vets.

I wore a radiation dose monitor (TLD) at all times. There were periods when I was on topside watches, and periods when I was on reactor watches. When I was on topside watches, my radiation doses were _higher_. When I was down below in the engine room, the metal of the ship shielded me from cosmic radation, and the radiation I got from the reactor was small in comparison to that blocked cosmic radiation.

Oh, if you'd have bothered to read any of my sources, you'd have seen that nothing I said wasn't already in published materials. Yes, we all know PolarBear won't ever read any my sources, because if he did, he'd lose his excuses to lie about me.

PolarBear and Westwall have also outdone themselves in the fuktardery department concerning my age, given that I never said or implied in any way I was running a reactor in 1960. I don't know what prompted such a bizarre stupid assumption on their parts. I suspect early senility is a problem with both of them.

Anyways, Westy is no doubt raging he can't neg me again yet to compensate for his vanished manhood. HateStalking people is about the only thrill that bitter cranks like Westy and PolarBear can get any more.

Personally, I don't care what you do or what you did or didn't do. The topic is atmospheric physics. Either you can provide evidence of back radiation and a greenhouse effect or you can't. My bet is that you can't since none exists.

 

[gslack]

Not to mention the cancer clusters associated with them killing off operators at an even faster pace than agent orange exposure is killing off vietnam vets.

I wore a radiation dose monitor (TLD) at all times. There were periods when I was on topside watches, and periods when I was on reactor watches. When I was on topside watches, my radiation doses were _higher_. When I was down below in the engine room, the metal of the ship shielded me from cosmic radation, and the radiation I got from the reactor was small in comparison to that blocked cosmic radiation.

Oh, if you'd have bothered to read any of my sources, you'd have seen that nothing I said wasn't already in published materials. Yes, we all know PolarBear won't ever read any my sources, because if he did, he'd lose his excuses to lie about me.

PolarBear and Westwall have also outdone themselves in the fuktardery department concerning my age, given that I never said or implied in any way I was running a reactor in 1960. I don't know what prompted such a bizarre stupid assumption on their parts. I suspect early senility is a problem with both of them.

Anyways, Westy is no doubt raging he can't neg me again yet to compensate for his vanished manhood. HateStalking people is about the only thrill that bitter cranks like Westy and PolarBear can get any more.

Dude.... COSMIC RADIATION???? You fear cosmic rays when outside the ship??? WOW, were you on a naval vessel or the Starship Enterprise?

TLD huh? Well then you were in sometime after 1975. TLD's weren't used until after 75' in fact the "Nimitz" was commissioned in may of 75'.. Not exactly first-gen hardware...

 

[mamooth]

Dude.... COSMIC RADIATION???? You fear cosmic rays when outside the ship??? WOW, were you on a naval vessel or the Starship Enterprise?

The EPA seems to think cosmic radiation causes significant exposure. Maybe you should let them know they're wrong.

Cosmic Radiation During Flights | RadTown USA | US EPA

TLD huh? Well then you were in sometime after 1975. TLD's weren't used until after 75' in fact the "Nimitz" was commissioned in may of 75'.. Not exactly first-gen hardware...

Hardly shocking, given I specifically said I left in 1989. After one tour.

 

[gslack]

Dude.... COSMIC RADIATION???? You fear cosmic rays when outside the ship??? WOW, were you on a naval vessel or the Starship Enterprise?

1.The EPA seems to think cosmic radiation causes significant exposure. Maybe you should let them know they're wrong.

Cosmic Radiation During Flights | RadTown USA | US EPA

TLD huh? Well then you were in sometime after 1975. TLD's weren't used until after 75' in fact the "Nimitz" was commissioned in may of 75'.. Not exactly first-gen hardware...

2.Hardly shocking, given I specifically said I left in 1989. After one tour.

1. Maybe you should talk to someone about your fear of cosmic rays WHILE ON A SHIP... You're link says the following in its title....

Cosmic Radiation During Flights

This page describes cosmic radiation and the reason our cosmic exposure increases when we fly in planes.

But hey let's not go arguing over whose cosmic rays exposed who. Let's go over your statement..


"The EPA seems to think cosmic radiation causes significant exposure."

So cosmic radiation causes significant exposure... Think about it a minute... Exposure to some kinds of radiation (possibly cosmic if exposed to it) can cause any number of illnesses and diseases. But radiation to exposure not only doesn't, but actually makes no sense...

to die of "exposure" is to die from exposure to the elements. Whatever those "elements" may be, if they can kill then... you get the idea...

Exposure to radiation, well we already know that can be bad.

2. 2.Hardly shocking, given I specifically said I left in 1989. After one tour.

Really? then why all the BS and use of old museum mock-up pics and implications of expertise in that particular reactor generation? You either are an expert on those old systems or you are not, which is it?

Wow dude. ROFL

 

[westwall]

Dude.... COSMIC RADIATION???? You fear cosmic rays when outside the ship??? WOW, were you on a naval vessel or the Starship Enterprise?

The EPA seems to think cosmic radiation causes significant exposure. Maybe you should let them know they're wrong.

Cosmic Radiation During Flights | RadTown USA | US EPA

TLD huh? Well then you were in sometime after 1975. TLD's weren't used until after 75' in fact the "Nimitz" was commissioned in may of 75'.. Not exactly first-gen hardware...

Hardly shocking, given I specifically said I left in 1989. After one tour.

Might have something to do with the fact they are at 30,000 feet thus above 80% of the atmosphere but that would be science and you don't do science. Topside and nuclear watches huh? No navy anywhere does that. During wartime, yes, during peacetime....uhhhh...no.

 

[gslack]

Dude.... COSMIC RADIATION???? You fear cosmic rays when outside the ship??? WOW, were you on a naval vessel or the Starship Enterprise?

The EPA seems to think cosmic radiation causes significant exposure. Maybe you should let them know they're wrong.

Cosmic Radiation During Flights | RadTown USA | US EPA

TLD huh? Well then you were in sometime after 1975. TLD's weren't used until after 75' in fact the "Nimitz" was commissioned in may of 75'.. Not exactly first-gen hardware...

Hardly shocking, given I specifically said I left in 1989. After one tour.

Might have something to do with the fact they are at 30,000 reet thus above 80% of the atmosphere but that would be science and you don't do science. Topside and nuclear watches huh? No navy anywhere does that. During wartime, yes, during peacetime....uhhhh...no.

Careful wes, cosmic rays can cause exposure....

 

[mamooth]

Might have something to do with the fact they are at 30,000 reet thus above 80% of the atmosphere but that would be science and you don't do science.

So Westwall is now actually denying that radiation comes down from the sky? Wow. One wonders what other basic science he'll be rewriting.

Topside and nuclear watches huh? No navy anywhere does that. During wartime, yes, during peacetime....uhhhh...no.

Which would be why I said it happened at different times. Like I tell PolarBear, try responding to what I write, instead of what the voices tell you. 2 years down below, then a year topside.

And gslack, I'm sure Westy and PolarBear appreciate your loyal rumpswabbing, but is that really the path you want to take? It's just led them to constant humiliation, expensive dental bills from all the teeth grinding, and chronic constipation. That's why they're so grumpy all the time.

Anyways, good luck in joining the obsessive vendetta against me. You're up to maybe 4 now. Get it up to 10 or so, and you'll start having a chance.

 

[gslack]

Might have something to do with the fact they are at 30,000 reet thus above 80% of the atmosphere but that would be science and you don't do science.

So Westwall is now actually denying that radiation comes down from the sky? Wow. One wonders what other basic science he'll be rewriting.

Topside and nuclear watches huh? No navy anywhere does that. During wartime, yes, during peacetime....uhhhh...no.

Which would be why I said it happened at different times. Like I tell PolarBear, try responding to what I write, instead of what the voices tell you. 2 years down below, then a year topside.

And gslack, I'm sure Westy and PolarBear appreciate your loyal rumpswabbing, but is that really the path you want to take? It's just led them to constant humiliation, expensive dental bills from all the teeth grinding, and chronic constipation. That's why they're so grumpy all the time.

Anyways, good luck in joining the obsessive vendetta against me. You're up to maybe 4 now. Get it up to 10 or so, and you'll start having a chance.

Way to try and divert to save your azz ... LOL

Nice try, but that wasn't even said..

What WAS said, by you, was the following...

"The EPA seems to think cosmic radiation causes significant exposure."

ROFL, so explain how long you have had this fear of cosmic rays killing sailors?

 

[mamooth]

ROFL, so explain how long you have had this fear of cosmic rays killing sailors?

Reduced to lying about me now?

Please show where I stated anything about killing sailors. If you're not lying, that should be easy. If you are lying, you'll squeal and run, like all my hatestalkers do when I call them on the BS.

 

[westwall]

Might have something to do with the fact they are at 30,000 reet thus above 80% of the atmosphere but that would be science and you don't do science.

So Westwall is now actually denying that radiation comes down from the sky? Wow. One wonders what other basic science he'll be rewriting.

Topside and nuclear watches huh? No navy anywhere does that. During wartime, yes, during peacetime....uhhhh...no.

Which would be why I said it happened at different times. Like I tell PolarBear, try responding to what I write, instead of what the voices tell you. 2 years down below, then a year topside.

And gslack, I'm sure Westy and PolarBear appreciate your loyal rumpswabbing, but is that really the path you want to take? It's just led them to constant humiliation, expensive dental bills from all the teeth grinding, and chronic constipation. That's why they're so grumpy all the time.

Anyways, good luck in joining the obsessive vendetta against me. You're up to maybe 4 now. Get it up to 10 or so, and you'll start having a chance.

Not what I said at all nimrod. See, there's that complete lack of scientific acumen rearing its ugly head again. Atmosphere blocks a great deal of cosmic radiation. My home is 8,000 feet ASL so we get far more cosmic rays than folks living at sea level.

See how that works?

No?....I didn't think you would...

Vendetta huh? Paranoid much?

 

[gslack]

ROFL, so explain how long you have had this fear of cosmic rays killing sailors?

Reduced to lying about me now?

Please show where I stated anything about killing sailors. If you're not lying, that should be easy. If you are lying, you'll squeal and run, like all my hatestalkers do when I call them on the BS.

LOL, what lie? you were a sailor, and claimed the cosmic rays were bad on the boat, prolonged exposure to cosmic rays can kill...

See how immature BS works? I can play your game too socko, only I'm much better at it..

 

[gslack]

mamooth reminds me of "pappy o'daniels son" in the movie "oh brother where art thou?"..

"Maybe we should get us some of that reform,daddy?"

 

[mamooth]

LOL, what lie? you were a sailor, and claimed the cosmic rays were bad on the boat, prolonged exposure to cosmic rays can kill...

As predicted, a fine squeal and run.

They say a man is defined by his opposition. If my stalkers didn't hate me, I'd wonder what I was doing wrong.

 

[gslack]

LOL, what lie? you were a sailor, and claimed the cosmic rays were bad on the boat, prolonged exposure to cosmic rays can kill...

As predicted, a fine squeal and run.

They say a man is defined by his opposition. If my stalkers didn't hate me, I'd wonder what I was doing wrong.

Run? from you? ROFL!

Sorry booboo kitty I won't run... Mr. Expert...

 

[IanC]

I can understand your frustration with SSDD's irrationality with his concept of the second law of thermodynamics.

Is it irrational to accept the statement of the second law at face value? It is you who believes in a version that has not, nor will it ever be proven. Backradiation is not physical...it is an ad hoc construction with no basis in the real world.

can you understand my frustration with your irrationality when it comes to supporting CAGW? lol, of course you can't.

I need only post the statement of the second law to support my position...siagon on the other hand can post nothing to support his position.

you misunderstand thermodynamics. it leads to macroscopic laws because of the interaction of large numbers. there is no forbidding of microscopic fluctuations and you cannot point to any mechanism by which they are forbidden.

in the specific case of atmospheric physics you arbitrarily separate the radiation in one direction from the radiation going in the other direction even though they are going on at the same time and continuously. the SLOT predicts the direction of net flow, not each and every interaction possible.

from wiki-

Thermodynamics is a branch of natural science concerned with heat and its relation to energy and work. It defines macroscopic variables (such as temperature, internal energy, entropy, and pressure) that characterize materials and radiation, and explains how they are related and by what laws they change with time. Thermodynamics describes the average behavior of very large numbers of microscopic constituents, and its laws can be derived from statistical mechanics.

 

[SSDD]

you misunderstand thermodynamics. it leads to macroscopic laws because of the interaction of large numbers. there is no forbidding of microscopic fluctuations and you cannot point to any mechanism by which they are forbidden.

So they say...and still you can't show me a single measurement of backradiation taken at ambient temperature.

in the specific case of atmospheric physics you arbitrarily separate the radiation in one direction from the radiation going in the other direction even though they are going on at the same time and continuously. the SLOT predicts the direction of net flow, not each and every interaction possible.

Actually, the second law predicts one direction gross flow. Neither heat nor energy will move from low energy areas to high energy areas or low entropy to high entropy and that simply can't happen.

from wiki-

Thermodynamics is a branch of natural science concerned with heat and its relation to energy and work. It defines macroscopic variables (such as temperature, internal energy, entropy, and pressure) that characterize materials and radiation, and explains how they are related and by what laws they change with time. Thermodynamics describes the average behavior of very large numbers of microscopic constituents, and its laws can be derived from statistical mechanics.

Once more, it is interesting that physics texts leading to the hard science physics degree don't teach backradiation while physics texts leading to the soft science degree of climatology do. The letter of the law says no backradiation...I will stick with that till such time as backradiation can be measured at ambient temperature. I say ambient because backradiation can be measured if the temperature of the measuring device is lowered to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...at that point, you can measure all the downward radiation you like, but even that isn't backradiation since the downward radiation is only reaching the specific area that has been cooled down. The second law predicts that if you cool the device down to a temperature lower than the atmosphere, energy will move from the cool atmosphere to the cooler device.