AGW: atmospheric physics

[mamooth]

Gslack, would you care to discuss some science, for the first time ever? Yes, we know you're throwing a tantrum because everyone is laughing at you. And a fine, fine tantrum it is, with your cute widdle arms and legs flailing all over. But after you get up off the floor, and mommy wipes the snot off your face, you can give it a go.

Gslack, what happens to a photon from a red star that strikes a blue star?

Is it absorbed, or does it magically vanish, openly violating conservation of energy?

How does your answer square with your retard revisionist version of the Second Law which says that heat can't move from colder to hotter, even on the scale of single photons?

If you believe that the Second Law actually does intelligently micromanage individual atoms, can you explain the mechanism by which it scans the universe and intelligently micromanages individual atoms, controlling in which direction they radiate? After all, the rest of humanity seems to have missed that aspect of the Second Law. There's definitely a Nobel Prize in it for any of you denialists who can explain the mechanism at work there.

Have your big brother ... I mean, son ... take a crack at that, if you need some help.

 

[mamooth]

The second law doesn't say a thing about two way net energy flows. It says that heat and energy only move in one direction.

On the macro scale. You just don't seem to get that all the simplified colloquial versions of the Second Law you read are talking of the macro scale, not individual photons.

Statistical statements are not written in absolute terms...

Sure they are.

For example, if I pick a quintillion atomic events, and the hot-to-cold prob of any single event is 75%, while the cold-to-hot probability is 25%, I can say with 100% certainty that the net result will be hot-to-cold heat flow.

Now, if one wanted to nitpick, one could correctly point out there is a one in 10^1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 or so probability of the opposite happening. However, since we could sit and watch until the universe grew cold and dim, and never hit such a longshot, we say that hot-to-cold will happen 100% of the time.

That's the Second Law, a summation of uncertain individual probabilities that leads to a certain result.

 

[SSDD]

A few points....

you cannot prove that the SLoT is absolute. it was formulated before quantum theory, etc...

I don't need to prove anything. Anyone who is literate can see that it is an absolute statement. It is those who claim that it is not who have something to prove if thier pet hypothesis is not supported by the absolute statement of the second law.

why are you quick to point out that the sun/earth/space path of energy flow is an open system when it suits you but you consider it a closed system when you need that to support your 'understanding'?

Not at all. The laws of thermodynamics are laws of nature...not laws of systems. I only pointed out that to neuman because his reference was specific to closed systems and therefore irrelavent to this discussion.

there are so many things that seem to be incomprehensible to you. you dont seem to understand the difference between 4000K light from 150M kilometres away and 300K IR from a metre away. if you magnify sunlight you can heat something up to nearly 4000K. sunlight is 'ordered' because it is all going in one direction (relative to us), IR is idffuse and unordered in the atmosphere, and unable to be useful. electricity is even more ordered, which is why it is so useful.

Appeal to complexity doesn't change the fact that the second law says that heat won't move from cool to warm and energy won't go from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. Make the universe as complicated as you wish, but the transfer of energy is a fundamental process which must obey certain laws....one of those being energy won't move spontaneously from low temperature objects to high temperature objects. If your hypothesis isn't in accordance with that law...it is a failure right out of the gate.

 

[SSDD]

I believe CO2 is capable of disturbing the equilibrium of heat source (Sun)/surface (heatsink)/atmosphere (insulation)/escape to space.

Causing the climate to warm..yes or no?

I am sure that we would both agree that radiation is a much faster means of transporting energy than either convection or conduction or both combined...why then would you think that a means of conveying energy out of the system that is orders of magnitude faster than convection or conduction would be a heating mechanism rather than a cooling mechanism?

 

[SSDD]

Gslack, what happens to a photon from a red star that strikes a blue star?

First you must prove that the photon from the red star even goes in the direction of the blue star...or perhaps first you should prove that photons even exist...actual proof of such a thing would be another nobel for you.

 

[SSDD]

On the macro scale. You just don't seem to get that all the simplified colloquial versions of the Second Law you read are talking of the macro scale, not individual photons.

I don't see any separation of micro and macro in the statement of the second law. If there were such a separation, do you not think it would be mentioned?

Sure they are.

Of course they aren't since statistics isn't an exact science. Why make a claim that your own argument proves false... that one chance in whatever of whatever not happening proves that it is not an absolue statement. The fact that you guys can't support your hypothesis with the statement of the second law...AS IT IS STATED...should clue you in to the 100% probabliity that your hypothesis is wrong.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Zeroth: "You must play the game."
First: "You can't win."
Second: "You can't break even."
Third: "You can't quit the game."

Stolen from some Wiki page. Science jokes are da bomb.

 

[polarbear]

Okay I for one have had enough... Seriously numan, you and your sock have butchered science enough now...

Seriously now, I'm tired of seeing your bullshit posts and condescension. You just spent a whole thread proclaiming yourself king genius, and insulting everyone else here, save for your socks, and the truths is you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about...

Genius? HA!, My 11th grade son just pointed out your BS to me... He took one look at the claims you and admiral socko have been repeating and knew exactly where you got it,and what it really covered....

Yeah he's a smart kid, going to be an engineer or at least that's his plan. He was the youngest kid in the talented and gifted program here at one time. IQ around 160 or so they tell me. He sees your BS for the nonsense it is, keeps me from making a fool of myself on here, and is my consultant when you numans and sockos go insane claiming you can make 2x the energy from 1x the energy with a trace gas...

Now if you want to continue playing super-genius, start using the quotes fairly and as intended boys. We have a 17 yr old with a higher IQ and eager to show off his brain power by slapping fake admirals, and BS scientists...

Noticed how silent they are when I said let`s call this Roy Spencer "back radiation thought experiment" bluff and I do it for real at the U of Manitoba Physics department, video tape it and have it verified on camera that I did not cheat. All the psychotic cat did is come back with excuses why the digital fingerprint of that phony DD214 had HTML and XML web page copy marks all over it..while that lying sack of shit said the Photobucket compression did that to a cellphone photo...
Cellphones that use a 4 to 3 aspect ratio are all high resolution and you could not make a blurry image like that unless you put a piece of masking tape over the distance sensor.
Too bad that fraudulent bastard is not in Canada, because that constitutes a criminal offense...no matter if it was done in a forum, it is public:

and I could have and WOULD HAVE passed it on to the RCMP.
American service records, uniforms and ranks are also included in the criminal code of Canada.
I can`t see that this is any different in the U.S.
What that lying sack of shit did and said is a disgrace to every legitimate Navy engineer.
B.t.w the original scan was 300 dpi and 505 KB.
It has this digital fingerprint :
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/9167/scan2t.jpg
When I download the compressed image, which is 61 KB it still has the same tell tale source fingerprint:
After Downloaded
FF D8 FF E0 00 10 4A 46 ÿØÿà JF
49 46 00 01 01 01 00 60 IF `
00 60 00 00 FF E1 00 52 ` ÿá R
45 78 69 66 00 00 49 49 Exif II
2A 00 08 00 00 00 01 00 *
69 87 04 00 01 00 00 00 i‡
1A 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
01 00 86 92 02 00 1E 00 †’
00 00 2C 00 00 00 00 00 ,
00 00 4C 45 41 44 20 54 LEAD T
65 63 68 6E 6F 6C 6F 67 echnolog
69 65 73 20 49 6E 63 2E ies Inc.
20 56 31 2E 30 31 00 00 V1.01

There is no HTML and XML web page crap that according to the lying sack of shit happens if you upload a BLURRY 3GB(!!!!) high resolution cellphone camera photo as modern 4:3 aspect ratio cameras have it

Yeah he's a smart kid, going to be an engineer or at least that's his plan. He was the youngest kid in the talented and gifted program here at one time. IQ around 160 or so they tell me.

You know what?
I bet your kid would get a kick out of it to design the experiment parameters and I`ll do it exactly the way he wants me to do it.
The "erudite numan", "Saigon, the Journalist " and the phony-balony "nuclear engineers" would be too stupid anyway

 

[SSDD]

Hey polar bear...the quote above was by gslack...not me. My grandkids are almost his kid's age.

 

[polarbear]

Hey polar bear...the quote above was by gslack...not me. My grandkids are almost his kid's age.

My apologies.I deleted most of the text to keep it short and forgot to take out the (quote) and (/quote) HTML marks around some of the text.
It`s a pain in the neck and I`m doing my spring cleaning at the same time,...so I was in a bit of a hurry

I still think that a kid with a 160 IQ has way more brains than the 3 phony-balony "science" socks.
I still have a high vacuum desiccator with precision ground glass fittings, but the glass has a crack and it will implode at the vacuum I intend to carry out this "back-radiation" experiment. So I would have to do it at one of the labs in the U of Manitoba..It`ll be no problem. I still got lots of good old friends there

 

[mamooth]

Noticed how silent they are when I said let`s call this Roy Spencer "back radiation thought experiment" bluff and I do it for real at the U of Manitoba Physics department,

You're still bragging about being able to disprove your own whackaloon claim? After all, you are the only crank on the planet claiming that backradiation would melt the fins off a heat sink.

If you wish to set up an experiment to prove your own nonsense is wrong, well, have at it. We encourage that. I'm guessing, however, that the university will look at how you've become a raving imbecile and politely decline your request. But you're welcome to try. Get back to us on how it turns out.

The rest of your rant is just more of your senility/mental illness/creepy stalking on display. Move it to the thoroughly trashed "Human Footprint" thread, and I'll mock it thoroughly there.

 

[gslack]

Genius? HA!, My 11th grade son just pointed out your BS to me... He took one look at the claims you and admiral socko have been repeating and knew exactly where you got it,and what it really covered....

Yeah he's a smart kid, going to be an engineer or at least that's his plan. He was the youngest kid in the talented and gifted program here at one time. IQ around 160 or so they tell me. He sees your BS for the nonsense it is, keeps me from making a fool of myself on here, and is my consultant when you numans and sockos go insane claiming you can make 2x the energy from 1x the energy with a trace gas...

Now if you want to continue playing super-genius, start using the quotes fairly and as intended boys. We have a 17 yr old with a higher IQ and eager to show off his brain power by slapping fake admirals, and BS scientists...

I sure hope that son is from your wife's previous marriage because otherwise she's got some 'splainin to do!. hahahahaha

ROFL, no need he looks just like me only 5 inches taller. Sorry to bust your bubble Ian but we all remember your dedication to Spencer and shady scientific explanations. ROFL.

 

[gslack]

Gslack, would you care to discuss some science, for the first time ever? Yes, we know you're throwing a tantrum because everyone is laughing at you. And a fine, fine tantrum it is, with your cute widdle arms and legs flailing all over. But after you get up off the floor, and mommy wipes the snot off your face, you can give it a go.

Gslack, what happens to a photon from a red star that strikes a blue star?

Is it absorbed, or does it magically vanish, openly violating conservation of energy?

How does your answer square with your retard revisionist version of the Second Law which says that heat can't move from colder to hotter, even on the scale of single photons?

If you believe that the Second Law actually does intelligently micromanage individual atoms, can you explain the mechanism by which it scans the universe and intelligently micromanages individual atoms, controlling in which direction they radiate? After all, the rest of humanity seems to have missed that aspect of the Second Law. There's definitely a Nobel Prize in it for any of you denialists who can explain the mechanism at work there.

Have your big brother ... I mean, son ... take a crack at that, if you need some help.

It doesn't DO anything admiral.. It is negated by the higher energy, it neither alters the star it is heading to by any measurable means nor is it making it "hotter". It's negated.

Once again tool, there is no intelligent micromanagement going on, that's your weak mind trying to place order where there is none..

Sorry you and the clone brigade can't grasp the reality of this admiral..

A rock on a hillside has potential energy correct? I mean one push and there it is kinetic energy. Lets say the rock is disintegrated by one of your super mind rays that causes no explosion just de-materialization. Completely destroyed down to sub-atomic level. Now is that energy destroyed, converted, dissipated or nullified? Well it's not destroyed because that violates the known laws. It's not converted because it was a special mind ray we made up just like your "nuke" story, and it wasn't designed for energy/matter transformation. It could have possibly been dissipated but we really wouldn't be able to measure the change anyway because the variance would be too minuscule. So it would most likely have been negated, because it doesn't actually violate any of the laws and it's the best explanation we can give...

Kind of like your explanation of this concept isn't it....

No one really knows why the 2nd law is still observed at the microscopic and sub levels. It's all theory and conjecture. They cannot explain it, so they use theoretical concepts to do so. They are not based on any real world observations, just in a simulation based on their theories.

You seem to believe that theory = fact if it came from the right people. The fact is even IF (a big if) the theories you claim are correct, they are on levels too minute to show observable change in the macroscopic world.

Now don't blow a head gasket junior, but it's one of those little things no one gets really. The energy isn't destroyed, and it isn't intelligently redirected, and it isn't turned into more energy either. It is simply negated or some explain it as "absorbed by the incoming higher energy, either way like to describe it is fine, because we really haven't been able to observe the phenomenon yet at the degree it would take to answer the question..

Now you won't find the answer until you can discipline your mind to accept the difference in macro, micro, and sub levels respectively, and realize that disorder is the nature of it all.

You think too small here admiral, you are missing the forest because the trees are in your way...

 

[gslack]

Noticed how silent they are when I said let`s call this Roy Spencer "back radiation thought experiment" bluff and I do it for real at the U of Manitoba Physics department,

You're still bragging about being able to disprove your own whackaloon claim? After all, you are the only crank on the planet claiming that backradiation would melt the fins off a heat sink.

If you wish to set up an experiment to prove your own nonsense is wrong, well, have at it. We encourage that. I'm guessing, however, that the university will look at how you've become a raving imbecile and politely decline your request. But you're welcome to try. Get back to us on how it turns out.

The rest of your rant is just more of your senility/mental illness/creepy stalking on display. Move it to the thoroughly trashed "Human Footprint" thread, and I'll mock it thoroughly there.

NICE OUTING SOCKO...

You weren't here when that thread was alive junior.... How the hell would you know?

Unless you were here then.. But you weren't or were you?

Got ya...

 

[gslack]

The second law doesn't say a thing about two way net energy flows. It says that heat and energy only move in one direction.

On the macro scale. You just don't seem to get that all the simplified colloquial versions of the Second Law you read are talking of the macro scale, not individual photons.

Statistical statements are not written in absolute terms...

Sure they are.

For example, if I pick a quintillion atomic events, and the hot-to-cold prob of any single event is 75%, while the cold-to-hot probability is 25%, I can say with 100% certainty that the net result will be hot-to-cold heat flow.

Now, if one wanted to nitpick, one could correctly point out there is a one in 10^1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 or so probability of the opposite happening. However, since we could sit and watch until the universe grew cold and dim, and never hit such a longshot, we say that hot-to-cold will happen 100% of the time.

That's the Second Law, a summation of uncertain individual probabilities that leads to a certain result.

LOL, admiral has problems with "absolute" vesus "general" statements...

I'll help the little guy...

Absolute statement:

I always drink 3 cups of coffee in the morning. or . I am never late with a report.

General statement:

I usually drink 3 cups of coffee in the morning. or. I am usually on time with my reports.

The very nature of the word "statistical" denotes averages and not absolutes..

 

[SSDD]

The very nature of the word "statistical" denotes averages and not absolutes..

That's the thing that gets me about these guys. I am pretty sure that if the folks who phrased the second law thought that it wasn't absolute, they would have phrased it as such and maybe not have called it a law.. Maybe the second rule of thumb of thermodynamics.

How can anyone who can actually read and comprehend the words, read the statement of the second law and see any sort of wiggle room there? Any deviation from that absolute statement would violate the law and render it meaningless.

It takes a sort of mindset that escapes me to believe so deeply in a computer or mathematical model that you would believe that it invalidates one of the fundamental laws of nature.

 

[gslack]

I'll try again....

Two stars equal in heat and energy in a perfect vacum (meaning absolute zero ambient temps etc and so on). Facing one another far enough away to avoid any other energy transfer but radiation. The distance negates any surface heat transfer to one another, the only energy transfer is by radiation.. Keep up admiral socks...

Now do they heat one another to any noticeable measurement? No.. Why? Because they are in equilibrium with one another. No energy gained because they negate one another. That is what equilibrium is. Remember black-body radiation? How does that exist if your claims are correct? It couldn't, it wouldn't, and there is the crux of the matter...

Now same two equal stars, same parameters save one change. place a rotating ball in the center. perfect rotation, no wobble or variance of any kind, no atmosphere, just a solid spherical mass equal distance from the two stars.

What happens to the sphere? it heats up until it reaches equilibrium with the energy output of the two heat sources, then it stops increasing. It doesn't stop when it matches the temps of the two stars or when it matches the two stars combined output, but heats up until it reaches the temperature the energy out put of the two stars that the distance, parameters and environment will allow.

TADA!!!!! Equilibrium at work...

Now please try and discipline your mind. This is not a simple matter of grabbing a theory out of context and claiming "eureka I've done it". It's too complex and alien for that. In your haste to prove your claim, you forgot how equilibrium works and about black-body radiation...

now my head hurts and I am going back to insulting you geniuses...

 

[numan]

A rock on a hillside has potential energy correct? I mean one push and there it is kinetic energy. Lets say the rock is disintegrated by one of your super mind rays that causes no explosion just de-materialization. Completely destroyed down to sub-atomic level. Now is that energy destroyed, converted, dissipated or nullified? Well it's not destroyed because that violates the known laws. It's not converted because it was a special mind ray we made up just like your "nuke" story, and it wasn't designed for energy/matter transformation. It could have possibly been dissipated but we really wouldn't be able to measure the change anyway because the variance would be too minuscule. So it would most likely have been negated, because it doesn't actually violate any of the laws and it's the best explanation we can give...

Well, it will certainly take many times the lifetime of the universe before anyone could derive any intelligible content from that paragraph !!

Some CIA technicians definitely need to repair and up-grade their economy-model gslack chatterbot. It has definitely failed the Turing test for human intelligence.

Whatever could this bucket of rusty micro-chips be distorting from its el-cheapo science programming? From what broken file of vocabulary items did it derive "de-materialization"?

The only way the rock could be "de-materialized" is if an equal mass of the appropriate anti-matter were brought in contact with it -- and then there would be one hell of an explosion!!

Perhaps this chatterbot verbal flailing is supposed to mean that all the electro-magnetic and other bond-forces are disrupted, and the constituent elementary particles float off into the aether?

The science programming of the gslack chatterbot is so defective that it does not contain the information that no bonds -- electro-magnetic, gravitational, or whatever -- are ever formed without giving up energy. The structures form by falling down an energy potential well. You cannot send a rock from the Earth into outer space without supplying at least escape-velocity energy. The same is true for all the electro-magnetic and other bonds which hold molecules, atoms and nuclei together. Energy was given up when the bonds were formed and the particles fell down potential wells. There are no exceptions to this fact -- otherwise, the First Law of Thermodynamics would be violated.

I imagine that people of low intelligence and inadequate education are fooled by the apparent exceptions of the energy given off in nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. The energy given off in these reactions can only derive from the constituent particles being re-shuffled and thereby falling further down their respective energy-wells. To return the lead and helium nuclei in fission back to uranium nuclei would require at least as much energy as was released in the fission reaction. To raise the protons and neutrons of helium back to the energy level of being two deuterium nuclei would require paying back the energy released in the fusion reaction.

The blindingly obvious proof of this fact is that the mass of a helium nucleus is less than the combined mass of two deuterium nuclei by precisely the amount of energy that was released in the fusion reaction.

Therefore, it is obvious, on all counts, that the gslack chatterbot is excreting gibberish and has failed the Turing test for human intelligence.
.

 

[numan]

where is the description of this mechanism that forbids emission of radiation, and under which circumstances does it take effect?

I never said anything about forbiding radiation. The second law says that energy won't spontaneously move from a cool object to a warm object. Short of the cool object simply not radiating in that direction, what other plausible explanation is there? We know that if we wire a 12 v batter to a 6 v battery, electricity only runs one way along the wire...we know that water only flows one way in a hose...we know that marbles roll down hill, we know that rocks fall when dropped....what is so different about radiation not spontaneously moving from a warm body to a cool one?

This, of course, is the crux of the matter.

It doesn't seem to sink in for you, no matter how many times people point out that radiation is fundamentally different than matter, you keep thinking that principles pertaining to matter apply to photons.

Every bit of matter in the universe above 0K is playing 'hot potato' by emitting photons to get rid of its energy before photons from elsewhere build it up again. Once emitted, a photon continues on its path until it reaches another bit of matter. There is no 'cancelling out', and it continues in a straight line in the random direction that it was created on. Warmer objects create more photons and at slightly higher energy wavelengths...than cooler objects.

Very well said, Ian.

You are obviously someone who knows something about physics and who has some respect for truth -- unlike the Denialist chatterbots which are programmed to lie, distort, insult and obfuscate. Why in the world are you consorting with such mindless devices?

Remember: If you sleep with dogs, don't be surprised if you get fleas.
.

 

[SSDD]

Well, it will certainly take many times the lifetime of the universe before anyone could derive any intelligible content from that paragraph !!

Many life times for some folks, I'm sure. About 10 to 12 seconds for people who can read and comprehend the words.