AGW: atmospheric physics

[IanC]

Wow, that was stupid. You'd have to be a IQ-80-range moron not to see the flaws in that kind of 'tard logic. And to think, some drooler actually spent a long time putting that together, said to himself "damn, that's good!", and posted it. The mind boggles, the dedication that they put into being a 'tard, and the fact that so many other 'tards fell for it.

Non-tards, of course, instantly see that the radiative heat flow in that situation is completely insignificant compared to the conductive heat flow. The heat will simply conduct away, not radiate back and forth forever.

And even if there was zero conduction, a big portion of the radiative heat would just go out the window, again preventing any buildup.

And even if there was no window, the system would just remain the same temp, not increase.

Now, if you had a magical fairy oven that prevented all conduction and convection heat loss, and which magically reflected 100% of the radiation back to the food ... well, you'd be living in gslack's magical physics fairyland, the only spot in creation where he isn't a raging 'tard.

The "magical vanishing photon" crowd simply has zero common sense. And since they have no common sense, they suck at physics. And as Dunning-Kruger demonstrated, they suck too hard to ever grasp how hard they suck. Stupid people simply don't have the brainpower to understand how stupid they are.

most of them arent facile in the concept of summing infinite series. or Zeno's paradox.

 

[mamooth]

Some pages back, on this, or another thread a poster claimed that he could boil water with a 4 watt continuous heat source.

Of course you can, if the container is insulated well enough.

What, you mean you used an uninsulated container? What did you think that was supposed to prove? Of course it didn't boil. The heat conducted away. Like I keep saying, you guys have zero common sense.

To do it right, slip a small heater into a sealed thermos. That would eventually boil. And crack your thermos, so be careful.

 

[IanC]

Mamooth- you seem like a pretty dedicated warmer. can I ask you a question?

do you think the radiation from the atmosphere is the direct cause of warming. or is it an indirect cause of warming?

I am trying to dispel a strawman here.

 

[gslack]

Wow, that was stupid. You'd have to be a IQ-80-range moron not to see the flaws in that kind of 'tard logic. And to think, some drooler actually spent a long time putting that together, said to himself "damn, that's good!", and posted it. The mind boggles, the dedication that they put into being a 'tard, and the fact that so many other 'tards fell for it.

Non-tards, of course, instantly see that the radiative heat flow in that situation is completely insignificant compared to the conductive heat flow. The heat will simply conduct away, not radiate back and forth forever.

And even if there was zero conduction, a big portion of the radiative heat would just go out the window, again preventing any buildup.

And even if there was no window, the system would just remain the same temp, not increase.

Now, if you had a magical fairy oven that prevented all conduction and convection heat loss, and which magically reflected 100% of the radiation back to the food ... well, you'd be living in gslack's magical physics fairyland, the only spot in creation where he isn't a raging 'tard.

The "magical vanishing photon" crowd simply has zero common sense. And since they have no common sense, they suck at physics. And as Dunning-Kruger demonstrated, they suck too hard to ever grasp how hard they suck. Stupid people simply don't have the brainpower to understand how stupid they are.

Yes admiral you can spot the technical flaws in a joke, how brilliant you are..... hmm....yes.....Okay then....

WOW...

 

[gslack]

I owe Ian and apology.. I really do.. he was right, backradiation is possible, here is the prototype of his work...

Sorry Ian you were right.. Obviously the new IanC Infinity Oven above proves it...

Amazing, isn't it. When faced with the end result of thier crazy hypothesis if it were true, they still hang on.

I appreciate the humour in that joke. if it was anybody else besides glack I would have repped them.

how effective would a microwave oven be if it didnt have shielding to contain the microwaves? remember the first ones? they had hot and cold spots. how effective would a conventional oven be without the insulation? you could still grill or broil but you couldnt bake.



how much radiation is coming off the cooking food? what is the ratio of inside oven surface to food surface?

you guys never seem to bring up interesting aspects or ask illuminating questions.

for instance. the surface is solid or liquid therefore the radiating particles are much closer together and the density of radiation would seem to be greater than the atmosphere with its separated particles. things that make you go "hmmmmm". at least initially


edit- oops, my mistake. I thought it was a microwave. my phone doesnt have a very big screen.

Yeah....Okay..... Good then.....mmmmhmmm.... So you two obviously don't get out much do ya...Yeah shows a lil bit....yep.....

Could there really two of you? ROFL...

 

[SSDD]

gravity acts as if it was a curvature of space caused by concentrations of matter. it acts on all matter and all energy in the universe at all times. we may not understand understand it totally but we can descriibe its affects and predict its future effects with amazing precision.

And we can predict, by the statement of the second law of thermodynamics, and the fact that it has never been observed anywhere....that backradiation doesn't exist. Complicate the issue as much as you like with all the senarios and unanswerable questions you like, but the fact remains and will continue to remain that the second law says that backradiaiton is not possible. You will never ever ever ever overcome that basic and undefeatable argument.

 

[SSDD]

I would like to point out that the filaments are very thin, and the area available to absorb photons from the opposing filament is probably on the order of 1mm2. radiation is emitted in all directions. the amount of light energy being swapped by the two lamps is much less than 1% of the total, confounded by glass lens and molecules in the air, and other things I havent thought of. do you really think we would be able to detect differences on that scale by ordinary means?

One wouldn't even need a partiucularly sensitive light meter to detect a 1% or less increase in a bulb's output. The fact is that it doesn't get brighter because the filament absorbs no radiation from the cooler light.

No matter what you say or claim Ian, you will be left with the HARD, GLARING, UNAVOIDABLE fact that you can't provide a singe example of the amazing magical backradiation that you so fervently believe in.

 

[SSDD]

many times in the past I have pointed out that Planck curves are an easy graphical description of the SLoT for the area of radiation transfer. net energy goes in one direction but that does not mean that every interaction is in one direction. the cooler object DOES NOT STOP RADIATING! photons, once emitted, do not cease to exist until they interact with another bit of matter. if they are aimed at a warmer object they still complete their journey.

And just as many times you have ignored the second law of radiation which states explicitly that energy does not move from cooler objects to warmer objects...no energy can spontaneously go from a state of more entropy to a state of less entropy. The fact is insurmaountable and the fact that you keep arguing it speaks volumes on how far out there you are.

 

[SSDD]

I totally agree that general energy budgets need to be upgraded.

They are not general energy budgets and it is deeply dishonest to portray them as such. They are pure fantasy with no relation or resemblence to reality whatsoever.

 

[SSDD]

Some pages back, on this, or another thread a poster claimed that he could boil water with a 4 watt continuous heat source.

Of course you can, if the container is insulated well enough.

What, you mean you used an uninsulated container? What did you think that was supposed to prove? Of course it didn't boil. The heat conducted away. Like I keep saying, you guys have zero common sense.

I used what the poster approved....he claimed that I would be cooking crawfish in there in no time.

The whole warmer and luke warmer crew were there and made no mention of any error in his challenge.....which was:

Put six frogs into a pot of water. Let it reach thermal equilibrium. Switch on just 2 watts of constant power for 10 hours a day.

1) If the outflow of heat energy (cooling rate) from this heat process is GREATER than the integrated inflow from your cheesy heater --- the temp will rise (over time -- probably days) to a NEW thermal equilibrium with a pleasantly warmer environment for your frogs.

2) If the outflow of heat energy from this heat process is EQUAL to the integrated inflow from your cheesy heater --- the temp will eventually rise to the MAXIMUM temperature that can retained at equilibrium (if the water doesn't all leave as vapor in the process). You'll probably lose your frogs.

3) If the outflow of heat energy from this heat process is LESS than the integrated inflow from your cheezy heater --- the temp will continue to rise until the water boils and there's nothing but memories of your frogs in the pot.

Now if at night when the cheezy heater is off, you cover the pot to reduce the cooling rate, you hasten the demise of the frogs by shortening the time integral to reach equibrium or to raise the temp to the point where something in the thermal system changes or breaks. (like boiling off the water or melting a hole in the pot). Theoretically barring catastrophic collapse of the system or negative feedbacks -- the temp continues to rise.

I didn't use frogs or kittens...and the temperature has never even gotten close to the temperature I was told would be reached. Of course, I said at the time that the water would never get anywhere near the claimed temp but none of you warmers said a thing.

 

[mamooth]

No matter what you say or claim Ian, you will be left with the HARD, GLARING, UNAVOIDABLE fact that you can't provide a singe example of the amazing magical backradiation that you so fervently believe in.

You've set up your theory so that it's completely unfalsifiable. That would be one reason why it's such obvious pseudoscience.

Actual theories can be falsified. For example, if the heat flow balance of the earth suddenly reversed so that more heat went out than in, that would falsify AGW theory.

 

[IanC]

Some pages back, on this, or another thread a poster claimed that he could boil water with a 4 watt continuous heat source.

Of course you can, if the container is insulated well enough.

What, you mean you used an uninsulated container? What did you think that was supposed to prove? Of course it didn't boil. The heat conducted away. Like I keep saying, you guys have zero common sense.

I used what the poster approved....he claimed that I would be cooking crawfish in there in no time.

The whole warmer and luke warmer crew were there and made no mention of any error in his challenge.....which was:

Put six frogs into a pot of water. Let it reach thermal equilibrium. Switch on just 2 watts of constant power for 10 hours a day.

1) If the outflow of heat energy (cooling rate) from this heat process is GREATER than the integrated inflow from your cheesy heater --- the temp will rise (over time -- probably days) to a NEW thermal equilibrium with a pleasantly warmer environment for your frogs.

2) If the outflow of heat energy from this heat process is EQUAL to the integrated inflow from your cheesy heater --- the temp will eventually rise to the MAXIMUM temperature that can retained at equilibrium (if the water doesn't all leave as vapor in the process). You'll probably lose your frogs.

3) If the outflow of heat energy from this heat process is LESS than the integrated inflow from your cheezy heater --- the temp will continue to rise until the water boils and there's nothing but memories of your frogs in the pot.

Now if at night when the cheezy heater is off, you cover the pot to reduce the cooling rate, you hasten the demise of the frogs by shortening the time integral to reach equibrium or to raise the temp to the point where something in the thermal system changes or breaks. (like boiling off the water or melting a hole in the pot). Theoretically barring catastrophic collapse of the system or negative feedbacks -- the temp continues to rise.

I didn't use frogs or kittens...and the temperature has never even gotten close to the temperature I was told would be reached. Of course, I said at the time that the water would never get anywhere near the claimed temp but none of you warmers said a thing.

I thought you said it came to an equilibrium temperature and stayed there????? was that not one of the choices? do you have any doubt that if you added insulation to the sides that the equilibrium temperature would rise? or if you sealed the container so that evaporation could no longer carry off energy, would that not also affect the equilibrium temp?

 

[SSDD]

You've set up your theory so that it's completely unfalsifiable. That would be one reason why it's such obvious pseudoscience.

The second law of thermodynamics isn't a theory...it is a fundamental law of nature. Feel free to try and prove it wrong.

 

[mamooth]

The whole warmer and luke warmer crew were there and made no mention of any error in his challenge.....

That would be because we weren't stupid enough to think he was talking of a simple uninsulated pot. We understood he was speaking of an idealized extremely well-insulated frog pot. Because it was freakin' obvious.

So just what did you think your experiment proved, other than your love of evasion by nitpicking?

 

[SSDD]

I thought you said it came to an equilibrium temperature and stayed there????? was that not one of the choices? do you have any doubt that if you added insulation to the sides that the equilibrium temperature would rise? or if you sealed the container so that evaporation could no longer carry off energy, would that not also affect the equilibrium temp?

Never reached equilibrium. The heating pad in air was considerably warmer. The water has never gotten within 10 degrees of the heating pad in air. It has increased slightly as the water level has decreased due to evaporation...but I have been adding some water making sure that it is at the same temperature as in he crab pot.

If I insulated the pot sufficiently I am sure that it would reach the same temperature that the pad reached in the air. The point was that the claim failed and all you were there on the thread when it was made and made no mention that you thought the claim was wrong. Now that it has failed...you all rush to defend yourselves in one way or another.

 

[mamooth]

The second law of thermodynamics isn't a theory...it is a fundamental law of nature. Feel free to try and prove it wrong.

Quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics already did that. Around a hundred years ago.

When your science catches up to 1920 or so, give us a ring, eh? The second law does not hold at the photon level.

 

[SSDD]

The whole warmer and luke warmer crew were there and made no mention of any error in his challenge.....

That would be because we weren't stupid enough to think he was talking of a simple uninsulated pot. We understood he was speaking of an idealized extremely well-insulated frog pot. Because it was freakin' obvious.[/quiote]

I specifically asked him if a 33 quart crab steamer would do and the answer was yes. Have you ever seen an insulated 33 quart crab steamer...or any insulated crab steamer for that matter?

So just what did you think your experiment proved, other than your love of evasion by nitpicking?

That the challenger's understanding of thermodynamics is flawed and that all you who stood around saying nothing regarding the challenge also have a flawed understanding of themodnyamics.

Of course the experiment wasn't necessary as you all believe in back radiation even though the 2nd law says that energy can not go from a state of higher entropy to a state of lower entropy and that is exactly what backradiaton would require.

I have asked you before and you dodged the question...what would falsify the AGW hypothesis for you?

 

[SSDD]

Quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics already did that. Around a hundred years ago.

So lets see the observed, measured proof.

 

[mamooth]

do you think the radiation from the atmosphere is the direct cause of warming. or is it an indirect cause of warming?

That all depends how one looks at "direct" and "indirect", which aspect of the issue one focuses on.

I mean, if the sun heated up more, that would be clearly be a "direct" cause.

If warming caused more CO2 released which caused more warming, that would clearly be an "indirect" cause.

Backradiaton, kind of inbetween. It's sending energy back down in an indirect matter. But it's a direct result of more CO2, and the warming wouldn't happen without it. I'm leaning more towards "direct" though, being it works fairly quickly.

 

[mamooth]

I specifically asked him if a 33 quart crab steamer would do and the answer was yes. Have you ever seen an insulated 33 quart crab steamer...or any insulated crab steamer for that matter?

I don't care. Really I don't.

I just know that if you put a little heater in a sealed thermos, the water will eventually boil, and hence your strange "equilibrium" claim will be disproven. That's my point, how you're deflecting from that issue. Conservation of energy is not deniable. The outlet/battery will not know to magically stop supplying power to the heating element when the water heats up a certain amount. If the energy can't leak out by conduction, it has to go somewhere, so it will heat the water to a boil.