AGW: atmospheric physics

[westwall]

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.

When AGW "theory" claimed that global warming would mean less snow in winter...and then when the winters became harder and snow records were broken the AGW revisionists claimed "oh no, AGW theory accounts for more snow" that is when AGW "theory" became a pseudo-science.

How do you falsify a "theory" that claims BOTH sides of any test?

 

[westwall]

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.

Please show us the mathematical proofs that show the 2nd Law to be in error.

 

[westwall]

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.

So do it. This should be entertaining to say the least, for if what you claim is true that would be the END of the electrical energy crisis as we know it. You DO realisde that ....don't you?

 

[mamooth]

So lets see the observed, measured proof.

Telescopes did that.

When one binary star eclipses another relative to earth, the light from the star behind is completely absorbed by the star in front. Every bit of it. Cool photons, hot photons, every single last photon. The star in front is completely opaque to the star behind, even if the star in front is much hotter.

Hence, energy flows cold to hot, as the cold star photons are absorbed by the warm star.

And no, don't even try to pull your "but ... but ... the star behind just knows not to emit photons" insanity. Because it's batshit crazy.

 

[mamooth]

So do it. This should be entertaining to say the least, for if what you claim is true that would be the END of the electrical energy crisis as we know it. You DO realize that ....don't you?

Please, do tell why. This should be good.

 

[westwall]

So lets see the observed, measured proof.

Telescopes did that.

When one binary star eclipses another relative to earth, the light from the star behind is completely absorbed by the star in front. Every bit of it. Cool photons, hot photons, every single last photon. The star in front is completely opaque to the star behind, even if the star in front is much hotter.

Hence, energy flows cold to hot, as the cold star photons are absorbed by the warm star.

And no, don't even try to pull your "but ... but ... the star behind just knows not to emit photons" insanity. Because it's batshit crazy.

Ummm, no..that's not true. You might want to look at the astronmical and cosmological papers again. You are quite simple wrong.

 

[westwall]

So do it. This should be entertaining to say the least, for if what you claim is true that would be the END of the electrical energy crisis as we know it. You DO realize that ....don't you?

Please, do tell why. This should be good.

You can use a small amount of energy to boil water. An amount so low that when you use the boiling water to power your generators you MAKE more energy than you put into the system.....do you understand yet....admiral?

 

[mamooth]

Ummm, no..that's not true. You might want to look at the astronmical and cosmological papers again. You are quite simple wrong.

Really? How? "Look at the papers" is kind of vague.

 

[gslack]

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.

THere's only so much stupid I can take before I call a rat....

IanC why aren't you slapping mammooth for his ignorance already? So much for BS huh... All about truth yeah right...

Look Admiral, You are thee absolute most ignorant little fake I have seen in a long time...

You just claimed Quantum mechanics proved the 2nd law wrong around a hundred years ago... Really? Then why is it a law and Quantum THEORY is a THEORY and not a LAW...

Freaking moron ROFL...

If IanC doesn't say shit too you over that batch of stupidity he might as well make a new sock and call it mammothjr.

Come on Ian spank your boy, show us that truth you talk about...

 

[mamooth]

You can use a small amount of energy to boil water.

Oh hell no. It takes an assload of energy to boil water.

Energy to raise 1 gram of water from 0C to 100C: 100 calories (by definition)

Energy to boil 1 gram of 100C water: around 540 calories.

Heating water to nearly a boil is easy. Boiling it is the difficult part.

An amount so low that when you use the boiling water to power your generators you MAKE more energy than you put into the system.....

Again, hell no. No wonder you and gslack are always rambling about perpetual motion machines. You simply have no idea of how an actual thermodynamic cycle, like a steam cycle, works in the real world.

do you understand yet....admiral?

Now, we could bust out the steam tables, figure out how much energy we can actually extract from that steam we've boiled, and see how much energy we can get theoretically back in the turbine. It will be a lot smaller than the energy we used to boil the steam.

But then, you don't even know what Steam tables are, or how to use them. I do, of course, given I was freakin' trained in it. Thanks for giving me an excuse to mention that.

 

[mamooth]

You just claimed Quantum mechanics proved the 2nd law wrong around a hundred years ago... Really?

Yep. Photon theory killed the second law at the quantum level. And statistical mechanics showed why the 2nd Law holds on the macro level, but not the atomic level.

Then why is it a law and Quantum THEORY is a THEORY and not a LAW...

Wow. That's so staggeringly stupid, I am literally at a loss. I mean, how does one even begin to talk science and logic with a shortbus rider?

 

[SSDD]

So lets see the observed, measured proof.

Telescopes did that.

Sorry, but you are terribly mistaken.

When one binary star eclipses another relative to earth, the light from the star behind is completely absorbed by the star in front. Every bit of it. Cool photons, hot photons, every single last photon. The star in front is completely opaque to the star behind, even if the star in front is much hotter.

I belive that you believe that, but the fact is that you have absolutely no idea what actually happens. Like Ian, you make a lot of statements as if you are speaking fact, when the truth is, you are just supposing. The second law says that energy won't move from a cool object to a warm object. Prove otherwise. Show an observed, measured example.

 

[SSDD]

Yep. Photon theory killed the second law at the quantum level. And statistical mechanics showed why the 2nd Law holds on the macro level, but not the atomic level.

Theory doesn't tump law and no such proof has ever been observed. It is all models and fairy dust...and the sad thing is, that you and people like you who want so badly for AGW to be true, that you will believe in magic over acutal observation to the point that you will actually state out loud in public that theory trumps law.

 

[SSDD]

I see you dodged the question again mamooth....

What would falsify AGW for you?

 

[mamooth]

I see you dodged the question again mamooth....

Given that I had directly answered the question before you asked it, why are you telling such a stupid lie?

What would falsify AGW for you?

"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."

 

[SSDD]

I see you dodged the question again mamooth....

Given that I had directly answered the question before you asked it, why are you telling such a stupid lie?

What would falsify AGW for you?

"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."

So the fact that the hypothesis is unable to make any accurate predictions means nothing to you?

And we don't know what the heat flow within the system is...trenberth's energy budget certainly doesn't put forward anyting that resembles reality. So considering that you don't have a clue as to how much energy is flowing through the earth's system, or how it moves through the system...again, what would falsify the AGW hypothesis for you?

 

[mamooth]

I belive that you believe that, but the fact is that you have absolutely no idea what actually happens..

Yes, we _do_ know what happens. Your borderline insanity does not control reality.

Stars do not magically shut down emitting in one direction just because you really, really want them to.

Photons from one star do not travel through other stars. And they do not just magically vanish into your speshul fairyland dimension. They are absorbed by the other star.

Individual photons happily travel from cold to hot, blissfully unaware of how your cult dogma that says such a thing is impossible. Deal with it. Your whole theory is crank nonsense.

 

[IanC]

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.

ahhhh. I should have known better than to step into a discussion that I didnt have all the information.

I assumed an submersion aquarium heater which operates at more than 100C. instead you are describing a radiation-only scenario using a low operating temperature heating pad. the pot will approach the temp of the heating pad if the pot is perfect;y insulated. the earth would approach the temperature of the sun if perfectly insulated but still receiving sunlight. basically from any distance as well. but the earth is not perfectly insulated and neither is the pot.

 

[mamooth]

So the fact that the hypothesis is unable to make any accurate predictions means nothing to you?

You mean the 30 years of accurate temperature predictions? The correct predictions of the heat balance, the polar amplification, the stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming, the squeezing down of the outward IR radiation in the CO2 bands?

That's why AGW science has such credibility, because it's been making falsifiable predictions for decades, and seeing those predictions come true over and over.

In contrast, your crank science specializes in avoiding predictions of any sort. That's why your side has no credibility.

 

[SSDD]

ahhhh. I should have known better than to step into a discussion that I didnt have all the information.

I assumed an submersion aquarium heater which operates at more than 100C. instead you are describing a radiation-only scenario using a low operating temperature heating pad. the pot will approach the temp of the heating pad if the pot is perfect;y insulated. the earth would approach the temperature of the sun if perfectly insulated but still receiving sunlight. basically from any distance as well. but the earth is not perfectly insulated and neither is the pot.

No, the claim was that a 33 quart pot of water could be boiled using a 4 watt constant on heat source for 10 hours a day. I have been using an 8 watt constant on source for 24 hours a day and the water isn't even close to the temperature of the heater in the air.

Just pointing out that the person who made the claim didn't have a grasp of thermodynamics and none of you, who were all present in the conversation, had anything at all to say about the parameters of the experiment or the claim being made.

I predicted that the water would never reach the temperature of the pad in air and it hasn't and never will.