AGW: atmospheric physics

[mamooth]

So there you have it. That`s how thermodynamics works according to "climatologists". They invented a system where you get 17% more energy than you feed into it.

And to an individual, they claim that they aren't creating energy.

Most denialists simply lack the common sense to understand the basic physical setup of the situation, as SSDD and PolarBear illustrate here.

You don't "get" 17% more energy. You only "get" energy if it does work. Swapping some photons back and forth isn't doing any work.

Now, if I covered several square miles with some substance that converted the whole spectrum to electricity, that would be doing some work. But it would only be getting +17% more energy briefly, using up some previously stored energy. Then it would gradually fall back to +0%, as the earth and atmosphere below cooled and stopped emitting. That's why it takes time for the earth to heat up in the morning and cool down at night, as that extra energy has to be put in and then bled off.

 

[mamooth]

That`s not all. Not only do climatologists get 17 % more energy than was put in, but they also have "greenhouse gases" radiating more than the ultimate radiator.

The Wiki entry is clearly very wrong with the "100% backradiation" sentence. The talk page that PolarBear quoted said so directly. Nobody thinks that 100% figure is the case. It's a bad error in Wiki that hasn't been corrected.

So they have 100% of the 680 Watts per m^2 "back radiating" from a colder atmosphere at an already warmer surface.

Try using some common sense. If the surface is radiating at 117%, that would mean backradiation would be around 17%. If it was 100%, no energy would leave the system and it would heat up to infinity.

The ISS has 14 Ammonia radiators ...

And since the actual backradiation is more like 17% than 100%, that was a pointless rant, as those ammonia radiators are much more efficient than that 17%.

 

[gslack]

So there you have it. That`s how thermodynamics works according to "climatologists". They invented a system where you get 17% more energy than you feed into it.

And to an individual, they claim that they aren't creating energy.

Most denialists simply lack the common sense to understand the basic physical setup of the situation, as SSDD and PolarBear illustrate here.

You don't "get" 17% more energy. You only "get" energy if it does work. Swapping some photons back and forth isn't doing any work.

Now, if I covered several square miles with some substance that converted the whole spectrum to electricity, that would be doing some work. But it would only be getting +17% more energy briefly, using up some previously stored energy. Then it would gradually fall back to +0%, as the earth and atmosphere below cooled and stopped emitting. That's why it takes time for the earth to heat up in the morning and cool down at night, as that extra energy has to be put in and then bled off.

ROFL, your continued ignorance in this makes me have to say, STOP!

Dude there is work being done in any energy transfer, no matter what that transfer is, there is work being done in the transfer. Jesus dude.. Hence no such thing as a perfect machine you nincompoop..

Please dude just STFU already.. You're an idiot and you have made it very clear now. WTF man, you're supposed to be a former "nuke" and you don't know about energy loss in transfer?? It costs some bit of energy at every energy transfer. Short -wave EM radiation coming from the sun when it reacts with the earths surface spends some of its own energy warming the planet and what's left is eventually radiated up and away as heat. It's not 100% perfect energy transfer you ninny, it costs something to perform the task...

Of all the ignorant, stupid claims you can make... Bouncing photons back and forth? lossless energy transfer??? MORON! ROFL

 

[SSDD]

You don't "get" 17% more energy. You only "get" energy if it does work. Swapping some photons back and forth isn't doing any work.

You don't get energy at all. More entropy, not less.

 

[SSDD]

ROFL, your continued ignorance in this makes me have to say, STOP!

Well, they are well and truely out of the closet now...making public claims about the creation of energy...imagine, 17% more energy out of a system than goes in. I suppose our energy problems are over now. All they need do is explain how it happens and we can all start building machines to take advantage of the excess.

 

[jon_berzerk]

what am i missing here

did weather shaman also invent

a perpetual motion machine ta boot

--LOL

if so gotsta gets me one

 

[mamooth]

Dude there is work being done in any energy transfer, no matter what that transfer is, there is work being done in the transfer.

No, there isn't. You're just totally clueless, as are the rest of denialist "I'M REWRITING THE SECOND LAW ON THE ORDERS OF MY POLITICAL CULT!" cranks.

I stand in front of mirror, holding a flashlight and another mirror at my chest. I shine a flashlight into the mirror. Photons start bouncing back and forth between the two mirrors. After multiple bounces between the two mirrors, the "energy flux" between the two mirrors becomes many times greater than that of the flashlight beam alone.

Ruh-roh. According to the denialist cranks, that can't be possible, because it "creates new energy", and it's a "perpetual motion machine".

However, it clearly does happen. Hence, I prove the "multiplying energy" babble that the denialist retards hold as holy gospel is yet another of their big steaming piles of BS.

Seriously glsack, learn some humility, to accept what you are. That is, a halfway competent tech who has no understanding of actual science. A product of the self-esteem generation, who thinks he's a special little snowflake because his cult told him he's just as smart as those egghead liberal scientists. It's no sin to be simple, so you shouldn't worry about that. It's only a sin to be belligerent with your stupidity, like most denialist cultists are.

 

[SSDD]

I stand in front of mirror, holding a flashlight and another mirror at my chest. I shine a flashlight into the mirror. Photons start bouncing back and forth between the two mirrors. After multiple bounces between the two mirrors, the "energy flux" between the two mirrors becomes many times greater than that of the flashlight beam alone.

The energy flux between the mirrors never even reaches the output of the flashlight..much less become many times greater. You are a true crank and have just shouted it out as loud. Congratulations.

 

[polarbear]

inconsistent

not being in agreement or harmony <inconsistent theories make it difficult to settle on one explanation> Synonyms clashing, conflicting, disagreeing, discordant, discrepant, incompatible, incongruous, inconsonant, inharmonious, mutually exclusive, repugnant
Related Words irreconcilable; antagonistic, antipodal, antipodean, antithetical,

Warmalarmism is an occult founded by John Tyndall in 1859.
Apostle John had to earn his keep in England shoveling coal into a boiler to keep his masters warm. According to Apostle John Tyndall, this process and those who benefited from it are evil and will be punished by the heavens with "back radiation" .
John Tyndall`s disciples keep changing their story when "denialists" want some answers how this avenging "back radiation" is supposed to work.
The only thing consistent about this man hating occult is that they have fits of anger when a "denier" points out how inconsistent their preachings are.
150 years later we have so many versions of this "back radiation" gospel that even it`s own disciples can`t make up their mind which one they should use.
Wikipedia alone has several versions..here are 2 of them, but there are almost over a dozen of them embedded in other topics:

Greenhouse warming of the Earth's surface

[7] The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called &#8220;back radiation&#8221 is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy.[dubious &#8211; discuss]
As solar heating and &#8220;back radiation&#8221; from the atmosphere raise the surface temperature, the surface simultaneously releases an increasing amount of heat&#8212;equivalent to about 117 percent of incoming solar energy. The net upward heat flow from the Earth's surface is equivalent to 17 percent of incoming sunlight (117 percent up minus 100 percent down).

Another version in Wikipeadia has it like that:

The atmosphere absorbs 90% of the energy radiated by the Earth, and radiates its own energy, 50% back towards the ground and 50% into space.

Trenberth preaches that the surface radiates 396 Watts/ m^2 and that there are 333 watts/ m^2 = 84% "back-radiation" .

And yesterday the Siamese cat "informed" us:

And since the actual backradiation is more like 17% than 100%, that was a pointless rant,

Just to show you how dumb that idiot is...:
One Wiki version has it :

The net upward heat flow from the Earth's surface is equivalent to 17 percent of incoming sunlight

And according to the "I used to run nuclear reactors" it is:

the actual backradiation is more like 17%

Cat shit for brains does`nt know the difference between upward heat flow and the "back radiation" it tries to preach
Apostles "IanC", "Saigon the journalist", the "erudite numan" etc no doubt will have their own pet "back radiation" versions.
Unless they get together and vote which one seems the most credible version...like libtards do when they get caught in their web of lies.

 

[gslack]

Dude there is work being done in any energy transfer, no matter what that transfer is, there is work being done in the transfer.

No, there isn't. You're just totally clueless, as are the rest of denialist "I'M REWRITING THE SECOND LAW ON THE ORDERS OF MY POLITICAL CULT!" cranks.

I stand in front of mirror, holding a flashlight and another mirror at my chest. I shine a flashlight into the mirror. Photons start bouncing back and forth between the two mirrors. After multiple bounces between the two mirrors, the "energy flux" between the two mirrors becomes many times greater than that of the flashlight beam alone.

Ruh-roh. According to the denialist cranks, that can't be possible, because it "creates new energy", and it's a "perpetual motion machine".

However, it clearly does happen. Hence, I prove the "multiplying energy" babble that the denialist retards hold as holy gospel is yet another of their big steaming piles of BS.

Seriously glsack, learn some humility, to accept what you are. That is, a halfway competent tech who has no understanding of actual science. A product of the self-esteem generation, who thinks he's a special little snowflake because his cult told him he's just as smart as those egghead liberal scientists. It's no sin to be simple, so you shouldn't worry about that. It's only a sin to be belligerent with your stupidity, like most denialist cultists are.

ROFL... You idiotic little moron.. Dude you aren't any kind of tech at all. You're an idiot trying to play pretend smart guy on the internet, and doing a lousy job at it...

Energy flux is a rate of energy transfer, either by density as in per unit area, or used for a total rate.. Thats energy transfer dipshit.. Get it yet? Hence energy is being transferred, and unless you have a perfect mirror you have been hiding from the rest of the scientific community, there is a loss in that transfer.

Idiot, just because you can see the reflection of a light source, that doesn't mean there is no loss of energy in that light transfer.

look stupid, you may think you're the sharpest kid in your home-school study group, but you're a moron and a bad actor to boot.. Your peers must be something else. ROFL

Tell ya what admiral, why not take your genius findings regarding lossless energy transfer and perfect mirrors, contact MIT and explain this process to them and make sure you include your reasoning and logic which led to this epiphany..Dude you are just too funny.

 

[SSDD]

Warmalarmism is an occult founded by John Tyndall in 1859.[/quote]

In defense of Tyndall....he said:

"&#8220;Carbonic acid gas is one of the feeblest of absorbers of the radiant heat emitted by solid sources.&#8221;"

And that was after testing CO2 at a concentration of about 80,000ppm.

and in his experiments he noted that the carbonic acid gas was &#8220;extremely transparent to the rays emitted by the heated copper plate&#8221;....and his "warm blanket" hypothesis was directed at water vapor, not CO2.

He further noted about CO2's ability to absorb radiant heat:

&#8220;Through air . . . the waves of ether pass without absorption, and these gases are not sensibly changed in temperature by the most powerful calorific rays.&#8221;

 

[mamooth]

The energy flux between the mirrors never even reaches the output of the flashlight..much less become many times greater.

And thus SSDD proves that a laser oscillator can't exist.

Fascinating, how the conspiracy just keeps growing and growing, all because a group of manchildren can't admit to getting anything wrong, ever. Thus, ever deeper into the stupid hole they dig.

Anyways, let's get back to common sense. If I hang a light bulb in a room with mirrors on all sides, it's going to get very bright in there, as the light reflects from the mirrors many times. Much brighter than the bulb alone could make. A sane person would not call that "creating energy", and an honest person would not claim it won't get brighter than a bulb alone.

Energy flux is a rate of energy transfer, either by density as in per unit area, or used for a total rate.. Thats energy transfer dipshit.. Get it yet? Hence energy is being transferred, and unless you have a perfect mirror you have been hiding from the rest of the scientific community, there is a loss in that transfer.

Well sure, there's a "loss", because the total heat flow is from hot to cool, as the second law demands. But, contrary to your retard version of the second law -- the one that contradicts the last century of science -- there's no problem with some heat flowing back to hot, just as long as more heat flows out to cold.

You can't get 117% work out of the that system, beyond a short term where you use up the stored energy. Hence, like the light bouncing between mirrors, it's not creating energy, it's just storing previously generated energy. If you think it's creating energy, then simply show us your system that would harvest that 117% energy beyond the short-term. If you can't, have the decency to slither away in disgrace. Or admit you're wrong, but since you toddlers can't admit an error, ever, slinking away seems your best option.

 

[mamooth]

Cat shit for brains does`nt know the difference between upward heat flow and the "back radiation" it tries to preach

You understand that no one aside from yourself has any idea of what you're gibbering about, right? That's because you're babbling nonsense. Nobody even reads it anymore, because we know ahead of time that whatever the topic is, you'll just jabber some deranged propaganda. It's not worth the time to try to decipher what you're rambling about, so everyone just points and laughs now.

So, you'll keep saying stupid things, I'll keep mocking you for it, you'll cry about how mean I am, and I'll laugh hard. Isn't life grand?

 

[skookerasbil]

? of the day.......

Who is the feminist bulldog on this thread??

 

[skookerasbil]

RealClearEnergy - Environmentalists Are Killing the U.S. Economy

 

[westwall]

Cat shit for brains does`nt know the difference between upward heat flow and the "back radiation" it tries to preach

You understand that no one aside from yourself has any idea of what you're gibbering about, right? That's because you're babbling nonsense. Nobody even reads it anymore, because we know ahead of time that whatever the topic is, you'll just jabber some deranged propaganda. It's not worth the time to try to decipher what you're rambling about, so everyone just points and laughs now.

So, you'll keep saying stupid things, I'll keep mocking you for it, you'll cry about how mean I am, and I'll laugh hard. Isn't life grand?

No, people with a scientific background (and those people with an average IQ) have no problem understanding Polarbear in the slightest. Why do you not understand what he's saying??......oh...wait.......you must not be.......yes, that explains it all, you're just stoopid(sic). Yes! That fits all the observations!

 

[gslack]

The energy flux between the mirrors never even reaches the output of the flashlight..much less become many times greater.

And thus SSDD proves that a laser oscillator can't exist.

Fascinating, how the conspiracy just keeps growing and growing, all because a group of manchildren can't admit to getting anything wrong, ever. Thus, ever deeper into the stupid hole they dig.

Yes a ridiculous man-child that would be you we know this..Know what a laser oscillator is? Or what it does? Does make an infinity laser? Or a laser that can be reflected over and over suffering no energy loss? No..LOL

Read up on things for once will ya? Seriously you have a history of making bold claims based on little to no understanding of it. This should be a lesson to you...

Laser Oscillators

Pulsed Laser Oscillator

The Neodynium-YAG laser consists of a rod of the material which can be pumped by a flash lamp at a rate of about 15 Hz. The output is Q-switched and mode-locked with the use of a saturable absorber and an acoustooptical modulator. The output consists of an envelope of pulses which can be tuned for optimization by adjusting the mirrors, adjusting the prisms to change optical pathlength, adjusting the crystal in the acoustooptic modulator, and adjusting the frequency of the modulator.

Q-Switching

Q-switching for a laser refers to techniques for obtaining brief, high-energy pulses rather than continuous wave operation. This helps the operation of a pulsed laser oscillator. The basic idea is that for only a brief time is the beam allowed to pass back and forth between the mirrors to achieve the laser action, but the pumping action is continuous so that a large population inversion is waiting when the lasing condition is satisfied. The Q-switching is typically accomplished with an acoustooptic coupler or an electrooptical device.

MORON!!! Lasers, the type of laser you are referring to is pulsed. Meaning the beam is pulsed at a very fast rate, appearing to be a constant and continuous beam to the naked eye. They are done this way because perfect reflectors do not exist and at every transfer or redirection of a beam there will be some energy loss in that transfer. By pulsing the beam they can get the near same effect visually, meaning you won't see a separation in the beam under normal conditions, despite the fact there is not actually one continuous beam but rather a series of very fast pulses of light, grouped so quickly together you won't see the difference.

Imagine taking your flashlight and turning it on and off at a rate so fast it appears as if its constantly on.. Ever wave a flashlight back forth quickly? Why? Because it made the light look like it was a streak of light, a little kid laser of sorts.

There is a loss at each transfer, but it is continually replenished by another pulse of light, quicker than you can see with the naked eye and given the impression of a solid and continuous beam. IDIOT!

STOP CITING THINGS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!!!!

Anyways, let's get back to common sense. If I hang a light bulb in a room with mirrors on all sides, it's going to get very bright in there, as the light reflects from the mirrors many times. Much brighter than the bulb alone could make. A sane person would not call that "creating energy", and an honest person would not claim it won't get brighter than a bulb alone.

Again??? LOL, dude you are too stupid for words... Best shut up and wait for Ian to save you. Frankly I think he has learned the depths of your ignorance and has forsaken you.. What you are doing is changing your claim again.. Grow up admiral...

Energy flux is a rate of energy transfer, either by density as in per unit area, or used for a total rate.. Thats energy transfer dipshit.. Get it yet? Hence energy is being transferred, and unless you have a perfect mirror you have been hiding from the rest of the scientific community, there is a loss in that transfer.

Well sure, there's a "loss", because the total heat flow is from hot to cool, as the second law demands. But, contrary to your retard version of the second law -- the one that contradicts the last century of science -- there's no problem with some heat flowing back to hot, just as long as more heat flows out to cold.

DUDE STOP CHANGING YOUR ARGUMENT WE SAW WHAT YOU SAID BEFORE.. Everyone saw it, pretending it's something else now is too late..

You can't get 117% work out of the that system, beyond a short term where you use up the stored energy. Hence, like the light bouncing between mirrors, it's not creating energy, it's just storing previously generated energy. If you think it's creating energy, then simply show us your system that would harvest that 117% energy beyond the short-term. If you can't, have the decency to slither away in disgrace. Or admit you're wrong, but since you toddlers can't admit an error, ever, slinking away seems your best option.

Blah, blah, blah... All I see is you trying to BS your way out of your previous claim...You can't moron,you already proved your an imbecile... NEXT!

 

[ScienceRocks]

Black body and the theories of thermodynamics are very real. Basic thermal transfers of heat wouldn't work if they weren't.

 

[gslack]

Black body and the theories of thermodynamics are very real. Basic thermal transfers of heat wouldn't work if they weren't.

And on cue... Don't try and bury his screw up, I will re-post as needed..

 

[westwall]

You MUST repost it. That level of scientific stupidity is priceless. Truly epically priceless.