Correlation between temperature and CO2

[IanC]

...that every observation and measurement ever made supports what SSDD thinks...

That is a debatable point.

Let's digress. Newton was a genius. F=ma. Changed the world of physics. Then another genius came along, Einstein. Now mass isn't quite so simple, mass of an object increases as it approaches the speed of light. Was Newton wrong, or just incomplete? Under normal circumstances both Newton and Einstein give the same answers.

Every observation and measurement that you claim supports your version also supports my version. There is no difference under normal circumstances. My version gives the underlying reasons and more information than your version. Actually your version is even corrupted from the incomplete old fashioned version it is based on.

 

[IanC]

No...I am just reminding you that photons are theoretical particles and when you talk about them as if they actually exist...or that you know what the hell they may be doing...you aren't actually speaking fact...you are speaking model...and model and reality are two very different things.

Sure, I'll admit there are some things we don't know about light, and the entities we call photons. So what? What we do know is solid and replicable. Any esoteric inconsistencies you may be talking about are not affecting the mundane world of terrestrial atmospheric physics to any significant degree, if at all.

 

[westwall]

...that every observation and measurement ever made supports what SSDD thinks...

That is a debatable point.

Let's digress. Newton was a genius. F=ma. Changed the world of physics. Then another genius came along, Einstein. Now mass isn't quite so simple, mass of an object increases as it approaches the speed of light. Was Newton wrong, or just incomplete? Under normal circumstances both Newton and Einstein give the same answers.

Every observation and measurement that you claim supports your version also supports my version. There is no difference under normal circumstances. My version gives the underlying reasons and more information than your version. Actually your version is even corrupted from the incomplete old fashioned version it is based on.

The problem is non scientists, and bad scientists think that science is an absolute. It isn't. Whenever I hear a scientist make a claim "based on this study we know "X"" it makes me cringe. The fact is we don't know much. A far better way of stating a scientific position is "based on information that we currently have, and with the instruments at our disposal, we can tell you "X".

So, no, Newton wasn't wrong, he just didn't have the instruments at his disposal that Einstein did, just as Feynman had to fix other parts of Newtons theorem to make it usable for space travel. Knowledge and observation allow for more detailed observations, which then leads to new discovery's and the cycle continues.

 

[IanC]

...that every observation and measurement ever made supports what SSDD thinks...

That is a debatable point.

Let's digress. Newton was a genius. F=ma. Changed the world of physics. Then another genius came along, Einstein. Now mass isn't quite so simple, mass of an object increases as it approaches the speed of light. Was Newton wrong, or just incomplete? Under normal circumstances both Newton and Einstein give the same answers.

Every observation and measurement that you claim supports your version also supports my version. There is no difference under normal circumstances. My version gives the underlying reasons and more information than your version. Actually your version is even corrupted from the incomplete old fashioned version it is based on.

The problem is non scientists, and bad scientists think that science is an absolute. It isn't. Whenever I hear a scientist make a claim "based on this study we know "X"" it makes me cringe. The fact is we don't know much. A far better way of stating a scientific position is "based on information that we currently have, and with the instruments at our disposal, we can tell you "X".

So, no, Newton wasn't wrong, he just didn't have the instruments at his disposal that Einstein did, just as Feynman had to fix other parts of Newtons theorem to make it usable for space travel. Knowledge and observation allow for more detailed observations, which then leads to new discovery's and the cycle continues.

And your comment doesn't even include those who look at a set of data and come to a conclusion opposite of what a reasonable person would. Santer deciding to use wind shear as a proxy for temperature and tossing out the actual temperature data comes to mind.

Although I guess that is more a case of having a preformed conclusion, and then searching out any evidence that could be distorted to purpose.

 

[westwall]

...that every observation and measurement ever made supports what SSDD thinks...

That is a debatable point.

Let's digress. Newton was a genius. F=ma. Changed the world of physics. Then another genius came along, Einstein. Now mass isn't quite so simple, mass of an object increases as it approaches the speed of light. Was Newton wrong, or just incomplete? Under normal circumstances both Newton and Einstein give the same answers.

Every observation and measurement that you claim supports your version also supports my version. There is no difference under normal circumstances. My version gives the underlying reasons and more information than your version. Actually your version is even corrupted from the incomplete old fashioned version it is based on.

The problem is non scientists, and bad scientists think that science is an absolute. It isn't. Whenever I hear a scientist make a claim "based on this study we know "X"" it makes me cringe. The fact is we don't know much. A far better way of stating a scientific position is "based on information that we currently have, and with the instruments at our disposal, we can tell you "X".

So, no, Newton wasn't wrong, he just didn't have the instruments at his disposal that Einstein did, just as Feynman had to fix other parts of Newtons theorem to make it usable for space travel. Knowledge and observation allow for more detailed observations, which then leads to new discovery's and the cycle continues.

And your comment doesn't even include those who look at a set of data and come to a conclusion opposite of what a reasonable person would. Santer deciding to use wind shear as a proxy for temperature and tossing out the actual temperature data comes to mind.

Although I guess that is more a case of having a preformed conclusion, and then searching out any evidence that could be distorted to purpose.

That's because the example you give is outright scientific fraud. There is no defense for that.

 

[IanC]

...that every observation and measurement ever made supports what SSDD thinks...

That is a debatable point.

Let's digress. Newton was a genius. F=ma. Changed the world of physics. Then another genius came along, Einstein. Now mass isn't quite so simple, mass of an object increases as it approaches the speed of light. Was Newton wrong, or just incomplete? Under normal circumstances both Newton and Einstein give the same answers.

Every observation and measurement that you claim supports your version also supports my version. There is no difference under normal circumstances. My version gives the underlying reasons and more information than your version. Actually your version is even corrupted from the incomplete old fashioned version it is based on.

The problem is non scientists, and bad scientists think that science is an absolute. It isn't. Whenever I hear a scientist make a claim "based on this study we know "X"" it makes me cringe. The fact is we don't know much. A far better way of stating a scientific position is "based on information that we currently have, and with the instruments at our disposal, we can tell you "X".

So, no, Newton wasn't wrong, he just didn't have the instruments at his disposal that Einstein did, just as Feynman had to fix other parts of Newtons theorem to make it usable for space travel. Knowledge and observation allow for more detailed observations, which then leads to new discovery's and the cycle continues.

And your comment doesn't even include those who look at a set of data and come to a conclusion opposite of what a reasonable person would. Santer deciding to use wind shear as a proxy for temperature and tossing out the actual temperature data comes to mind.

Although I guess that is more a case of having a preformed conclusion, and then searching out any evidence that could be distorted to purpose.

That's because the example you give is outright scientific fraud. There is no defense for that.

Depends on how stringent your standards of fraud are.

Climate science is rife with papers that come perilously close to fraud no matter how you define it. Unfortunately the prosecution of said frauds is close to non-existent. I can only think of one, Phil Jones's 1990 UHI paper. Even there they only went after underlings. Hard to believe some of Mann's tricks haven't been officially called out.

 

[IanC]

And you can go on and on as much as you like about what SSDD thinks..

Was I accurate in my prediction of what you would say in that scenario?

I certainly don't want to strawman your position like you and polarbear do to me. Was it accurate or not. If not, what did I get wrong?

"SSDD thinks the walls in a room stop radiating because they are all at the same temperature. If you put something cooler inside then they start radiating again BUT only at specific angles that point at the new object."

 

[SSDD]

That is a debatable point.

No...it isn't...not unless you are once again going to pit musing about what might be against hard observation and measurement....which is par for the course where you are concerned....as evidenced by the rest of your post where you claim that observations which are nothing like what you believe actually support what you believe....if you hold your head at just the right angle....squint your eyes....and eat a big old handful of quaaludes.

 

[IanC]

That is a debatable point.

No...it isn't...not unless you are once again going to pit musing about what might be against hard observation and measurement....which is par for the course where you are concerned....as evidenced by the rest of your post where you claim that observations which are nothing like what you believe actually support what you believe....if you hold your head at just the right angle....squint your eyes....and eat a big old handful of quaaludes.

My method and your method give exactly the same final answer with respect to energy transfer. So how can you say the macroscopic data support only you, and not me?

Your method ignores entropy, and violates it's principles. Instead you call upon some unknown process that no physicist agrees with and has no literature to back it up.

You even deny basic mathematics. The distributive law says that k(T^4-Tc^4)= kT^4-kTc^4. It gives the same answer. Yet you vehemently deny it.

People have shown you hundreds of links to textbooks and notable physicists stating that radiation energy transfer is a net result of competing flows in either direction. You simply claim they are all wrong and that only you are right.

What is your proof? The wording of a 150 year old statement that only dealt with macroscopic results, and made no mention of atomic scale interactions because they were unknown at the time.

 

[SSDD]

My method and your method give exactly the same final answer with respect to energy transfer. So how can you say the macroscopic data support only you, and not me?

I was born to a poor family...grew up...joined the military...got educated...won a 500 million dollar lottery...lost most of it and was left with enough to retire comfortably...

I was born to a poor family...grew up...joined the military...got educated...worked hard...saved...didn't give in to the temptation for instant gratification...and ended up with enough to retire comfortably.

Both scenarios yield the exact same final answer...one is true...one is fantasy...one can be born out by observation...one can not. The fact that two stories yield the same answer does not make both true...the one that has no physical corroboration...and is the result of fanciful musing is suspect....no matter what the topic.

And the evidence that supports my position is every observation and measurement ever made...what is your evidence?

 

[IanC]

Energy has a pecking order. A joule of sunlight can accomplish work that a joule of IR cannot. What is the difference between the two equal amounts of energy? Entropy. Order/disorder. Even quantum jumps within an atom consume order while flipping back and forth between perfectly equal energy states. Entropy is always taking its vigorish. Energy may not be created or destroyed but the order of the universe is go

 

[SSDD]

Energy has a pecking order. A joule of sunlight can accomplish work that a joule of IR cannot. What is the difference between the two equal amounts of energy? Entropy. Order/disorder. Even quantum jumps within an atom consume order while flipping back and forth between perfectly equal energy states. Entropy is always taking its vigorish. Energy may not be created or destroyed but the order of the universe is go

Go on with your musing...and mental masturbation....and mind experiments till your hearts content...don't bother me with it....let me know when you have some actual observation, and measurement to support your belief in magic.

If you want me to get on board with you over how beautiful the emperor's new clothes are...stop telling me about them and show me his f'ing new clothes.

 

[IanC]

My method and your method give exactly the same final answer with respect to energy transfer. So how can you say the macroscopic data support only you, and not me?

I was born to a poor family...grew up...joined the military...got educated...won a 500 million dollar lottery...lost most of it and was left with enough to retire comfortably...

I was born to a poor family...grew up...joined the military...got educated...worked hard...saved...didn't give in to the temptation for instant gratification...and ended up with enough to retire comfortably.

Both scenarios yield the exact same final answer...one is true...one is fantasy...one can be born out by observation...one can not. The fact that two stories yield the same answer does not make both true...the one that has no physical corroboration...and is the result of fanciful musing is suspect....no matter what the topic.

And the evidence that supports my position is every observation and measurement ever made...what is your evidence?

My evidence is the same macroscopic evidence as yours. Plus the reasoning behind it.

Your claim that radiation stops and starts would reduce entropy. That can't happen without an outside power source to add order to the system.

 

[IanC]

Energy has a pecking order. A joule of sunlight can accomplish work that a joule of IR cannot. What is the difference between the two equal amounts of energy? Entropy. Order/disorder. Even quantum jumps within an atom consume order while flipping back and forth between perfectly equal energy states. Entropy is always taking its vigorish. Energy may not be created or destroyed but the order of the universe is go

Go on with your musing...and mental masturbation....and mind experiments till your hearts content...don't bother me with it....let me know when you have some actual observation, and measurement to support your belief in magic.

If you want me to get on board with you over how beautiful the emperor's new clothes are...stop telling me about them and show me his f'ing new clothes.

The SLoT

The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated systemcan only increase over time. It can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state (equilibrium) or undergoing a reversible process. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past.

Historically, the second law was an empirical finding that was accepted as an axiom of thermodynamic theory. Statistical thermodynamics, classical or quantum, explains the microscopic origin of the law

 

[SSDD]

The SLoT

The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated systemcan only increase over time. It can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state (equilibrium) or undergoing a reversible process. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past.

Historically, the second law was an empirical finding that was accepted as an axiom of thermodynamic theory. Statistical thermodynamics, classical or quantum, explains the microscopic origin of the law

All natural processes are irreversible...just more mind models without the first piece of actual evidence in support.

 

[IanC]

SSDD is one of those people who has a talking point, and then refuses to deviate, who is unwilling to discuss the matter at a deeper level.

He is also unwilling to apply the same standards for the burden of proof to the things he believes, as opposed to ideas he doesn't like. When he likes the measurements and data then it is proof, if he doesn't then it means we are being 'fooled by instrumentation'. When he likes a model, no matter how shabby or incomplete, it is proof. If a better model more accurately accounts for the measured data, and describes the reason behind the process, but disagrees with his model, well then it is mental masturbation.

Entropy is a real concept. It is the principle behind thermodynamics. SSDD'S bizarre interpretation of physics and the SLoT is incompatible with the process of entropy, therefore SSDD is wrong.

 

[IanC]

By the way, entropy may be a significant factor in why the climate models are wrong. The disordered low quality energy returning from the atmosphere is treated as equivalent to sunlight on a watt to watt basis. It isn't.

Bad analogy warning. 100kg rock, 10 10kg stones, or a 100kg of sand. Which causes more damage falling off a roof?

 

[westwall]

By the way, entropy may be a significant factor in why the climate models are wrong. The disordered low quality energy returning from the atmosphere is treated as equivalent to sunlight on a watt to watt basis. It isn't.

Bad analogy warning. 100kg rock, 10 10kg stones, or a 100kg of sand. Which causes more damage falling off a roof?

The reason why the models are wrong is because they are shit. They take few variables into the equation, and those they do use are wrong in almost all cases. They are not using CFD models and instead every model they use are self described as "simple". How on earth anyone thinks you can get useful results from simple models, that are trying to model the most complex engine in the world, is beyond me.

 

[IanC]

By the way, entropy may be a significant factor in why the climate models are wrong. The disordered low quality energy returning from the atmosphere is treated as equivalent to sunlight on a watt to watt basis. It isn't.

Bad analogy warning. 100kg rock, 10 10kg stones, or a 100kg of sand. Which causes more damage falling off a roof?

The reason why the models are wrong is because they are shit. They take few variables into the equation, and those they do use are wrong in almost all cases. They are not using CFD models and instead every model they use are self described as "simple". How on earth anyone thinks you can get useful results from simple models, that are trying to model the most complex engine in the world, is beyond me.

Yup. They focus on the simple (CO2) because they can't model the local effects of water. Even though water with it's multiple pathways swamps the effect of CO2.

 

[westwall]

By the way, entropy may be a significant factor in why the climate models are wrong. The disordered low quality energy returning from the atmosphere is treated as equivalent to sunlight on a watt to watt basis. It isn't.

Bad analogy warning. 100kg rock, 10 10kg stones, or a 100kg of sand. Which causes more damage falling off a roof?

The reason why the models are wrong is because they are shit. They take few variables into the equation, and those they do use are wrong in almost all cases. They are not using CFD models and instead every model they use are self described as "simple". How on earth anyone thinks you can get useful results from simple models, that are trying to model the most complex engine in the world, is beyond me.

Yup. They focus on the simple (CO2) because they can't model the local effects of water. Even though water with it's multiple pathways swamps the effect of CO2.

They can't even model the local effect of CO2! Every model they have created, has failed.