Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[Wuwei]

So you're saying that the lower energy (Pressure) can affect the higher (energy) pressure area and that there is a net exchange, That right? Even though the example makes a mockery of your logic are you standing by your net energy flow argument?

You will have to describe exactly what you are talking about. I have not said anything about tire pressure so I don't know what you are referring to.

You were one of the first people to hop on the Currency $ exchange as a great example of the net energy flow idea, correct?

Currency exchange, yes. Tire pressure, no.

You will have to describe exactly what you are talking about. I have not said anything about tire pressure so I don't know what you are referring to.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So you're saying that the lower energy (Pressure) can affect the higher (energy) pressure area and that there is a net exchange, That right? Even though the example makes a mockery of your logic are you standing by your net energy flow argument?

You will have to describe exactly what you are talking about. I have not said anything about tire pressure so I don't know what you are referring to.

You were one of the first people to hop on the Currency $ exchange as a great example of the net energy flow idea, correct?

Currency exchange, yes. Tire pressure, no.

You will have to describe exactly what you are talking about. I have not said anything about tire pressure so I don't know what you are referring to.

So you weren't agreeing that there's a net exchange to reach thermal equilibrium, that the cooler object heats the warmer one and that the currency example was a good way of showing that?

 

[IanC]

So you're saying that the lower energy (Pressure) can affect the higher (energy) pressure area and that there is a net exchange, That right? Even though the example makes a mockery of your logic are you standing by your net energy flow argument?

You will have to describe exactly what you are talking about. I have not said anything about tire pressure so I don't know what you are referring to.

You were one of the first people to hop on the Currency $ exchange as a great example of the net energy flow idea, correct?

Currency exchange, yes. Tire pressure, no.

You will have to describe exactly what you are talking about. I have not said anything about tire pressure so I don't know what you are referring to.

So you weren't agreeing that there's a net exchange to reach thermal equilibrium, that the cooler object heats the warmer one and that the currency example was a good way of showing that?

At no time does the cooler object ever give the warmer object more radiation than the warmer object is giving the cool one. That would be the necessary condition for the warm object to be 'heated'. The cooler object IS causing the warm object to cool less quickly though.

 

[Wuwei]

So you weren't agreeing that there's a net exchange to reach thermal equilibrium, that the cooler object heats the warmer one and that the currency example was a good way of showing that?

I agree with IanC above. Likewise the person starting with $1000 always gives more each minute to the person that starts with $500.

 

[IanC]

We need polarbear to do some calculations for us.

Take a round ball of carbon with a surface area of one metre squared, find the total heat content at zero Celcius, calculate the radiation emitted, then see what percentage it is of the total.

Then do it again for 100 Celcius. Just to see what a x^4 relationship looks like at a familiar temperature range.

 

[SSDD]

So you're saying that the lower energy (Pressure) can affect the higher (energy) pressure area and that there is a net exchange, That right? Even though the example makes a mockery of your logic are you standing by your net energy flow argument?

You will have to describe exactly what you are talking about. I have not said anything about tire pressure so I don't know what you are referring to.

You were one of the first people to hop on the Currency $ exchange as a great example of the net energy flow idea, correct?

Currency exchange, yes. Tire pressure, no.

You will have to describe exactly what you are talking about. I have not said anything about tire pressure so I don't know what you are referring to.

So you weren't agreeing that there's a net exchange to reach thermal equilibrium, that the cooler object heats the warmer one and that the currency example was a good way of showing that?

At no time does the cooler object ever give the warmer object more radiation than the warmer object is giving the cool one. That would be the necessary condition for the warm object to be 'heated'. The cooler object IS causing the warm object to cool less quickly though.

Energy doesn't move from cool to warm...not spontaneously anyway...so sayeth the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

[SSDD]

We need polarbear to do some calculations for us.

Take a round ball of carbon with a surface area of one metre squared, find the total heat content at zero Celcius, calculate the radiation emitted, then see what percentage it is of the total.

Then do it again for 100 Celcius. Just to see what a x^4 relationship looks like at a familiar temperature range.

What, you can't do it for yourself? I am going to guess that you are assuming that the carbon ball has an emissivity of 1.

We will assume the surroundings are -5C since the SB always assumes the radiator is radiating into cooler surroundings...spontaneous energy movement being a one way street and all...

when the ball is at 0C P=...22.485 wm^2

when the ball is at 100C P= 806.191 wm^2

If the ball is in a vacuum, not in the presence of any other matter, then at 0C P = 315.637wm^2

If the ball is in a vacuum, not in the presence of any other matter, then at 100C P= 1099.302 wm2

 

[IanC]

We need polarbear to do some calculations for us.

Take a round ball of carbon with a surface area of one metre squared, find the total heat content at zero Celcius, calculate the radiation emitted, then see what percentage it is of the total.

Then do it again for 100 Celcius. Just to see what a x^4 relationship looks like at a familiar temperature range.

What, you can't do it for yourself? I am going to guess that you are assuming that the carbon ball has an emissivity of 1.

We will assume the surroundings are -5C since the SB always assumes the radiator is radiating into cooler surroundings...spontaneous energy movement being a one way street and all...

when the ball is at 0C P=...22.485 wm^2

when the ball is at 100C P= 806.191 wm^2

If the ball is in a vacuum, not in the presence of any other matter, then at 0C P = 315.637wm^2

If the ball is in a vacuum, not in the presence of any other matter, then at 100C P= 1099.302 wm2

Hahahaha, I already know there is an online S-B calculator!

I asked for the total heat content so we could figure out what percentage the radiation was.

Off you go. Chop chop.

 

[SSDD]

Sure...just as soon as you explain how you think that is going to demonstrate two way energy flow...otherwise it is just another meaningless mental exercise that gets you no closer whatsoever to supporting your position..

 

[IanC]

...otherwise it is just another meaningless mental exercise ...

What a sad thing to say.

Do you really have so little curiosity that looking for patterns is meaningless?

My practically number free way of estimating things has come up with a ratio of 3 3/4 for the percentages, coming by two different pathways. But I am far too lazy to actually pick up a pencil and paper and produce a real estimate.

 

[SSDD]

...otherwise it is just another meaningless mental exercise ...

What a sad thing to say.

Do you really have so little curiosity that looking for patterns is meaningless?

My practically number free way of estimating things has come up with a ratio of 3 3/4 for the percentages, coming by two different pathways. But I am far too lazy to actually pick up a pencil and paper and produce a real estimate.

There is no greenhouse effect as claimed by cliamte science...calculating the heat content of a carbon ball isn't going to get you any closer to supporting a hypothesis that has already failed so miserably...

 

[IanC]

There is no greenhouse effect as claimed by cliamte science...calculating the heat content of a carbon ball isn't going to get you any closer to supporting a hypothesis that has already failed so miserably

I don't agree with the explanation given by consensus climate science either. But just because some parts are wrong that doesn't mean every part is wrong.

I don't agree with anything until it makes sense to me. When I am exposed to new information I incorporate it into my worldview. Sometimes it strengthens my position, sometimes it weakens it, sometimes it alters it.

I would like to know the percentage of radiation to heat content for a common substance, at a common size, for two common temperatures because it would give me a landmark to make other estimates. Information is good. You can't find patterns without data points. You can't interconnect patterns without coming at them from different directions.

 

[mamooth]

If you wanted to inflate a flat tire, starting at 0 pressure by hooking it to an air pump that generated 32psi per minute,

So, Frank can't do engineering either. But we knew that.

No pump is ever rated at "PSI per minute". That's because you don't know what it's pumping into. For an air pump, a big tire will take longer to inflate to a certain PSI than a small tire.

Pumps are usually rated at maximum PSI, and for flow rates when pumping against different output pressures.

In your example it would take much longer, perhaps infinity, as the pressure in the tire approached 32psi.

Frank has apparently never filled a tire with a small air pump, because that's exactly how it works. As the pressure in the tire goes up, the pump pumps more and more slowly.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you wanted to inflate a flat tire, starting at 0 pressure by hooking it to an air pump that generated 32psi per minute,

So, Frank can't do engineering either. But we knew that.

No pump is ever rated at "PSI per minute". That's because you don't know what it's pumping into. For an air pump, a big tire will take longer to inflate to a certain PSI than a small tire.

Pumps are usually rated at maximum PSI, and for flow rates when pumping against different output pressures.

In your example it would take much longer, perhaps infinity, as the pressure in the tire approached 32psi.

Frank has apparently never filled a tire with a small air pump, because that's exactly how it works. As the pressure in the tire goes up, the pump pumps more and more slowly.

I didn't realize I'd have to explain that the point was that it would take a minute to fill the flat to 32psi. You're too clever for your own good.

 

[SSDD]

There is no greenhouse effect as claimed by cliamte science...calculating the heat content of a carbon ball isn't going to get you any closer to supporting a hypothesis that has already failed so miserably

I don't agree with the explanation given by consensus climate science either. But just because some parts are wrong that doesn't mean every part is wrong.

When your hypothesis is flawed at its foundation, everything that comes after is flawed as well.

I don't agree with anything until it makes sense to me. When I am exposed to new information I incorporate it into my worldview. Sometimes it strengthens my position, sometimes it weakens it, sometimes it alters it.

The problem with that statement, in your case, is that energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm makes sense to you...and everything you build on that flawed assumption will be wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no greenhouse effect as claimed by cliamte science...calculating the heat content of a carbon ball isn't going to get you any closer to supporting a hypothesis that has already failed so miserably

I don't agree with the explanation given by consensus climate science either. But just because some parts are wrong that doesn't mean every part is wrong.

When your hypothesis is flawed at its foundation, everything that comes after is flawed as well.

I don't agree with anything until it makes sense to me. When I am exposed to new information I incorporate it into my worldview. Sometimes it strengthens my position, sometimes it weakens it, sometimes it alters it.

The problem with that statement, in your case, is that energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm makes sense to you...and everything you build on that flawed assumption will be wrong.

The problem with that statement, in your case, is that energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm makes sense to you...


Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

Is the energy moving from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings.....spontaneous?

 

[SSDD]

There is no greenhouse effect as claimed by cliamte science...calculating the heat content of a carbon ball isn't going to get you any closer to supporting a hypothesis that has already failed so miserably

I don't agree with the explanation given by consensus climate science either. But just because some parts are wrong that doesn't mean every part is wrong.

When your hypothesis is flawed at its foundation, everything that comes after is flawed as well.

I don't agree with anything until it makes sense to me. When I am exposed to new information I incorporate it into my worldview. Sometimes it strengthens my position, sometimes it weakens it, sometimes it alters it.

The problem with that statement, in your case, is that energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm makes sense to you...and everything you build on that flawed assumption will be wrong.

The problem with that statement, in your case, is that energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm makes sense to you...


Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

Is the energy moving from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings.....spontaneous?

Absolute bullshit...they are calculating a human radiating in a vacuum devoid of other matter...apply the SB equation for a radiator radiating into cooler surroundings and look for P...if you are unable to do the math, under the circumstances described above, the human body would be radiating about 134 watts...there is no back radiation...there is no net energy flow..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no greenhouse effect as claimed by cliamte science...calculating the heat content of a carbon ball isn't going to get you any closer to supporting a hypothesis that has already failed so miserably

I don't agree with the explanation given by consensus climate science either. But just because some parts are wrong that doesn't mean every part is wrong.

When your hypothesis is flawed at its foundation, everything that comes after is flawed as well.

I don't agree with anything until it makes sense to me. When I am exposed to new information I incorporate it into my worldview. Sometimes it strengthens my position, sometimes it weakens it, sometimes it alters it.

The problem with that statement, in your case, is that energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm makes sense to you...and everything you build on that flawed assumption will be wrong.

The problem with that statement, in your case, is that energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm makes sense to you...


Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

Is the energy moving from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings.....spontaneous?

Absolute bullshit...they are calculating a human radiating in a vacuum devoid of other matter...apply the SB equation for a radiator radiating into cooler surroundings and look for P...if you are unable to do the math, under the circumstances described above, the human body would be radiating about 134 watts...there is no back radiation...there is no net energy flow..

they are calculating a human radiating in a vacuum devoid of other matter...

Of course they are, because that's how the SB calculation works.

under the circumstances described above, the human body would be radiating about 134 watts...

Right, because under your theory, the surroundings at 296 K emit just as much energy as they'd emit at 0 K.
Zero.

there is no back radiation...there is no net energy flow..

The walls, ceiling, furniture isn't allowed to radiate?
It's weird that Science would get something so simple, so wrong.
Along with everyone else Wuwei cited, who all discussed matter emitting and absorbing at the same time.

Besides you and your unique interpretation of the 2nd Law and SB,
no one else thinks radiation only flows one way.

 

[IanC]

I just spent 15 minutes googling the definition of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

I saw a whole lot on entropy, some history on who originally defined the SLoT and why, examples of what happens, equations that give quantities and qualities of the degeneration of ordered conditions to disordered ones, etc.

I didn't find a definition similar to the one that SSDD misinterprets to say that photons are forbidden to be emitted in certain directions.

I hadn't realized just how misdirected and off topic his references to the SLoT are.

 

[SSDD]

And the second law still states that energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm...and that is all that I have said...the rest of the stuff like photons being forbidden to do this or that is all made up by you wack jobs...my position is only, and has always been that energy will not move spontaneously from cool to warm..nothing more.

all the rest of that crap is nothing more than straw men you guys erected to rail against.