how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[itfitzme]

A simple replicable 200+ year old experiment proving what everybody but you knows. That you are simply wrong.

http://www2.ups.edu/faculty/jcevans/Pictet's experiment.pdf

Pictet's experiment? Interesting choice since it proves my case as well as any other. I can only suspect that you didn't understand his conclusions since you offer it up as evidence that I am wrong.

Pictet wasn't of the opinion that cold existed in and of itself but was instead an indication of negative heat, or the "privation" of heat. He believed that warm objects created a sort of tension in the air and the "heated air" around his thermometer would develop the same tension as the thermometer and would, by some mechanism reject any radiation from the thermometer.

In essence he described a standing wave between the air and the thermometer in which they essentially cancelled each other out...ie equilibrium.

He then took a flask of cold water or snow and placed it at the focal point of a concave mirror and a thermometer at the focal point of another mirror. As predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the temperature or the thermometer began to drop as it was radiating heat to the cooler flask. Interestingly, when the thermometer was placed somewhere close to, but not at the focal point of the mirror, the temperature appeared to remain unchanged...probably due to the limits of his thermometer. Prictet's experiment demonstrated one way energy flow from warm to cold.

That experiment brings to mind an experiment that you can perform in your own back yard for a minimal expense that will demonstrate undeniably that backradiation is not happening. If you like, I can IM to you a simple set of plans for a home made solar oven that I built myself for about 5 dollars. (I had some of the materials already in my workshop) If you have none of them, I doubt that you could spend more than 25 dollars.

Construct your solar oven. Be sure you have correctly identified the focal point. Then in the evening, point your solar oven at open sky. Place a thermometer at the focal point and you will see the temperature drop to well below ambient, precisely as the Second Law predicts. In fact, if the ambient temperature is 45 degrees F or less, you will see ice form in a bowl of water set at the focal point of your oven. If backradiation sufficient to warm the surface of the earth were actually happening, you would not see ice form when the temperature was 13 degrees above freezing.

You can point your oven at open sky during the daytime as well and again, you will see the temperature drop below the ambient temperature. Again, if backradiation were happening, then you would not see a temperature drop as your oven would be collecting and focusing the backradiation to a specific point which would cause the temperature to increase.

Pictet's experiment proves my point and achieved results that were predicted by the Second Law. The thermometer in the focal plane of a mirror reflecting a cold flask dropped in temperature...it did not remain in equlibrium with the room and it did not increase. The Second Law predicts that it would cool and that is exactly what it did. One way transfer of energy.

So tell me, which of the laws of physics do you believe predicts a greenhouse effect as it has been described by climate science.



He essen

What it proved of course was that the 32 degree F flask radiated heat that only had one way to warm the warmer themometer. Radiantly. It was an exact replica in that regard of GHGs radiantly warming the earth in spite of the fact that in most cases their absolute temperature is lower than earths.

Is that the last obstacle in the way of you understanding and accepting AGW?

Yeah, I'm not seeing it. Clearly, the body of science demonstrates that classical thermodynamic principles apply to macroscopic quantities, this was demonstrated by Einstein. And, classical thermo remains a solid science for macro systems. Statistical mechanics has since replaced it at a microscopic level.

While my performance in classical thermo was above par, for one semester, I make no claims to having retained a solid recollection of it's application beyond having spent many an hour thumbing through tables of enthalpy and entropy.

It is my understanding that, below the microscopic level, there remains the philosophical consideration that it still holds, to some degree. It seems, though, that there is no case for revoking it in the context of energy transition between microscopic particles.

At any moment in time, any molecule may emit a photon of such wavelength or energy that is consistent with the electron orbitals. The probability of doing so is dictated by quantum mechanics, not thermodynamics. And as spooky action at a distance applies to only particles that originated at the same place, at the same time, there is no mechanism that forbids a colder molecule from emiting a photon towards a warmer molecule. And as I am unaware of any principle that results in the photon carrying any information from whence it came, there seems no mechanism that will forbid the warmer molecule from absorbing that photon.

As such, it remains clear that a cold body does emit radiation towards a warmer body which does absorb it. All molecules, in a larger body, are not at identical energy levels. As such, the instantaneous temperature of that warmer body will increase. Never the less, as it does, it will then emit more radiation. Just as the instantaneous temperature of the colder body decreased and it will, however momentarily, emit less.

So, while, should such a refined measuring apperatus be possible, we would find that the warmer and colder bodies do not reach equilibrium in a direct and single directional manner, but rather, wiggle towards equilibrium, in a random walk that is analogous to the random walk of Brownian motion.

Still, I can think of no macroscopic device which would reveal this microscopic process as all macroscopic measurements are subject to thermal noise and it is, in fact, this random walk that accounts for the thermal noise itself.

Perhaps you are seeing something from the experiment that I am not, something that yields the logical conclusion that heat is being tramsfered, unmistakably, from the cold flask to the warmer thermometer. I am not seeing it.

Perhaps a page and paragraph. Viewing an 8-1/2 x 11" page, on a mobile, is frustrating my usual skill to absorb whole pages.

 

[itfitzme]

You are absolutely correct. *Two systems at thermal disequilibrium do transfer instantaneous energy in both directions. Thermodynamic laws are a description of the statistcal averages for large numbers of particle.

If that is true...proven by experiment and observation...then why are the laws of thermodynamics written in absolute terms? *You keep claiming that the laws don't actually mean what their statements say, but can offer no actual evidence that the absolute statement of the laws has ever been proven wrong.

Theory and hypothesis do not overturn law. *Till the law is overturned, I am afraid that you must live with it or be an obviousl goof in claiming that a fundamenal natural law is somehow mistaken, or doesn't mean what it's statement says.

I am actually searching back to find the beginning of this thermo issue, and it's application within the context of AWG.

I ran across this post and stopped to respond.

The issue you are having with thermodynamics is not recognizing the context within which the experents were performed and the laws devised.

All laws of physics are in the context of the experiment from which it is devised. *Every experiment has a setup which creates a context for the results. *It includes the data set and the experimental error that is the outcome of both the setup and the measurements.

As the laws are extracted from an initial experiment that is able to ellucidate that law. *It then gets further applied in new, more refined, and often more complicated experiments. The law is *generalization of all the experiments. It is lifted from the experiments and put into some undergraduate textbook with a section or chapter, at the beginning, that clearly outlines the nature of the system to which the laws apply. *For physicists and engineers, even students, the context has become so well ingrained, that they usually will site the law without referencing the context. To them, the context is so fundamental, that they simply never invoke the principle out of context. *And, as such, it can be a bit confounding to be presented with an "executive summary", like Wikipedia, as the context gets dropped.

The principles of thermodynamics originated out of the observations made of large systems, consisting of macro quantities of particles. *It works for air conditioners, refrigerators, steam locomotives, for sure. It works for large, and well defined, closed systems.

It isn't applicable at the microscopic level, at least not directly. *It isn't applicable for open systems. *The system must be well defined to invoke the principles of thermodynamics. *Once the system has been correctly defined, then the laws become absolute. *And one of those system definitions is that we are discussing the net energy flow for gross volumes of particles, within and between the boundaries of the well defined system or systems. Thermodynamics says nothing about what happens at a microscopic level, to individual particles, over short time scales.

No thermo laws are broken by a cold molecule radiating energy to a hotter molecule. *At an moment in time, they both have some probability of radiating energy in whatever direction they may. *It is an open system. *The cold one will likely radiate energy into free space. It may radiate energy at the hot one which absorbes the photon. On average, over the long term, the hot one will radiate more often than the cold one.

In a perfectly insullated system, with two large bodies, one hot and one cold, the net energy will be from hot to cold. *But at any particular moment, given any two pair of hot and cold molecules, it is simply a bet on what will occur.

Context is everything.

 

[westwall]

Ahhh, the fraudsters love their propaganda.... Flog away, you just warm my heart with all of your BS...


"Recent years' slowdown in global warming completely ignored by networks 92 climate change stories in 2013.

Stories citing experts or the latest studies promoting alarmism get covered more than 8 times as often as critical experts and studies."


"Just since Jan. 1, 2013, ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programs have aired 92 stories about "climate change" or "global warming." Not a single one of those stories mentioned the "warming plateau" reported even by The New York Times on June 10. The Times wrote, "The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace." Even though the Times piece wasn't published until June 10, a warming slowdown had been reported by foreign media outlets in November 2012, and by The Economist online in March, Reuters in April and BBC online in May of 2013."

Networks Do 92 Climate Change Stories; Fail to Mention 'Lull' in Warming All 92 Times - WSJ.com

 

[itfitzme]

There is no warming platueu. It is a delusion of your cherry picking mind. What you think you see has no statistical significance.

We can go back throught the recent temp record and find multiple instances of a "flattening" out of the temperature rise. And this is exactly why it is insignificant in terms of the long term trend.

And I can guarantee that an honest statistical evaluation will show no significance. All the short term trend yields is "eh!".

Any other interpretation simply displays ignorance or desperate disengenousness.

 

[itfitzme]

The eskimos have a nifty trick for living in the extreme cold. Out in the elements, they would freeze to death. So they build an Igloo out of ice. Inside this wall and ceiling of frozen water, the temperature rises to be warmer than would other wise be if a) theu were not in it or b) they were out in the open environment. Frozen ice traps heat.

 

[SSDD]

What it proved of course was that the 32 degree F flask radiated heat that effected the thermometer.

You really don't get this do you? The energy, as predicted by the Second Law radiated from the thermometer to the cold flask. Pictet was of the opiniont that energy only flowed one way as cold, to him was an absence of heat and therefore whatever heat was available would flow into the cold area to releive the "tension".

Radiantly. It's all covered in the pdf. You have to read the whole thing. If you are really interested. It was an exact replica in that regard of GHGs radiantly warming the earth in spite of the fact that in most cases their absolute temperature is lower than earths.

I read it, and more importantly I understood it. As predicted by the second law, the thermometer, when placed in the focal point of the convex mirror radiated to the cold flask. One way energy transfer from a low entropy state to a higher entropy state.

Is that the last obstacle in the way of you understanding and accepting AGW?

With this, you have well and truely exposed yourself as someone who doesn't have a clue. The thermometer behaved precisely as the Second Law, which predicts energy movement in one direction from warm to cool and you think it proves your point. All your pretended education just flew out the window with your making such a very basic mistake.

Thanks for saving me the time.

 

[SSDD]

*Or it could be that I just consider it entertaining to use SSaDhD, Walleyed, Slacksack, and Flatulance.

Sure...tell yourself that all you like. Mental masturbation, after all, is your thing. People rarely, if ever, realise the true reasons for what they do...they tell themselves this and that and in most cases, especially with the uneducated who are incapable of serious self examination, actually believe what they tell themselves. You are no exception.

Like Freud said, "Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar." And as correlation requires some demonstrated laboritory level causality to serve as proof, any illusory correlation, in this context, means nothing.

Freud is no longer taken seriously by anyone who begins to grasp psychology. He, and his hypotheses were proven wrong time after time after time. Interesting that you would try and defend yourself with a failure.

The ice cores do not change the correlationnal causality if current anomoly vs CO2. CO2 is the same in nature as it is in the laboritory. That CO2 absorbes IR in the laboritory demonstrates that it absorbes IR in nature. This is as factual for the current record as it is for the paleo record.

Of course CO2 absorbs IR, which it then emits at a very slightly lower wavelength equal to the energy it took to produce a photon. No energy is stored and it is always emitted in a direction towards less entropy just as a dropped stone always falls in the direction the forces at work demand that it fall.

My obzervation is that you cannot get past this lack of understanding of how correlation functions in scientific proof. Lacking that, nothing that follows will be of any value. You need to focus on that.

My observation is that you will ignore stone cold proof that backradiation is not happening if it challenges your faith. Again, explain why, when a solar oven is pointed at open sky, the temperature at the focal point invariably drops when if backradation were happening, the temperature at that focal point would increase.

 

[westwall]

There is no warming platueu. It is a delusion of your cherry picking mind. What you think you see has no statistical significance.

We can go back throught the recent temp record and find multiple instances of a "flattening" out of the temperature rise. And this is exactly why it is insignificant in terms of the long term trend.

And I can guarantee that an honest statistical evaluation will show no significance. All the short term trend yields is "eh!".

Any other interpretation simply displays ignorance or desperate disengenousness.

Oh no. I got this direct from one of your leading high priests. You know Dr. James Hansen, head of GISS and arguably the father of modern AGW "theory". You know your dear leader. This is what he said....

Now he only admits to a decade, while the IPCC says 17 years and the UK's Met Office stipulates 16 years, but these are FROM YOUR SIDE SILLY PERSON.


If you've got a problem take it up with your anti-science denying leaders. Not us.....


Global Temperature Update Through 2012
15 January 2013
J. Hansen, M. Sato, R. Ruedy
Summary. Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina. Global temperature thus continues at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of extreme warm anomalies. The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.
An update through 2012 of our global analysis1 (Fig. 1) reveals 2012 as having practically the same temperature as 2011, significantly lower than the maximum reached in 2010. These short-term global fluctuations are associated principally with natural oscillations of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures summarized in the Nino index in the lower part of the figure. 2012 is nominally the 9th warmest year, but it is indistinguishable in rank with several other years, as shown by the error estimate for comparing nearby years. Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.


http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

 

[westwall]

The eskimos have a nifty trick for living in the extreme cold. Out in the elements, they would freeze to death. So they build an Igloo out of ice. Inside this wall and ceiling of frozen water, the temperature rises to be warmer than would other wise be if a) theu were not in it or b) they were out in the open environment. Frozen ice traps heat.

You really don't have a fucking clue do you... Wow, your level of ignorance is AMAZING! You might want to look up "dead air space" insulation some time there nimrod.

 

[SSDD]

Ahhh, the fraudsters love their propaganda.... Flog away, you just warm my heart with all of your BS...


"Recent years' slowdown in global warming completely ignored by networks 92 climate change stories in 2013.

Stories citing experts or the latest studies promoting alarmism get covered more than 8 times as often as critical experts and studies."


"Just since Jan. 1, 2013, ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programs have aired 92 stories about "climate change" or "global warming." Not a single one of those stories mentioned the "warming plateau" reported even by The New York Times on June 10. The Times wrote, "The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace." Even though the Times piece wasn't published until June 10, a warming slowdown had been reported by foreign media outlets in November 2012, and by The Economist online in March, Reuters in April and BBC online in May of 2013."

Networks Do 92 Climate Change Stories; Fail to Mention 'Lull' in Warming All 92 Times - WSJ.com

An implosion is damned near as much fun to watch as an explosion isn't it. Notice how the left hand tries to comfort and convince the right hand that all is well and he is correct even though he stands in oppostion to the most fundamental law of nature.

You have to love it...don't you?

 

[itfitzme]

*Or it could be that I just consider it entertaining to use SSaDhD, Walleyed, Slacksack, and Flatulance.

Sure...tell yourself that all you like. Mental masturbation, after all, is your thing. People rarely, if ever, realise the true reasons for what they do...they tell themselves this and that and in most cases, especially with the uneducated who are incapable of serious self examination, actually believe what they tell themselves. You are no exception.

Like Freud said, "Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar." And as correlation requires some demonstrated laboritory level causality to serve as proof, any illusory correlation, in this context, means nothing.

Freud is no longer taken seriously by anyone who begins to grasp psychology. He, and his hypotheses were proven wrong time after time after time. Interesting that you would try and defend yourself with a failure.

The ice cores do not change the correlationnal causality if current anomoly vs CO2. CO2 is the same in nature as it is in the laboritory. That CO2 absorbes IR in the laboritory demonstrates that it absorbes IR in nature. This is as factual for the current record as it is for the paleo record.

Of course CO2 absorbs IR, which it then emits at a very slightly lower wavelength equal to the energy it took to produce a photon. No energy is stored and it is always emitted in a direction towards less entropy just as a dropped stone always falls in the direction the forces at work demand that it fall.

My obzervation is that you cannot get past this lack of understanding of how correlation functions in scientific proof. Lacking that, nothing that follows will be of any value. You need to focus on that.

My observation is that you will ignore stone cold proof that backradiation is not happening if it challenges your faith. Again, explain why, when a solar oven is pointed at open sky, the temperature at the focal point invariably drops when if backradation were happening, the temperature at that focal point would increase.

And yet you invoke the concept of defense mechanism. You can't have it both ways. If you want to claim defence mechanisms, you accept Freud, at least in that part. If you want to reject Freud, as a whole, then you can't invoke the concept of defense mechanism.

Prove backradiation is not happening.

I don't even need to invoke any principles beyond simple correlation of temp to anom, solar, etc, to get that AWG is correct. This is perfectly correct without bothering to detail the specific mechanism.

 

[SSDD]

My obzervation is that you cannot get past this lack of understanding of how correlation functions in scientific proof. Lacking that, nothing that follows will be of any value. You need to focus on that.

It is your lack of understanding that clouds your ability to make accurate observations.

And yet you invoke the concept of defence mechanism. You can't have it both ways. If you want to claim defence mechanisms, you accept Freud, at least in that part. If you want to reject Freud, as a whole, then you can't invoke the concept of defense mechanism.

The defense meachanism you exhibit is a product of long research in modern psychology not a throwback to Freud. Make up whatever lie you wish to tell yourself and continue to try and convince yourself that I don't make you feel inadequate and intimidated. Expend more energy fabricating new twists on my name and demonstrate in publich that I intimidate you, or don't and admit that I am right, and have intimidated you into not fucking with my screen name again. You lose either way. It harkens to a knight's gambit on a chess board. In common terms, you have brought a knife to an intellectual gunfight.

Prove backradiation is not happening.

Easy enough...I already laid the groundwork. As I have stated, and offered to provide you with a set of inexpensive to build plans for a solar oven that proves behond question that backradiation is not happening, and you provided the foundation, thank you very much.

Point a solar oven at clear sky, place a thermometer or bowl of water at its focal point and you will see a marked decrease in temperature. If the ambient temperature is 45F or less, you will actually see ice form in a bowl of water. If backradiation were happening, the solar oven would collect it and focus it to a point...the focal point. If backradiation were happening, the temperature at that focal point would remain at ambient temperature or climb some unspecified temperature above the ambient temperature as claimed by the greenhouse effect hupothesis.

Now here is where you have painted yourself slap dab into a corner. You referened Prictet's experiment which is essentially the same as my solar oven experiment. The focal point of Prictet's mirror was reflecting the cold flask and the focal point of my solar oven is reflecting the cold sky. In Prictet's experiment, the temperature of the thermometer dropped when it was placed in the focal point of the concave mirror which was reflecting the cold flask. In my experiment, the temperature of an object (thermometer or bowl of water) drops when it is placed in the focal point of the solar oven (concave mirror) which is reflecting the cold sky.

We both know that the cold isn't radiating heat because the temperature drops. We know that what is actually happening is that the thermometer, or bowl of water in either experiment is radiating heat towards the cold flask, or cold atmosphere. The key to understanding the Prictet's experiment or my solar oven experiment is the focal point. In Prictet's experiment, when the thermometer was placed near the focal point, but not in it, there was no temperature change. This is because the energy transfer could only happen if both the cold flask and the thermometer shared the connection of the focal point. In my solar oven experiment, if the thermometer or bowl of water are not placed in the focal point, no decrease of temperature happens. The water or thermometer remains at ambient becuse no shared connection exists at the focal point.

OK are you ready?....here is the kicker. In Prictet's experiment, you claim that the cold flask was radiating heat which caused the temperature of the thermometer to drop. My solar oven is essentially Prictet's experiment except the concave mirror is pointed at the sly collecting what you call radiation from the sky.

Are you ready? Here it comes....If the sky is, as you claim, radiating "cold heat" towards the earth, and that is why we see a marked drop in ambient temperature at the focal point of the mirror which is aimed at the cold sky...how then does this "cold heat" which causes the temperature on a thermometer to drop, or ice to form in water when the ambient temperature is 45F or less cause warming.

I don't even need to invoke any principles beyond simple correlation of temp to anom, solar, etc, to get that AWG is correct. This is perfectly correct without bothering to detail the specific mechanism.

Of course you don't invoke the laws of physics...that is what people who have valid hypotheses do. If the laws of physics support and, in fact, predict, phenomena akin to those claimed by the hypothesis, then one can be pretty sure that one is at least on the right track.

If, on the other hand, one can not invoke at least one law of physics that at least supports, if not predicts phenomena akin to those claimed by the hypothesis, then those who actually understand science know that a hypothesis is on shaky ground to say the least....if the proponents of that hypothesis find that they can not even bring themselves to quote a law of physics that speaks directly to their hypothesis, then it is pretty clear that the hypothesis is dead, even if it doesn't know it yet. If one finds themselves actively avoiding any real discussion of a fundamental law of physics that speaks directly to their hypothesis...one can only shake one's head in pity for the poor schmoe.

 

[westwall]

*Or it could be that I just consider it entertaining to use SSaDhD, Walleyed, Slacksack, and Flatulance.

Sure...tell yourself that all you like. Mental masturbation, after all, is your thing. People rarely, if ever, realise the true reasons for what they do...they tell themselves this and that and in most cases, especially with the uneducated who are incapable of serious self examination, actually believe what they tell themselves. You are no exception.



Freud is no longer taken seriously by anyone who begins to grasp psychology. He, and his hypotheses were proven wrong time after time after time. Interesting that you would try and defend yourself with a failure.




Of course CO2 absorbs IR, which it then emits at a very slightly lower wavelength equal to the energy it took to produce a photon. No energy is stored and it is always emitted in a direction towards less entropy just as a dropped stone always falls in the direction the forces at work demand that it fall.

My obzervation is that you cannot get past this lack of understanding of how correlation functions in scientific proof. Lacking that, nothing that follows will be of any value. You need to focus on that.

My observation is that you will ignore stone cold proof that backradiation is not happening if it challenges your faith. Again, explain why, when a solar oven is pointed at open sky, the temperature at the focal point invariably drops when if backradation were happening, the temperature at that focal point would increase.

And yet you invoke the concept of defence mechanism. You can't have it both ways. If you want to claim defence mechanisms, you accept Freud, at least in that part. If you want to reject Freud, as a whole, then you can't invoke the concept of defense mechanism.

Prove backradiation is not happening.

I don't even need to invoke any principles beyond simple correlation of temp to anom, solar, etc, to get that AWG is correct. This is perfectly correct without bothering to detail the specific mechanism.

As it is quite apparent that you have no clue how the null hypothesis works I will enlighten you. You have made the claim that back radiation is the source of your magical warming. That means it is YOU WHO HAS TO PROVE IT!

It is veeeeerry informative how the mind of the fraudsters works...or how it doesn't work, that they are attempting to flip science, and the scientific method, completely over on its head in an attempt to save their collective asses.

 

[westwall]

My obzervation is that you cannot get past this lack of understanding of how correlation functions in scientific proof. Lacking that, nothing that follows will be of any value. You need to focus on that.

It is your lack of understanding that clouds your ability to make accurate observations.

And yet you invoke the concept of defence mechanism. You can't have it both ways. If you want to claim defence mechanisms, you accept Freud, at least in that part. If you want to reject Freud, as a whole, then you can't invoke the concept of defense mechanism.

The defense meachanism you exhibit is a product of long research in modern psychology not a throwback to Freud. Make up whatever lie you wish to tell yourself and continue to try and convince yourself that I don't make you feel inadequate and intimidated. Expend more energy fabricating new twists on my name and demonstrate in publich that I intimidate you, or don't and admit that I am right, and have intimidated you into not fucking with my screen name again. You lose either way. It harkens to a knight's gambit on a chess board. In common terms, you have brought a knife to an intellectual gunfight.

Prove backradiation is not happening.

Easy enough...I already laid the groundwork. As I have stated, and offered to provide you with a set of inexpensive to build plans, a solar oven proves that backradiation is not happening, and you provided the foundation.

Point a solar oven at clear sky, place a thermometer or bowl of water at its focal point and you will see a marked decrease in temperature. If the ambient temperature is 45F or less, you will actually see ice form in a bowl of water. If backradiation were happening, the solar oven would collect it and focus it to a point...the focal point. If backradiation were happening, the temperature at that focal point would remain at ambient temperature or climb some unspecified temperature above the ambient temperature as claimed by the greenhouse effect hupothesis.

Now here is where you have painted yourself slap dab into a corner. You referened Prictet's experiment which is essentially the same as my solar oven experiment. The focal point of Prictet's mirror was reflecting the cold flask and the focal point of my solar oven is reflecting the cold sky. In Prictet's experiment, the temperature of the thermometer dropped when it was placed in the focal point of the concave mirror which was reflecting the cold flask. In my experiment, the temperature of an object (thermometer or bowl of water) drops when it is placed in the focal point of the solar oven (concave mirror) which is reflecting the cold sky.

We both know that the cold isn't radiating heat because the temperature drops. We know that what is actually happening is that the thermometer, or bowl of water in either experiment is radiating heat towards the cold flask, or cold atmosphere. The key to understanding the Prictet's experiment or my solar oven experiment is the focal point. In Prictet's experiment, when the thermometer was placed near the focal point, but not in it, there was no temperature change. This is because the energy transfer could only happen if both the cold flask and the thermometer shared the connection of the focal point. In my solar oven experiment, if the thermometer or bowl of water are not placed in the focal point, no decrease of temperature happens. The water or thermometer remains at ambient becuse no shared connection exists at the focal point.

OK are you ready?....here is the kicker. In Prictet's experiment, you claim that the cold flask was radiating heat which caused the temperature of the thermometer to drop. My solar oven is essentially Prictet's experiment except the concave mirror is pointed at the sly collecting what you call radiation from the sky.

Are you ready? Here it comes....If the sky is, as you claim, radiating "cold heat" towards the earth, and that is why we see a marked drop in ambient temperature at the focal point of the mirror which is aimed at the cold sky...how then does this "cold heat" which causes the temperature on a thermometer to drop, or ice to form in water when the ambient temperature is 45F or less cause warming.

I don't even need to invoke any principles beyond simple correlation of temp to anom, solar, etc, to get that AWG is correct. This is perfectly correct without bothering to detail the specific mechanism.

[/QUOTE]





Don't waste your time trying to educate these morons. Merely post that which is needed to demonstrate their total lack of intellect and honesty and move on. You beat the moles back down their rat holes faster that way.

 

[SSDD]

My obzervation is that you cannot get past this lack of understanding of how correlation functions in scientific proof. Lacking that, nothing that follows will be of any value. You need to focus on that.

It is your lack of understanding that clouds your ability to make accurate observations.



The defense meachanism you exhibit is a product of long research in modern psychology not a throwback to Freud. Make up whatever lie you wish to tell yourself and continue to try and convince yourself that I don't make you feel inadequate and intimidated. Expend more energy fabricating new twists on my name and demonstrate in publich that I intimidate you, or don't and admit that I am right, and have intimidated you into not fucking with my screen name again. You lose either way. It harkens to a knight's gambit on a chess board. In common terms, you have brought a knife to an intellectual gunfight.

Prove backradiation is not happening.

Easy enough...I already laid the groundwork. As I have stated, and offered to provide you with a set of inexpensive to build plans, a solar oven proves that backradiation is not happening, and you provided the foundation.

Point a solar oven at clear sky, place a thermometer or bowl of water at its focal point and you will see a marked decrease in temperature. If the ambient temperature is 45F or less, you will actually see ice form in a bowl of water. If backradiation were happening, the solar oven would collect it and focus it to a point...the focal point. If backradiation were happening, the temperature at that focal point would remain at ambient temperature or climb some unspecified temperature above the ambient temperature as claimed by the greenhouse effect hupothesis.

Now here is where you have painted yourself slap dab into a corner. You referened Prictet's experiment which is essentially the same as my solar oven experiment. The focal point of Prictet's mirror was reflecting the cold flask and the focal point of my solar oven is reflecting the cold sky. In Prictet's experiment, the temperature of the thermometer dropped when it was placed in the focal point of the concave mirror which was reflecting the cold flask. In my experiment, the temperature of an object (thermometer or bowl of water) drops when it is placed in the focal point of the solar oven (concave mirror) which is reflecting the cold sky.

We both know that the cold isn't radiating heat because the temperature drops. We know that what is actually happening is that the thermometer, or bowl of water in either experiment is radiating heat towards the cold flask, or cold atmosphere. The key to understanding the Prictet's experiment or my solar oven experiment is the focal point. In Prictet's experiment, when the thermometer was placed near the focal point, but not in it, there was no temperature change. This is because the energy transfer could only happen if both the cold flask and the thermometer shared the connection of the focal point. In my solar oven experiment, if the thermometer or bowl of water are not placed in the focal point, no decrease of temperature happens. The water or thermometer remains at ambient becuse no shared connection exists at the focal point.

OK are you ready?....here is the kicker. In Prictet's experiment, you claim that the cold flask was radiating heat which caused the temperature of the thermometer to drop. My solar oven is essentially Prictet's experiment except the concave mirror is pointed at the sly collecting what you call radiation from the sky.

Are you ready? Here it comes....If the sky is, as you claim, radiating "cold heat" towards the earth, and that is why we see a marked drop in ambient temperature at the focal point of the mirror which is aimed at the cold sky...how then does this "cold heat" which causes the temperature on a thermometer to drop, or ice to form in water when the ambient temperature is 45F or less cause warming.

I don't even need to invoke any principles beyond simple correlation of temp to anom, solar, etc, to get that AWG is correct. This is perfectly correct without bothering to detail the specific mechanism.

Don't waste your time trying to educate these morons. Merely post that which is needed to demonstrate their total lack of intellect and honesty and move on. You beat the moles back down their rat holes faster that way.

That really wasn't for his benefit. Even though he knows that he has effectively lost the debate based on hard, observable, repeatble evidence, he isn't grown up enough to admit it. That tedious explanation, and observable demonstration was for those who might be reading who haven't engaged the debate. It poses insurmountable obstacles for those who believe in backradiation. If backradiation were happeing, then the temperature of anything in that focal point would increase.

If as he says that the atmosphere is radiating "cold heat", which demonstrably causes the temperature to fall at the focal point of the solar oven pointed at clear sky, then such "cold heat" can not possibly be causing warming any more than it causes the temperature of a thermometer placed at that focal point to rise or ice not to form on water at that same focal point at ambient temperatures up to 13F higher than freezing.

A new law should be written regarding giving a fool enough rope to hang himself with...he will invariably do it.

 

[itfitzme]

[MENTION=23872]ssa[/MENTION]DhD

This may help you.

I simply don't read the majority of your posts. You simply are not important enough. *I have you on ignore, so all I see is that you have posted.

*I will read some of your post if it is in the context of someone else responding to you. *I may, if I get bored, look at one. I do so as sometimes I find that I discover something new in the process of finding you are wrong.

I was searching backwards, out of boredom, to find where the whole thermo thing got started. It didn't take long to find some gross error to reply to. *You present so many examples of what not to do. It is impossible to keep up.

Now, you will find that, before I ever used SSaDhD, or moved from objective response to saying something about you, was after you had used the second person pronoun, in a derogatory fashion, most likely directed at me, possibly towards someone else who had presented an objective idea. *Either way, you were measured immediately and found lacking.

I measure things objectively. *

Slacksack has been measured and as he has no clue as to photosynthesis, nothing he says is relevant until he figures that out. *

Oddballs has an information entropy so low that the air conditioners, for the USMB servers, expend less energy everytime he posts. *The more he posts, the cooler the servers get. *If he were to post enough, the harddrives would crystalize.

**If we adjust the concept of information entropy such that incorrect information is less than one and correct info is greater than one, we have a measure that is consistent with the context of Shannon's idea in that the absolute value is the same, more information is higher entropy, higher energy, higher randomness.

That said, unlike OddBalls, who consistently posts zero info, your information entropy is consistently less than one. *As measured, your repeated use of the term "correlatiom doesn't prove causation" sits at the foundation of any understanding of science. *Correlation is necessary and required for proving causation. A presentation of correlation is correct and saying "correlation doesn't prove causation" is meaningless. *As this concept is fundamental to science, until you work that out, nothing you say beyond it has any relevance. *Science builds from a foundation. *As you have no foundation, nothing further is of any relevance.

So if your wondering why I don't answer questions that you present, it is simply that I don't read them. *I don't read them because the probability is to near 99% that they are irrelevant. *I know they are irrelevant because you simply don't grasp the basic foundation of scientific thought. *And I can reasonably and rightfully say this pointedly because you already demonstrated the behavior of invoking the second person pronoun in a derogatory and unprovoked manner. *You do, completely unaware, because you are always taking a position of offense, pre-emptive defense. You have never had a purely, non-defensive, objective thought in your life. *You cannot act except as a defense mechanism.

And as such, even should you happen to randomly be correct, it is purely by accident.

That said, I'd just as well appreciate it if you don't read my posts. In fact, I forbid you crom reading my post, here to forth.

 

[PMZ]

Clearly there are two sides here.

On one side current scientific theory and data are accepted as fact.

On the other they are rejected out off hand.

More and more it's become apparent to me that given that, the issue is unresolvable at the level of this forum.

Is that a problem? I don't think that it has to be.

If the believers in science address only other believers in science, and the deniers address only other deniers let those who come new to the forum pick the story most credible to them.

There is nobody here, I don't think, capable of advancing the science. Nothing new will be proposed or added here to what climate science has already figured out. We are merely cataloging what's been published by others. Some of us have faith in that reporting, others not.

Those without that confidence should feel free to address their aversion to the theory and data. And make up what ever they are inclined to in alternative realities.

Those ho are confident in the current science should feel free to discuss why current theory and data make sense, and are what needs to be acted on.

We'll let actions of the majority of Americans decide.

 

[itfitzme]

"When the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain;*when [they] are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert;*when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgement."
Bertrand Russell.

 

[itfitzme]

Clearly there are two sides here.

On one side current scientific theory and data are accepted as fact.

On the other they are rejected out off hand.

More and more it's become apparent to me that given that, the issue is unresolvable at the level of this forum.

Is that a problem? I don't think that it has to be.

If the believers in science address only other believers in science, and the deniers address only other deniers let those who come new to the forum pick the story most credible to them.

There is nobody here, I don't think, capable of advancing the science. Nothing new will be proposed or added here to what climate science has already figured out. We are merely cataloging what's been published by others. Some of us have faith in that reporting, others not.

Those without that confidence should feel free to address their aversion to the theory and data. And make up what ever they are inclined to in alternative realities.

Those ho are confident in the current science should feel free to discuss why current theory and data make sense, and are what needs to be acted on.

We'll let actions of the majority of Americans decide.

Still, I would like to see the page and paragraph that you read as demonstrating heat transfer from cold to hot. Thermodynamics doesn't forbid it, obviously, or my air conditioner and freezer wouldn't work. Thermo just says it isn't for free.

I'd also like to explore the thermodynamic concept of AWG, if there is anything there at all.

And the igloo analogy, even the thermal blanket analogy seemed appropriate. Understanding the mechanism that accounts for the fact that the Earth isn't a snowball in space is curious. I get, in general, that the idea is that IR radiation is limited on the way in as on the way out. So it is in the balance and this is why GHG and solar are required for the better correlation to temp anomoly than either alone. Apparently, we can count the number of CO2 molecules emited by fossil fuels, the number in the atmosphere, and get a more precise theoretical answer that supports the obvious causal-correlation. That is a nice trick.

Even a discussion the precision and accuracy (two distictly different things) of the measures would be interesting.

The trick with AWG, isn't proving it true or false, refer tonthe Bertrand quote. The trick is two fold; a) finding a group motivation to read, discuss and analyze the mind numbing science splattered about the internet and summarized by the IPCC and b) finding a simpler construct for understanding it as demonstratable without the mind numbing details. If I wanted to just sit passively and absorb things I'd watch Promethius.

There are alot of interesting things to explore. I'm just tapped out on the exploration by negation followed by "You're a doodoo head."

 

[itfitzme]

This is a reprint from Scientific American, July, 1959.

"A current theory postulates that carbon dioxide regulates the temperature of the earth. This raises an interesting question: How do Man's activities influence the climate of the future?"

"Even the carbon dioxide theory is not new; the basic idea was first precisely stated in 1861 by the noted British physicist John Tyndall. He attributed climatic temperature-changes to variations in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."

Carbon Dioxide and Climate: Scientific American