Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I read precisely defined mathematical expressions. I don't watch videos.
You describe in your best words and math. Then we can discuss.
I aced my thermo course and my project was on the thermodynamics of the internal combustion engine. You learned from a video.
I read precisely defined mathematical expressions. I don't watch videos.
You describe in your best words and math. Then we can discuss.
I aced my thermo course and my project was on the thermodynamics of the internal combustion engine. You learned from a video.
You couldn't "ace" tying your shoes. As I said, watch and learn. The subject of the video is a Nobel Prize winner and is certainly better qualified than the mechanic you learned your thermodynamics from.
I read precisely defined mathematical expressions. I don't watch videos.
You describe in your best words and math. Then we can discuss.
I aced my thermo course and my project was on the thermodynamics of the internal combustion engine. You learned from a video.
How about this question;
Can the entropy of a closed system increase without any change in temperature?
You couldn't "ace" tying your shoes. As I said, watch and learn. The subject of the video is a Nobel Prize winner and is certainly better qualified than the mechanic you learned your thermodynamics from.
Clear your head.. Take a breath.. You're in the desert at night..
Answer my 2 questions about the COOLING profile.. Is it gonna be warmer in the morning if there's a substantial cloud deck? Why? It's back radiation.. It's reducing the rate of Net flow UPWARDS. Nothing says that a colder body doesn't radiate. EVERY body with any heat radiates..
If I am in the desert at night, and there is a substantial cloud deck, and I look at my hygrometer, I will surely see that there is much more humidity in the air than if the skys are clear. Water, even in its vaporous form, can, unlike any of the other so called greenhouse gasses, actually has the capacity to absorb, and hold on to heat. It has nothing to do with backradiation, it has to to with the relative humidity in the air and water's ability to store heat.
Remember that Second law knows nothing about quantum effects...
And in reality, neither do we. Your "quantum effects" are the product of mathematical models and remain to this day, and all days in the forseeable future, unmeasured, unobserved, undetectable, and unprovable. Thanks for the reminder, but the present paradigm is that energy flow is one way towards more entropy.....when the Second Law is rewritten to reflect what you believe, then, and only then will a new paradigm exist.
Because particle for particle, they are bombarding each other almost equally.
So you say, but you can't even begin to prove it. You may as well claim that a certain percentage of dropped rocks falls up because the forces that govern which way the rock fall aren't necessarily consistent, or just don't have time to deal with all of the dropped rocks.
Say one shoots 20 photons per minute, the other 21 photons. THERE'S your "net flow".. A virtual cannonade broadside like in the pirate days and that extra ONE cannonball wins the day..
A New Metric to Detect CO2 Greenhouse Effect* Applied To Some New Mexico Weather Data
The arid environment of New Mexico is examined in an attempt to correlate increases in atmospheric CO2 with an increase in greenhouse effect. Changes in the greenhouse effect are estimated by using the ratio of the recorded annual high temperatures to the recorded annual low temperatures as a measure of heat retained (i.e. thermal inertia, TI). It is shown that the metric TI increases if a rise in mean temperature is due to heat retention (greenhouse) and decreases if due to heat gain (solar flux). Essentially no correlation was found between the assumed CO2 atmospheric concentrations and the observed greenhouse changes, whereas there was a strong correlation between TI and precipitation. Further it is shown that periods of increase in the mean temperature correspond to heat gain, not heat retention. It is concluded that either the assumed CO2 concentrations are incorrect or that they have no measurable greenhouse effect in these data.
Can't do that. He has found himself some new friends. They have been having themselves a fine little circle jerk. He has gathered them around him like a hen gathers her chicks. They respect good old Ian because when they get backed into a wall and have no idea what to say, good old Ian can spout some bullshit that sounds far better than anything that they could make up and then all they have to do is say "what he says".
Which is why I call them the 'quadruplets' and possibly 'quintuplets'. Now that Mamooth has returned, can Saigon be far behind? But you'll notice they all use the same style of posting, the same syntax, the same absurd cut and pastes, misspell the same words the same way. And they all try to drown the thread with interminably long masses of cut and pasted gray type because they can then giggle and point and slap each other on the back when somebody takes their bait and addresses that.
I am now convinced they don't have a clue what they are talking about and could care less about the topic. And you can rebut their posts until the cows come home and it won't change a thing.
A pity too as there are a number of us who would really enjoy discussing the pros and cons of climate change and the implications for all of us re the policy that the AGW religionists are tying to force on us. But the tag team won't allow it so most serious debaters have now moved on to other forums that this crew hasn't discovered yet.
So who agrees with SlackSacks theory that CO2 isn't part of the carbon cycle amd that plants get carbon from soil carbon?
This is pretty telling, as group behavior goes...
The two "no backradiation!" loons seem kind of lonely without the third loon, PolarBear.
Yes, it's a century of physics as known by the entire planet, vs. two bitter cranks on a message board. But if the cranks just rant loud and long enough, it will make them correct, because that's how the magic of the internet works.
Clear your head.. Take a breath.. You're in the desert at night..
Answer my 2 questions about the COOLING profile.. Is it gonna be warmer in the morning if there's a substantial cloud deck? Why? It's back radiation.. It's reducing the rate of Net flow UPWARDS. Nothing says that a colder body doesn't radiate. EVERY body with any heat radiates..
If I am in the desert at night, and there is a substantial cloud deck, and I look at my hygrometer, I will surely see that there is much more humidity in the air than if the skys are clear. Water, even in its vaporous form, can, unlike any of the other so called greenhouse gasses, actually has the capacity to absorb, and hold on to heat. It has nothing to do with backradiation, it has to to with the relative humidity in the air and water's ability to store heat.
And in reality, neither do we. Your "quantum effects" are the product of mathematical models and remain to this day, and all days in the forseeable future, unmeasured, unobserved, undetectable, and unprovable. Thanks for the reminder, but the present paradigm is that energy flow is one way towards more entropy.....when the Second Law is rewritten to reflect what you believe, then, and only then will a new paradigm exist.
So you say, but you can't even begin to prove it. You may as well claim that a certain percentage of dropped rocks falls up because the forces that govern which way the rock fall aren't necessarily consistent, or just don't have time to deal with all of the dropped rocks.
It doesn't matter if all of the photons are moving towards a state of greater entropy. Why would you believe that any photon, or any other form of energy would be able to move towards a state of less entropy?
A New Metric to Detect CO2 Greenhouse Effect* Applied To Some New Mexico Weather Data
The arid environment of New Mexico is examined in an attempt to correlate increases in atmospheric CO2 with an increase in greenhouse effect. Changes in the greenhouse effect are estimated by using the ratio of the recorded annual high temperatures to the recorded annual low temperatures as a measure of heat retained (i.e. thermal inertia, TI). It is shown that the metric TI increases if a rise in mean temperature is due to heat retention (greenhouse) and decreases if due to heat gain (solar flux). Essentially no correlation was found between the assumed CO2 atmospheric concentrations and the observed greenhouse changes, whereas there was a strong correlation between TI and precipitation. Further it is shown that periods of increase in the mean temperature correspond to heat gain, not heat retention. It is concluded that either the assumed CO2 concentrations are incorrect or that they have no measurable greenhouse effect in these data.
Not one of them makes that statement. If you are so convined otherwise, pick one and quote it.
I aced my thermo course and my project was on the thermodynamics of the internal combustion engine. You learned from a video.
There IS backradiation... Has to be.. Photons don't decide where to go depending on the destination temperature. NET FLOW is upwards. Doesn't violate ANY damn principle.. The warming of the lower trop simply acts to SLOW DOWN the ENERGY transfered from the Gray Body Surface upwards.. Remember the diff between POWER (instantaneous) and ENERGY (over time).
You and ssdd are stuck on the paradigm that this means the net warming direction changes. It doesn't.. Take the sun out of the picture. Desert at night.
1) What is the surface COOLING profile (over time) on a cloudless night?
2) What is the surface COOLING profile (over time) on a cloudy night?
THere's your backradiation effect..
THe reason your backradiation oven doesn't work >>>>>>> --- there's NO NET DOWNWARD FLOW --- ever..
((OK maybe BRIEFLY LOCALLY with warmer air aloft and other weather transients. ))
Check the plug.. That's what an electronics engineer always does first..
No you are missing the point here. Net flow, or absolute, IF there is back-radiation yet it cannot warm it's source it's a moot claim as far as AGW theory goes. If the process slows heat loss as you just said, and Ian now claims (despite past claims to the contrary by him) than it's an insulator and NOT a secondary heating mechanism.
An insulator does not create more heat, it slows heat loss. Now if Ian's previous claim via Dr. Spencer and co. is to be believed, backradiation can produce additional warming of the source. IF Ian is now claiming that it doesn't warm the source more but only slows heat loss, which we claimed all along, then he is in fact backpeddling from his previous claims..
Thermal properties of gases (especially GH gases due to additional the molecular bonds), are directly effected by their temperature. Meaning more heat in, the faster it sheds that heat. Same thing in reverse, less heat in the better an insulator they are. Further, and at that same time Add heat, and convection increases, remove heat and convection decreases.
Air minus convection is a great thermal insulator, add convection and it's a great heat dissipation/transfer system. We aren't discussing solid, liquid, or a porous material with trapped air pockets inside here, we are discussing air moving relatively freely and able to convect heat away very well.
As I said before and will continue to say, the entire system is an excellent heat pump, with limited thermal insulating properties. Limited by air flow and the inherent thermal properties of gases.
Compress the gasses to the point they are near liquid, a different story. But they aren't here and so they react as gases do to heat.
You can call it "net flow" all you want, the fact remains if the "back-radiation" that is claimed is actually going on, and as you and Ian say it has no effect on the warmer source, than it's a moot claim..
All things radiate some amount of heat, yet that does not mean that radiated heat can warm it's warmer heat source. Call it phase differential, call it wavelength variance, call it magic for all I care, the point remains it doesn't effect noticeable change in it's source.
If you heat up a iron bar until it's red hot, and wrap it in a blanket, it will still cool down, slower than without the blanket, but it won't get hotter, it will cool.
That's the very reason we cannot create perfect or even near-perfect heat engines. The entire process would require infinite or near-infinite reusable energy from a source.
PS.. Before I forget again. You're forgetting the wave-like properties of EM radiation. You are doing what Ian and Spencer does and treating it as a particle only. As SSD pointed out before if it's a particle, it can flow back due to the shear space available to miss the incoming source particle. But if it's a wave than it is a wave and cannot flow back towards it's greater source. What we have in our understanding right now is wave-particle duality, meaning to our understanding it shows properties of both equally. Dismissing the wave property to suit a theory makes the theory dubious at best. As I said before, the entire system reacts and responds more like a heat pump than an insulator. The thermal properties of gases and convection alone would lead to this conclusion, add in the complete failure of climate modeling and predictions based on them, the failure of rises in GH gases to show additional warming in the last decade and a half, and then realize that 180 years of CO2 increases and we have not even a 2 degree rise in temps globally.. Yet every year in my state we go from 90 degree and up summers and 30 degree and below winters, and this drastic drop is due to our position relative to the sun. SOmething which warmers and luke-warmers claim to have less an impact on climate then a trace gas...
Sorry I didn't read too far into that reply.. You're still not getting it.
You didn't answer my questions about the desert COOLING profile under 2 conditions..
The desert will cool at night WITH or WITHOUT clouds. But the RATES will be diff and the EQUILIBRIUM position will be different depending on the cloud "blanket"... If it loses LESS heat at night because of the thermal insulation effect of the clouds, it will start the day warmer than it normally would because of the RETAINED HEAT.. NOT ADDED HEAT from the back radiation.. Get it?? NOTHING ADDED to time integral of net flow.. Just RETAINED...
So will your "iron bar" reach a different equilibrium if you pump it daily for 12 hours with a little bit of energy.. Depending on whether the blanket is there or not.
All you're doing is adding a thermal resistance to a uni-directional flow.. That's how rates of flow according to thermolaws behave. THey radiate BOTH ways and establish a net flow. THe warmer object will cool SLOWER if interacting with a boundary that is raised in heat energy --- but still cooler than the radiating grey body.
No wave/particle discussion, no violation of any thermo law..
That's unfortunate that you deny that CO2 can retain heat. A simple trip to a Chem materials handbook could fix that. But whatever....
No one agrees with BS you just made up asshat..LOL
You should be able to answer the following from your video.
In thermodynamics, the ideal gas law is important. It is the foundation for the thermodynamic cycle that allows a steam engine to run. *During the thermodynamic cycle, there are two contant quantity paths that allow energy to be input amd extracted, tranfering heat to work.*
Show the following mathematically, in terms of enthalpy, entropy, heat ans work.
What is the ideal gas law?
What are the two constant quantity processes?
Which one does the work and which one allow energy to be added?
I'll give you a clue: dU=dQ-dW or rather dQ=dU+dW
Bonus; which thermodynamic law does this come from and what is the significance in proving that a perpetual motion machine is impossible?
I aced my thermo course and my project was on the thermodynamics of the internal combustion engine. You learned from a video.
Since you have never taken a physics class in which thermodynamics was discussed, it is clear that I was right...you are a liar who simply can't read.
You don't even know shit about it, you just grabbed some random tidbits and tried tosell your intellect again..
You're a proven fraud and fake socko.. From your sequestered CO2 nonsense, to your asinine ramblings from the start till now, all of it shows you for a BS artist fake...
ROFL trifling moron..
LOL, a thermal course?
Wasn't aware they had a specific "thermal course".. Heard of physics, natural sciences, thermal imaging, thermodynamics, solar thermal training, and many others but not a "thermal course"..
Maybe he was instructed how to use his mom's hot water bottle once?
ROFL
