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

[gslack]

That assumes, of course, that the amount of sunlight (energy) the Earth receives remains constant. Which, of course, is not true even when considering orbital elements of the system because the sun itself is a variable star, that is, it varies its energy output, and because the amount of energy the Earth receives is also dependent on other factors such as cloud cover, moisture content in the atmosphere, the strength of its magnetic field, and many other forcings. It is also not true that the only effective energy transfer is through radiation. Absorption is also an effective energy transfer mechanism, and we see that played out in the Arctic; as the ice melts, the ocean there tends to absorb more energy from the sun. Another example of energy absorption in the Sun-Earth system is the infrared absorption that occurs due to the greenhouse effect. So the Sun-Earth system is not, in fact, in dynamic equilibrium. It is, in fact, a good example of non-equilibrium thermodynamics.

Your refusal (twice now) to quote the posts you are responding to, shows your intentions..

You can BS all you want to socko, the posts you refuse to quote are factual, and cannot be denied.. The fact is you didn't understand what was meant by equilibrium in this context, and when it was pointed out you are trying to coverr it up by semantical nonsense..

Want to play semantics? Play them with somebody else.. I have zero tolerance for it.. to me it's the last resort of someone trying to save face..

The sun and earth ARE in thermodynamic equilibrium, and the entire scientific community knows this... YOU however seem to either misunderstand the concept of energy vs heat, or just want to save your mistake with a lot of circle talk..

You confuse thermal with thermodynamic.. You also confuse heat with total energy.. There is a difference I explained it to you in the previous posts socko...Thermodynamic is not the same as thermal..

But hey you are supposed to be so educated, I am sure you will figure it out someday...Go ahead and defy reality ecause it embarrasses you.. It only makes you look even more like the socko BS artist I called you for...

 

[orogenicman]

You seem to think that energy and heat are two different things. They are not. The Earth is not and has never been in thermodynamic equilibrium. Its energy budget changes constantly, which is why it is more appropriate to apply non-equilibrium thermodynamics to it.

And for the record, thermo means HEAT energy. Dynamic means CHANGE. Thermodynamic means change in heat energy. It originated partially out of the study of heat engines, dude. Get over yourself already.

 

[gslack]

You seem to think that energy and heat are two different things. They are not.

And for the record, thermo means HEAT energy. Dynamic means CHANGE. Thermodynamic means change in heat energy. It originated partially out of the study of heat engines, dude. Get over yourself already.

LOL, you don't know squat socko...

First heat is one form of energy, not all energy is heat. If all energy was in fact heat, how would you explain a freezer, refrierator, Air conditioner or any number of other things?

Dude, you are not helping yourself with this silly nonsense...

Energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Energy

In physics, energy is a conserved extensive property of a physical system, which cannot be observed directly but can be calculated from its state. Energy is of central importance in physics. It is impossible to give a comprehensive definition of energy because of the many forms it may take, but the most common definition is that it is the capacity of a system to perform work. The definition of work in physics is the movement of a force through a distance, and energy is measured in the same units as work. If a person pushes an object x meters against an opposing force of F newtons, Fx joules (newton-meters) of work has been done on the object; the person's body has lost Fx joules of energy, and the object has gained Fx joules of energy. The SI unit of energy is the joule (J) (equivalent to a newton-meter or a watt-second); the CGS unit is the erg, and the Imperial unit is the foot pound. Other energy units such as the electron volt, calorie, BTU, and kilowatt-hour (1 kWh = 3600 kJ) are used in specific areas of science and commerce.

One reason for the importance of energy in physics is that it is a conserved quantity: the law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but it can be changed into different forms. The sum of all the forms of energy inside a volume of space can only change by the amount of energy leaving or entering the volume. Another reason for its importance is the number of different forms that energy can take. Two major categories of energy are kinetic and potential. Kinetic energy is energy of motion, carried by a moving mass such as a thrown baseball. Potential energy is energy possessed by an object due to its position in a force field, such as a gravitational, electric or magnetic field. For example, lifting an object against gravity stores gravitational potential energy in it, which is converted to kinetic energy if it falls. Specific forms of energy include the radiant energy of electromagnetic waves such as light, elastic energy due to the stretching or deformation of solid objects, chemical energy such as is released when a fuel burns, and thermal energy, the microscopic kinetic and potential energies of the random motions of the particles making up matter.

Not all of the energy in a system can be converted into work, however. The quantity of energy of a system that can be converted to work is called the available energy. Thermal energy has a special status; as the most disordered, highest entropy form of energy, the second law of thermodynamics limits the amount of thermal energy that can be converted into other forms of energy.

Dude if you want to pretend to have all those scientific credentials on this forum, you need to up your game...

Heat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heat

In physics and chemistry, heat is energy transferred between a system and its surroundings other than by work or transfer of matter.[1][2][3][4][5] The transfer of energy can occur in two simple ways, conduction,[6] and radiation,[7] and in a more complicated way called convective circulation. Heat is not a property or component or constituent of a system or body; rather, it describes a process of transfer of energy.[8]
If the surroundings of a system can be described also as a thermodynamic system with a temperature, and it is connected to the system by a pathway for heat transfer, then, according to the second law of thermodynamics, heat flow occurs spontaneously from the hotter to the colder system. Consequently, in this circumstance, heat is transfer of energy due purely to temperature gradient or difference. It is accompanied by an increase in the total entropy of system and surroundings. In a heat engine, which operates in a cyclic process, internal energy of bodies is harnessed to provide useful work, heat being supplied from a hot reservoir, always with an associated discharge of waste heat to a cold reservoir. Through an arrangement of systems and devices, which operate in a cyclic process, called a heat pump, externally supplied work can be used to transfer internal energy indirectly from a cold to a hot body, but such a transfer cannot occur directly between the bodies, without the heat pump.

Notice the bolded and underlined parts... It's telling you the same things I told you 3 times now..

Thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thermodynamics

Thermodynamics is a branch of natural science concerned with heat and its relation to energy and work. It defines macroscopic variables (such as temperature, internal energy, entropy, and pressure) that characterize materials and radiation, and explains how they are related and by what laws they change with time. Thermodynamics describes the average behavior of very large numbers of microscopic constituents, and its laws can be derived from statistical mechanics.

See what I mean? The scientific world agrees with me, and your ignorance is tiresome...

Did you really think you could BS your way around here claiming such lofty credentials socko? Think that everyone here is too dumb to catch you when you are this obviously ignorant?

Damn man.. You could have at least done SOME reading on this before the BS claims of your scientific background... Dude I'm asshamed for you...

 

[orogenicman]

I didn't say that all energy is heat, did I? Of course I didn't. But all heat certainly is energy.

As for refrigerators, cold is simply the lack of heat. End of discussion.

By the way, the Earth is not a closed system, nor is it a homogeneous system, so you can't strictly apply the classic laws of thermodynamics due to that very restriction . That is why non-equilibrium thermodynamics is more appropriate.

Non-equilibrium thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One fundamental difference between equilibrium thermodynamics and non-equilibrium thermodynamics lies in the behaviour of inhomogeneous systems, which require for their study knowledge of rates of reaction which are not considered in equilibrium thermodynamics of homogeneous systems. Another fundamental difference is the difficulty in defining entropy in macroscopic terms for systems not in thermodynamic equilibrium.

 

[gslack]

I didn't say that all energy is heat, did I? Of course I didn't. But all heat certainly is energy.

As for refrigerators, cold is simply the lack of heat. End of discussion.

By the way, the Earth is not a closed system, nor is it a homogeneous system, so you can't strictly apply the classic laws of thermodynamics due to that very restriction . That is why non-equilibrium thermodynamics is more appropriate.

Non-equilibrium thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One fundamental difference between equilibrium thermodynamics and non-equilibrium thermodynamics lies in the behaviour of inhomogeneous systems, which require for their study knowledge of rates of reaction which are not considered in equilibrium thermodynamics of homogeneous systems. Another fundamental difference is the difficulty in defining entropy in macroscopic terms for systems not in thermodynamic equilibrium.

Nice edit job asshat... ROFL, you want to edit your posts and remove your screw ups that's fine by me, just makes you a weasel..

You stated; "energy is heat" in your previous post before your edit job..

When you make a completely unscientific absolute statement like that, you show how far away from any true scientific background you are..

You are a dishonest poster dude...

Who said earth was a closed system? ROFL, now you are going to make my side of the arguement for me? Don't think so schmuck..

LOL, you just tried to deny making the claim that heat is energy, then you decide to defend it anyway with the refrigerator remark??? LOL, okay socko I'll play.. The point was it takes energy to make it happen... get it? Energy makes the machine work, it's not heatof course it's just energy. That energy powers the compressor which does the work. WORK done by energy... MORON..

And as for the link and your semantic BS.. The point was that the earth and sun are in equilibrium.. Not the sun and the climate of the earth, not the sun and the oceans, not even the sun and your grandma's house.. Just the sun and the earth as a whole..

ROFL, you incompetent little fuss.. You screwed up, made a bold and absolute statement, and have spent posts now trying to cover it up with semantics..

You are busted once again, with a new sock, trying to play scientist, again.. LOL, you really, really suck at this act, try another.. BTW, dumbass, why did you state the earth isn't a homogenous sytem, and then use a line from a link where it specifically talks about equilibrium in homogenous systems? Did you misunderstand it or did you just try a weasel BS tactic?

ROFL your hole keeps getting deeper socko..

 

[orogenicman]

You've lost your ever loving mind, dude. Quick, see a shrink. Not once did I say that energy was heat. and so not once did I edit my posts to NOT say that energy was heat. I did refer to heat energy a number of times. This is just typical misdirection. Either admit that you were wrong, explain why I am wrong, or get the hell off the pot.

 

[gslack]

You've lost your ever loving mind, dude. Quick, see a shrink. Not once did I say that energy was heat. and so not once did I edit my posts to NOT say that energy was heat. I did refer to heat energy a number of times. This is just typical misdirection. Either admit that you were wrong, explain why I am wrong, or get the hell off the pot.

You're a post editing liar socko..

LOL, you have been wrong from the start.. You claimed you were a scientist, yet had no clue on the difference between thermodynamic and thermal, and that was confirmed in two of your posts now..

You called energy heat,and despite your post editing, you tried to defend the claim by deceptively trying to use an inapplicable link.. So why defend what you never said socko?

ROFL, because all you want to do is save face now... Too late.. You already screwed up.. BTW, I already explained to you why you were wrong in 3 posts now.. I say you're wrong, science says you're wrong, and even your post-editing says you're wrong.

Another fake forum scientist outed, not a shock..I really wish you internet scientists and experts with no jobs would grow the hell up.. Seriously, you can claim to be whatever you want on here, but I don't have to buy it, and if you can't back it up, I won't.. Next time come back as something you CAN pull off, like a janitor or something..

Good day socko scientist number 5...

 

[PMZ]

You've lost your ever loving mind, dude. Quick, see a shrink. Not once did I say that energy was heat. and so not once did I edit my posts to NOT say that energy was heat. I did refer to heat energy a number of times. This is just typical misdirection. Either admit that you were wrong, explain why I am wrong, or get the hell off the pot.

Debating with slackjaw is not possible. His list of infirmaries starts with limited reading skills. It is sort of fun though in an evil sort of way. After that the repetition gets boring and just ignoring him seems best.

 

[gslack]

You've lost your ever loving mind, dude. Quick, see a shrink. Not once did I say that energy was heat. and so not once did I edit my posts to NOT say that energy was heat. I did refer to heat energy a number of times. This is just typical misdirection. Either admit that you were wrong, explain why I am wrong, or get the hell off the pot.

Debating with slackjaw is not possible. His list of infirmaries starts with limited reading skills. It is sort of fun though in an evil sort of way. After that the repetition gets boring and just ignoring him seems best.

Yes, yes junior socko, you are still a twerp and organman is no better at faking it than you are.. Going to explain your CO2 cycle again? Or maybe explain why CO2 though not an element, remains CO2 indefinately and does not break down?

Or why not explain how,in the same thread, you said the science is settled,and then said the science is never settled?

Or hey! I know,why not gointo one of your ramblings and post to yourself until the embarrassing screw up by sockonumber 5 is burried?

Go away before I make you cry again...

 

[Abraham3]

Pardon me Mr GSlack, but the following data:

show that the Earth and Sun are NOT in thermal equilibrium, in either direction. If they were, these lines would be flat.

PS: If I were you, I wouldn't attempt to argue thermodynamics with anyone who ever actually took a class on the topic. No... probably shouldn't argue it with anyone at all.

ps: FCT, you might want to have a good look at that second graph before you try badmouthing folks for using sunspot indices as a proxy for TSI.

 

[PMZ]

There is so much science that Slacksack doesn't know that it's hard to know where to begin.

For instance, the dynamic response of weather in reacting to more backradiation.

Every day there are more GHG molecules in our atmosphere, leading to more backradiation, leading to earth and ocean's need to warm to rebalance outgoing radiation with incoming radiation.

While the need to rebalance is urgent the mechanisms involve slow energy transfer between many media and substantial time lag between problem created and problem solved. By the time that the problem is solved for what we added day X, we have compounded it substantially with more GHG from subsequent days.

The energy balance is never done and that's why the one constant is weather. Of some kind or another.

 

[PMZ]

Nothing new. Just a very good explanation of earth's energy budget.

Climate and Earth?s Energy Budget : Feature Articles

 

[mamooth]

For those interested, here's the long and technical 12-part series on how atmospheric radiation works.

Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation ? Part One | The Science of Doom

It's not light reading. Naturally, the cultists will scream that it's socialist warmer propaganda and they obviously don't need to look at it. That's one of the things that makes them cultists, their refusal to look at anything that contradicts the cult dogma.

 

[PMZ]

If any deniers read your reference, they will learn from it. That's why they won't. They'd rather think they're right, than be right.

 

[gslack]

# days later the socks attack the thread... LOL, yes sockos I took a couple days off.. For people not wanting me around and ignoring me, you sure to get bent out of shape whenI don't respond to you...

ROFL

 

[flacaltenn]

Pardon me Mr GSlack, but the following data:

show that the Earth and Sun are NOT in thermal equilibrium, in either direction. If they were, these lines would be flat.

PS: If I were you, I wouldn't attempt to argue thermodynamics with anyone who ever actually took a class on the topic. No... probably shouldn't argue it with anyone at all.

ps: FCT, you might want to have a good look at that second graph before you try badmouthing folks for using sunspot indices as a proxy for TSI.

As long as the Y axis shows Watts and not simply sunspot numbers -- I'm happy.. I MUCH HAPPIER if you show the historical context of the TSInsolation graph tho --- and NOT restrict it to a short period of history that doesn't show the overall increase tho...

BTW: There is no future in arguing with PMZ -- he will ignore anything you post and simply attack like a rapid mammal. I gave him 8 textbook references on EM IR radiation calculations being BIDIRECTIONAL to back up the concept of "back radiation" in the GreenHouse -- he did 10 pages of ad hominem attacks and posted one 4th grade graphic from NASA on thermo.

I spent 10 hours trying to make the connection for him. About 10 pages long --- that "debate" was...
Wouldn't bother me if he tied you up.. Not jealous or anything...

 

[Abraham3]

As long as the Y axis shows Watts and not simply sunspot numbers -- I'm happy.. I MUCH HAPPIER if you show the historical context of the TSInsolation graph tho --- and NOT restrict it to a short period of history that doesn't show the overall increase tho...

The point was that the sunspot index makes an excellent proxy for TSI from the pre-satellite days. You would have us believe it's the tool of scammers. It is not.

TSI is a factor but it is a small one. The largest single factor in the Earth's temperature increase has been the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. If you want to believe that you know better than the thousands and thousands of scientists who fully accept that point, your welcome to your fantasy. Just don't expect rational folks to buy it.

Now we know what you think about PMZ. Any comment about GSlack's debating tactics?

 

[PMZ]

Pardon me Mr GSlack, but the following data:

show that the Earth and Sun are NOT in thermal equilibrium, in either direction. If they were, these lines would be flat.

PS: If I were you, I wouldn't attempt to argue thermodynamics with anyone who ever actually took a class on the topic. No... probably shouldn't argue it with anyone at all.

ps: FCT, you might want to have a good look at that second graph before you try badmouthing folks for using sunspot indices as a proxy for TSI.

As long as the Y axis shows Watts and not simply sunspot numbers -- I'm happy.. I MUCH HAPPIER if you show the historical context of the TSInsolation graph tho --- and NOT restrict it to a short period of history that doesn't show the overall increase tho...

BTW: There is no future in arguing with PMZ -- he will ignore anything you post and simply attack like a rapid mammal. I gave him 8 textbook references on EM IR radiation calculations being BIDIRECTIONAL to back up the concept of "back radiation" in the GreenHouse -- he did 10 pages of ad hominem attacks and posted one 4th grade graphic from NASA on thermo.

I spent 10 hours trying to make the connection for him. About 10 pages long --- that "debate" was...
Wouldn't bother me if he tied you up.. Not jealous or anything...

You did get that one thing right. And, when you could defend it, I accepted it.

Like all of us you have some things right, and some wrong. The wrong things you can't defend, so you run. That's fine with me, but it doesn't entitle you to anyone's respect.

 

[westwall]

Pardon me Mr GSlack, but the following data:

show that the Earth and Sun are NOT in thermal equilibrium, in either direction. If they were, these lines would be flat.

PS: If I were you, I wouldn't attempt to argue thermodynamics with anyone who ever actually took a class on the topic. No... probably shouldn't argue it with anyone at all.

ps: FCT, you might want to have a good look at that second graph before you try badmouthing folks for using sunspot indices as a proxy for TSI.

No, they wouldn't. The Earth has many factors that affect it and because of its large size it takes years, sometimes centuries for those effects to become manifest. That's why there is a lag of 400 to 800 years before CO2 levels rise after a major warming event. It takes that long for warming to work its magic.

The one exception to that rule is a major volcanic eruption. Those effects are near immediate and universally lead to cooling.

 

[westwall]

For those interested, here's the long and technical 12-part series on how atmospheric radiation works.

Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation ? Part One | The Science of Doom

It's not light reading. Naturally, the cultists will scream that it's socialist warmer propaganda and they obviously don't need to look at it. That's one of the things that makes them cultists, their refusal to look at anything that contradicts the cult dogma.

Anything that calls itself the "science of doom" has already demonstrated bias. Thus it cannot be taken seriously.