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

[flacaltenn]

I said that no experiments have been done that supports your claim that energy can spontaneously move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state. The fact that parts of QM have been verified doesn't mean that QM has been verified. It is still rife with contradictions and ad hoc fixes.

In effect you are saying that two objects at the same temperature stop radiating at each other. That cannot happen in my worldview. You refuse to examine the consequences of your statements.

My explanations work easily with known physical properties, yours need a diety to keep score.

And yet you can't give a single example of an observable experiment. In shot, you believe, you don't know. I, on the other hand know that every observation ever made supports the second law in that energy can't move from more entropy to less entropy.

Don't NEED an experiment. It's how RADIATIVE thermal transfers work..

Take a vacuum chamber and put in a Warm metal ball.. Count the photon energy it emits towards a wall on the far right side of the chamber..

Now go and insert a HOTTER identical metal ball --- between ball #1 and the same wall.

Does ball #1 stop RADIATING in that direction?

If so --- is it STILL radiating towards the OPPOSITE wall???
If not -- why not?

(Remember -- NO THERMAL CONDUCTION --- only EMag radiation in a vacuum)

Enquirying minds need to be warped SSDD style..
This is simple chit man...

 

[SSDD]

In effect you are saying that two objects at the same temperature stop radiating at each other. That cannot happen in my worldview. You refuse to examine the consequences of your statements.

My explanations work easily with known physical properties, yours need a diety to keep score.

And yet you can't give a single example of an observable experiment. In shot, you believe, you don't know. I, on the other hand know that every observation ever made supports the second law in that energy can't move from more entropy to less entropy.

Don't NEED an experiment. It's how RADIATIVE thermal transfers work..

Take a vacuum chamber and put in a Warm metal ball.. Count the photon energy it emits towards a wall on the far right side of the chamber..

Now go and insert a HOTTER identical metal ball --- between ball #1 and the same wall.

Does ball #1 stop RADIATING in that direction?

If so --- is it STILL radiating towards the OPPOSITE wall???
If not -- why not?

(Remember -- NO THERMAL CONDUCTION --- only EMag radiation in a vacuum)

Enquirying minds need to be warped SSDD style..
This is simple chit man...

In order for any energy to be absorbed by the warmer ball from the cooler ball, the energy would have to move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state. Sorry, guy. It doesn't happen.....ever.

 

[SSDD]

You cannot say, "energy can't move from more entropy to less entropy".

Actually I said from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state, but then accuracy isn't your thing is it. When I said that energy can't move from cool to warm, you went on about entropy as if the terms meant different things.

It is a non-sense statement. There is no such thing as instantaneous entropy.

Who, besides you said anyting about instantaneous. Maybe in your ignorance you thing spontaneous and instantaneous are the same thing. Sorry again for your ignorance.

Entropy is a statistical quality of a system. It is an accounting of all the states that the energy can be distributed in. At any instance of time, the energy can be distributed in on particular manner. At another instance, it can be distributed in another particular manner. Neither of these have any bearing on an "instantaneous" measure of entropy because entropy is a count of both distributions.

Again, only you are talking about instantaneous anything. I am talking about your idiotic claims that energy can move spontaneously from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state. If that doesn't make sense to you then perhaps some study on your part is in order.

 

[flacaltenn]

And yet you can't give a single example of an observable experiment. In shot, you believe, you don't know. I, on the other hand know that every observation ever made supports the second law in that energy can't move from more entropy to less entropy.

Don't NEED an experiment. It's how RADIATIVE thermal transfers work..

Take a vacuum chamber and put in a Warm metal ball.. Count the photon energy it emits towards a wall on the far right side of the chamber..

Now go and insert a HOTTER identical metal ball --- between ball #1 and the same wall.

Does ball #1 stop RADIATING in that direction?

If so --- is it STILL radiating towards the OPPOSITE wall???
If not -- why not?

(Remember -- NO THERMAL CONDUCTION --- only EMag radiation in a vacuum)

Enquirying minds need to be warped SSDD style..
This is simple chit man...

In order for any energy to be absorbed by the warmer ball from the cooler ball, the energy would have to move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state. Sorry, guy. It doesn't happen.....ever.

So it WAS RADIATING towards that wall --- but STOPPED radiating in that direction when the 2nd hotter ball was placed in it's path? Is that your story?

Is it still radiating towards the REST of enclosure??

 

[PMZ]

I said that no experiments have been done that supports your claim that energy can spontaneously move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state. The fact that parts of QM have been verified doesn't mean that QM has been verified. It is still rife with contradictions and ad hoc fixes.

In effect you are saying that two objects at the same temperature stop radiating at each other. That cannot happen in my worldview. You refuse to examine the consequences of your statements.

My explanations work easily with known physical properties, yours need a diety to keep score.

And yet you can't give a single example of an observable experiment. In shot, you believe, you don't know. I, on the other hand know that every observation ever made supports the second law in that energy can't move from more entropy to less entropy.

You seem to believe that things observed and measured in the real world every day are not valid because they are not experimental.

 

[mamooth]

I, on the other hand know that every observation ever made supports the second law in that energy can't move from more entropy to less entropy.

Two coals being hotter on the sides facing each would be one simple and obvious observation that says you're full of shit.

When the only one left on your "team" is lackwit gslack, that should give you a hint that you've gone totally off the rails.

 

[SSDD]

So it WAS RADIATING towards that wall --- but STOPPED radiating in that direction when the 2nd hotter ball was placed in it's path? Is that your story?

Is it still radiating towards the REST of enclosure??

Not "my" story, only what the second LAW of thermodynamics supports and predicts. Just like it predicts that if you roll a marble along an incline and then tip the incline in the other direction, the ball will then roll the other way.

Interesting how you guys try to make the laws of thermodynamics mine. I admit to being smarter than the average bear, but I didn't come up with the laws of thermodynamics and if it were left to me, I am afriad that they would have never been figured out. I appreciate that you believe I am smart enough to formulate the laws of thermodynamics, but I'm not. I am smart enough, however, to read them and grasp that they describe a one way energy flow...and smart enough to grasp that every observation ever made verifies a one way energy flow.

 

[SSDD]

In effect you are saying that two objects at the same temperature stop radiating at each other. That cannot happen in my worldview. You refuse to examine the consequences of your statements.

My explanations work easily with known physical properties, yours need a diety to keep score.

And yet you can't give a single example of an observable experiment. In shot, you believe, you don't know. I, on the other hand know that every observation ever made supports the second law in that energy can't move from more entropy to less entropy.

You seem to believe that things observed and measured in the real world every day are not valid because they are not experimental.

Backradiation is neither observed, nor measured in the real world....ever.

 

[SSDD]

In effect you are saying that two objects at the same temperature stop radiating at each other. That cannot happen in my worldview. You refuse to examine the consequences of your statements.

My explanations work easily with known physical properties, yours need a diety to keep score.

And yet you can't give a single example of an observable experiment. In shot, you believe, you don't know. I, on the other hand know that every observation ever made supports the second law in that energy can't move from more entropy to less entropy.

You seem to believe that things observed and measured in the real world every day are not valid because they are not experimental.

Energy spontaneously moving from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state is neither observed, nor measured in the real world....ever.

 

[SSDD]

I, on the other hand know that every observation ever made supports the second law in that energy can't move from more entropy to less entropy.

Two coals being hotter on the sides facing each would be one simple and obvious observation that says you're full of shit.

It means that they are not radiating in that direction and therefore not losing heat in that direction...it isn't an example of backradiation.

When the only one left on your "team" is lackwit gslack, that should give you a hint that you've gone totally off the rails.

I don't have a team...I only have what the laws of thermodynamics say. You think those two coals prove the second law of thermodynamics wrong? You think the men who formulated those laws never observed coals? You think they missed that totally unique set of circumstances?

 

[gslack]

Notice how when Ian and now flac, get stuck they try and claim "stops radiating, in that direction, decides not toradiate in that directions, et, so on"

Doesn't matter how manny times we explain, how much of their OWN sources material, text books, and so on say the exact same thing, if spencer and the SOD guy don't agree, or say it means something else that's how it is...

It's ridiculous... For people maintaining claims of science, to be so unscientific when it threatens their heroes...

 

[gslack]

I, on the other hand know that every observation ever made supports the second law in that energy can't move from more entropy to less entropy.

Two coals being hotter on the sides facing each would be one simple and obvious observation that says you're full of shit.

When the only one left on your "team" is lackwit gslack, that should give you a hint that you've gone totally off the rails.

LOL, the lackwit that made you cry... ROFL

LOL, two coals warmer on the side facing one another is an example of reflection, and the fact the other sides are cooling at a faster rate because there isn't another heat source on those sides... In other words, it's not that the facing sides are getting hotter, it's that the other sides are getting cooler faster..

LOL, you aren't getting any smarter admiral...

 

[PMZ]

The experiment that unequivocally demonstrates how GHGs work.

http://scienceofdoom.com/2013/01/03/visualizing-atmospheric-radiation-part-one/

 

[SSDD]

The experiment that unequivocally demonstrates how GHGs work.

Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation ? Part One | The Science of Doom

Guess you don't know what constitutes an experiment either goober. Thought experiments aren't worth the time it takes to think them up because they remain unproven. It is becoming more clear why you guys continue to believe. You belieive anything represents science whether it actually is or not.

 

[PMZ]

The experiment that unequivocally demonstrates how GHGs work.

Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation ? Part One | The Science of Doom

Guess you don't know what constitutes an experiment either goober. Thought experiments aren't worth the time it takes to think them up because they remain unproven. It is becoming more clear why you guys continue to believe. You belieive anything represents science whether it actually is or not.

Nobody has ever learned any science from you. Nor have you learned any from others.

The experiment that I referenced can be performed by anyone with the right resources and proves unequivocally the absorption re-emission characteristics of GHGs. Also that the more GHG molecules long wave energy encounters on the way out of the earth system, the more pronounced is their impact.

It's the deniers downfall. And your worst nightmare.

Not that anyone believes that you're smart enough to recognize any of that.

 

[flacaltenn]

So it WAS RADIATING towards that wall --- but STOPPED radiating in that direction when the 2nd hotter ball was placed in it's path? Is that your story?

Is it still radiating towards the REST of enclosure??

Not "my" story, only what the second LAW of thermodynamics supports and predicts. Just like it predicts that if you roll a marble along an incline and then tip the incline in the other direction, the ball will then roll the other way.

Interesting how you guys try to make the laws of thermodynamics mine. I admit to being smarter than the average bear, but I didn't come up with the laws of thermodynamics and if it were left to me, I am afriad that they would have never been figured out. I appreciate that you believe I am smart enough to formulate the laws of thermodynamics, but I'm not. I am smart enough, however, to read them and grasp that they describe a one way energy flow...and smart enough to grasp that every observation ever made verifies a one way energy flow.

You are simply CONFUSING and MISQUOTING the laws of thermo.. Thermo is actually MORE than one class. And I've told you several times that when heat moves by means of RADIATION it follows different rules than when it moves by Conduction or Convection. The rules for radiation are essentially the same rules for LIGHT PROPAGATION. And folks who ASSUME that the solutions for ALL MODES of thermal propagation are exactly the same are gonna mess up...

So the equations get solve DIFFERENTLY --- yet there is NO VIOLATION of any thermo law. You keep saying that there MUST be -- but yet -- there isn't.

Nothing personal is going on here. I'm just defending fellow skeptics like Dr. Spencer who defend "better science". Can't partner up with folks that are shooting our own for no good reason. Doesn't mean I don't admire your dedication to the cause.

Unless you allow the cooler ball to continue to radiate towards the warmer ball, you cannot solve the radiation equations. DOES NOT MEAN that thermal flow RESULTS in warming of the hotter object. In fact -- the cooler ball will HEAT and increase it's flow out in all directions. But the hotter ball will cool more SLOWLY because of the proximity of the first ball. The flow (or flux) equations work. And no rules are violated.

There is no mechanism for the Ball #1 to stop radiating in the direction of warmer objects. Not for radiative heat flow. If you insist that it does -- tell me how it selectively stops radiating towards warmer objects. What if that warmer object is 10 meters away? Does some of the light not land on "warmer objects"?

 

[SSDD]

Nobody has ever learned any science from you. Nor have you learned any from others.

The experiment that I referenced can be performed by anyone with the right resources and proves unequivocally the absorption re-emission characteristics of GHGs. Also that the more GHG molecules long wave energy encounters on the way out of the earth system, the more pronounced is their impact.

Contained at high concentrations. Right. That really proves your point. Like I said, it is no wonder you believe. You have been fooled and don't even know it.

 

[SSDD]

You are simply CONFUSING and MISQUOTING the laws of thermo.. Thermo is actually MORE than one class. And I've told you several times that when heat moves by means of RADIATION it follows different rules than when it moves by Conduction or Convection.

Yep, you have said it more than once but the problem is that the laws of thermodynamics don't say it so if I must choose between your credibility and the credibility of the laws of thermodynamics, I am afraid I must goe with the laws.

The rules for radiation are essentially the same rules for LIGHT PROPAGATION. And folks who ASSUME that the solutions for ALL MODES of thermal propagation are exactly the same are gonna mess up...

The second law defines how radiated energy moves...from lower entropy states to higher entropy states. It isn't confusing and it is a one way street. Energy doesn't move spontaneously from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state. If it did, and could be proven, rather than go on endlessly with these idiotic mind experiments, someone would simply do an experiment that proves it. No such experiment exists because it would be pointless trying to prove something that doesn't happen.

So the equations get solve DIFFERENTLY --- yet there is NO VIOLATION of any thermo law. You keep saying that there MUST be -- but yet -- there isn't.

Except that there is....just as soon as you try to move energy from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.

Nothing personal is going on here. I'm just defending fellow skeptics like Dr. Spencer who defend "better science". Can't partner up with folks that are shooting our own for no good reason. Doesn't mean I don't admire your dedication to the cause.

Spencer has had his ass handed to him so many times that now he is asking if a greenhouse works on the greenhouse principle. The man has become a waste. He believes that he is measuring backradiation with his hand held infrared thermometer even after a manufacturer of such devices stated explicitly that they are designed not to detect atmospheric radiation.

Unless you allow the cooler ball to continue to radiate towards the warmer ball, you cannot solve the radiation equations.

DOES NOT MEAN that thermal flow RESULTS in warming of the hotter object. In fact -- the cooler ball will HEAT and increase it's flow out in all directions. But the hotter ball will cool more SLOWLY because of the proximity of the first ball. The flow (or flux) equations work. And no rules are violated.

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. so sayeth the second law. Sorry guy, I just can't take you seriously when you are in opposition to the second law, or any physical law for that matter.

I believe that you believe it, but I don't. When your QM superceeds or causes the second law to be changed (fat chance) then I can take you seriously but till then....sorry.

There is no mechanism for the Ball #1 to stop radiating in the direction of warmer objects. Not for radiative heat flow. If you insist that it does -- tell me how it selectively stops radiating towards warmer objects. What if that warmer object is 10 meters away? Does some of the light not land on "warmer objects"?

There is no more selectivity with regard to the direction an object radiates than there is for which direction a rock falls when dropped, or which way electricity runs down a line, or which direction air moves when a tire is punctured and there is a force that determines all. We can't describe the mechanism but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Radiated energy only moves in the direction of more entropy....period.

 

[PMZ]

All objects warmer than absolute zero radiate energy in all directions. Simple physics. They have no mechanism to radiate in selective directions. GHGs absorb radiation incident upon them of the appropriate wave lengths. They have no ability to discriminate except by wavelength. That’s what physics says. Elementary.

 

[PMZ]

Nobody has ever learned any science from you. Nor have you learned any from others.

The experiment that I referenced can be performed by anyone with the right resources and proves unequivocally the absorption re-emission characteristics of GHGs. Also that the more GHG molecules long wave energy encounters on the way out of the earth system, the more pronounced is their impact.

Contained at high concentrations. Right. That really proves your point. Like I said, it is no wonder you believe. You have been fooled and don't even know it.

The problem is that you don't understand the 2ond Law. That simple.

You are simply CONFUSING and MISQUOTING the laws of thermo.. Thermo is actually MORE than one class. And I've told you several times that when heat moves by means of RADIATION it follows different rules than when it moves by Conduction or Convection.

Yep, you have said it more than once but the problem is that the laws of thermodynamics don't say it so if I must choose between your credibility and the credibility of the laws of thermodynamics, I am afraid I must goe with the laws.

The rules for radiation are essentially the same rules for LIGHT PROPAGATION. And folks who ASSUME that the solutions for ALL MODES of thermal propagation are exactly the same are gonna mess up...

The second law defines how radiated energy moves...from lower entropy states to higher entropy states. It isn't confusing and it is a one way street. Energy doesn't move spontaneously from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state. If it did, and could be proven, rather than go on endlessly with these idiotic mind experiments, someone would simply do an experiment that proves it. No such experiment exists because it would be pointless trying to prove something that doesn't happen.



Except that there is....just as soon as you try to move energy from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.



Spencer has had his ass handed to him so many times that now he is asking if a greenhouse works on the greenhouse principle. The man has become a waste. He believes that he is measuring backradiation with his hand held infrared thermometer even after a manufacturer of such devices stated explicitly that they are designed not to detect atmospheric radiation.

Unless you allow the cooler ball to continue to radiate towards the warmer ball, you cannot solve the radiation equations.

DOES NOT MEAN that thermal flow RESULTS in warming of the hotter object. In fact -- the cooler ball will HEAT and increase it's flow out in all directions. But the hotter ball will cool more SLOWLY because of the proximity of the first ball. The flow (or flux) equations work. And no rules are violated.

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. so sayeth the second law. Sorry guy, I just can't take you seriously when you are in opposition to the second law, or any physical law for that matter.

I believe that you believe it, but I don't. When your QM superceeds or causes the second law to be changed (fat chance) then I can take you seriously but till then....sorry.

There is no mechanism for the Ball #1 to stop radiating in the direction of warmer objects. Not for radiative heat flow. If you insist that it does -- tell me how it selectively stops radiating towards warmer objects. What if that warmer object is 10 meters away? Does some of the light not land on "warmer objects"?

There is no more selectivity with regard to the direction an object radiates than there is for which direction a rock falls when dropped, or which way electricity runs down a line, or which direction air moves when a tire is punctured and there is a force that determines all. We can't describe the mechanism but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Radiated energy only moves in the direction of more entropy....period.