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

[IanC]

Anyone who is waiting for SSDD to change his opinion, or even explain his position, are only going to get a blue face.

 

[itfitzme]

Here's a little thought experiment for you. Let's take two metal plates set up facing each other. On the back of one are cooling coils. On the back of the other are heating elements. So one plate is heated and the other is cooled.

CASE 1) We start the heaters and the chillers and we wait for equilibrium and then measure the temperature of the plates.

CASE 2) We start only the heaters, wait for equilibrium and then measure the temperature of the plates.

In both cases, the "cold" plate is colder than the hot plate. You say the cold plate will not radiate at the hot plate in either case. There should then be no difference in the hot plate's temperature. Do you think that's what will be found?

Thought experients because real world experiments don't yield the results you are looking for. If real world experiments would prove your point don't you think someone would actually be doing them?

You keep asking for proof. How about you provide some real world experiements that IR radiation cannot be emited by a cold body towards a warm body?

I know you haven't because it simply isn't the case.

Hell, do a search on "IR radiation cannot be emited by a cold body towards a warm body" and see what you get.

You have taken an extremely generalized law, the 2nd law of thermo, that comes out of boring out cannons, overgeneralized it to all states and properties of matter, then made an incorrect interpretation of a specific and unapplicable situtatation that no manner of the science claims.

Do it, find the statement from a credible, detailed, and well researched source, either presenting theoretical details or well documentated experiementation.

Maybe you'de like Dr. Roy Spencer

"http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/"


"Well, I’m going to go ahead and say it: THE PRESENCE OF COOLER OBJECTS CAN, AND DO, CAUSE WARMER OBJECTS TO GET EVEN HOTTER.

In fact, this is happening all around us, all the time."

 

[IanC]

SSDD (wirebender) and lackwit dismiss anything Spencer says. He is unclean.

The Yes Virginia piece has been discussed with nobody changing their minds.

 

[itfitzme]

Anyone who is waiting for SSDD to change his opinion, or even explain his position, are only going to get a blue face.

The bastardization of thermodynamics is a common element among some deniers of science. The Creationists want to claim it's impossible for life to develop without some intelligent intervention. SSDD wants to claim that the climate is impossible. (or something like that. It's impossible to understand insanity.)

It's just interesting as it does refine understanding of just exactly what thermo means. I learned in specifically and exclusively for Carnot cycles using steam and freon, that sort of thing. For me, it has no other value. SSDD wants to extend it to a general law of energy flow, one that doesn't exists.

There are interesting cases that do arise, though they all fall into the correct interpretation of simply that energy tends to get spread out among all possible states.

In fact, now that we have superconductivity, to the best of my understanding, we have perpetual motion. Current will flow without loss in a superconducting ring. It doesn't go beyond that. Friction is the thing.

Problem is, SSDD wants to move between different forms of energy, from gravitational to kinetic to electrostatic to electrodynamic to quantum, and claim they all follow his incorrect and overlygeneralized interepation of thermodynamics without the least bit of knowledge of how to calculate and translate energy between these modes.

He wishes for proof that he is wrong but cannot prove he is right. The fact of the matter is that the second law of thermodynmics has never been proven. It has simply not failed under the specific conditions that it applies.

And there is the rub. To accept the laws of thermodynamics, one has to accept the concept of statistical proof of experiment in science. To accept the concept of statistical proof, then the entire foundation of climate science denial falls apart because the denial postion is grounded in bullshit cherry picking.

The only thing that SSDD can do to maintain his position is continuously deny and skirt obvious questions like, "Prove your interpretation of the second law always applies", "Prove that Hyperphysics isn't talking only about a glass of water," "Prove that a photon cannot go from a "cold" CO2 molecule to a "hotter" CO2 molecule.

Thermo serves as a good "sanity check" on any claims. But it isn't some hard physical law based on some hard physical processes. It is simply a statistical tendency. Energy is spread out. At a macroscopic level, friction exists and a tiny fraction of the kinetic energy gets spead out into the variety of modes, at a molecular level, as the electrostatic bonds keep getting made and broken. As the energy moves, from being electrostatic to kinetic, it spreads out into heat.

But, at a macroscopic level, there is nothing that says it can't spread out from a relatively cold atmosphere, to the screaming hot underbelly of an Apollo re-entry capsule. By comparison, the heat shield is burning hot and yet it just keeps getting hotter, up to some point, as the thing plows through the cold upper atmosphere.

Do the calcs on that. Temperature of the heat shield before re-entry. Temperature of the atmosphere. Show temperature of heat shield compared to atmosphere over time. Tell you what you will get. The thing keeps getting even hotter, well after it has reached thermal equilibrium with the atmosphere temp. Why is that? How can a cold atmosphere transfer energy to a hot heat shield? Where did all that heat come from?

It came from the kinetic energy of the module. What do we want to say, the hot heat shield heated the cold air that then heated the hot heat shield more? Or the cold air had nothing to do with it?

What is the "temperature" of the re-entry module? Is it the temperature as a thermometer would read? Or do we call the kinetic energy of the body also it's "temperature"? If we don't, then cold air made the re-entry module hot. Hell, cold air and a cold re-entry module made each other hot and the energy came magically out of no-where. If we do, then we accept that temperature is the kinetic energy of the individual ultimate particles and simply a net statistical effect, it says nothing about an individual particle.

My overriding point? As SSDD admits, "I have not made any attempt to either describe why or how neither heat nor energy moves ".

He doesn't know how or why energy moves, doesn't understand anything about thermodynamics. He's full of shit.

 

[itfitzme]

SSDD (wirebender) and lackwit dismiss anything Spencer says. He is unclean.

The Yes Virginia piece has been discussed with nobody changing their minds.

The point being, it comes up on a search of SSDD's claim. Real simple. SSDD can't come up with shit because it doesn't exists. He can't do the math that is required of science. Instead, the takes a vague statement he read on Hyperphysics, makes up a specific meaning that it never said, and goes blindly forth, undemonstrated, unproven.

He's got no business talking about science.

 

[itfitzme]

What is wrong with you?

Nothing at all other than my crazy belief that the second law of thermodynamics is correct

Nothing at all other than your crazy belief in what the second law of thermodynamics says.

Have you read Einstein's paper on Brownian motion? Do you understand how he uses the second law of thermodynamics in it?

Get back to us when you figure it out.

SSDD - "I have not made any attempt to either describe why or how neither heat nor energy moves ".

 

[SSDD]

What is wrong with you?

Nothing at all other than my crazy belief that the second law of thermodynamics is correct

I aced thermo and heat transfer and I think you've mistinterpreted badly. If you can't see a distinction between radiation and heat transfer, you need to start over.

The second law dictates both radiation and heat transfer....in fact it dictates every possible energy transfer from dropping rocks to radiation. Energy, in any form does not spontaneously move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.

Like my new sig? Anytime you want to trade, let me know.

Interesting that your new sig line is a lie. Says a lot about you.

 

[SSDD]

" I have not made any attempt... "

Exactly, your concept lacks any reasoning beyond, "My interpretation of the general statment on Hyperphysics is correct." Unfortunately, your interpretation is complete bullshit, lacking any deeper consideration of what energy is and how it is transfered between bodies.

Wrong again. I have not interpreted anything at all. I have simply stated the second law. I got the particular statement from the physics department of the University of Georgia. Are you saying they are not credible?

As to energy transfer between bodies, again, the second law states: 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.

No interpretation needed...just reading skills which you apparently lack.

 

[SSDD]

Anyone who is waiting for SSDD to change his opinion, or even explain his position, are only going to get a blue face.

I will change my opinion when the 2nd law changes. Last time I looked, it said:

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.

Why would I alter my position when it is, in fact, the very statement of the most fundamental of all physical laws. When it changes, I will change with it.

 

[SSDD]

You keep asking for proof. How about you provide some real world experiements that IR radiation cannot be emited by a cold body towards a warm body?

Second Law of Thermodynamics: 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.

How much more proof do you need than the most fundamental of all physical laws?

I know you haven't because it simply isn't the case.

How much actual experimentation do you think went into establishing that law? Thousands of experiments and repeatable result after result ultimately resulted in a law stating that energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. If an experiment were ever performed that showed otherwise, then the law would not say what it does.

 

[SSDD]

What is wrong with you?

Nothing at all other than my crazy belief that the second law of thermodynamics is correct

Nothing at all other than your crazy belief in what the second law of thermodynamics says.

Have you read Einstein's paper on Brownian motion? Do you understand how he uses the second law of thermodynamics in it?

Get back to us when you figure it out.

SSDD - "I have not made any attempt to either describe why or how neither heat nor energy moves ".

Statistical theory of heat...what of it? Einstein himself was not convinced by QM.

 

[IanC]

Nothing at all other than my crazy belief that the second law of thermodynamics is correct

I aced thermo and heat transfer and I think you've mistinterpreted badly. If you can't see a distinction between radiation and heat transfer, you need to start over.

The second law dictates both radiation and heat transfer....in fact it dictates every possible energy transfer from dropping rocks to radiation. Energy, in any form does not spontaneously move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.

Like my new sig? Anytime you want to trade, let me know.

Interesting that your new sig line is a lie. Says a lot about you.

Your sig line is correct. I assume you are being sarcastic because I know your position but few educated people would disagree with it.

 

[Abraham3]

Nothing at all other than my crazy belief that the second law of thermodynamics is correct

I aced thermo and heat transfer and I think you've mistinterpreted badly. If you can't see a distinction between radiation and heat transfer, you need to start over.

The second law dictates both radiation and heat transfer....in fact it dictates every possible energy transfer from dropping rocks to radiation. Energy, in any form does not spontaneously move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.

Like my new sig? Anytime you want to trade, let me know.

Interesting that your new sig line is a lie. Says a lot about you.

Your problem with thermo is that you have confused radiation with heat transfer. I can sit here radiating all day long in every direction, but the pork chop in a freezer on the other side of the planet is going to see damn little heat transfer from the act. Radiation takes place irrespective of what will be receiving the radiation. And radiation is not in and of itself, heat transfer.

 

[IanC]

Anyone who is waiting for SSDD to change his opinion, or even explain his position, are only going to get a blue face.

I will change my opinion when the 2nd law changes. Last time I looked, it said:

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.

Why would I alter my position when it is, in fact, the very statement of the most fundamental of all physical laws. When it changes, I will change with it.

My qote stands. Just because you stonewall and refuse to debate that doesn't make you correct.

 

[flacaltenn]

Anyone who is waiting for SSDD to change his opinion, or even explain his position, are only going to get a blue face.

I will change my opinion when the 2nd law changes. Last time I looked, it said:

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.

EM radiation is NOT HEAT.. You are misrepresenting the rules for EM propagation here.

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Energy does NOT flow .... from ........... cool to hot.... The net exchange ALWAYS OBEYS this rule.. But this does not say HOW you calculate the net exchange for purely radiative transfers. And that is done on a bidirectional basis. because every object radiates IR EM to some extent. The result of such calculation ---- will NEVER violate this part of your mantra..

Soooooooooooo.. You're safe. And you're just being ornery to INSIST that what nearly everyone is trying to tell you violates ANY PART of these rules..

They don't.. I haven't violated ANY of this..

 

[SSDD]

Your sig line is correct. I assume you are being sarcastic because I know your position but few educated people would disagree with it.

I was talking about Abraham's sig line. He fabricated" and attributed it to me. So now you approve of misquoting or just plain making up quotes.

 

[SSDD]

My qote stands. Just because you stonewall and refuse to debate that doesn't make you correct.

What the hell are you talking about? Your quote? I haven't said a thing about your quote. abraham3 asked if I liked his new sig line which is a completely fabricated quote which he attributes to me. I pointed out that the fact that his sig line was a lie says a lot about him.

Which quote of yours do you think I have a problem with?

 

[SSDD]

Anyone who is waiting for SSDD to change his opinion, or even explain his position, are only going to get a blue face.

I will change my opinion when the 2nd law changes. Last time I looked, it said:

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.

EM radiation is NOT HEAT.. You are misrepresenting the rules for EM propagation here.

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Energy does NOT flow .... from ........... cool to hot.... The net exchange ALWAYS OBEYS this rule.. But this does not say HOW you calculate the net exchange for purely radiative transfers. And that is done on a bidirectional basis. because every object radiates IR EM to some extent. The result of such calculation ---- will NEVER violate this part of your mantra..

Soooooooooooo.. You're safe. And you're just being ornery to INSIST that what nearly everyone is trying to tell you violates ANY PART of these rules..

They don't.. I haven't violated ANY of this..

Do you agree with this statement as stated or not:

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.

A yes or no answer will do.

 

[SSDD]

Your problem with thermo is that you have confused radiation with heat transfer. I can sit here radiating all day long in every direction, but the pork chop in a freezer on the other side of the planet is going to see damn little heat transfer from the act. Radiation takes place irrespective of what will be receiving the radiation. And radiation is not in and of itself, heat transfer.

Is radiation energy?

 

[PMZ]

How do you suppose that satellites at frigid space temperatures communicate with earth?