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

[itfitzme]

So you think a branch of mathematics is the fundamental mechamism of the most fundamental law of nature? Really? When and if we ever discover what force actually makes energy move from one place to another...you realy think that force will be a branch of mathematics? Are you really that far out there?

It is sad that you can't differentiate between an actual force and an attempt to mathematically describe what that force will do. That is the sort of misunderstanding an uneducated boob might make, but you claim to be educated.

What the F are you talking about?

Force = mass times acceleration. F=m*a.

Force = Electric field times charge. F=q*E.

Work = Energy = distance times force. W=F*d=m*a*d

Work = Energy = distance times force. W=F*d=q*E*d

Force acts on mass and charge. Or rather, force is an accounting of gravitational field or electric field acting on mass or charge.

Force doesn't act on energy.

Energy is the potential to do work. Energy is the potential of a force. Energy is an accounting of the potential for a force. Energy creates a force.

Kintetic Energy = .5*m*v^2. That is the potential to do work.

Gravitation potential energy = mass times gravitational acceleration times distance. PE=mgh

There is potential energy because a force acted on the mass over a distance, doing work, which is energy, against the gravitational force. It may also act against electric force.

Energy is the thing that causes force. Force doesn't act on energy, boob. There is no such thing as a fundamental force that makes energy move from one place to another.

Energy simply propogates. Pure energy, light, propogates at the speed of light, c. c^2=1/(ε0 * μ0). There is no force that acts on light to make is propogate. Light simply propogates because that is how the universe functions. (See Maxwell's equations. Changing electric field causes a magnetic field. Changing magnetic field causes and electric field.)

Light, from the sun, can be used to heat up water, making steam.

Alternatively, through the process of photosynthesis, light can be used by plants to create carbon chain molecules. Over time, those carbon chain molecules become oil. The oil contains potential energy, in the form of the molecular bonds.

Either way, a steam engine and an internal combustion engine can then be used to convert that energy, either in the form of kinetic energy of the water molecules or the kinetic energy of gasses in the combusion engine, into work through a mechanism of pistons and a crank shaft.

The force is from the kinetic energy of the molecules in the steam or the burning gasoline. The released energy creates a force. There is no force that moves the energy.

The expanding gasses do work on the piston, force times distance, turning the kinetic energy into work.

It is sad you don't know how things are measured and can't do the math.

"When and if we ever discover what force actually makes energy move from one place to another"

That is the sort of misunderstanding an uneducated boob might make. The more you write, the clearer it becomes that you haven't a clue what your talking about.

There is no force that makes energy move, numbnuts. Energy creates the force. I don't know what your education level is, but clearly it isn't in physics or a branch of engineering that uses mechanics or electrodynamics. You certainly didn't get an education from an accedited university.

Force, work, energy, all have very specific meanings in terms of measuring reality and combining those measurements into mathematic equations that relate them.

Energy = Force times distance = Mass times gravitational accelerations times distance.
Energy = Force times distance = Charge times electric field times distance.

Force = Energy divided by distance.

No where in there can it be said "force actually makes energy move".

Can you read that? Force is a result of the energy. Energy is force divided by distance. The force acts on mass or charge causing it to move a distance. Energy is the potential for force. Energy is the potential for the movement of mass and charge.

"force actually makes energy move" is a completely non-sense statement.

Get an f'in clue.

Take the time to read, learn, memorize, and grasp the fundamental equations that I have presented above. They are a precise description of the things actually measured and how they are related. You can't just throw words together based on some fuzzy analogies you've created in your own mind.

Force can't actually make energy move. There is no measurement of pounds or newtons force that acts on light to make it move. It is non-sense.

When energy propogates, it propogates where ever it can. When energy is released from the vibrating modes of a CO2 molecule, it propogates in whatever direction it can and does so unpredictably. The only reasonable description is a statistical description of probabilities. Entropy counts the number of ways that energy may exist in a particular volume of substance. There is no "entropy force" there is no "entropy field". There is no "temperature field." There is no "energy force", a force acting on energy. Energy, heat, and temperature are not what your trying to make them out to be. Energy describes an action, or the potential for an action, not a physical thing like a rock or molecule.

A photon is a propogating disturbance in the electro-magnetic field. An electric field has the potential to do work. A photon is a little potential to do work. A photon is a little bit of propogating energy and momentum. There is no force that acts on a photon. A photon simply goes in a straight line until it hits another particle, in which case the particle absorbs the energy and momentum.

There can't be a "force actually makes energy move", a force that makes a photon move. A photon is the energy that creates the force that makes charge or mass move. When a photon is absorbed by a molecule, it causes the individual atoms that make up the molecule to move as the electric bonds, the electron, vibrates. As a photon is responsible for the force, then there cannot be a force that acts on a photon. That would be another photon. It's non-sense. Guess what.... Photons don't intereract. (well, not as far as your concerned, not in terms of the way your trying to make things, that is quantum mechanics and your not ready.)

Geez.

 

[itfitzme]

I think I will keep mine and you will be getting rid of yours.

I don't see anything wrong with SSDD's sig line. He's advertising my knowledge of the topic, and broadcasting his own ignorance of it. And he doesn't understand that. So what's not to like?

"Oh, the fundamental mechanism of the second law is statistics. - Mamooth"

Yes, that would be an absolutely correct statement. We were not exactly sure, up until Einstein demonstrated that Brownian motion was fully accounted for by the statistical nature of moving molecules.

Einstein on Brownian Motion - David Cassidy

"The second law of thermodynamics says that most natural processes are irreversible, in contradiction to the Newtonian mechanics of atoms. Boltzmann in particular resolved this contradiction by interpreting the second law as a new type of law: a statistical, not an absolute, law. Since there are so many atoms or molecules, even in a tiny ice cube, it is extremely unlikely—but not impossible—for the myriads of molecules in a melted cube to return in a finite time from the disorder of a liquid to their original orderly, crystalline arrangement. The macroscopic properties of heat and material objects, such as irreversibility, arise from the statistical behavior of numerous mechanical atoms, a behavior to be described by a new "statistical mechanics.""

"Boltzmann and the American physicist J. Willard Gibbs provided the first accounts of how exactly the second law of thermodynamics arises from the statistical behavior of myriads of randomly moving atoms, Unaware of these writings, Einstein devoted three brilliant early papers during the years 1902 to 1904 to an independent derivation of the second law in the course of developing his own "statistical mechanics," based on atoms and mechanics. Continuing in this work, Einstein used mechanics, atoms, and statistical arguments to achieve what he called a "general molecular theory of heat," confirming that both laws of thermodynamics are, indeed, fully explicable on mechanical grounds."

Absolutely correct, the fundamental mechanism of the second law is statistics.

The second law says that when shit hits the fan, it randomly spreads out everywhere.

"Oh, the fundamental mechanism of the second law is statistics. - Mamooth" is a perfectly sound statement. Why would anyone think otherwise?

 

[itfitzme]

So you think a branch of mathematics is the fundamental mechamism of the most fundamental law of nature? Really? When and if we ever discover what force actually makes energy move from one place to another...you realy think that force will be a branch of mathematics? Are you really that far out there?

It is sad that you can't differentiate between an actual force and an attempt to mathematically describe what that force will do. That is the sort of misunderstanding an uneducated boob might make, but you claim to be educated.

It isn't that, philosophically, it's a bad idea. After all, mass moves because something makes it move. There is a force. But that is as far as it goes, philosophically wrong.

The reality is that energy is motion. Energy is (1/2) m v^2. Energy is motion times motion. Momentum is mass times motion. Energy and momentum are conserved quantities in the universe and they are motion. They are movement. c, the speed of light is constant in all reference frames, it is energy, it is fundamental motion. There is no need for a force to cause energy and momentum to move, they are movement, that is exactly what energy and momentum measure, conservation of movement.

And light is pure motion, pure movement. It is energy and momentum and nothing else. It is philosophically odd, sure. But that is physics. This is why we have to make the measurements, read the equations, and refrane from making philosophical statements that the equations don't support.

SSDD really should meditate on this.

Energy equals one half the mass times the velocity squared.

Momentum equals mass times the velocity.

Even mass is E=m c^2.

Motion, movement, velocity, is everything in the universe.

Without motion, there is no mass. Without motion, there is no time.

Energy doesn't need a force to move. It is movement.

 

[PMZ]

One interesting observation is that gravity effects EM radiation which demonstrates that it has mass if extremely small. It's direction is slightly changed by passing large masses like stars. On the other hand, if it has mass, how can it go the speed of light?

 

[SSDD]

So you think a branch of mathematics is the fundamental mechamism of the most fundamental law of nature? Really? When and if we ever discover what force actually makes energy move from one place to another...you realy think that force will be a branch of mathematics? Are you really that far out there?

It is sad that you can't differentiate between an actual force and an attempt to mathematically describe what that force will do. That is the sort of misunderstanding an uneducated boob might make, but you claim to be educated.

It isn't that, philosophically, it's a bad idea. After all, mass moves because something makes it move. There is a force. But that is as far as it goes, philosophically wrong.

The reality is that energy is motion. Energy is (1/2) m v^2. Energy is motion times motion. Momentum is mass times motion. Energy and momentum are conserved quantities in the universe and they are motion. They are movement. c, the speed of light is constant in all reference frames, it is energy, it is fundamental motion. There is no need for a force to cause energy and momentum to move, they are movement, that is exactly what energy and momentum measure, conservation of movement.

And light is pure motion, pure movement. It is energy and momentum and nothing else. It is philosophically odd, sure. But that is physics. This is why we have to make the measurements, read the equations, and refrane from making philosophical statements that the equations don't support.

SSDD really should meditate on this.

Energy equals one half the mass times the velocity squared.

Momentum equals mass times the velocity.

Even mass is E=m c^2.

Motion, movement, velocity, is everything in the universe.

Without motion, there is no mass. Without motion, there is no time.

Energy doesn't need a force to move. It is movement.

Words used to defend ignorance demonstrate ignorance and you have expended a lot of them.

Look up the word mechanism and then go ask an adult if a branch of mathematics is one

 

[Abraham3]

SSDD,

Why do you do these things? Is this a particular strategy that you've adopted as your core trollishness?

You have been shown often enough that the laws of thermodynamics may be derived from a statistical examination of the behavior of the components which make up any system you care to examine, that for you to deny it simply makes you look foolish: just as foolish as you are made to look by your absurd viewpoint regarding radiative heat transfer.

Is it self-deprecation in extremis or have you sussed out the truly masochistic nature of the troll?

 

[IanC]

SSDD,

Why do you do these things? Is this a particular strategy that you've adopted as your core trollishness?

You have been shown often enough that the laws of thermodynamics may be derived from a statistical examination of the behavior of the components which make up any system you care to examine, that for you to deny it simply makes you look foolish: just as foolish as you are made to look by your absurd viewpoint regarding radiative heat transfer.

Is it self-deprecation in extremis or have you sussed out the truly masochistic nature of the troll?

SSDD does it for the same reason as you believe in catastrophic global warming. He has over read and misinterpreted the meaning from definitions of the second law. You have taken the trivially true mechanism of CO2 absorption and used it as proof of the exaggerated doomsday conclusions that may happen. Both of you are wrong but only one of the fallacies is causing billions of dollars of wasted spending.

 

[PMZ]

SSDD,

Why do you do these things? Is this a particular strategy that you've adopted as your core trollishness?

You have been shown often enough that the laws of thermodynamics may be derived from a statistical examination of the behavior of the components which make up any system you care to examine, that for you to deny it simply makes you look foolish: just as foolish as you are made to look by your absurd viewpoint regarding radiative heat transfer.

Is it self-deprecation in extremis or have you sussed out the truly masochistic nature of the troll?

SSDD does it for the same reason as you believe in catastrophic global warming. He has over read and misinterpreted the meaning from definitions of the second law. You have taken the trivially true mechanism of CO2 absorption and used it as proof of the exaggerated doomsday conclusions that may happen. Both of you are wrong but only one of the fallacies is causing billions of dollars of wasted spending.

We have the works of the IPCC to support what we believe. What scientific evidence can you offer to support what you believe?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[IanC]

SSDD,

Why do you do these things? Is this a particular strategy that you've adopted as your core trollishness?

You have been shown often enough that the laws of thermodynamics may be derived from a statistical examination of the behavior of the components which make up any system you care to examine, that for you to deny it simply makes you look foolish: just as foolish as you are made to look by your absurd viewpoint regarding radiative heat transfer.

Is it self-deprecation in extremis or have you sussed out the truly masochistic nature of the troll?

SSDD does it for the same reason as you believe in catastrophic global warming. He has over read and misinterpreted the meaning from definitions of the second law. You have taken the trivially true mechanism of CO2 absorption and used it as proof of the exaggerated doomsday conclusions that may happen. Both of you are wrong but only one of the fallacies is causing billions of dollars of wasted spending.

We have the works of the IPCC to support what we believe. What scientific evidence can you offer to support what you believe?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

That is wayyyy to general of a question to answer.

The range for climate sensitivity is an example though. The early estimate of 3 is incorporated into the climate models. 1C for doubling CO2 times 3 for positive feedbacks. Climate sensitivities, especially those based on actual measured data have been dropping like a rock for the last few years, as I said they would. The doomsday scenarios are predicated on large temperature increases that are only happening in CO2 controlled climate models, not the much lower reality of actual temperature measurements. I am not going to dredge up links because no one here changes their mind anyway.

 

[PMZ]

Sometimes I think that the real difference between you and the IPCC is reflected in your choice of words like catastrophic and doomsday. I don't think that our problems stem from high magnitudes of weather change as much as the fact that we've over populated and over industrialized the planet to the point of small weather changes having very costly impact on civilization.

Plus the certainty that pure supply and demand will make fossil energy increasingly unaffordable , so inaction is the most expensive alternative.

If these issues had occurred even 100 years ago, the urgency to react would have been much lower.

 

[IanC]

Sometimes I think that the real difference between you and the IPCC is reflected in your choice of words like catastrophic and doomsday. I don't think that our problems stem from high magnitudes of weather change as much as the fact that we've over populated and over industrialized the planet to the point of small weather changes having very costly impact on civilization.

Plus the certainty that pure supply and demand will make fossil energy increasingly unaffordable , so inaction is the most expensive alternative.

If these issues had occurred even 100 years ago, the urgency to react would have been much lower.

Wow! Abrupt change of direction.

I agree that population size is linked to energy usage. Hahaha. I am not stupid enough to get bogged down in that quagmire.

Peak oil is always predicted and never seems to occur..

Amelioration of possible consequences seems a more realistic solution than spending gobs of money on inadequate and immature technology that is unlikely make any impact on CO2 production.

The much reduced temp increases will help food production and 'extreme' weather seems to be exactly like the old weather. I, for one, sm not going to jump on the doomsday train until a lot more actual evidence is presented because I don't think the models have any skill st predicting the future.

 

[PMZ]

Sometimes I think that the real difference between you and the IPCC is reflected in your choice of words like catastrophic and doomsday. I don't think that our problems stem from high magnitudes of weather change as much as the fact that we've over populated and over industrialized the planet to the point of small weather changes having very costly impact on civilization.

Plus the certainty that pure supply and demand will make fossil energy increasingly unaffordable , so inaction is the most expensive alternative.

If these issues had occurred even 100 years ago, the urgency to react would have been much lower.

Wow! Abrupt change of direction.

I agree that population size is linked to energy usage. Hahaha. I am not stupid enough to get bogged down in that quagmire.

Peak oil is always predicted and never seems to occur..

Amelioration of possible consequences seems a more realistic solution than spending gobs of money on inadequate and immature technology that is unlikely make any impact on CO2 production.

The much reduced temp increases will help food production and 'extreme' weather seems to be exactly like the old weather. I, for one, sm not going to jump on the doomsday train until a lot more actual evidence is presented because I don't think the models have any skill st predicting the future.

No change in direction on my part.

We have no alternative to ''amelioration of possible consequences''. It's a given.

We have no alternative to stop wasting so much energy.

We have no alternative to getting off fossil fuels except some rapidly expiring timing wiggle room.

There is absolutely no economic reason not to be pushing forward on sustainable energy technology.

 

[PMZ]

AGW is only one more reason to address the energy economic mess that we've gotten ourselves in. We simply can't afford to be stupid.

 

[ScienceRocks]

We should throw 50 billion behind our own fusion reactor that is twice as big as ITER.

Now that will get us off of oil and shit.

 

[itfitzme]

One interesting observation is that gravity effects EM radiation which demonstrates that it has mass if extremely small. It's direction is slightly changed by passing large masses like stars. On the other hand, if it has mass, how can it go the speed of light?

You should revise. The photon is not a mass carrier. As it turns out, mass warps the topology of space-time. Light then simply follows the straight path which, from our cartesian perspective, appears curved.

 

[itfitzme]

SSDD,

Why do you do these things? Is this a particular strategy that you've adopted as your core trollishness?

You have been shown often enough that the laws of thermodynamics may be derived from a statistical examination of the behavior of the components which make up any system you care to examine, that for you to deny it simply makes you look foolish: just as foolish as you are made to look by your absurd viewpoint regarding radiative heat transfer.

Is it self-deprecation in extremis or have you sussed out the truly masochistic nature of the troll?

SSDD does it for the same reason as you believe in catastrophic global warming. He has over read and misinterpreted the meaning from definitions of the second law. You have taken the trivially true mechanism of CO2 absorption and used it as proof of the exaggerated doomsday conclusions that may happen. Both of you are wrong but only one of the fallacies is causing billions of dollars of wasted spending.

Except that AWG is demonstrated scientifically as is CO2 absorbtion. You just fail to grasp the fundamental aspect of the science, choosing instead to believe in some unrecognized magical cause rather than what is demonstrated.

Of course, you are welcome, at any time, to provide demonstated scientific evidence of this other thing. Or that the temp record is demonstratably wrong.

Rather, the issue is the same SSDD, yourself, and others, an inability to grasp the statistical nature of reality and science.

 

[itfitzme]

So you think a branch of mathematics is the fundamental mechamism of the most fundamental law of nature? Really? When and if we ever discover what force actually makes energy move from one place to another...you realy think that force will be a branch of mathematics? Are you really that far out there?

It is sad that you can't differentiate between an actual force and an attempt to mathematically describe what that force will do. That is the sort of misunderstanding an uneducated boob might make, but you claim to be educated.

It isn't that, philosophically, it's a bad idea. After all, mass moves because something makes it move. There is a force. But that is as far as it goes, philosophically wrong.

The reality is that energy is motion. Energy is (1/2) m v^2. Energy is motion times motion. Momentum is mass times motion. Energy and momentum are conserved quantities in the universe and they are motion. They are movement. c, the speed of light is constant in all reference frames, it is energy, it is fundamental motion. There is no need for a force to cause energy and momentum to move, they are movement, that is exactly what energy and momentum measure, conservation of movement.

And light is pure motion, pure movement. It is energy and momentum and nothing else. It is philosophically odd, sure. But that is physics. This is why we have to make the measurements, read the equations, and refrane from making philosophical statements that the equations don't support.

SSDD really should meditate on this.

Energy equals one half the mass times the velocity squared.

Momentum equals mass times the velocity.

Even mass is E=m c^2.

Motion, movement, velocity, is everything in the universe.

Without motion, there is no mass. Without motion, there is no time.

Energy doesn't need a force to move. It is movement.

Words used to defend ignorance demonstrate ignorance and you have expended a lot of them.

Look up the word mechanism and then go ask an adult if a branch of mathematics is one

What the F are you talking about? Look up the word machine.

Light travels at the speed of of light because a changing magnetic field causes an electric field and a changing electric field causes a magnetic field. In free space, the speed of light falls naturally out of Maxwells equations. It is the reciprocal of the square root of the product of the permiability and permativity of free space. There is no "mechanism". It simply is. And, light transfers only energy and momentum.

The problem your having is you don't know the physics or the math so your making up the meaning of termonology as you go, out of analogies of your own making.

The mathematics is necessary to make the measures and specify the processes of physical reality. These then define the words. The mathematics defines the mechanics, the dynamics, the mechanism, the machinary...

Force, mass, energy, momentum, permitivity, permeability, velocity, force displacement, time, acceleration, volts, amperes, joules, etc... these are the terms of physics. They are defined by physical measurement, have definitive functions...

Mass times acceleration is Force.
Force over distance is energy.
Light is equivalent in energy, identical in conservation of energy, a law more fundamental than your entropy bs.
Light simply propogates because it is light. See Maxwell's equations.

That IS the mechanism, the machnery, the mechanics, the electrodynamics.

Your vague bs means nothing. Your a moron. You have no mechanism to describe. You have no force to describe. You have no quantities to describe with, no measurements to make, no mathematics to relate them.

And I've just guaranteed that you always will be because you are set on rejecting the real physics that I've set forth.

 

[SSDD]

I think I will keep mine and you will be getting rid of yours.

I don't see anything wrong with SSDD's sig line. He's advertising my knowledge of the topic, and broadcasting his own ignorance of it. And he doesn't understand that. So what's not to like?

Ignorance is bliss and you must be enormously ignorant if you believe my sig line reflects on you in any positive way.

 

[SSDD]

I know a whole lot about frequency and amplitude.

Obviously, you don't or you wouldn't keep asking the question....but is fun to watch you pretend to know and try to compare apples to watermelons.

 

[SSDD]

The second law isn't only describing radiation, it I'd describing many processes both macroscopic and microscopic. The same statistical rules govern photons or ink diffusing in a glass of water.

So you say....and so you have said many times. How about a link to an observable lab experiment that proves it.