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

[PMZ]

Molecules separated by space, as in a gas, don't know their neighbors so they radiate energy depending on their energy level as measured by the absolute temperature. Where that energy goes after it has left, the molecule has no say in.

I asked you a simple question and you apparently find yourself unable to answer. When someone asks you what the Second Law has to say on the topic of energy moving from one region to another region, the correct response is to state what the second law has to say regarding the movement of energy from one region to another region. Here, let me help you out....this from the highly respected University of Georgia Physics Department:

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.

Now, let me ask you an even easier question that doesn't involve you having to actually look up complicated stuff like physical laws.

What do you think phrases like "not possible" and "will not" mean? If you need help, with such complex phrases just let me know and I will help you out.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics deals in net heat flow.

So you (and a lot of other warmers) say but I have looked and can't find a single credible reference that says that the second law doesn't mean exactly what it says. It is written in absolute terms...not possible...will not.

The second law is all about entropy and it states explicitly that energy won't move from a state of higher entropy to a state of lower entropy. Energy in the atmosphere is at a higher state of entropy than energy in the surface of the earth. Now once again, what does the second law say about the movement of energy from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state?

If you like, by all means provide a single repeatable laboratory experiment that demonstrates a two way energy flow in definance of the statement of the Second Law.

And this statement by you is pure sophistry:

Molecules separated by space, as in a gas, don't know their neighbors so they radiate energy depending on their energy level as measured by the absolute temperature. Where that energy goes after it has left, the molecule has no say in.

What does knowing have to do with anything? Do you think a stone dropped from your hand needs to know which way to move or do the forces of nature simply dictate to it which way it will move and the stone itself is only along for the ride?

Do you think a marble placed on an incline needs to know which way to move when it is released, or do you think the forces of nature simply don't give it any choice in which way to move?

How about water in a stream bed? Do you think it needs to know which way is downhill?

How about electricity moving down a line? Do you think those electrons need to know which direction is a higher entropy state or do you think that the forces of nature simply move them along whether the "know" any thing or not?

You've potentially learned a lot today. We'll see how much of it is still there tomorrow.

You really are a laugh. I have asked you simple questions that you can't answer and you claim that there is something that I can learn? I have learned that you are an idiot...I have learned that you are incapable of having a rational conversation on the topic because you don't have the slightest grasp of the topic. You will not discuss the topic because it is so far over your head that you don't even know where, or how to begin. You will pick random phrases that you have read and attempt to fit them into a conversation and end up looking even more foolish than you already do.

The day that I worry about you making me look foolish, I hope is the day that they're planting me in the ground.

 

[SSDD]

the laws of thermodynamics were formulated before we had an understanding of what was going on at the atomic level.

You say that like you believe that we actually know and fully or even really partialy understand what is going on at the atomic level. That is as silly a statement as ifitzpmz's claim that the models have covered every possible factor that can effect temperature. At this stage in our understanding of what happens at the atomic level, Ian, we are like a bunch of blind men trying to describe what an elephant is. At the atomic and sub atomic level, we are picking up random bits of glass and trying to describe what they came from.

You put entirely to much faith in the descriptions of those unknowns. Quantum physics will be rewritten a dozen times in the next century and a half and those decendents of ours will look back on our quaint beliefs with some humor.

they are perfectly correct for systems of large numbers of particles because the laws are statistical in nature. for a single particle they have no meaning. a single particle has no 'temperature'. you also confuse the packets of energy emitted as photons with the properties of particles of mass. photons, once emitted, exist until they interact with a bit of matter, they dont cancel out, they dont have a problem being in the same space as another photon. marbles down inclines, water down river banks, electrons through wires, etc are particles of matter which cannot exist in the same piece of space with other particles. the impact of this difference in properties between photons and mass is that there is two way flow of photons but not two way flow of matter. two objects of the same temp are continuously radiating at each other and absorbing the other's radiation so that there is no net exchange of energy.

You say those things like they are an article of your faith. The fact is that you are just guessing since there doesn't exist a single solitary bit of hard, observable, repeatable, experimental evidence to support any of them. They are the output of computer models written by people who know even less about what is really going on at the atomic level than we know about what drives the climate. You mistake faith for science...you mistake guesses for facts.

there are other pieces to the thermodynamic laws, such as entropy, but until you come to grips with the basic properties of radiation there is no point in adding more complexity.

The second law is all about entropy. Energy doesn't move from a high entropy state to a low entropy state.

I will ask you the same question I asked the village idiot....hopefully you can answer.

What does the Second Law say about the movement of energy from one entropy state to another? What does the Second Law say about the movement of energy from one temperature region to another? A statement of the Second Law will suffice which should end the disagreement unless you can provide a statement of the Second Law from a credible reference that supports your beliefs.

Im sorry you are offended by my clumping N&Z together with the Slayers. they are both fringe players in my book and add little to overall understanding because they 'dont play well with others'. especially with actual physicists.

It is difficult to play well with others when they are in the wrong and you know it and why they are wrong...and being actual physicists they are certainly in a position to look down on climate pseudoscientists. Then there is the fact that their model works without a greenhouse effect which, at the heart of the matter, is why you despise them.

 

[SSDD]

Again you mention particles and do not mention waves. Duality, it's part and parcel with QM. There are many examples of QM not gelling with classical physics, yet it's overlooked because it's the best we have right now. Doesn't make it correct in all things and certainly doesn't make it a law. On that basis alone, we can question GH theory, yet not you..LOL How is that? How is it that GH theory is considered fact in the media and by you, when the very theory it relies on isn't a fact?

He doesn't seem to grasp that duality, and particles and waves for that matter are nothing more than ad hoc constructs that have been devised in an attempt to explain something that at this point in our discovery, we simply don't understand and for which we have no factual explanation.

Till a law is overturned by new knowledge..new facts, and most importantly, new proof, it remains the law.

 

[SSDD]

Here is a simple two page presentation of planet earth, surrounded by nothing, considering that only radiant energy can come into the closed system, and only radiant energy can leave. And if the two are not equal, there must be dynamics at play which will ultimately result in them being equal.

Just to set a benchmark, is there anybody who disagrees with this level of detail?

Earth's Energy Budget

What you have there is a cartoon which does not, in fact reflect the reality of earth's energy budget any more than Tom and Jerry reflect the reality of the relationship between cats and mice. You have a crayon drawing of something that vaguely resembles reality....nothing more.

 

[SSDD]

The day that I worry about you making me look foolish, I hope is the day that they're planting me in the ground.

Fools never suspect how foolish they look. That's part of what makes them fools.

Once again. What does the Second Law say about the movement of energy from one entropy state to another entropy state? Surely you can answer the question.

 

[westwall]

First of all hybrids haven't stayed stagnant and second of all the VW TDI that you bring up is one that they plan to make some day.

Volkswagen prepares to build the world's most fuel efficient production car

Sure thing Bozo....Not too current are ya!


"84 mpg?! Couple Break Mileage Record With Passat TDI

John and Helen Taylor really know how to stretch a tank of gas. The couple squeezed 1,626 miles out of one tank of diesel fuel in a Volkswagen Passat TDI, breaking previous records.

During a three-day trip, the couple set out to beat the previous record for the most miles covered on a single tank of diesel: 1,526.6 by a VW Passat diesel in Europe.

The Taylors left Houston on May 3 in a 2012 Passat TDI with a manual transmission and ran out of fuel three days and nine states later in Sterling, Va.

Before the drive, the speedometer and odometer were calibrated by a state-certified testing facility. The Houston Police Department oversaw the initial fuel fill-up and sealed the gas tank at the beginning of the drive. At the end, a Loudoun County, Va., sheriff's deputy verified the ending mileage and removed the fuel-tank seal. The result was a whopping 84.1 mpg; the Passat TDI is EPA-rated at 31/43 mpg city/highway.

According to Volkswagen, the couple aimed to simulate real-world driving conditions and loaded the car with 120 pounds of luggage, drove in daytime traffic, took turns at the wheel and didn’t spend more than 14 hours on the road each day.

But the Taylors aren't strangers to mileage challenges: They've made a career out of driving efficiently and conducting workshops on fuel-efficient driving techniques. They hold more than 90 world fuel-economy and vehicle-related records."



84 mpg?! Couple Break Mileage Record With Passat TDI - KickingTires

Team Achieves 110 MPG Average In Prius : TreeHugger

Not exactly the same now is it. Your boys ran over the same flat 15 mile stretch of highway and averaged 29 MPH, over, and over, and over, and over, and over (get it) while the couple in the TDI DROVE the car all over the damned place at normal traffic speeds.

 

[PMZ]

Here is a simple two page presentation of planet earth, surrounded by nothing, considering that only radiant energy can come into the closed system, and only radiant energy can leave. And if the two are not equal, there must be dynamics at play which will ultimately result in them being equal.

Just to set a benchmark, is there anybody who disagrees with this level of detail?

Earth's Energy Budget

What you have there is a cartoon which does not, in fact reflect the reality of earth's energy budget any more than Tom and Jerry reflect the reality of the relationship between cats and mice. You have a crayon drawing of something that vaguely resembles reality....nothing more.

To know that is wrong, you must know that something that contradicts it is more correct. What is it that you believe more accurately reflects the energy flow into and out of system earth!

 

[PMZ]

Sure thing Bozo....Not too current are ya!


"84 mpg?! Couple Break Mileage Record With Passat TDI

John and Helen Taylor really know how to stretch a tank of gas. The couple squeezed 1,626 miles out of one tank of diesel fuel in a Volkswagen Passat TDI, breaking previous records.

During a three-day trip, the couple set out to beat the previous record for the most miles covered on a single tank of diesel: 1,526.6 by a VW Passat diesel in Europe.

The Taylors left Houston on May 3 in a 2012 Passat TDI with a manual transmission and ran out of fuel three days and nine states later in Sterling, Va.

Before the drive, the speedometer and odometer were calibrated by a state-certified testing facility. The Houston Police Department oversaw the initial fuel fill-up and sealed the gas tank at the beginning of the drive. At the end, a Loudoun County, Va., sheriff's deputy verified the ending mileage and removed the fuel-tank seal. The result was a whopping 84.1 mpg; the Passat TDI is EPA-rated at 31/43 mpg city/highway.

According to Volkswagen, the couple aimed to simulate real-world driving conditions and loaded the car with 120 pounds of luggage, drove in daytime traffic, took turns at the wheel and didn’t spend more than 14 hours on the road each day.

But the Taylors aren't strangers to mileage challenges: They've made a career out of driving efficiently and conducting workshops on fuel-efficient driving techniques. They hold more than 90 world fuel-economy and vehicle-related records."



84 mpg?! Couple Break Mileage Record With Passat TDI - KickingTires

Team Achieves 110 MPG Average In Prius : TreeHugger

Not exactly the same now is it. Your boys ran over the same flat 15 mile stretch of highway and averaged 29 MPH, over, and over, and over, and over, and over (get it) while the couple in the TDI DROVE the car all over the damned place at normal traffic speeds.

So, you believe that one day, a car rated for mid 30s fuel economy, driven by people known to set mpg records, under normal travel conditions, just happened to get nearly 3X normal mileage?

Have you always been the easiest guy in any room to fool?

 

[PMZ]

Then why are you posting bs models from Dr Roy's website?

Home Page.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

That is from Dr. Roy's website... It's his graph, selected balloon and selected satellite data, from Dr, Roy.

You can just keep on pretending all you want.

Are you really this stupid? Here is some more peer reviewed material pointing out the dismal failure of the climate models. I have provided you plenty of peer reviewed papers explicitly stating that climate models are failing spectacularly and you continue to whine and claim that they are accurate. How slow must you be?

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New article in Nature laments the dismal failure of climate models

yup, climate models show little skill at predicting the future.

an interesting paper is being discuss over at J Curry's blog-

Abstract. During a development stage global climate models have their properties adjusted or tuned in various ways to best match the known state of the Earth’s climate system. These desired properties are observables, such as the radiation balance at the top of the atmosphere, the global mean temperature, sea ice, clouds and wind fields. The tuning is typically performed by adjusting uncertain, or even non-observable, parameters related to processes not explicitly represented at the model grid resolution. The practice of climate model tuning has seen an increasing level of attention because key model properties, such as climate sensitivity, have been shown to depend on frequently used tuning parameters. Here we provide insights into how climate model tuning is practically done in the case of closing the radiation balance and adjusting the global mean temperature for the Max Planck Institute Earth System Model (MPIESM). We demonstrate that considerable ambiguity exists in the choice of parameters, and present and compare three alternatively tuned, yet plausible configurations of the climate model. The impacts of parameter tuning on climate sensitivity was less than anticipated.

Climate model tuning | Climate Etc.

Do you really believe that climate models determine how the earth works instead of vice versa?

 

[westwall]

Team Achieves 110 MPG Average In Prius : TreeHugger

Not exactly the same now is it. Your boys ran over the same flat 15 mile stretch of highway and averaged 29 MPH, over, and over, and over, and over, and over (get it) while the couple in the TDI DROVE the car all over the damned place at normal traffic speeds.

So, you believe that one day, a car rated for mid 30s fuel economy, driven by people known to set mpg records, under normal travel conditions, just happened to get nearly 3X normal mileage?

Have you always been the easiest guy in any room to fool?

Please take a look at what you wrote....NORMAL TRAVEL CONDITIONS. Yes, they are experts at getting better mileage from a vehicle. However we KNOW that the mileage estimates for TDI's is kept low and that for hybrids is grossly over rated. The point is the TDI was driven normally and the hybrid WASN'T.

Have you always been this gullible or did you land on your head after a fall?

 

[PMZ]

Molecules separated by space, as in a gas, don't know their neighbors so they radiate energy depending on their energy level as measured by the absolute temperature. Where that energy goes after it has left, the molecule has no say in.

I asked you a simple question and you apparently find yourself unable to answer. When someone asks you what the Second Law has to say on the topic of energy moving from one region to another region, the correct response is to state what the second law has to say regarding the movement of energy from one region to another region. Here, let me help you out....this from the highly respected University of Georgia Physics Department:

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.

Now, let me ask you an even easier question that doesn't involve you having to actually look up complicated stuff like physical laws.

What do you think phrases like "not possible" and "will not" mean? If you need help, with such complex phrases just let me know and I will help you out.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics deals in net heat flow.

So you (and a lot of other warmers) say but I have looked and can't find a single credible reference that says that the second law doesn't mean exactly what it says. It is written in absolute terms...not possible...will not.

The second law is all about entropy and it states explicitly that energy won't move from a state of higher entropy to a state of lower entropy. Energy in the atmosphere is at a higher state of entropy than energy in the surface of the earth. Now once again, what does the second law say about the movement of energy from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state?

If you like, by all means provide a single repeatable laboratory experiment that demonstrates a two way energy flow in definance of the statement of the Second Law.

And this statement by you is pure sophistry:

Molecules separated by space, as in a gas, don't know their neighbors so they radiate energy depending on their energy level as measured by the absolute temperature. Where that energy goes after it has left, the molecule has no say in.

What does knowing have to do with anything? Do you think a stone dropped from your hand needs to know which way to move or do the forces of nature simply dictate to it which way it will move and the stone itself is only along for the ride?

Do you think a marble placed on an incline needs to know which way to move when it is released, or do you think the forces of nature simply don't give it any choice in which way to move?

How about water in a stream bed? Do you think it needs to know which way is downhill?

How about electricity moving down a line? Do you think those electrons need to know which direction is a higher entropy state or do you think that the forces of nature simply move them along whether the "know" any thing or not?

You've potentially learned a lot today. We'll see how much of it is still there tomorrow.

You really are a laugh. I have asked you simple questions that you can't answer and you claim that there is something that I can learn? I have learned that you are an idiot...I have learned that you are incapable of having a rational conversation on the topic because you don't have the slightest grasp of the topic. You will not discuss the topic because it is so far over your head that you don't even know where, or how to begin. You will pick random phrases that you have read and attempt to fit them into a conversation and end up looking even more foolish than you already do.

Here's an idea that I've learned from smart people.

When faced with a question, even if you think that you're right, do some research.

For instance you could Google keywords like, "radiation from a cool body to a warm body".

If you did, here is one of the millions of responses that you'd get.

http://littleshop.physics.colostate.edu/tenthings/IRThermometer.pdf

Hmmmmm. "physics.colostate.edu". They ought to know.

Try some other credible sites.

And learn.

Cool stuff.

 

[PMZ]

Not exactly the same now is it. Your boys ran over the same flat 15 mile stretch of highway and averaged 29 MPH, over, and over, and over, and over, and over (get it) while the couple in the TDI DROVE the car all over the damned place at normal traffic speeds.

So, you believe that one day, a car rated for mid 30s fuel economy, driven by people known to set mpg records, under normal travel conditions, just happened to get nearly 3X normal mileage?

Have you always been the easiest guy in any room to fool?

Please take a look at what you wrote....NORMAL TRAVEL CONDITIONS. Yes, they are experts at getting better mileage from a vehicle. However we KNOW that the mileage estimates for TDI's is kept low and that for hybrids is grossly over rated. The point is the TDI was driven normally and the hybrid WASN'T.

Have you always been this gullible or did you land on your head after a fall?

Do you think that they were just extraordinarily lucky that day?

I have had two Priuses. Both got nearly exactly the EPA mileage. So why would I believe "we KNOW that the mileage estimates for TDI's is kept low and that for hybrids is grossly over rated"?

If you use caps when typing "know" does that make your assertions more true?

When you find yourself at the bottom of a deep hole, first, stop digging.

 

[itfitzme]

That is as silly a statement as ifitzpmz's claim that the models have covered every possible factor that can effect temperature.

I never made any such claim. I never even implied such a thing. *That is your own strawman bs, where you want to say that because it isn't all accounted for then it is wrong.

I have said that a linear regression of CO2 to temp anomoly yields

anom=-3.08 + 0.00922 CO2, to a nearly zero p-value and an R^2 of about 76%, for the data set I presented with it.

I have said that the models account for CO2, volcanic eruptions, ozone, sulfates, solar radiation, whatever the following graphic says, and probably other things that we don't even know about.

A more refined, and precise, regression analysis of CO2, solar activity, volcanic eruptions, El Nino, etc., yields

But we do know that there is inadequate measures of deep ocean and CARVE is currently working on permafrost thawing.

Nowhere have I ever said, "that the models have covered every possible factor that can effect temperature.", or even implied it.

You keep making shit up. It's a memory issue, apparently. *You can't seem to remember what you read. You remember what you want to have read. I doubt that you even recall what you've written, which goes a long ways towards explaining why you're so confused.

 

[PMZ]

That is as silly a statement as ifitzpmz's claim that the models have covered every possible factor that can effect temperature.

I never made any such claim. I never even implied such a thing. *That is your own strawman bs, where you want to say that because it isn't all accounted for then it is wrong.

I have said that a linear regression of CO2 to temp anomoly yields

anom=-3.08 + 0.00922 CO2, to a nearly zero p-value and an R^2 of about 76%, for the data set I presented with it.

I have said that the models account for CO2, volcanic eruptions, ozone, sulfates, solar radiation, whatever the following graphic says, and probably other things that we don't even know about.

A more refined, and precise, regression analysis of CO2, solar activity, volcanic eruptions, El Nino, etc., yields

But we do know that there is inadequate measures of deep ocean and CARVE is currently working on permafrost thawing.

Nowhere have I ever said, "that the models have covered every possible factor that can effect temperature.", or even implied it.

You keep making shit up. It's a memory issue, apparently. *You can't seem to remember what you read. You remember what you want to have read. I doubt that you even recall what you've written, which goes a long ways towards explaining why you're so confused.

I think reading is the problem. And he admits to getting all confused by colored graphs. Short words and simple sentences seem to be the limit.

 

[gslack]

Molecules separated by space, as in a gas, don't know their neighbors so they radiate energy depending on their energy level as measured by the absolute temperature. Where that energy goes after it has left, the molecule has no say in.

I asked you a simple question and you apparently find yourself unable to answer. When someone asks you what the Second Law has to say on the topic of energy moving from one region to another region, the correct response is to state what the second law has to say regarding the movement of energy from one region to another region. Here, let me help you out....this from the highly respected University of Georgia Physics Department:

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.

Now, let me ask you an even easier question that doesn't involve you having to actually look up complicated stuff like physical laws.

What do you think phrases like "not possible" and "will not" mean? If you need help, with such complex phrases just let me know and I will help you out.



So you (and a lot of other warmers) say but I have looked and can't find a single credible reference that says that the second law doesn't mean exactly what it says. It is written in absolute terms...not possible...will not.

The second law is all about entropy and it states explicitly that energy won't move from a state of higher entropy to a state of lower entropy. Energy in the atmosphere is at a higher state of entropy than energy in the surface of the earth. Now once again, what does the second law say about the movement of energy from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state?

If you like, by all means provide a single repeatable laboratory experiment that demonstrates a two way energy flow in definance of the statement of the Second Law.

And this statement by you is pure sophistry:



What does knowing have to do with anything? Do you think a stone dropped from your hand needs to know which way to move or do the forces of nature simply dictate to it which way it will move and the stone itself is only along for the ride?

Do you think a marble placed on an incline needs to know which way to move when it is released, or do you think the forces of nature simply don't give it any choice in which way to move?

How about water in a stream bed? Do you think it needs to know which way is downhill?

How about electricity moving down a line? Do you think those electrons need to know which direction is a higher entropy state or do you think that the forces of nature simply move them along whether the "know" any thing or not?

You've potentially learned a lot today. We'll see how much of it is still there tomorrow.

You really are a laugh. I have asked you simple questions that you can't answer and you claim that there is something that I can learn? I have learned that you are an idiot...I have learned that you are incapable of having a rational conversation on the topic because you don't have the slightest grasp of the topic. You will not discuss the topic because it is so far over your head that you don't even know where, or how to begin. You will pick random phrases that you have read and attempt to fit them into a conversation and end up looking even more foolish than you already do.

Here's an idea that I've learned from smart people.

When faced with a question, even if you think that you're right, do some research.

For instance you could Google keywords like, "radiation from a cool body to a warm body".

If you did, here is one of the millions of responses that you'd get.

http://littleshop.physics.colostate.edu/tenthings/IRThermometer.pdf

Hmmmmm. "physics.colostate.edu". They ought to know.

Try some other credible sites.

And learn.

Cool stuff.

Your linked PDF doesn't state any such thing. It's a PDF that asks and answers a question regarding clear or cloudy nights and temperature.

An insulator does not create additional warming. It slows heat loss hence the articles premise... Jesus you guys get dumber and dumber..

 

[westwall]

So, you believe that one day, a car rated for mid 30s fuel economy, driven by people known to set mpg records, under normal travel conditions, just happened to get nearly 3X normal mileage?

Have you always been the easiest guy in any room to fool?

Please take a look at what you wrote....NORMAL TRAVEL CONDITIONS. Yes, they are experts at getting better mileage from a vehicle. However we KNOW that the mileage estimates for TDI's is kept low and that for hybrids is grossly over rated. The point is the TDI was driven normally and the hybrid WASN'T.

Have you always been this gullible or did you land on your head after a fall?

Do you think that they were just extraordinarily lucky that day?

I have had two Priuses. Both got nearly exactly the EPA mileage. So why would I believe "we KNOW that the mileage estimates for TDI's is kept low and that for hybrids is grossly over rated"?

If you use caps when typing "know" does that make your assertions more true?

When you find yourself at the bottom of a deep hole, first, stop digging.

No, they are just skilled. You put up some cute hybrid where the guys averaged 29 mph over a flat 15 mile stretch of highway and thought that was the same as a real couple driving a real car on real roads at real speeds.


"I measured Olga's fuel economy in three tests: combined city/highway driving with a normal driving style; combined city/highway driving with an economy-minded driving style; and highway only.

Both combined city/highway tests included an even mix of urban, suburban and interstate trips. In the first, I drove with no regard for economy, operating the vehicle as I do in typical driving and enjoying the occasional acceleration sprint. In the second, I accelerated softly and kept speed down, but otherwise did not employ "hypermiling" techniques. In the highway segment, I kept up with traffic, running the Jetta at 5 to 10 mph above the speed limit, which ranged from 55 mph to 70 mph on my stretch.

Combined, normal driving: EPA Estimate - 34 mpg; Jetta computer display - 34.9 mpg; actual observed fuel economy - 36.5 mpg, 7% greater than EPA estimate
Combined, efficient driving: EPA Estimate - 34 mpg; Jetta computer display - 41.7 mpg; actual observed fuel economy - 43.7 mpg, 29% greater than EPA estimate
Highway, normal driving: EPA Estimate - 42 mpg; Jetta computer display - 48.0 mpg; actual observed fuel economy - 47.5 mpg, 13% greater than EPA estimate
These results are significantly better than the EPA estimates. Plus, the numbers show that economy-minded driving can return nearly ten extra miles for every gallon of diesel fuel, compared with the EPA's estimate."

2011 VW Jetta TDI Test: Real-World Fuel Economy - AutoTrader.com


We bought our Camry Hybrid last year and love the car. However we do not get good city gas mileage. City mileage averages 24 mpg. Highway mileage averages 36 mpg. We baby the car during starts and stops. We have taken the car back to the dealership and they claim everything is working correctly and with additional mileage on the car the mpg will improve. After 7 months it is still exactly the same city mileage.

Any ideas?

Low City Mileage - GreenHybrid - Hybrid Cars

Gas Mileage of Hybrid Vehicles

Low MPG on Honda Civic Hybrid AliceZ January 2010 edited November -1 in Repair and Maintenance Well not really low... but lower than than advertised. My 2008 Civic Hybrid, which I've had for about 4 months, is averaging 35 mpg. I got a tune-up a few weeks ago and since then it's averaged 32 mpg! The service dept. at the dealer can tell me nothing. It's supposed to get 40-45. Anyone know why or, better yet, how it could be improved? I do keep the tires well inflated and I drive pretty cautiously, slow acceleration, etc, to try and maximize mileage, but it doesn't seem to be helping. - See more at: Low MPG on Honda Civic Hybrid - Car Talk

Low MPG on Honda Civic Hybrid - Car Talk


Stupid and ignorant is no way to go through life PMZ. I hope you and your clones get help. I really do.

 

[SSDD]

To know that is wrong, you must know that something that contradicts it is more correct. What is it that you believe more accurately reflects the energy flow into and out of system earth!

To start with, rather than representing the earth as a flat disk that doesn't rotate and has no day and night,receives precisely the same amount of sunlight on its entire surface 24 hours a day, and arbitrarily places the sun 4 times further away than it actually is.

A more accurate model would represent the earth as a rotating sphere which experiences day and night, receives varying degrees of energy from the sun depending on where a given point is located at a given time longitudally as it relates to the sun, and its lattitude. A more accurate model would recognize the fact that the coolest part of any day is just after sunrise and then warms until a short period after mid day at which time a cooling process begins till night at which time no solar energy is received by the ground at all until sunrise again.

In short, the models you believe so fervently in are literally models of a flat earth and any model that represents an earth closer to reality would be an improvement. Are you saying that you really didn't know that the present crop of climate models depict the earth as a flat disk that receives the same amount of solar energy across its entire surface 24 hours a day from a sun that is 4 times further away from the earth than we know it to be?

 

[SSDD]

Do you really believe that climate models determine how the earth works instead of vice versa?

Climate models don't accurately depict how the earth works...that is why they are failing. The are based on flawed physics...they don't take into account the multitude of factors that drive the climate and they assume that CO2 is the control knob....that is why they are failing. If they accurately depicted the earth and its systems, then they would not be failing.

 

[SSDD]

Here's an idea that I've learned from smart people.

When faced with a question, even if you think that you're right, do some research.

For instance you could Google keywords like, "radiation from a cool body to a warm body".

If you did, here is one of the millions of responses that you'd get.

http://littleshop.physics.colostate.edu/tenthings/IRThermometer.pdf

Hmmmmm. "physics.colostate.edu". They ought to know.

Try some other credible sites.

And learn.

Cool stuff.

Interesting as a deflection from the question I asked you, but it doesn't answer it at all. Let me repeat.

What does the Second Law of Thermodynamics have to say about the movement from one entropy state to another or one temperature region to another. It isn't that hard, surely you can answer. You have to be at least that smart....don't you?

 

[itfitzme]

Has Slacksack figured out photosynthesis yet?

I am still looking through the IPCC site for this statement where they say they use 4-5 as a parameter for total global mean radiative forcing in the forward looking predictions.

So far, it comes up as more bullshit.