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

[SSDD]

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.

Why are you dodging so? Do you really not know what the Second Law says regarding the movement of energy from one entropy state to another?

What are you talking about? I have had no discussion about thermodynamics laws. You obviously can no more separate one person from another than you can websites, models, or organizations.

Of course you haven't. You have made a great public display of your avoidance of the topic dodging every time a question on the fundamental laws of nature has been put to you. You have demonstrated admirably that you are not up to any such conversation and run like a vampire exposed to daylight at the very mention of them.

Since it is so entertaining to watch you run in fear from actual science that isn't open to twisting, mangling, and misrepresentation I will ask you again...and continue to ask you....

What does the Second Law of Thermodynamics have to say about the movement of energy from one entropy state to another entropy state? And lets get a bit more complex...how does what the Second Law says about that energy movement apply to the greenhouse hypothesis?

Run child.... run. Actual science is pursuing you. Real since, the science that lies under the fabricated fraud, and the media sideshow...the science that, in the end, won't be denied. Run child....run.

 

[SSDD]

He's an idiot. *He things the cartoon graphics, used to simplify it for his level of comprehension, is the model that the IPCC use.

I am also beginning to suspect that he is also another Slacksack sock. *SSaDhD=Flatulance*=SlackSack *And I'm beginning to suspect*Walleyed as a*Flatulance sock as well. *

IanC seems to be the only one that actually has original thought. Though I do feel a little bad about suggesting anyone might be as stupid as SlackSack, with his coal cycle theory of photosynthesis. Still, none of themnhave corrected him on it either.

Maybe the left hand...or are you the right hand would like to try and answer the question of what the Second Law of Thermodynamics has to say regarding the movement of energy from a high entropy state to a low entropy state and how that statement applies to the greenhouse hypothesis. Will you run like the left hand did?...or is ititzme the right hand?

 

[SSDD]

No, they're bribing government to pass laws that allow them to fleece the population. But you already knew that.

Have you ever seen anyone quite as stupid as him and his sock....or that sock and his handler? Hard to keep them separated since neither one is really distinguishable from a puppet.

Watching him/them speak is like watching a very slimy defense lawyer trying to portray a mob hitman as an alter boy scout leader saint. No subject is beyond lying about and no lie is to big to tell.

 

[IanC]

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.

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The second law is an empirically validated postulate of thermodynamics, but it can be understood and explained using the underlying quantum statistical mechanics, together with the assumption of low-entropy initial conditions in the distant past (possibly at the beginning of the universe). In the language of statistical mechanics, entropy is a measure of the number of microscopic configurations corresponding to a macroscopic state. Because equilibrium corresponds to a vastly greater number of microscopic configurations than any non-equilibrium state, it has the maximum entropy, and the second law follows because random chance alone practically guarantees that the system will evolve towards equilibrium.

Statistical mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statistical mechanics or statistical thermodynamics[note 1] is a branch of physics that applies probability theory, which contains mathematical tools for dealing with large populations, to the study of the thermodynamic behavior of systems composed of a large number of particles. Statistical mechanics provides a framework for relating the microscopic properties of individual atoms and molecules to the macroscopic bulk properties of materials that can be observed in everyday life, thereby explaining thermodynamics as a result of the classical- and quantum-mechanical descriptions of statistics and mechanics at the microscopic level.

Statistical mechanics provides a molecular-level interpretation of macroscopic thermodynamic quantities such as work, heat, free energy, and entropy. It enables the thermodynamic properties of bulk materials to be related to the spectroscopic data of individual molecules. This ability to make macroscopic predictions based on microscopic properties is the main advantage of statistical mechanics over classical thermodynamics. Both theories are governed by the second law of thermodynamics through the medium of entropy. However, entropy in thermodynamics can only be known empirically, whereas in statistical mechanics, it is a function of the distribution of the system on its micro-states.

Second law of thermodynamics - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The second law is only applicable to macroscopic systems. The second law is actually a statement about the probable behavior of an isolated system. As larger and larger systems are considered, the probability of the second law being practically true becomes more and more certain. For any isolated system with a mass of more than a few picograms, the second law is true to within a few parts in a million.[1]

from the first two entries on a search for SLoT. can you find a definition of the SLoT that specifically mentions microscopic systems and/or this unknown (to all but you and wirebender) physical law that prohibits the emission of photons in certain directions? or are you simply going to make an incorrect analogy of a marble running down an incline again?

 

[SSDD]

As usual, you are confused because you can't tell one model from another. *Apparently, to you, they are all "models". *Like you group people into categories and all people in a category are identical.

So do tell, which model(s) by name and organization of origin, are producing accurate useable output that reasonably could be considered by rational people making trillion dollar decisions regarding the economic future of entire nations.

 

[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.



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.



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.

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Statistical mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statistical mechanics or statistical thermodynamics[note 1] is a branch of physics that applies probability theory, which contains mathematical tools for dealing with large populations, to the study of the thermodynamic behavior of systems composed of a large number of particles. Statistical mechanics provides a framework for relating the microscopic properties of individual atoms and molecules to the macroscopic bulk properties of materials that can be observed in everyday life, thereby explaining thermodynamics as a result of the classical- and quantum-mechanical descriptions of statistics and mechanics at the microscopic level.

Statistical mechanics provides a molecular-level interpretation of macroscopic thermodynamic quantities such as work, heat, free energy, and entropy. It enables the thermodynamic properties of bulk materials to be related to the spectroscopic data of individual molecules. This ability to make macroscopic predictions based on microscopic properties is the main advantage of statistical mechanics over classical thermodynamics. Both theories are governed by the second law of thermodynamics through the medium of entropy. However, entropy in thermodynamics can only be known empirically, whereas in statistical mechanics, it is a function of the distribution of the system on its micro-states.

Second law of thermodynamics - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The second law is only applicable to macroscopic systems. The second law is actually a statement about the probable behavior of an isolated system. As larger and larger systems are considered, the probability of the second law being practically true becomes more and more certain. For any isolated system with a mass of more than a few picograms, the second law is true to within a few parts in a million.[1]

Wiki is a credible reference in your eyes now Ian? Which physics department teaches out of wiki? And is that a statement of the second law, or a hypothesis of what the second law will mean if and when the postulates of QM are actually proven?

Don't be dishonest Ian.

can you find a definition of the SLoT that specifically mentions microscopic systems and/or this unknown (to all but you and wirebender) physical law that prohibits the emission of photons in certain directions? or are you simply going to make an incorrect analogy of a marble running down an incline again?

Why would a physical law need to describe every possible permutation of its application which would be every possible energy exchange? A physical law, is a physical law because it describes invariable relationships. When it says that energy will not move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state it is not necessary to describe every possible high entropy state and every possible low entropy state and every possible exchange between them. It is enough to say that it is not possible for energy to move from a high entropy state to a low entropy state...likewise, it is not necessary to describe every possible quantity of energy from gigajoules to any unspecified power down to a photon.....energy (in all its possible quantities) will not move from a high entropy state to a low entropy state.

I have invited you before to offer up some repeatable experimental proof that the statement of the second law is wrong and explain why that statement has not been rewritten to express the new proof that it has been wrong for all these long years but you don't seem to be able to do that...and still, you hold to the belief that it is wrong.

Unless you can prove that it is wrong in its absolute statement that energy will not move from a high entropy state to a lower entropy state, I am afraid that you are just preaching and trying to convert me, and anyone else that is listening, to your faith. QM and its various and assundry pronouncements are theory Ian and have not overturned a single physical law, much less the most fundamental of all physical laws.

 

[IanC]

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- when you posted up Joe's pdf manifesto it did not give any of the usual information like solar input. I would like to see if his calculations were different, and in what direction, than more well known diagrams like Trenberth's. it is all well and good for someone to have different ideas but when you cannot compare them to anybody else's then they are next to useless. like I said, "doesnt play well with others". Joe and the rest of the slayers refuse, or just are unable to answer straight forward questions from reputable physicists and that is why they are considered cranks.

 

[IanC]

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.



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.



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.

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Statistical mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Second law of thermodynamics - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Wiki is a credible reference in your eyes now Ian? Which physics department teaches out of wiki? And is that a statement of the second law, or a hypothesis of what the second law will mean if and when the postulates of QM are actually proven?

Don't be dishonest Ian.

can you find a definition of the SLoT that specifically mentions microscopic systems and/or this unknown (to all but you and wirebender) physical law that prohibits the emission of photons in certain directions? or are you simply going to make an incorrect analogy of a marble running down an incline again?

Why would a physical law need to describe every possible permutation of its application which would be every possible energy exchange? A physical law, is a physical law because it describes invariable relationships. When it says that energy will not move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state it is not necessary to describe every possible high entropy state and every possible low entropy state and every possible exchange between them. It is enough to say that it is not possible for energy to move from a high entropy state to a low entropy state...likewise, it is not necessary to describe every possible quantity of energy from gigajoules to any unspecified power down to a photon.....energy (in all its possible quantities) will not move from a high entropy state to a low entropy state.

I have invited you before to offer up some repeatable experimental proof that the statement of the second law is wrong and explain why that statement has not been rewritten to express the new proof that it has been wrong for all these long years but you don't seem to be able to do that...and still, you hold to the belief that it is wrong.

Unless you can prove that it is wrong in its absolute statement that energy will not move from a high entropy state to a lower entropy state, I am afraid that you are just preaching and trying to convert me, and anyone else that is listening, to your faith. QM and its various and assundry pronouncements are theory Ian and have not overturned a single physical law, much less the most fundamental of all physical laws.

hahahahaha. you're stonewalling again. Wiki is a reasonable resource for non-controversial topics like this. the SLoT is only for macroscopic systems where large numbers cancel out random fluctuations. it has nothing to do with single events, only with the results of many, many single events. why dont you just ask a professor or even a high school teacher? your interpretation is flawed.

 

[IanC]

I have invited you before to offer up some repeatable experimental proof that the statement of the second law is wrong and explain why that statement has not been rewritten to express the new proof that it has been wrong for all these long years but you don't seem to be able to do that...and still, you hold to the belief that it is wrong.

Unless you can prove that it is wrong in its absolute statement that energy will not move from a high entropy state to a lower entropy state, I am afraid that you are just preaching and trying to convert me, and anyone else that is listening, to your faith. QM and its various and assundry pronouncements are theory Ian and have not overturned a single physical law, much less the most fundamental of all physical laws.

I am not trying to convert you, but I am trying to make sure that no unwary reader thinks your bizarre theory of prohibited emission is correct.

you keep saying I think the Second Law is wrong but I keep saying it is right, only your understanding of it is wrong. the SLoT started out as an empirical law that was only supported by observation. now statistical mechanics describe exactly how and why it works. but nowhere in all the volumes that have been writen about thermodynamics is there anything stating the existence of a previously unknown physical law prohibiting radiation emission from a particle, or the emission in a certain direction, because of a temperature differential. you wont even say how the particle knows the temperature of its surroundings.

 

[PMZ]

Sure they are. Here are a whole host of papers showing all the failings of the climate models and just how crappy they are. Enjoy the read. 1st off is Hansens testimony to The House of Commons...you know who he is right? Then there is a paper stating that the computer models are so poor that they are unable to be used for predictive purposes for agriculture but they hope that within 5 to 50! years they may be..

In other words, wherever you look within legitimate scientific circles and journals, the UNIVERSAL opinion is that global climate models are worse than useless.


"...The climate models often get criticised-and it is a valid criticism-that there is a lot of physics that we may not even have in the models, and that which we do have in may be inaccurate.
...The IPCC had prior estimates. The last report was that sea level this century would only go up a fraction of a metre. The new report is probably going to estimate more like a metre, but these are educated guesses."-James Hansen....


"Global climate models (GCMs) have become increasingly important for climate change science and provide the basis for most impact studies. Since impact models are highly sensitive to input climate data, GCM skill is crucial for getting better short-, medium- and long-term outlooks for agricultural production and food security. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) phase 5 ensemble is likely to underpin the majority of climate impact assessments over the next few years. We assess 24 CMIP3 and 26 CMIP5 simulations of present climate against climate observations for five tropical regions, as well as regional improvements in model skill and, through literature review, the sensitivities of impact estimates to model error. Climatological means of seasonal mean temperatures depict mean errors between 1 and 18 ° C (2–130% with respect to mean), whereas seasonal precipitation and wet-day frequency depict larger errors, often offsetting observed means and variability beyond 100%. Simulated interannual climate variability in GCMs warrants particular attention, given that no single GCM matches observations in more than 30% of the areas for monthly precipitation and wet-day frequency, 50% for diurnal range and 70% for mean temperatures. We report improvements in mean climate skill of 5–15% for climatological mean temperatures, 3–5% for diurnal range and 1–2% in precipitation. At these improvement rates, we estimate that at least 5–30 years of CMIP work is required to improve regional temperature simulations and at least 30–50 years for precipitation simulations, for these to be directly input into impact models. We conclude with some recommendations for the use of CMIP5 in agricultural impact studies."


House of Commons - Uncorrected Evidence - HC 60

http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/9/3489/2013/cpd-9-3489-2013.pdf

Plausible reasons for the inconsistencies between the modelled and observed temperatures in the tropical troposphere - Varotsos - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Flawed Global Warming Models Predict Heat That Hasn't Occurred - Investors.com

Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models Vs. Observations | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

Implications of regional improvement in global climate models for agricultural impact research - Abstract - Environmental Research Letters - IOPscience

When I read the legitimate of your references what I think that they imply is indisputable. Climate and weather models are useful today and will be continuously improved forever. Who would possibly think otherwise?

But doers are betting billions on them today.

And science deniers deny science regardless of where it is in terms of continuous improvement.

This really does boil down to just one thing. The continual string of better and better models have not changed their conclusion. Our climate, due to the waste that we dump into our atmosphere, will change as a result, and that will have significant and costly consequences to the civilization that we've built around a climate that is changing around us.

It would be better for mankind if that wasn't true.

That has no impact on the fact that it is true.

No, they're bribing government to pass laws that allow them to fleece the population. But you already knew that.

Until you have evidence, it's all self-serving babble. Nobody cares what you wish was true.

 

[PMZ]

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..

It answered the question do colder objects radiate energy to warmer objects but, not surprisingly, that went right over your head.

I have revised my assessment of the human race thanks to you. I now believe that no matter how it's explained, a certain portion of the human race are incapable of understanding AGW.

The only good news? That's not a problem in doing what has to be done.

No it didn't socko. what it did was try and explain the thermodynamics and insulating properties of cloud cover especially at night... You don't know what an insulator is? LOL, not surprising...

Your cognitive limitations are not my concern.

 

[PMZ]

No model represents the earth as a flat disk. The flat disk is how to calculate the area for the incoming parallel rays of the sun in order to know the watts/m2 from that source.

Once again, your fundamental ignorance goes on display. All models represent the earth as a flat disk.

I am surprised that you are unaware of the earth portrayed in climate models. Even the crop of crazies that we had here before you and your sock showed up were aware that the models didn't represent the earth as a rotating sphere and that they arbitrarily put the sun 4x further away than it actually is.

Do a bit of research into what is actually meant by P/4

Your cognitive limitations are not my concern. The science has been clearly layed out here in many ways by many people many times. They all are, apparently, beyond your comprehension. The only real question is why would someone so limited, voluntarily put it on repeated display in such a public forum?

Al Franken answered that question below.

You are a "fucking moron".

 

[SSDD]

hahahahaha. you're stonewalling again. Wiki is a reasonable resource for non-controversial topics like this. the SLoT is only for macroscopic systems where large numbers cancel out random fluctuations. it has nothing to do with single events, only with the results of many, many single events. why dont you just ask a professor or even a high school teacher? your interpretation is flawed.

Stonewalling? You are joking, right? I can go to any credible physics text and copy the statement of the Second Law right from the book and make my case. Is that stonewalling in your book? Is that stonewalling in anyone's book. Lets see.

stonewalling - n - the act of stalling, evading, or filibustering, especially to avoid revealing embarrassing information.

So lets look again. I have my argument which is supported entirely by the second law of thermodynamics as it is stated in every legitimate physics text that I have ever looked at, in addition to scientific dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc. Those words are the essence of my argument and practically every credible reference on earth supports them.

You, on the other hand claim that the statement of the second law isn't actually law...you claim that under some conditions it doesn't apply even though you can't provide the first bit of repeatable experimental evidence to support the claim. When asked what the statement of the Second Law says regarding the movement of energy from one state to another, you go into some spiel about photons needing to know in which direction they must move which we know by direct observation is just so much bull. We know from direct observations that the forces of nature dictate movements of objects ranging from the swirl of galaxies, to the movement of microscopic particles. None of these movements are the result of any "knowing"...they are the result of the action of natural forces described by universal laws.

When asked what the statement of the Second Law has to say about energy movement, you never quote the Second Law, which is the appropriate response, instead you go to sources such as wiki for someone's opinion on what the second law means...someone, by the way, who also can't provide the first bit of repeatable experimental evidence that his claims regarding the Second Law are anything more than theory as yet unproven by anything more substantial than a mathematical or computer model while I can point to every energy change in the known universe which is observably obeying the statement of the second law.

You dance, you gyrate, you bend over backwards in a myriad of transparent attempts to avoid simply stating what the Second Law says regarding the movement of energy from one place to another. Why do you do this? It is obvious. If you state the Second Law, then it casts serious doubt on your belief. All of the actions you take when asked what the Second Law says regarding the movement of energy from one place to another is, by definition, Ian, stonewalling.

I go straight to the physics text, scientific dictionary, or encyclopedia and simply state what it says and will continue to say until such time as some actual proof that it is wrong overturns it. Hypothesis and theory, as romantic and exciting as they may be to you, do not trump actual physical law and they do not replace it. You can hypothesize and theorize as much as you like regarding what if the Second Law, or any other physical law for that matter were wrong, but until they are proven wrong, they stand and those who are in disagreement with them are wrong.

 

[westwall]

When I read the legitimate of your references what I think that they imply is indisputable. Climate and weather models are useful today and will be continuously improved forever. Who would possibly think otherwise?

But doers are betting billions on them today.

And science deniers deny science regardless of where it is in terms of continuous improvement.

This really does boil down to just one thing. The continual string of better and better models have not changed their conclusion. Our climate, due to the waste that we dump into our atmosphere, will change as a result, and that will have significant and costly consequences to the civilization that we've built around a climate that is changing around us.

It would be better for mankind if that wasn't true.

That has no impact on the fact that it is true.

No, they're bribing government to pass laws that allow them to fleece the population. But you already knew that.

Until you have evidence, it's all self-serving babble. Nobody cares what you wish was true.

Yes indeed. And it go's BOTH ways tojo. Hansen is the architect of many of the computer models that he admitted are shit....and those are the very same models that you clowns fawn all over.

See how that works? No, I didn't think so...in addition to your well displayed lack of intellectual honesty you also simply lack intellect....period.

 

[westwall]

It answered the question do colder objects radiate energy to warmer objects but, not surprisingly, that went right over your head.

I have revised my assessment of the human race thanks to you. I now believe that no matter how it's explained, a certain portion of the human race are incapable of understanding AGW.

The only good news? That's not a problem in doing what has to be done.

No it didn't socko. what it did was try and explain the thermodynamics and insulating properties of cloud cover especially at night... You don't know what an insulator is? LOL, not surprising...

Your cognitive limitations are not my concern.

But yours concern us a great deal. Can you really wipe your own bum? I say no but some say yes...

 

[itfitzme]

No model represents the earth as a flat disk. The flat disk is how to calculate the area for the incoming parallel rays of the sun in order to know the watts/m2 from that source.

Once again, your fundamental ignorance goes on display. All models represent the earth as a flat disk.

I am surprised that you are unaware of the earth portrayed in climate models. Even the crop of crazies that we had here before you and your sock showed up were aware that the models didn't represent the earth as a rotating sphere and that they arbitrarily put the sun 4x further away than it actually is.

Do a bit of research into what is actually meant by P/4

Hunke, E.C., and J.K. Dukowicz, 2002: The Elastic-Viscous-Plastic sea ice dynamics model in general orthogonal curvilinear coordinates on a sphere–Effect of metric terms. Mon. Weather Rev., 130, 1848–1865.

 

[SSDD]

I am not trying to convert you, but I am trying to make sure that no unwary reader thinks your bizarre theory of prohibited emission is correct.

You are doing even worse. You are attempting to mislead people who are not even in the conversation.

I have no bizarre theory. It is you who is operating on unproven theory and hypothesis. My argument is that Second Law of Thermodynamics says: 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.

Tell me, what is strange and bizarre about my stating the Second Law and saying that I believe it to not only be true, but to mean what it says? What is bizarre Ian, is claiming that it doesn't mean what it says when if science had found it to be proveably wrong then science would have recended it and replace it with a more accurate statement. If the law didn't apply to individual events, and that was a proveable fact, don't you think that qualifier might be inclued in the statement of the law?

Would you think it bizarre if I quoted the Ideal Gas Law in a discussion over whether or not the state of a gas is determined by its pressure, volume and temperature?

Would you accuse me of bizarre theories if I quoted Dalton's Law if we were in disagreement over whether the pressure of a mixture of gasses is equal to the sum of the partial pressures of the component gasses and said that you were wrong if your position were in opposition to the statement of that law?

If you would think that bringing the statements of those laws into those conversations would constitued bizarre beliefs on the part of the one who used them, then you are even further out there than I had suspected....now if the use of those physical laws, in support of an argument are not bizarre, how then could the use of the statement of the most fundamental physical law be any more bizarre? What is bizarre Ian, is to be in disagreement with that statement.

you keep saying I think the Second Law is wrong but I keep saying it is right, only your understanding of it is wrong.

So you keep saying but all I need do is quote the Second Law and ask you how it applies to the greenhouse effect hypotheisis, and you immediately deviate from the statement of the law and go into how it doesn't really mean what it says or that even though it is written in absolute terms it doesn't really mean what it says. If you disagree with it as an absolute statement regarding the movement of energy from one place to another, then you, by definition, think it is wrong.

the SLoT started out as an empirical law that was only supported by observation.

And that is what it remains. Till some actual evidence, beyond mathematical and computer models proves it wrong, it is what it is. You are trying to replace a law of nature with a theory...it is as simple as that. QM is theoretical and will remain theoretical for longer than either of us have left on this earth and much of what it states today will be found out to be completely wrong. Any thoery that must form an ad hoc solution to explain the orbitals of a hydrogen atom is suspect from the start.

now statistical mechanics describe exactly how and why it works.

Statistical mechanics is a theory and it ATTEMPTS TO DESCRIBE. There is a fundamental difference between describing a thing not understood in factual, proveable terms and attempting to describe a thing not understood in unproven theoretical ideas. You put far to much faith in things that aren't even beginning to be proven.

but nowhere in all the volumes that have been writen about thermodynamics is there anything stating the existence of a previously unknown physical law prohibiting radiation emission from a particle, or the emission in a certain direction, because of a temperature differential. you wont even say how the particle knows the temperature of its surroundings.

There doesn't need to be any such statement for reasons I have already given you. The statement of the Second Law is made in absolute terms. 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 statement like that doesn't need further qualification. There is no need to describe every possible energy exchange from place to place or in quanity.

The statement says that it is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body. Which part of "not possible" is it that you are having problems understanding. A statement like that makes it unnecessary to describe when heat might flow from a cooler object to a warmer object because it is "NOT POSSIBLE". If it were possible, then the statement would say something else, or not exist at all.

"ENERGY WILL NOT FLOW SPONTANEOUSLY FROM A LOW TEMPERATURE OBJECT TO A HIGHER TEMPERATURE OBJECT". That statement does not need a sub statement saying that the law also includes particles. It says that energy WILL NOT flow from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. The law would fill volumes that would fill and overflow the library of congress if it were necessary to clearly state every possible energy exchange.

The statement is that it is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body and energy WILL NOT flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object and it is enough. If you have a theory or hypothesis that runs afoul of that statement, then your theory or hypothesis is doomed no matter how much press it can get and you will, in fact, be the one guilty of bizarre behavior in trying to get around the most fundamental law of nature.

 

[SSDD]

The science has been clearly layed out here in many ways by many people many times.

Apparently it has not been laid out very clearly to you if you are laboring under the impression that the current crop of climate models are portraying the earth as anything other than a flat disk existing in weak twilight across its entire surface 24 hours a day from a weak sun that is 4x further away than exists in reality.

Sorry you have been bamboozled so. If you weren't quite so stupid, perhaps it wouldn't have happened thus.

 

[SSDD]

No model represents the earth as a flat disk. The flat disk is how to calculate the area for the incoming parallel rays of the sun in order to know the watts/m2 from that source.

Once again, your fundamental ignorance goes on display. All models represent the earth as a flat disk.

I am surprised that you are unaware of the earth portrayed in climate models. Even the crop of crazies that we had here before you and your sock showed up were aware that the models didn't represent the earth as a rotating sphere and that they arbitrarily put the sun 4x further away than it actually is.

Do a bit of research into what is actually meant by P/4

Hunke, E.C., and J.K. Dukowicz, 2002: The Elastic-Viscous-Plastic sea ice dynamics model in general orthogonal curvilinear coordinates on a sphere–Effect of metric terms. Mon. Weather Rev., 130, 1848–1865.

Not a climate model goober and not really modelling a spherical earth...an ad hoc construct that pretends to model a sperical earth...and again, not a climate model at all.

 

[itfitzme]

Thermodynamics is a description of net averages. It is not a description of individual particles. The difference can be seen in the random walk of Brownian motion. Refer to Einstien's paper on Brownian Motion, in which he tied the laws of thermodynamics to elementary particles, proved the existence of atoms and molecules as real objects, and demonstrated that the laws of thermodynamics describe the statistical average behavior of large quantities of particles.