In Support of the A in AGW

[jc456]

SSDD has begrudgingly conceded that CO2 has been measured to have increased, with at least partial attribution due to fossil fuel use.

A good start.

Next leg. Have global temps warmed during the instrumental period since the 1880's? I don't want to digress into the politics of which method is the right one. They are all wrong but it makes surprisingly little difference which one you use. Every method shows warming, and an absolute average of about 15C, give or take a couple of degrees.

Can we agree to some warming, without worrying about the attribution yet?

who has ever stated that man doesn't contribute CO2? the argument is what about it? So what? Prove it means anything. That's the argument.

And I know I've stated that the earth has warmed since 1880, just not in the last 18+ years. Again, not sure where you got all that? And finally, the discussion has always been about the added 120 PPM of CO2 and it having any affect on climate. THAT IS THE DISCUSSION.

So let's stay on point.

Ian, that was a real wander on your part.

 

[jc456]

Sorry guy...it is you who must "interpret" the laws of thermodynamics in an effort to have them mean what you wish...I accept them at face value...as they are stated...and they do not mention two way energy flows...

Don't make it personal. Your "interpretation" is totally different than every other scientist. "Face value" is not a scientific assessment. Therefore it is you personally who is making it mean what you wish, and it is you personally who has failed to understand science. Probably because you don't believe in it. Go ahead and live in the dark ages. Watch the "shadows inside the cave". You have lost the respect of everyone on this board, (except for your dim minded minions.)

every other scientist

You really believe that? Really? 'EVERY'? You discussed with every scientist and can in fact make that statement? wow. Dude you must really be someone. forgive me while I have a little chuckle.....a giggle and then a knee slapping gut laugh.

You know of another scientist who believes in SSDD's "smart photons"?

I never went looking and have no need to. The statement was ludicrous and funny.

BTW, i believe he posted a few in his time in here. Happer I believe was one.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD has begrudgingly conceded that CO2 has been measured to have increased, with at least partial attribution due to fossil fuel use.

Lie much Ian?....sure seems so.. There was no "begrudging" to it...I never questioned the fact that CO2 had increased...so what? That isn't the issue...the issue is that there is absolutely no actual evidence that increasing CO2 will raise global temperatures....it's all assumption and models based on assumption and bad physics.

Next leg. Have global temps warmed during the instrumental period since the 1880's? I don't want to digress into the politics of which method is the right one. They are all wrong but it makes surprisingly little difference which one you use. Every method shows warming, and an absolute average of about 15C, give or take a couple of degrees.

You aren't going to even begin to support the A in AGW along that tack because the increase in temperature we have seen in the past 100 years is well within the boundaries of natural variability...how do you prove that it is not natural variability in order to begin to prove that man is responsible?

Can we agree to some warming, without worrying about the attribution yet?

Perhaps some small fraction of the claimed warming or perhaps some cooling since the 1940's...the temperature record has been so corrupted by manipulation and outright tampering that I doubt that anyone actually knows what the temperature is right now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry guy...it is you who must "interpret" the laws of thermodynamics in an effort to have them mean what you wish...I accept them at face value...as they are stated...and they do not mention two way energy flows...

Don't make it personal. Your "interpretation" is totally different than every other scientist. "Face value" is not a scientific assessment. Therefore it is you personally who is making it mean what you wish, and it is you personally who has failed to understand science. Probably because you don't believe in it. Go ahead and live in the dark ages. Watch the "shadows inside the cave". You have lost the respect of everyone on this board, (except for your dim minded minions.)

every other scientist

You really believe that? Really? 'EVERY'? You discussed with every scientist and can in fact make that statement? wow. Dude you must really be someone. forgive me while I have a little chuckle.....a giggle and then a knee slapping gut laugh.

You know of another scientist who believes in SSDD's "smart photons"?

I never went looking and have no need to. The statement was ludicrous and funny.

BTW, i believe he posted a few in his time in here. Happer I believe was one.

Yes, "smart photons" is ludicrous.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry guy...it is you who must "interpret" the laws of thermodynamics in an effort to have them mean what you wish...I accept them at face value...as they are stated...and they do not mention two way energy flows...

Don't make it personal. Your "interpretation" is totally different than every other scientist. "Face value" is not a scientific assessment. Therefore it is you personally who is making it mean what you wish, and it is you personally who has failed to understand science. Probably because you don't believe in it. Go ahead and live in the dark ages. Watch the "shadows inside the cave". You have lost the respect of everyone on this board, (except for your dim minded minions.)

Again...I am not interpreting anything at all...it is you and yours who are interpreting...I take the second law at face value when it states that energy won't move spontaneously from a low temperature object to a high temperature object...to claim that the statement is a statement of net energy transfer is an interpretation because that is not what it says...

 

[SSDD]

Sorry guy...it is you who must "interpret" the laws of thermodynamics in an effort to have them mean what you wish...I accept them at face value...as they are stated...and they do not mention two way energy flows...

Don't make it personal. Your "interpretation" is totally different than every other scientist. "Face value" is not a scientific assessment. Therefore it is you personally who is making it mean what you wish, and it is you personally who has failed to understand science. Probably because you don't believe in it. Go ahead and live in the dark ages. Watch the "shadows inside the cave". You have lost the respect of everyone on this board, (except for your dim minded minions.)

every other scientist

You really believe that? Really? 'EVERY'? You discussed with every scientist and can in fact make that statement? wow. Dude you must really be someone. forgive me while I have a little chuckle.....a giggle and then a knee slapping gut laugh.

They make claims regarding all scientists like they make claims regarding the power of CO2....it is all just made up as they go in an attempt to convince anyone they can to join them in their fantasy...

 

[Wuwei]

Again...I am not interpreting anything at all...it is you and yours who are interpreting...I take the second law at face value when it states that energy won't move spontaneously from a low temperature object to a high temperature object...to claim that the statement is a statement of net energy transfer is an interpretation because that is not what it says...

Since you are claiming the primary laws of thermodynamics are different than all the greatest scientists of the past 150 years, I would definitely say you are interpreting them with a false hubris. The 2nd law was never ever stated as a one way radiation flow between objects. Only you think that. The 2nd law always works for a net flow. All scientists understand that. You lift words out of a statement without understanding the meaning of the words. There is a lot more beneath the "face value" that you fail to understand.

 

[Wuwei]

They make claims regarding all scientists like they make claims regarding the power of CO2....it is all just made up as they go in an attempt to convince anyone they can to join them in their fantasy...

The half dozen or so quotes on the nature of two-way radiation I gave earlier were from over 100 years ago - long before Al Gore, and long before global warming was the big public issue it is today. Global warming isn't the problem with you. your major problem is understanding science.

 

[Olde Europe]

You claimed that science was done by consensus...and that consensus was required for a thing to be called "established" science as if the term established science means anything at all without observed, measured, quantified data to back it up...

And it is no conspiracy theory that no observed, measured, quantified data exists that supports the A in AGW as evidenced by the inability of anyone to provide such data...every bit of data that has been produced has supported something...but not the A in AGW...but hey...feel free to prove me wrong by showing me some actual observed, measured, quantified data gathered from out in the real world that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...or continue to talk while not providing any such data and further prove my point...

So, now you are misreading me, a second time, after I pointed out to you that I was talking about "the evolution of science", not how "science is done"? You think when some unknown patent clerk in Switzerland wrote down some scurrilous, novel theory on 16 pages, certainly based on observed and measured data and the laws and principles of physics derived from this data, the world of physics had changed? Nope, it didn't, not one whit. First, he had to have that thing published, which itself isn't all that easy (that's called "peer review"). After publication, the lesser and greater, and the greatest physical minds of the time took turns to tear that novel theory apart. Only when they realized they couldn't, and first experiments seemed to confirm the paper's findings, something like a consensus amongst physicists emerged, and "relativity" was accepted into what constituted established physics. But you wouldn't know that because you're an ignoramus with an agenda who knows a host of things that aren't so.

Moreover, asking for measured proof of A in AGW is asking for measured data on whether humans caused changes in the earth's climate. It's been explained to you that causation cannot be measured, just inferred. You didn't let that sink in, maybe you even failed to understand that, because you're an ignoramus with an agenda who knows a host of things that aren't so.

I take the second law at face value when it states that energy won't move spontaneously from a low temperature object to a high temperature object.

Laughable. That is not at all what the Second Law of Thermodynamics says. Assume a ball (20°C) hits another ball (100°C), transferring all the colder ball's kinetic energy to the hotter ball. So, have I now disproved the Second Law? Of course not. The Second Law concerns itself with net heat flows (which isn't the same as energy flows). It's also been explained to you that radiation is not the same as heat, and thus radiation traveling from a colder to a warmer object does not violate the Second Law - just as the colder ball transferring kinetic energy to the hotter ball doesn't violate it. But you would carefully avoid to understand that, because you're an ignoramus with an agenda who knows a host of things that aren't so.

So, all you need to know about the A in AGW is increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere due to our fossil fuel addiction. All the rest is established physics, most notably the greenhouse effect, which alters the earth's atmosphere's heat trapping properties, and thus the earth's energy balance. That is because of increased back radiation, which means the earth loses less energy to space than it did during pre-industrial times. But you would not know and also not understand that - you probably guessed by now - because you're an ignoramus with an agenda who knows a host of things that aren't so.

On a last note, your unjustifiably over-confident bluster doesn't compensate for your ignorance. Just so you know.

 

[SSDD]

Again...I am not interpreting anything at all...it is you and yours who are interpreting...I take the second law at face value when it states that energy won't move spontaneously from a low temperature object to a high temperature object...to claim that the statement is a statement of net energy transfer is an interpretation because that is not what it says...

Since you are claiming the primary laws of thermodynamics are different than all the greatest scientists of the past 150 years, I would definitely say you are interpreting them with a false hubris. The 2nd law was never ever stated as a one way radiation flow between objects. Only you think that. The 2nd law always works for a net flow. All scientists understand that. You lift words out of a statement without understanding the meaning of the words. There is a lot more beneath the "face value" that you fail to understand.

Don't you suppose that all of the greatest scientists of theist 150 years had the language skills to state that energy transfer was a net process when the physical laws were written if that were the case?

I take the statement at face value and there is nothing there about net energy flow.

 

[SSDD]

Moreover, asking for measured proof of A in AGW is asking for measured data on whether humans caused changes in the earth's climate. It's been explained to you that causation cannot be measured, just inferred. You didn't let that sink in, maybe you even failed to understand that, because you're an ignoramus with an agenda who knows a host of things that aren't so.

We might start with some observed, measured, quantified data supporting the claim that a 100ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 causes X change....we might start by some actual repeatable laboratory experimentation...we might start with something other than an unsupported assumption.

Laughable. That is not at all what the Second Law of Thermodynamics says.

Of course it is... This is what the second law says according to the physics department at Georgia State University...if you have a problem with the wording...take it up with them.

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

So, all you need to know about the A in AGW is increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere due to our fossil fuel addiction.

So what...where is the observed, measured, quantified evidence that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere has any measurable effect on the climate....at this point it is an assumption....nothing more and the models based on that assumption are failing miserably.

All the rest is established physics, most notably the greenhouse effect, which alters the earth's atmosphere's heat trapping properties, and thus the earth's energy balance.

Really?...then why, I wonder does the greenhouse hypothesis not even come close to predicting the temperature of any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...and can't even predict the temperature here without a fudge factor....hell...it even failed at predicting the temperature of the moon... Quantify the greenhouse effect without a fudge factor...quantify how much a specific increase in CO2 will increase the temperature....go ahead...mr "i understand science"...lets see your figures.

That is because of increased back radiation, which means the earth loses less energy to space than it did during pre-industrial times. But you would not know and also not understand that - you probably guessed by now - because you're an ignoramus with an agenda who knows a host of things that aren't so.

And yet, back radiation can not be measured at ambient temperature even though it is supposed to be double the amount of energy coming in from the sun even though there is no problem measuring the incoming radiation from the sun at ambient temperature.

On a last note, your unjustifiably over-confident bluster doesn't compensate for your ignorance. Just so you know.

I am asking for information that any competent field of science could produce in abundance, in a flash...you continue to not produce....I am afraid that it is you who is expressing profound ignorance in stating your beliefs.

 

[Wuwei]

Don't you suppose that all of the greatest scientists of theist 150 years had the language skills to state that energy transfer was a net process when the physical laws were written if that were the case?

I take the statement at face value and there is nothing there about net energy flow.

C'mon. The greatest scientists of the last 150 years never used the wording of the second law you covet.

There are lots of ways the second law has been written in text books and web sites in science. Many say simply heat cannot spontaneously flow from a cold to a hot object. Some use the phrase "net energy" rather than heat. I guarantee you that any site that simply use the word "energy" is referring to "heat energy" or "net energy" because of the context.

Why don't you give me the reference that you are using that simply uses a sentence similar to, "Energy cannot flow from a colder to a hotter object." Then let's see if it was meant to be at "face value", what ever that means.

Edit: I just read your previous email that you are referring to Georgia State. Give me the reference.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Moreover, asking for measured proof of A in AGW is asking for measured data on whether humans caused changes in the earth's climate. It's been explained to you that causation cannot be measured, just inferred. You didn't let that sink in, maybe you even failed to understand that, because you're an ignoramus with an agenda who knows a host of things that aren't so.

We might start with some observed, measured, quantified data supporting the claim that a 100ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 causes X change....we might start by some actual repeatable laboratory experimentation...we might start with something other than an unsupported assumption.

Laughable. That is not at all what the Second Law of Thermodynamics says.

Of course it is... This is what the second law says according to the physics department at Georgia State University...if you have a problem with the wording...take it up with them.

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

So, all you need to know about the A in AGW is increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere due to our fossil fuel addiction.

So what...where is the observed, measured, quantified evidence that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere has any measurable effect on the climate....at this point it is an assumption....nothing more and the models based on that assumption are failing miserably.

All the rest is established physics, most notably the greenhouse effect, which alters the earth's atmosphere's heat trapping properties, and thus the earth's energy balance.

Really?...then why, I wonder does the greenhouse hypothesis not even come close to predicting the temperature of any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...and can't even predict the temperature here without a fudge factor....hell...it even failed at predicting the temperature of the moon... Quantify the greenhouse effect without a fudge factor...quantify how much a specific increase in CO2 will increase the temperature....go ahead...mr "i understand science"...lets see your figures.

That is because of increased back radiation, which means the earth loses less energy to space than it did during pre-industrial times. But you would not know and also not understand that - you probably guessed by now - because you're an ignoramus with an agenda who knows a host of things that aren't so.

And yet, back radiation can not be measured at ambient temperature even though it is supposed to be double the amount of energy coming in from the sun even though there is no problem measuring the incoming radiation from the sun at ambient temperature.

On a last note, your unjustifiably over-confident bluster doesn't compensate for your ignorance. Just so you know.

I am asking for information that any competent field of science could produce in abundance, in a flash...you continue to not produce....I am afraid that it is you who is expressing profound ignorance in stating your beliefs.

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.

So we can send photons from a flash light to the surface of the Sun, because our photons are created by work?

I guess the important question is, how do the photons know if they're created by work?

 

[Wuwei]

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.

I found the site on which you are basing your smart photons. You said it came from Georgia state. You lifted two sentences verbatim, and you quoted them out of context. This is the source.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/imgheat/ref2.gif

This is the full context:
------------------------------------------

Second Law: Refrigerator
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. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles.​

This is the "second form" or Clausius statement of the second law.

---------------------------------------

That wording of the law has nothing to do with radiation thermodynamics. It is about REFRIGERATORS! That law was discovered by Clausius long before photons were discovered!

Your stance total insanity and ranks among the worst in intellectual dishonesty I ever saw.

 

[Wuwei]

Oops, I gave the wrong link for the site I referenced. This is the link:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html

 

[SSDD]

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.

I found the site on which you are basing your smart photons. You said it came from Georgia state. You lifted two sentences verbatim, and you quoted them out of context. This is the source.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/imgheat/ref2.gif

This is the full context:
------------------------------------------

Second Law: Refrigerator
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. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles.​

This is the "second form" or Clausius statement of the second law.

---------------------------------------

That wording of the law has nothing to do with radiation thermodynamics. It is about REFRIGERATORS! That law was discovered by Clausius long before photons were discovered!

Your stance total insanity and ranks among the worst in intellectual dishonesty I ever saw.

Are you really that stupid?...Do you think refrigerators are subject to some different sort of physics than everything else in the universe....Read what it says you moron... spontaneous flow of heat from a cold area to a hot area would constitute a perfect refrigerator....it is telling you, if you had half a brain that energy doesn't move spontaneously from hot to cold...in case you weren't aware, every form of energy, and every form of machine is slave to the second law...refrigerator physics are the same as hydroelectric physics....it is all energy and all energy is slave to the second law of thermodynamics...

 

[SSDD]

Oops, I gave the wrong link for the site I referenced. This is the link:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html

Guess you didn't actually read the information there...you simply saw the word refrigerator and in your stupidity thought that there was a special second law of thermodynamics for refrigerators....guess you also think there is a special 2nd law for heat engines, and hydroelectric dams, and electrons running along an electric wire...and rocks rolling down mountains...it's all the same you goofball..

At the top of the page it explains in very clear terms...The second law of thermodynamics is a general principle which places constraints upon the direction of heat transfer and the attainable efficiencies of heat engines. In so doing, it goes beyond the limitations imposed by the first law of thermodynamics. It's implications may be visualized in terms of the waterfall analogy.

The part discussing refrigerators and the movement of energy from warm to cool is the section that applies to the atmosphere...I can't believe that you actually think that refrigerators fall under some special case second law of thermodynamics....how ignorant can one person get...?

The more you talk the more I see how you came to be taken in by the AGW scam....

 

[Wuwei]

Are you really that stupid?...Do you think refrigerators are subject to some different sort of physics than everything else in the universe....Read what it says you moron.

Your bluster and insults cannot save you from the fact that you are an intellectual fraud.

spontaneous flow of heat from a cold area to a hot area would constitute a perfect refrigerator....it is telling you, if you had half a brain that energy doesn't move spontaneously from hot to cold.

It is amazing that you don't recognize the self contradiction of that statement. It says spontaneous flow of heat... and then you immediately say it tells you something about energy. What you don't understand is that heat is a form of energy, but energy is not always heat. You are conflating the two.

in case you weren't aware, every form of energy, and every form of machine is slave to the second law...refrigerator physics are the same as hydroelectric physics....it is all energy and all energy is slave to the second law of thermodynamics.

I'm certainly aware of what the second law means. Radiation exchange between two objects does not ever violate the second law which involves spontaneous heat exchange.

I'm sorry but you just can't talk your way out of your fraud.T

 

[Wuwei]

The part discussing refrigerators and the movement of energy from warm to cool is the section that applies to the atmosphere...I can't believe that you actually think that refrigerators fall under some special case second law of thermodynamics....how ignorant can one person get...?

The more you talk the more I see how you came to be taken in by the AGW scam.....

Now you are really showing your lack of understanding - to think that refrigeration with pumps and freon has anything to do with radiation between objects. Yes they both follow the second law, but with an entirely different process.

You are so confused about radiation and refrigeration that you again try to divert your lack of understanding to AGW. I am not talking about AGW here. I'm talking about basic radiation physics. You are misrepresenting that, and that is pure intellectual fraudulence.

 

[jc456]

http://www.climate-change-theory.com/Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures.pdf

"ABSTRACT
The paper explains why the physics involved in atmospheric and sub-surface heat transfer appears to have been misunderstood, and incorrectly applied, when postulating that a radiative “greenhouse effect” is responsible for warming the surfaces of planets such as Venus and our own Earth. A detailed discussion of the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics endeavours to settle the much debated issue as to whether or not a thermal gradient evolves spontaneously in still air in a gravitational field. The author is aware of attempted rebuttals of this hypothesis, but cogent counter arguments are presented, together with reference to empirical evidence."