In Support of the A in AGW

[jc456]

It is his shorthand for his far more oft-repeated demand to see "laboratory proof" of what temperature increase a 120 ppm increase (280 to 400) in CO2 will cause.

JC, does your laboratory have a layered atmosphere with a density gradient matching the Earth's and topped with a vacuum black body? Does it have an ocean? Does it have continents? Cirrus clouds? Cumulus clouds? Nimbus clouds? Is it mixed in the infinitely complex manner in which the Earth's atmosphere is mixed? Does it have a Coriolis effect? Does it have day and night? Do YOU know how to simulate or model all those various effects in a laboratory setting?

I expect someone getting trillions of dollars to have one, yep everyday. Otherwise it is all just junk, cause science tells one to do experiments to validate a hypothesis. So genius, is that right or wrong?

 

[Crick]

First, no one is getting trillions of dollars.

Second, you need to tell us how all that can be done.

So, you're wrong. Like ALWAYS

 

[jc456]

First, no one is getting trillions of dollars.

Second, you need to tell us how all that can be done.

So, you're wrong. Like ALWAYS

So you don't know science protocol.

 

[Crick]

I'm afraid I do and it is you that do not. What laboratory experiments support theories of stellar structure and evolution? What laboratory experiments support the black hole theory? What laboratory experiments support general or special relativity?

 

[jc456]

I'm afraid I do and it is you that do not. What laboratory experiments support theories of stellar structure and evolution? What laboratory experiments support the black hole theory? What laboratory experiments support general or special relativity?

since I've never spent time looking into those, I'll have to pass on that answer.

but that doesn't mean that there weren't, again, do you know the science protocol and testing hypothesis', I'm just asking cause it is. And it seems you don't know that, since you don't agree.

 

[Crick]

You're just asking because it is... what?

I learned the scientific method when I was about 12 years old. That was over 50 years ago and I've spent the last 34 of those assisting in the conduct of military/scientific research and development: testing, data collection, results analysis, systems analysis, reporting, etc. I think I've got a grasp on it.

 

[jc456]

You're just asking because it is... what?

I learned the scientific method when I was about 12 years old. That was over 50 years ago and I've spent the last 34 of those assisting in the conduct of military/scientific research and development: testing, data collection, results analysis, systems analysis, reporting, etc. I think I've got a grasp on it.

you should have been out riding a bike at 12 years old and enjoying life, I feel sorry you didn't get that opportunity, you were already immersed into global climate at 12. wow, dude too bad.

Me, I had erector sets and I was building projects and testing the boundaries of the product. I was also playing baseball and riding my bike and hanging with friends. I didn't need a science teacher to show me how the erector set worked. you, I believe you did.

 

[Crick]

You're just asking because it is... what?

I learned the scientific method when I was about 12 years old. That was over 50 years ago and I've spent the last 34 of those assisting in the conduct of military/scientific research and development: testing, data collection, results analysis, systems analysis, reporting, etc. I think I've got a grasp on it.

you should have been out riding a bike at 12 years old and enjoying life, I feel sorry you didn't get that opportunity, you were already immersed into global climate at 12. wow, dude too bad.

I was riding a bike at 12 years old and I knew next to nothing about global climate. My interests at that age were hot rods and any game involving a ball.

Me, I had erector sets and I was building projects and testing the boundaries of the product. I was also playing baseball and riding my bike and hanging with friends. I didn't need a science teacher to show me how the erector set worked. you, I believe you did.

My science teachers were my father, a graduate metallurgist involved in the manufacture of the mechanical and electrical components of nuclear devices, my mother, a botanist specializing in slime molds, one brother working on his PhD in materials science and my other brother working on his MA in transformational grammar.

 

[Old Rocks]

12 years old. My, that is 60 years ago for me. At that time we lived at the headwaters of the John Day River. Went to a two room school house, one room was for storage, 4 miles away. Dad's education, he went to school for 3 years in the Ozarks, and was credited with finishing the 7th grade by virtue of reading the 7th grade McGuffeys reader. My mother had two years of high school, before illness forced her to quit. However, mom had an insatiable curiosity. And Dad could figure out anything mechanical.

My days then began with milking the cow, and then rustling up any firewood my mother needed. After school was out, my brother, two years younger, and I caught trout, and hiked the mountains. Saw deer, bobcat, mink, martin, and more birds than I can name. We supplied a family of eight with a fish dinner every week. I had a cousin that liked Edger Rice Borroughs, so I was introduced to science fiction. After reading Carter of Mars, the stars and planets became real places, rather than just lights in the sky.

That was the best period of my childhood. Before I graduated from high school, I had attended at least 13 different schools. After I left home, I started taking classes at night, one of which was a course in Geology. It was there that a post grad student introduced the class to the concept of global warming. That was in the mid-60's. Never gave it much thought until the '80's, then I started taking an occasional night class again. Did read the assessment of the NAS in 1975 concerning whether we faced warming or cooling. At that time they stated that most thought that warming would happen. However, that was based on so little at that time that what was needed was a lot more study.

I have been taking classes for the last three years, and have finished all the necessary Chemistry, Physics, Biology, and Geology I need at the 200 level. I have had 4 quarters of calculus and only need Vector Calculus, and then I am done with the math. I have taken some 300 and 400 Geology classes. Now all this is spread over a period of 45 years. So I have had a front row seat to the developments in the science we have today.

For me, the computer and net are the most wonderful thing I have seen in my lifetime. The whole of the knowledge of our civilization is at one's fingertips. Not even the beginning of enough time to take full advantage of that. When I retire, one of the things I look forward to is time to truly research some things that I find interesting.

 

[SSDD]

It wasn't a typo. It is your usual confusion in using "energy" and "thermal energy" as though they were the same thing. That same confusion befuddles you in your idea that photons from a cold object cannot hit a hot object.

The second law deals with energy...tell me is thermal energy energy...if not, what is it?

 

[SSDD]

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

Adiabatic heating occurs as a reversible process when work is done. According to the authors the work is the gravitational force. In experiments the adiabatic process must take place before any heat can dissipate otherwise it is not reversible. If it's done quickly there is not enough time for any energy to transfer as heat to or from the system.​

Failure right out of the gate....all thermodynamic processes in nature are irreversible...

SECOND LAW

Any process either increases the entropy of the universe - or leaves it unchanged. Entropy is constant only in reversible processes which occur in equilibrium. All natural processes are irreversible.

http://web.pdx.edu/~bseipel/The Laws of Thermodynamic2.pdf

Heat can never pass spontaneously from a colder to a hotter body. As a result of this fact, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible.

Bingo! For once you got something right. That is precisely why the works of Jelbring, Kikolov and Zeller are wrong. They are saying that an adiabatic processes explains the thermal profile of the atmosphere, and they are dead wrong.

Of course I am right...you on the other hand remain hopelessly lost...not understanding even a fraction of what you think you understand...

 

[SSDD]

SSDD I guess no one in here can actually debate the subject cause they have no evidence to support the violation of the second law.

It isn't possible to violate the second law...it is, however, completely possible to misunderstand it...to plaster your beliefs to it and think that those beliefs actually make it possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm and who knows what other idiotic attributes.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD I guess no one in here can actually debate the subject cause they have no evidence to support the violation of the second law.

There is no violation.

sure there is and I posted that as well.

Still waiting for you bubba, you seem to be in a place where you have nothing to support your claim. and i've answered all your concerns with mine with evidence.

Why don't you put down in your own words some of the salient points? Not many people are going to read the PDF without some background material to see if it is interesting enough.

why don't you post an experiment that shows back radiation? Why is it you and yours are always communicating one way here? I've given you information on why I don't believe in back radiation. I need go no further than point to an experiment that agrees with my point. In fairness you should reciprocate that with one that shows yours. Again, explain Venus on why the atmosphere is actually warmer than the surface the complete opposite of earth yet there are feedback gases of yours there?

I think you have the wrong impression of my position here. I want you to bring up the salient points because I think it has some merit. Especially as it pertains to the the climate model's handling of energy movement in slabs of the atmosphere.

I just don't want to champion it because it has weaknesses of its own. That doesn't mean it has no merit.

Point out the thought provoking ideas that have been ignored so that people here can glimpse a different side of the argument. I, for one, am all ears. Prove that you are informed and persuasive by making a coherent case for your position and then do your best to defend it against criticisms.

You scared to just read the PDF Ian? afraid that there might be something there that shakes your faith? Read the PDF and if you disagree then show the lab work that proves it wrong.

 

[SSDD]

Physics in the real world is always messy. But it is always helpful to understand basic principles built on idealized conditions. All of us are prone to pick out examples that support our position while giving less weight to others that lead to conflict. It's human nature to tend to remember and acknowledge only the pieces of evidence that fit our worldview, and forget or dismiss evidence that doesn't. That's why it is so difficult to argue with SSDD, Old Rocks or crick. Contradictory evidence is simply invisible to them.

Many areas are polarized: religion, immigration, taxing, and of course politics. I see the polarization only getting stronger.

I blame the internet culture on my own diminishing attention span and I fear what it has done to those who are less self aware.

The movie Idiocracy is rapidly becoming reality.

I am fascinated and mesmerized by American presidential politics. Can it be true that Trump and Clinton are the choices? How did it happen?

There seems to be a lack of adult supervision in our present world due to deference to popularity rather than wisdom. I'm having a hard time seeing the road back to reality. PC, religious and antireligion extremism seems to have replaced commonsense values. We used to laugh and scorn the USSR but somehow we have become them.

And liberals want men to pee in front of little girls

no urinals in the girl's washrooms. how do you pee in front of someone if you are in a stall?

You don't think pedophiles and perves will use such laws to enter women's bathrooms at will? You don't think they might just stand on the toilet in the next stall and look over? You wan't your daughter to look up and see some perv peeping over the stall wall at her?

The outcomes of these laws are always predictable if you have the brains to simply follow them to their logical and inescapable conclusions...

 

[SSDD]

no urinals in the girl's washrooms. how do you pee in front of someone if you are in a stall?

You know what's funny about that? Mostly (according to anecdotal evidence) the overlap of the two groups believing transgender people / climate scientists do the darnedest of things. It really ain't fair to rain facts on their parades of putrid fantasies.

You think that transgender people are the only ones who will take advantage of laws that let anyone walk into any rest room?

 

[Crick]

Anyone can walk into any restroom now and they have been for the last hundred years. Do you actually think someone planning on committing rape is worried about the penalty for entering the wrong rest room?

 

[Wuwei]

The second law deals with energy...tell me is thermal energy energy...if not, what is it?

Heat is thermal energy. Not all energy is heat. That is the basis of your confusion.

 

[Wuwei]

Of course I am right...you on the other hand remain hopelessly lost...not understanding even a fraction of what you think you understand...

Well a while ago you were saying that an adiabatic process is what governs the temperature profile of the earth and all planets.

It is good to see that you are now distancing yourself from that ill-conceived "theory".

 

[jc456]

Anyone can walk into any restroom now and they have been for the last hundred years. Do you actually think someone planning on committing rape is worried about the penalty for entering the wrong rest room?

then why do they need a special law? I'm fine with status quo.

 

[SSDD]

Anyone can walk into any restroom now and they have been for the last hundred years. Do you actually think someone planning on committing rape is worried about the penalty for entering the wrong rest room?

You think rape is the only reason pervs might enter the women's rest room?