No Evidence

[SSDD]

Never happened...but the way you interpret and torture information in your mind, I have no doubt that you believe you have disproven.....something.

Nope you continue to torture the laws of physics that are in every textbook.
.

So you are saying that you agree with this statement precisely as it is written?:

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.

I agree with the original statement

Clausius Statement of the Second Law
One of the earliest statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics was made by R. Clausius in 1850. He stated the following.

“It is impossible to construct a device which operates on a cycle and whose sole effect is the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body”.​

Clausius Statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

There are many statements of the second law that are exactly that. Nothing more. Nothing less. Do you believe those?

Shuck and jive....dodge and weave...duck and cover.....what's the matter? Afraid to simply state that you are in disagreement with the second law of thermodynamics?

And you cherry picked your statement from a block of text...typical...How about we look at the whole statement...

One of the earliest statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics was made by R. Clausius in 1850. He stated the following.

“It is impossible to construct a device which operates on a cycle and whose sole effect is the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body”.

Heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold system to hot system without external work being performed on the system. This is exactly what refrigerators and heat pumps accomplish. In a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when forced by an external work, refrigerators are driven by electric motors requiring work from their surroundings to operate.

So you agree with the Clausius statement...heat cannot spontaneously flow from a cold system to a hot system without external work being performed on the system? You agree with that statement? After all, you provided it.

 

[SSDD]

For the umpteenth time, it is not possible to prove anything in the natural sciences. It will always be due to good physics, successful predictions and a preponderance of the evidence.

So you think that excuses you from providing evidence sufficient to support the hypothesis?

 

[SSDD]

Hmm... have you ever seen a diagram like this?

Yeah...I've seen it...nothing more than assumptions...Can you show me a published paper in which the hypothetical warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses?

The section at the bottom "Total Anthropogenic RF relative to 1750 seems to be making that claim.....which paper did it come from? Or is it just another instance of climate science making it up as they go?

Got any actual measurement to support the claimed forcing of any of the so called greenhouse gasses? Of course you don't..it is all from models...all models all the time...no actual evidence to be seen.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Most of the studies contain empirical data. That said, the rejection of all models (that don't support your conclusions) is unwarranted. There is no other way to produce projections or forecasts of future behavior, calling them no better than guesses is factually incorrect and, to be honest, the empirical data don't support you either. You and yours have chosen to hold a belief not supported by any of the evidence: empirical, experimental or modeled.

empirical data feed into flawed computer models incapable of even one days predictions... garbage in = garbage out..

 

[Crick]

Most of the studies contain empirical data. That said, the rejection of all models (that don't support your conclusions) is unwarranted. There is no other way to produce projections or forecasts of future behavior, calling them no better than guesses is factually incorrect and, to be honest, the empirical data don't support you either. You and yours have chosen to hold a belief not supported by any of the evidence: empirical, experimental or modeled.

It might be helpful to develop a model which can mirror reality before you start making predictions and asking for trillions of dollars based on there predictions...

GCM models will never "mirror" reality. They can and do give close approximations of critical parameters. No models predict what you have claimed will happen. Why is that Shit?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Most of the studies contain empirical data. That said, the rejection of all models (that don't support your conclusions) is unwarranted. There is no other way to produce projections or forecasts of future behavior, calling them no better than guesses is factually incorrect and, to be honest, the empirical data don't support you either. You and yours have chosen to hold a belief not supported by any of the evidence: empirical, experimental or modeled.

It might be helpful to develop a model which can mirror reality before you start making predictions and asking for trillions of dollars based on there predictions...

GCM models will never "mirror" reality. They can and do give close approximations of critical parameters. No models predict what you have claimed will happen. Why is that Shit?

Would you fly a plane who's model predicted a crash every time.. Or would you just get on and "believe"?

And if the plane flew fine would you not inspect the model for its failures to find out why?

 

[Crick]

I would not get on a plane that had not already flown extensively, passing all its FAA mandated tests.

Forecasting the behavior of the Earth's climate 82 years out is considerably more complex an issue than determining whether a given design with a given amount of thrust will fly.

 

[SSDD]

Most of the studies contain empirical data. That said, the rejection of all models (that don't support your conclusions) is unwarranted. There is no other way to produce projections or forecasts of future behavior, calling them no better than guesses is factually incorrect and, to be honest, the empirical data don't support you either. You and yours have chosen to hold a belief not supported by any of the evidence: empirical, experimental or modeled.

It might be helpful to develop a model which can mirror reality before you start making predictions and asking for trillions of dollars based on there predictions...

GCM models will never "mirror" reality. They can and do give close approximations of critical parameters. No models predict what you have claimed will happen. Why is that Shit?

At present they don't even get close...So again...do you have any actual empirically measured, quantified data for those forcings? I didn't think so.

 

[SSDD]

I would not get on a plane that had not already flown extensively, passing all its FAA mandated tests.

Forecasting the behavior of the Earth's climate 82 years out is considerably more complex an issue than determining whether a given design with a given amount of thrust will fly.

Forcastig the behavior of the earths climate 82 years out is nothing more than an uneducated wild assed guess...at present, models can't even hind cast 20 years back...the idea of forecasting with them is ludicrous.

 

[Wuwei]

So you agree with the Clausius statement...heat cannot spontaneously flow from a cold system to a hot system without external work being performed on the system? You agree with that statement? After all, you provided it.

Yep.

 

[SSDD]

So you agree with the Clausius statement...heat cannot spontaneously flow from a cold system to a hot system without external work being performed on the system? You agree with that statement? After all, you provided it.

Yep.

And heat is energy?

 

[Wuwei]

So you agree with the Clausius statement...heat cannot spontaneously flow from a cold system to a hot system without external work being performed on the system? You agree with that statement? After all, you provided it.

Yep.

And heat is energy?

Yep. But photons aren't heat, so they can go anywhere as long as thermal energy caused by photon absorption doesn't violate Clausius's statement. He talks about heat flow, not photon flow.

 

[Wuwei]

And heat is energy?

Do you believe the Kevin-Planck statement of the second law?

It is impossible for any device that operates on a cycle to receive heat from a single reservoir and produce a net amount of work.

.​

 

[SSDD]

So you agree with the Clausius statement...heat cannot spontaneously flow from a cold system to a hot system without external work being performed on the system? You agree with that statement? After all, you provided it.

Yep.

And heat is energy?

Yep. But photons aren't heat, so they can go anywhere as long as thermal energy caused by photon absorption doesn't violate Clausius's statement. He talks about heat flow, not photon flow.

Are photons energy? Heat is just what we call photons as they move from place to place.

When the matter is heated does the photon absorbed by electrons of atoms or by atoms themself?
In heat transfer by radiation, photons do carry the energy.

https://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/p670/textbook/Chap_5.pdf
If the cans of OJ are touching in the insulated chest, they exchange heat primarily by conduction. If the cans are not touching, they exchange heat by radiation. When objects exchange heat via thermal radiation, they do so by an exchange of energy from radiated photons (electromagnetic radiation).

Here is an easy one...pretty pictures of ducks...

Physics for Kids: Photons and Light
Photons behave like particles in that they can interact with matter. In some cases the energy of the photon is absorbed by the matter. In this case the extra energy may be emitted as heat.

And on and on and on....it is well known that heat is the movement of energy from one place to another...when that energy is moving in the form of radiation...it is photons moving from a warm area to a cool area...heat, in the case of radiation..is photons.

Strange that you would not know this...

So how about that..you agree that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm...glad we finally got that hammered out.

 

[SSDD]

And heat is energy?

Do you believe the Kevin-Planck statement of the second law?

It is impossible for any device that operates on a cycle to receive heat from a single reservoir and produce a net amount of work.

.​

Sure...it is saying that energy moves only from warm to cool...not in the other direction.

It looks like this..

Clausius simply finished his thought since there is no two suggestion of two way energy flow from Planck

 

[Crick]

A heat engine without a cold reservoir will not work because the temperature differential is required to produce work. Without the cold reservoir, you have no differential.

 

[Wuwei]

One of the earliest statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics was made by R. Clausius in 1850. He stated the following.

“It is impossible to construct a device which operates on a cycle and whose sole effect is the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body”.

.

Neither the Clausius form nor the Kelvin-Planck form nor the entropy form of the second law forbid two way energy flow. You are the only one who thinks that. All those laws are concerned with the fact that heat can flow only one way without work being done. Do you think those three statements of the law are misleading?

 

[SSDD]

One of the earliest statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics was made by R. Clausius in 1850. He stated the following.

“It is impossible to construct a device which operates on a cycle and whose sole effect is the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body”.

.

Neither the Clausius form nor the Kelvin-Planck form nor the entropy form of the second law forbid two way energy flow. You are the only one who thinks that. All those laws are concerned with the fact that heat can flow only one way without work being done. Do you think those three statements of the law are misleading?

Both do...

So now you are contesting the second law of thermodynamics and the SB law...

As I showed you in post 1014...heat is nothing more than photons moving from one place to another...where radiation is concerned....it is all just photons moving from one place to another...you have no energy flow by radiation that is not photons....if you believe in photons that is.

 

[Crick]

What do you believe happens to the photons that were being emitted when the target was cooler. What mechanism stops them? How do they KNOW the temperature of their target?

 

[Wuwei]

If the cans are not touching, they exchange heat by radiation.

Shot yourself in the foot again. The text you cited says two objects exchange heat by radiation. Radiation exchange is what we have been telling you for a long time. Now you are quoting sources that don't agree with you. Go figure. You are sad case of contradiction.