Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[SSDD]

Fascinating, how SSDD and jc and Billy just can't figure out that heat flow and energy flow aren't the same thing.

Perhaps that is why the second law of thermodynamics distinguishes between the two you idiot...

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.

You be sure to let me know when they strike down the second law...or reword it in order to agree with the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

 

[SSDD]

Too Funny...

A friend emailed me and ask me to look at a post over at WUWT and give him my take on a comment. It made me take a step back and I realized that the very basic laws of gases disprove AGW.

Here is the comment;

"The Stefan-Boltzmann equation as applied to CO2 was derived for a molecule. It was not derived for a bulk gas mixture like Earth’s atmosphere. One can plausibly assume that one activated molecule is incapable of causing a 1degree C change in atmospheric temperature. Not one molecule, not 10, not even 10 million.

There is a logical lower limit to the concentration of CO2 that is capable of causing the claimed change.

What is this lower limit?
How is it measured?"


This one of those light bulb moments. Stefan-Boltzman was not designed for our atmosphere thus it is incapable of telling us how our atmosphere will work in a bulk gas mixture. Then I looked at his questions and they kill AGW DEAD!

So I am now asking the warmers here to define what the lower limit of the gas is required to create any effect? What is the Upper limit where the gas no longer has any affect? Now quantify your response with the math and reasoning used to measure these levels...

Source

At current levels, CO2 is incapable of any effect due to water vapor in our atmosphere...

Anyone who can read an equation knows that the SB law doesn't apply to gasses anyway...the calculation for emissions are based on area.....what exactly is the area of a gas?

 

[mamooth]

"The Stefan-Boltzmann equation as applied to CO2 was derived for a molecule.

Complete nonsense, being how a single molecule doesn't have a temperature. Temperature is a statistical measurement of a large number of molecules.

 

[mamooth]

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.

Here's that form of the Second Law that you copied from. You left a bit of it out.

Second Law of Thermodynamics
---
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.

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."
---

It was astonishingly dishonest of you to leave that part out. It flatly contradicts your idiot claims, and it flat out says we're right.

So, you know you're lying here, yet you continue to lie. At this stage, the only purpose you serve is to illustrate how cult devotion leads to moral decrepitude.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"The Stefan-Boltzmann equation as applied to CO2 was derived for a molecule.

Complete nonsense, being how a single molecule doesn't have a temperature. Temperature is a statistical measurement of a large number of molecules.

Whatever you do, don't ask him about magnetic photons.

 

[the other mike]

If not to stop climate change, at least
do it for the sea bass.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If not to stop climate change, at least
do it for the sea bass.

CO2 killing the bass? Link?

 

[the other mike]

CO2 killing the bass? Link?

Climate change is associated with the larger issue of pollution.
Look up dying coral reefs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

CO2 killing the bass? Link?

Look up dying coral reefs.

Yeah, fertilizer runoff is awful.

CO2 killing the bass? Link?

 

[the other mike]

Yeah, fertilizer runoff is awful.

CO2 killing the bass? Link?

Fertilizers aren't killing the Great Barrier Reef...

Climate change has caused an 89% decrease in new coral in the Great Barrier Reef, study finds

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/great-barrier-reef-dying-climate-change-caused-decrease-in-new-coral-study-says/

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, fertilizer runoff is awful.

CO2 killing the bass? Link?

Fertilizers aren't killing the Great Barrier Reef...

Climate change has caused an 89% decrease in new coral in the Great Barrier Reef, study finds

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/great-barrier-reef-dying-climate-change-caused-decrease-in-new-coral-study-says/

Climate change has caused an 89% decrease in new coral in the Great Barrier Reef, study finds

When the Earth cools, things change for reefs.
When the Earth warms, things change for reefs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, fertilizer runoff is awful.

CO2 killing the bass? Link?

Fertilizers aren't killing the Great Barrier Reef...

Climate change has caused an 89% decrease in new coral in the Great Barrier Reef, study finds

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/great-barrier-reef-dying-climate-change-caused-decrease-in-new-coral-study-says/

Global warming has caused such extensive damage to the Great Barrier Reef that scientists say its coral may never recover.

Yup, the last time the Earth warmed, all the coral went extinct. DURR.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, fertilizer runoff is awful.

CO2 killing the bass? Link?

Fertilizers aren't killing the Great Barrier Reef...

Climate change has caused an 89% decrease in new coral in the Great Barrier Reef, study finds

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/great-barrier-reef-dying-climate-change-caused-decrease-in-new-coral-study-says/

Fertilizers aren't killing the Great Barrier Reef...


Agriculture run-off polluting the Great Barrier Reef

 

[Crick]

That fertilizer runoff is hurting the Great Barrier Reef does not mean it is not being hurt by warmer, acidified seawater.

 

[Crick]

If not to stop climate change, at least
do it for the sea bass.

CO2 killing the bass? Link?

From what I've read, Giant (or Black) Sea Bass became endangered due to human predation.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Here's that form of the Second Law that you copied from. You left a bit of it out.

Second Law of Thermodynamics
---
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.

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."
---

It was astonishingly dishonest of you to leave that part out. It flatly contradicts your idiot claims, and it flat out says we're right.

So, you know you're lying here, yet you continue to lie. At this stage, the only purpose you serve is to illustrate how cult devotion leads to moral decrepitude.

Actually hairball...the physical law doesn’t say anything about net anything...net is an opinion based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...let me know when they change the actual physical law to reflect net energy flow.

 

[Wuwei]

Actually hairball...the physical law doesn’t say anything about net anything...net is an opinion based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...let me know when they change the actual physical law to reflect net energy flow.

One way radiation flow is based on your opinion. No observed experiment in science literature disagrees with two way radiation exchange between any objects. Entropy properties do not lead to any sort of blockade to free radiation flow.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually hairball...the physical law doesn’t say anything about net anything...net is an opinion based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...let me know when they change the actual physical law to reflect net energy flow.

One way radiation flow is based on your opinion. No observed experiment in science literature disagrees with two way radiation exchange between any objects. Entropy properties do not lead to any sort of blockade to free radiation flow.

He's even changed his view on work.
Now he doesn't believe photons from a flashlight can hit the hotter surface of the Sun.

What a clown.

 

[Wuwei]

He's even changed his view on work.
Now he doesn't believe photons from a flashlight can hit the hotter surface of the Sun.

What a clown.

Did you ever play a kids board game with a tot? My experience is when the tot is loosing, he changes the rules but doesn't let you use his rules. Some never grow up.

.

 

[mamooth]

Actually hairball...the physical law doesn’t say anything about net anything...net is an opinion based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...

You offered no defense for lying-by-omission about the second law. You didn't even try to pretend you didn't lie. That's for the best, as everyone plainly saw you do it.

Infrared spectrometers direclty measure the backradiation that you say doesn't exist, you're lying when you say it's unobservable.

You lie because you get off on lying, and because you think lying will hasten the arrival of your cult utopia.