Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[SSDD]

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.

Sorry hairball..it is you who lied...you included the opinion about net energy flow as if it were part of the physical law...lying is all you have and you aren't even good at it..how sad..

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry hairball..it is you who lied...you included the opinion about net energy flow as if it were part of the physical law...lying is all you have and you aren't even good at it..how sad..

Net energy flow of radiation is a part of the second law. You have no source implying otherwise. Everyone has been asking you for that source for years. It's time to put up or shut up. (Of course we all know you will do neither.)

.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry hairball..it is you who lied...you included the opinion about net energy flow as if it were part of the physical law...lying is all you have and you aren't even good at it..how sad..

Net energy flow of radiation is a part of the second law. You have no source implying otherwise. Everyone has been asking you for that source for years. It's time to put up or shut up. (Of course we all know you will do neither.)

.

Sorry guy...lies won't make net real...it isn't part of the second law...never was...never will be.

And my source has been available for years...any statement of the second law you care to choose...the second law is the second law...all sources say the same thing in various forms...and net isn't included...

When you read a statement of the second law, there is invariably an "explanation" that the law is "talking about" net as if the formulator of the second law of thermodynamics wasn't bright enough to say what he meant...do let me know when the actual statement of the second law is revised to include the word net and no longer needs to be interpreted in order to get net in there..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry hairball..it is you who lied...you included the opinion about net energy flow as if it were part of the physical law...lying is all you have and you aren't even good at it..how sad..

Net energy flow of radiation is a part of the second law. You have no source implying otherwise. Everyone has been asking you for that source for years. It's time to put up or shut up. (Of course we all know you will do neither.)

.

Sorry guy...lies won't make net real...it isn't part of the second law...never was...never will be.

And my source has been available for years...any statement of the second law you care to choose...the second law is the second law...all sources say the same thing in various forms...and net isn't included...

When you read a statement of the second law, there is invariably an "explanation" that the law is "talking about" net as if the formulator of the second law of thermodynamics wasn't bright enough to say what he meant...do let me know when the actual statement of the second law is revised to include the word net and no longer needs to be interpreted in order to get net in there..

...lies won't make net real..

And lies won't make your solo, never backed up claims real.

When you read a statement of the second law, there is invariably an "explanation" that the law is "talking about" net as if the formulator of the second law of thermodynamics wasn't bright enough to say what he meant...

And all the scientists who said, "At equilibrium, absorption equals emission", they didn't know what they were talking about, eh?

And still no backup from you of any scientists saying, "At equilibrium all matter ceases all radiating". Weird.
Not a single one.

 

[jc456]

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.

post the experiment.

 

[jc456]

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.

still no proof that flashlight does that. hmmmmmm why not?

 

[the other mike]

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.

Deniers always get the last word, even when they're lying.
It's your job.

 

[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.

still no proof that flashlight does that. hmmmmmm why not?

Forcefields? Magnetic photon repulsion?

Tell us your secret!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Deniers always get the last word, even when they're lying.
It's your job.

Deniers of what? Be specific.

 

[the other mike]

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.

Deniers always get the last word, even when they're lying.
It's your job.

Deniers of what? Be specific.

Well, truth generally when it comes to all the various Internet trolls, but here specifically , 'climate change deniers' working for the fossil fuel industry of course , silly.

 

[jc456]

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.

still no proof that flashlight does that. hmmmmmm why not?

Forcefields? Magnetic photon repulsion?

Tell us your secret!!

no, no, show us the flashlight light hitting the sun.

 

[the other mike]

no, no, show us the flashlight light hitting the sun.

Did you know....?

 

[jc456]

no, no, show us the flashlight light hitting the sun.

Did you know....?

well you go verify that the flashlight light Todd shines at it hits it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Deniers always get the last word, even when they're lying.
It's your job.

Deniers of what? Be specific.

Well, truth generally when it comes to all the various Internet trolls, but here specifically , 'climate change deniers' working for the fossil fuel industry of course , silly.

I don't deny climate change.
I don't work for the fossil fuel industry.
Silly.

 

[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.

still no proof that flashlight does that. hmmmmmm why not?

Forcefields? Magnetic photon repulsion?

Tell us your secret!!

no, no, show us the flashlight light hitting the sun.

What stops them? Post your theory.

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry hairball..it is you who lied...you included the opinion about net energy flow as if it were part of the physical law...lying is all you have and you aren't even good at it..how sad..

Net energy flow of radiation is a part of the second law. You have no source implying otherwise. Everyone has been asking you for that source for years. It's time to put up or shut up. (Of course we all know you will do neither.)

Sorry guy...lies won't make net real...it isn't part of the second law...never was...never will be.

And my source has been available for years...any statement of the second law you care to choose...the second law is the second law...all sources say the same thing in various forms...and net isn't included...

When you read a statement of the second law, there is invariably an "explanation" that the law is "talking about" net as if the formulator of the second law of thermodynamics wasn't bright enough to say what he meant...do let me know when the actual statement of the second law is revised to include the word net and no longer needs to be interpreted in order to get net in there..

Since we have a disagreement about the idea of net, and the definition of spontaneous, these various statements of the second law do not use the words "spontaneous" nor "net". Do you agree that the following statements of the second law are accurate?

Clausius Statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

“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”.
​

Carnot’s principle states:

1. No engine can be more efficient than a reversible engine (a Carnot heat engine) operating between the same high temperature and low temperature reservoirs.

2. The efficiencies of all reversible engines (Carnot heat engines) operating between the same constant temperature reservoirs are the same, regardless of the working substance employed or the operation details.​

Thermodynamics - The second law of thermodynamics

A cyclic transformation whose only final result is to transfer heat from a body at a given temperature to a body at a higher temperature is impossible.​

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is impossible to extract an amount of heat QH from a hot reservoir and use it all to do work W. Some amount of heat QC must be exhausted to a cold reservoir. This precludes a perfect heat engine.​

Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same.​

5.1 Concept and Statements of the Second Law

No process is possible whose sole result is the absorption of heat from a reservoir and the conversion of this heat into work. [Kelvin-Planck statement of the second law

No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body. [Clausius statement of the second law]
​

Second Law of Thermodynamics

The final entropy must be greater than the initial entropy for an irreversible process:​

.

 

[SSDD]

Like I said...no mention of net in the bunch...of course, you have demonstrated a penchant to interpret anything to mean what you want, so no doubt, in your mind, they all explicitly say net...such is the level of dishonesty inherent in your thinking.

 

[Wuwei]

Like I said...no mention of net in the bunch...of course, you have demonstrated a penchant to interpret anything to mean what you want, so no doubt, in your mind, they all explicitly say net...such is the level of dishonesty inherent in your thinking.

I swear, I have no idea how you think. You attempt to put a thought in my head and then you call it dishonest!
I have always used the word net as an adjective modifying energy, as in net energy. In my post #1236, not only have the sites I cited not used the word net, they have not used the word energy.

Again, my question is, do you agree that those statements of the second law in post #1236 are accurate? Or do you just want to dance around?

.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

still no proof that flashlight does that. hmmmmmm why not?

Forcefields? Magnetic photon repulsion?

Tell us your secret!!

no, no, show us the flashlight light hitting the sun.

Our Sun is Grand Central Station for UFO's

 

[jc456]

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.

still no proof that flashlight does that. hmmmmmm why not?

Forcefields? Magnetic photon repulsion?

Tell us your secret!!

no, no, show us the flashlight light hitting the sun.

What stops them? Post your theory.

why do you feel you are resolved of showing us that they do? come on big guy stand up and show that light hitting the sun.