Over 4.5 Billion to die by 2012

[gslack]

if the OP is correct, all of the warmers are dead... I don't talk corpses..

 

[mamooth]

No moron, the high humidity night stays warm longer because unlike CO2, water vapor actually can trap and hold heat within the molecule.

I've shown you the numbers before. Humid air has a heat capacity of about 1% greater than dry air. That's completely insignificant. The heat capacity of air has zilch to with why humid nights remain hot. You are unable to come up with a coherent reason as to why humid nights remain hot.

But that won't stop you from repeating your debunked nonsense. It never has before. A normal, emotionally mature adult can just admit they made a mistake. Which excludes you and the other "no backradiation!" cranks, a pack of emotionally stunted manchildren, incapable of ever admitting any error. So as usual, you'll all double down on the big lie and keep digging yourselves endlessly deeper into the stupid hole.

 

[mamooth]

But backradiation does require special case exemption from the fundamenal physical laws since the second law says that neither heat nor energy can move from a high entropy state to a low entropy state...

On the macro scale, not the atomic scale. That's been explained to you before. You being ignorant of the second law does not cause backradiation to cease existing.

Meanwhile, you _still_ need to put forth an actual theory, instead of just waving your hands around wildly. Let's go down that path.

Two photons head towards the cold interstellar void, one low-energy, one high-energy.

A warm surface moves into their path. According to you, the low-energy photon must disappear somewhere before it hits the surface.

So at what specific point does the low-energy photon vanish? Does it vanish immediately, or does it vanish at the exact point where it reaches the warm surface?

Remember, there may be a Nobel Prize in this for you, since you're completely rewriting physics as we know it. You need to be specific, so we can further explore this groundbreaking new theory.

 

[westwall]

That answer is not even in the right zip code.

There are three radiant heat sources in the experiment. Two bulbs and the thermometer apparatus. It stops warming when it reaches a temperature that requires it to radiate exactly as much energy as it's receiving.

Nope, read the Ideal Gas Laws....that will tell you why the temp stops to increase and it has NOTHING to do with CO2 and everything to do with gas PRESSURE.

 

[westwall]

Then how does a gravitometer work?

What does that question have to do with anything?

A gravitometer/gravimeter is just a specialized accelerometer. That doesn't require any special-case exemption from fundamental physical laws, as the "no backradiation!" claim does.

Read my answer as it pertains to the comment I was answering silly!

 

[westwall]

The "No backradiation!" crowd seems unable to explain why a humid night remains hot for much longer than a low-humidity night. But then, given that backradiation is the explanation, they're naturally going to find it difficult to explain it without invoking backradiation. I do wish one would try, though, since the bizarre handwaving they'd attempt would no doubt be amusing.

Yeah water vapor is an amazing substance. When you can feel it in the air it stays nice and warm (which means there's LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of it) when you can't feel it then it gets cold real fast......because there's almost none of it.

But you, you are trying to tell us that the CO2, who's content is equivalent to a sheet of rice paper, is the driver of all when water vapor, who's equivalent, in our analogy, would be several feet of nice comfy wool blankets.

THAT'S why your argument is so ridiculous.

 

[PMZ]

I think that you've managed over your life to avoid learning most all of the science behind the science of climatology. Amazing.

 

[mamooth]

Yeah water vapor is an amazing substance. When you can feel it in the air it stays nice and warm (which means there's LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of it) when you can't feel it then it gets cold real fast......because there's almost none of it.

That's not an answer. That's handwaving, simply repeating the observed phenomenon that humid nights remain hot longer.

_Why_ do humid nights remain hot longer? We know it's not because of the heat capacity of humid air, because that's barely different than the heat capacity of dry air. So what physical mechanism causes humid nights to remain hot longer?

(Hint: Starts with "back". Ends with "radiation.")

But you, you are trying to tell us that the CO2, who's content is equivalent to a sheet of rice paper, is the driver of all when water vapor, who's equivalent, in our analogy, would be several feet of nice comfy wool blankets.

Nah. That's your dumb analogy, not mine. It fails to take into account that CO2 and water vapor cover different spectral windows.

My analogy would be more that CO2 is a blanket on just your legs, while water vapor is a blanket on just your body. If you have both blankets on, like the humid night, you stay warm. If half of your body is uncovered, you get cold, no matter how many blankets you pile on the covered half.

 

[PMZ]

''But backradiation does require special case exemption from the fundamenal physical laws since the second law says that neither heat nor energy can move from a high entropy state to a low entropy state...''

Only for those who make up words that they wish were the words of the 2ond Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[westwall]

Yeah water vapor is an amazing substance. When you can feel it in the air it stays nice and warm (which means there's LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of it) when you can't feel it then it gets cold real fast......because there's almost none of it.

That's not an answer. That's handwaving, simply repeating the observed phenomenon that humid nights remain hot longer.

_Why_ do humid nights remain hot longer? We know it's not because of the heat capacity of humid air, because that's barely different than the heat capacity of dry air. So what physical mechanism causes humid nights to remain hot longer?

(Hint: Starts with "back". Ends with "radiation.")

But you, you are trying to tell us that the CO2, who's content is equivalent to a sheet of rice paper, is the driver of all when water vapor, who's equivalent, in our analogy, would be several feet of nice comfy wool blankets.

Nah. That's your dumb analogy, not mine. It fails to take into account that CO2 and water vapor cover different spectral windows.

My analogy would be more that CO2 is a blanket on just your legs, while water vapor is a blanket on just your body. If you have both blankets on, like the humid night, you stay warm. If half of your body is uncovered, you get cold, no matter how many blankets you pile on the covered half.

No, they don't. They cover the SAME spectrums.

 

[PMZ]

Yeah water vapor is an amazing substance. When you can feel it in the air it stays nice and warm (which means there's LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of it) when you can't feel it then it gets cold real fast......because there's almost none of it.

That's not an answer. That's handwaving, simply repeating the observed phenomenon that humid nights remain hot longer.

_Why_ do humid nights remain hot longer? We know it's not because of the heat capacity of humid air, because that's barely different than the heat capacity of dry air. So what physical mechanism causes humid nights to remain hot longer?

(Hint: Starts with "back". Ends with "radiation.")

But you, you are trying to tell us that the CO2, who's content is equivalent to a sheet of rice paper, is the driver of all when water vapor, who's equivalent, in our analogy, would be several feet of nice comfy wool blankets.

Nah. That's your dumb analogy, not mine. It fails to take into account that CO2 and water vapor cover different spectral windows.

My analogy would be more that CO2 is a blanket on just your legs, while water vapor is a blanket on just your body. If you have both blankets on, like the humid night, you stay warm. If half of your body is uncovered, you get cold, no matter how many blankets you pile on the covered half.

No, they don't. They cover the SAME spectrums.

Here's what science says about this debate.

Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation ? Part Four ? Water Vapor | The Science of Doom

Of course, only people interested in science will read it, and only people educated in science will understand it.

Of course none of that has any impact on the truth of it, and how compelling that truth is to those who understand it.

The political minions here will deny it because it is inconvenient truth, and they feel entitled to the truth that they wish for.

 

[mamooth]

No, they don't. They cover the SAME spectrums.

Funny, they don't look the same. There's some overlap, but they definitely also cover different portions of the IR absorption spectrum.

 

[Staidhup]

So big deal, the hominid species is just a grain of sand in the earths evolution. One fact remains you will die, when, no one knows, but it is a fact, so smell the roses and enjoy your moment on earth and thank God you have one more day to enjoy this life.

 

[PMZ]

[MENTION][/MENTION]

So big deal, the hominid species is just a grain of sand in the earths evolution. One fact remains you will die, when, no one knows, but it is a fact, so smell the roses and enjoy your moment on earth and thank God you have one more day to enjoy this life.

Interesting avatar for Pollyanna.

 

[SSDD]

But backradiation does require special case exemption from the fundamenal physical laws since the second law says that neither heat nor energy can move from a high entropy state to a low entropy state...

On the macro scale, not the atomic scale. That's been explained to you before. You being ignorant of the second law does not cause backradiation to cease existing.

So you say. So several of you say but based on what? Quantum mechanics? Is that your basis. If so, then fine, but you shouldn't be making the statement as if it were fact. Do you have any idea how many problems there are with quantum mechanics? We could start listing them off by starting with the hydrogen atom. The hydrogen atom for criminy's sake. QM can't even explain the electron cloud around a f'ing hydrogen atom without an ad hoc (that means "made up" by the way) construct called a spin number. The spin number was required to resolve a contradiction between observed electronic shell structure with 2n^2 electrons in a complete shell with a structure represented by n^2 Hydrogen orbitals. And that is just for the hydrogen atom. QM can't even accurately describe the elements on the periodic table without numerous ad hoc constructs scattered throughout the table Pauli's exclusion principle among them

Then there is the fact that on the microscopic scale, you must do statistics of statistics of microscopics which is in and of itself contradictory.

Don't forget the collapse of the wave function which remains a mystery.

In short, and in fact, QM is not a model of reality and is therefore more accurately called pseudo physics than actual physics.

So feel free to believe QM as if it were fact observed on a daily basis and carved in stone, but the fact is that it is not. It is a not very good attempt to explain things that we don't even begin to understand at this point in our scientific development.

Meanwhile, you _still_ need to put forth an actual theory, instead of just waving your hands around wildly. Let's go down that path.

Two photons head towards the cold interstellar void, one low-energy, one high-energy.

A warm surface moves into their path. According to you, the low-energy photon must disappear somewhere before it hits the surface.

Did you know that photons sometimes seem to go around corners as if they were deflected at 90 degree angles for no apparent reason? Ever wonder what that reason might be?

And I never said that it must disappear...I said that energy can't move from a high entropy state to a low entropy state. We can't explain why any better than we can explain gravity. As with gravity and knowing that rocks don't fall up, it is enough to know that energy can't move from high entropy to low entropy. A full explanation is not necessary.

Remember, there may be a Nobel Prize in this for you, since you're completely rewriting physics as we know it. You need to be specific, so we can further explore this groundbreaking new theory.

Actually, it is you who is rewriting physics. The second law, as it is stated is good enough for me....neither heat nor energy can move from cold to warm. It is you who wants to say otherwise...So prove it.

 

[mamooth]

A full explanation is not necessary.

"No explanation is necessary" would be the more accurate summary of your science. Have fun in your fantasy dimension. Just don't expect anyone to join you.

 

[SSDD]

''But backradiation does require special case exemption from the fundamenal physical laws since the second law says that neither heat nor energy can move from a high entropy state to a low entropy state...''

Only for those who make up words that they wish were the words of the 2ond Law of Thermodynamics.

You brought your own definition to the discussion and it didn't say anything about energy moving from high entropy to low entropy either. No matter how you torture it, the second law doesn't say that energy can move from high entropy to low entropy.

 

[SSDD]

A full explanation is not necessary.

"No explanation is necessary" would be the more accurate summary of your science. Have fun in your fantasy dimension. Just don't expect anyone to join you.

So you are claiming that you can fully explain the mechanism by which gravity works? Lets hear it. I am all ears.

 

[mamooth]

I postulate that I shit out every rainbow that has ever existed.

If you can't explain the exact mechanism of gravity, you have to accept that unsupported postulate. (And thus pay me royalties anytime you use one of the rainbows I created.)

That would be SSDD's retard logic.

 

[SSDD]

I postulate that I shit out every rainbow that has ever existed.

If you can't explain the exact mechanism of gravity, you have to accept that unsupported postulate. (And thus pay me royalties anytime you use one of the rainbows I created.)

That would be SSDD's retard logic.

So you can't explain the mechanism by which gravity works but believe I should be able to completely explain the fundamental mechanism by which the second law of thermodynamics works? Lets hear your explanation for the fundamental mechanism at work in the second law. As with your claim to know the fundamental mechanism of gravity...I am all ears.