Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[SSDD]

Molecules of a cold gas hitting a warm surface is an example that energy can and does transfer from a cold to a hot object. That is exactly what was said at the hyperphysics site.

Congratulations...the more you talk, the more evident it becomes that you really are clueless. In the first place, you have demonstrated that you don't recognize the difference between mechanical and thermal energy.

If you place a piece of hot iron in a bath of cold air, the only energy transfer happening is the iron is losing energy to the cold air....the iron doesn't gain any energy whatsoever.

Now you can force cold air over an object and cause it to warm...and the more air you force over it, the warmer it will become.....reference some supersonic aircraft whose skins warm up at high speeds...or space craft entering the atmosphere warming to very high temperatures while passing through very cold air...of course, that temperature change is due to friction of the cold air passing over the surface of the vehicles...and most importantly, that increase in temperature is not in the least spontaneous is it, as in the case with the hot piece of iron simply placed in the bath of cold air.

Of course you can make energy move from cold to warm, but as the second law states, it doesn't happen spontaneously...you have to apply work to make it happen. Sorry this is all so difficult for you. Before you come up with any other failed examples, ask yourself in the energy movement is spontaneous, or if work is being applied...that is, is something being moved?


Most importantly...get a clue.

​

 

[SSDD]

lets see the observation and measurement of spontaneous two way energy movement

The fact that one way energy flow of thermal kinetic energy of molecules or radiation both violate classical and quantum physics is enough to say one way energy flow is a very faulty assumption.

Fine example of circular thinking...congratulations again. Got any evidence...got any observation and measurement of spontaneous two way energy movement...got a measurement of energy moving spontaneously from cold to warm? Didn't think so...and alas, your circular logic doesn't constitute evidence of anything more than your inability to think.

 

[SSDD]

That is totally wrong. There are trillions of molecules in a cold gas continually bombarding a warm surface. The average kinetic energy of those molecules follows a Boltzmann distribution and defines heat. The kinetic energy of a single snowball does not follow the Boltzmann law in any way shape or form. That analogy is totally inappropriate.

Look at the SB equation when one radiator is in the presence of another...P is the amount of energy the radiator is emitting...change the difference between the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings and P changes because it emits based on the difference between its temperature and those of its cooler surroundings...it isn't receiving energy from the cooler surroundings.

Secondly, a "bit of energy" is not the same as pressure. Your ability to understand physics and physics terminology is grievous.

Pressure is mechanical energy and again, exactly what is spontaneous about pressure...

 

[SSDD]

I think what we'll never know is why you CHOOSE to be so stupid.

Hey skid mark!!! Why did you run away from the other thread about CO2 trailing temperature...there are a couple of us waiting for you to bring a piece of that evidence that supports AGW over natural variability that you claim exists in such abundance over at the IPCC web site...

What's the matter? Couldn't actually find any?...or didn't want anyone to see how easily you could be fooled into thinking practically anything is evidence that favors AGW over natural variability? Can't say that I blame you...but you should learn to stop claiming that it is there since you already know that it isn't...every time you make the claim, someone is going to ask you to cut and paste at bit of it...and you know you can't...doesn't that fall under the definition of insanity...making the same old claim and expecting that this time some one will believe you and accept your claim that it is there?

 

[Crick]

Actually, I place slightly more value on the opinions of degreed scientists, working in the field, who find the evidence presented in AR1 through 5 to be quite compelling, over the opinion of someone who rejects (or utterly fails to understand) the absolute basics of thermodynamics and heat transfer. Physics seems to be a boogey man to you and you seem to think it should be a boogey man to everyone else. Sorry, dude, the only folks you're going to sell on that line are those as stupid as you or (heaven forbid) worse.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Actually, I place slightly more value on the opinions of degreed scientists, working in the field, who find the evidence presented in AR1 through 5 to be quite compelling, over the opinion of someone who rejects (or utterly fails to understand) the absolute basics of thermodynamics and heat transfer. Physics seems to be a boogey man to you and you seem to think it should be a boogey man to everyone else. Sorry, dude, the only folks you're going to sell on that line are those as stupid as you or (heaven forbid) worse.

Yet you have repeatedly ignored my comments showing the IPCC prediction/projection failures, which are based ON the AGW conjecture.

Snicker.....................

 

[Wuwei]

If you place a piece of hot iron in a bath of cold air, the only energy transfer happening is the iron is losing energy to the cold air....the iron doesn't gain any energy whatsoever ....

Exactly. I already quoted that from the hyperphysics site. Why do you choose to ignore that? Just so you can rant? When you get angry like that you just don't think straight.

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. ​

The rest of your post is non-sequitur.

 

[Wuwei]

lets see the observation and measurement of spontaneous two way energy movement

The fact that one way energy flow of thermal kinetic energy of molecules or radiation both violate classical and quantum physics is enough to say one way energy flow is a very faulty assumption.

Fine example of circular thinking...congratulations again. Got any evidence...got any observation and measurement of spontaneous two way energy movement...got a measurement of energy moving spontaneously from cold to warm? Didn't think so...and alas, your circular logic doesn't constitute evidence of anything more than your inability to think.

When your faulty assumption of one-way energy flow is shown to violate both quantum and classical mechanics. What makes you think it is circular thinking?

 

[Crick]

It might be a result of the Archimedean spiral as he and his Bizarro-World concepts twirl down Les Cabinet

 

[Crick]

Actually, I place slightly more value on the opinions of degreed scientists, working in the field, who find the evidence presented in AR1 through 5 to be quite compelling, over the opinion of someone who rejects (or utterly fails to understand) the absolute basics of thermodynamics and heat transfer. Physics seems to be a boogey man to you and you seem to think it should be a boogey man to everyone else. Sorry, dude, the only folks you're going to sell on that line are those as stupid as you or (heaven forbid) worse.

Yet you have repeatedly ignored my comments showing the IPCC prediction/projection failures, which are based ON the AGW conjecture.

Snicker.....................

I don't believe I know you and I hope I have not given you the impression that I was attempting to involve myself in any of your debates. I believe I demonstrated, at least once, that the IPCC's predictions were significantly better than you attempted to argue.

Do you believe those projections to be so bad that you can categorically state the world is not getting signficantly warmer over the last 150 years? Do you reject the finding that the hottest 17 years of the last 100 have taken place since 2000? Or are you one of those who concede the world is warming but argue tht it is driven by some hiterto unknown cycle of incredible forcing that is driving temperatures to rise faster than they have in at least 800,000 years?

 

[Wuwei]

Look at the SB equation when one radiator is in the presence of another...P is the amount of energy the radiator is emitting...change the difference between the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings and P changes because it emits based on the difference between its temperature and those of its cooler surroundings...it isn't receiving energy from the cooler surroundings.

Exactly what does the SB equation have to do with my statement, "trillions of molecules in a cold gas continually bombarding a warm surface"

The SB equation refers to radiation. My post was dealing with kinetic energy exchange. Do you understand the difference? Kinetic energy exchange underlies thermal conduction, not thermal radiation!

Pressure is mechanical energy and again, exactly what is spontaneous about pressure...

For god's sake! Pressure is NOT mechanical energy!

Pressure is a force per unit area measured by Newtons per square meter.

Mechanical energy is a force over a moved distance measured by Newtons times meters.

What Is "work" in Physics?

In physics, "work" is when a force applied to an object moves the object in the same direction as the force. If someone pushes against a wall, no work is done on the wall because it does not move. However, depressing a letter on a computer keyboard requires work.​

It really is quite a poor reflection on you when you continually pick science words and try to use them in sentences that are totally wrong or are complete nonsense.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Actually, I place slightly more value on the opinions of degreed scientists, working in the field, who find the evidence presented in AR1 through 5 to be quite compelling, over the opinion of someone who rejects (or utterly fails to understand) the absolute basics of thermodynamics and heat transfer. Physics seems to be a boogey man to you and you seem to think it should be a boogey man to everyone else. Sorry, dude, the only folks you're going to sell on that line are those as stupid as you or (heaven forbid) worse.

Yet you have repeatedly ignored my comments showing the IPCC prediction/projection failures, which are based ON the AGW conjecture.

Snicker.....................

I don't believe I know you and I hope I have not given you the impression that I was attempting to involve myself in any of your debates. I believe I demonstrated, at least once, that the IPCC's predictions were significantly better than you attempted to argue.

Do you believe those projections to be so bad that you can categorically state the world is not getting signficantly warmer over the last 150 years? Do you reject the finding that the hottest 17 years of the last 100 have taken place since 2000? Or are you one of those who concede the world is warming but argue tht it is driven by some hiterto unknown cycle of incredible forcing that is driving temperatures to rise faster than they have in at least 800,000 years?

Your ability to debate is really bad since you make declarative support for the IPCC, yet you say here that you WILL ignore the evidence presented. Yet make clear you have no idea what the controversy is about.

It appears that I will soon have to make a post that is all about IPCC predictive failures to make clear that you are badly mistaken.

Hardly anyone has disputed the obvious warming trend, heck I bring this up many times showing that it has been warming. The warming trend rate is NO higher than the previous warming trends back to 1860's, you as usual hyperbole with lies.

Here is what uber warmist Dr. Jones said in the BBC interview back in 2009:

Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

Excerpt:

"A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?"

his reply,

"....So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:"

1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes

1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes

From 2009:

about .025C per decade rate......

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Molecules of a cold gas hitting a warm surface is an example that energy can and does transfer from a cold to a hot object. That is exactly what was said at the hyperphysics site.

Congratulations...the more you talk, the more evident it becomes that you really are clueless. In the first place, you have demonstrated that you don't recognize the difference between mechanical and thermal energy.

If you place a piece of hot iron in a bath of cold air, the only energy transfer happening is the iron is losing energy to the cold air....the iron doesn't gain any energy whatsoever.

Now you can force cold air over an object and cause it to warm...and the more air you force over it, the warmer it will become.....reference some supersonic aircraft whose skins warm up at high speeds...or space craft entering the atmosphere warming to very high temperatures while passing through very cold air...of course, that temperature change is due to friction of the cold air passing over the surface of the vehicles...and most importantly, that increase in temperature is not in the least spontaneous is it, as in the case with the hot piece of iron simply placed in the bath of cold air.

Of course you can make energy move from cold to warm, but as the second law states, it doesn't happen spontaneously...you have to apply work to make it happen. Sorry this is all so difficult for you. Before you come up with any other failed examples, ask yourself in the energy movement is spontaneous, or if work is being applied...that is, is something being moved?


Most importantly...get a clue.

​

Of course you can make energy move from cold to warm, but as the second law states, it doesn't happen spontaneously...you have to apply work to make it happen.

I want to know what matter wasn't originally warmed by work?

 

[SSDD]

If you place a piece of hot iron in a bath of cold air, the only energy transfer happening is the iron is losing energy to the cold air....the iron doesn't gain any energy whatsoever ....

Exactly. I already quoted that from the hyperphysics site. Why do you choose to ignore that? Just so you can rant? When you get angry like that you just don't think straight.

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. ​

The rest of your post is non-sequitur.

And you keep going back to "net" and I keep asking if you have a single piece of observed measured evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow...at which case, rather than simply say "no...there are no measurements of spontaneous two way energy flow...there are only models predicting spontaneous two way energy flow." You go right back through the whole process again. Are you unaware that at the end of the whole thing where you claim two way net energy flow,, I am going to just ask again if you have any physical evidence...observations, measurements etc? Does that pattern escape you? Is pattern recognition not part of abstract thinking in your little part of the world?

Unless you can provide some observed measured evidence of two way energy flow, there is no point in taking another lap on this merry go round again...the fact is that you don't...you have a model and its predictions...a hundred year old model whose prediction has yet to be observed or measured...that is what you have and that is all you have...

 

[SSDD]

Actually, I place slightly more value on the opinions of degreed scientists, working in the field, who find the evidence presented in AR1 through 5 to be quite compelling, over the opinion of someone who rejects (or utterly fails to understand) the absolute basics of thermodynamics and heat transfer. Physics seems to be a boogey man to you and you seem to think it should be a boogey man to everyone else. Sorry, dude, the only folks you're going to sell on that line are those as stupid as you or (heaven forbid) worse.

Yet you have repeatedly ignored my comments showing the IPCC prediction/projection failures, which are based ON the AGW conjecture.

Snicker.....................

I don't believe I know you and I hope I have not given you the impression that I was attempting to involve myself in any of your debates. I believe I demonstrated, at least once, that the IPCC's predictions were significantly better than you attempted to argue. ['/quote]

What makes you think this is a private debate? What's the matter skid mark? You think no one notices the fact that you constantly claim that there is observed measured evidence over on the IPCC site that supports AGW over natural variability but never seem to be able to bring any of it here? You think your constant failed claims are invisible to everyone but me?

You are getting quite the reputation for talking out of your ass...making claims that you can't support...claiming that evidence is there which we all know isn't...get used to it.

Do you believe those projections to be so bad that you can categorically state the world is not getting signficantly warmer over the last 150 years? Do you reject the finding that the hottest 17 years of the last 100 have taken place since 2000? Or are you one of those who concede the world is warming but argue tht it is driven by some hiterto unknown cycle of incredible forcing that is driving temperatures to rise faster than they have in at least 800,000 years?

Are you under the impression that the world has never been warmer? Are you under the impression that the heavily manipulated records that indicate that the past 17 years have been the HOTTEST EVAH of the past 100 years by hundredths of a degree mean that it has never warmed more or faster? Are you living under the impression that the state of the climate now is unprecedented and is observed measured evidence that supports AGW over natural variability? Is that the state you are living in now...that the heavily manipulated and infilled records of the past 100 years trump everything we know about the climate of the past?

 

[SSDD]

For god's sake! Pressure is NOT mechanical energy!

While pressure is not a form of energy, it the forces of pressure produce mechanical work. Are you going to claim that pressure applied to a gas does not decrease its volume....that is [the molecules, by force, have been moved some distance and therefore closer together] Is that what you are going to claim?

Like I said...get a clue. you are not going to get spontaneous two way energy movement from anything no matter how many avenues you try...maybe you should look up the word spontaneous...that seems to be where you are missing the boat.

Mechanical energy is a force over a moved distance measured by Newtons times meters.

And you don't think meters can be converted to other terms? Is that what you think?

What Is "work" in Physics?

In physics, "work" is when a force applied to an object moves the object in the same direction as the force. If someone pushes against a wall, no work is done on the wall because it does not move. However, depressing a letter on a computer keyboard requires work.​

And you don't think that the downward pressure applied by the column of air that is the atmosphere moves the molecules at the bottom closer together? You think the molecules are the same distance apart at the top of the atmosphere as they are at the bottom? You don't think the fact that they have been forced closer together by the pressure applied by the weight of the atmosphere above them have moved them closer together? Is that what you are claiming?

Like I have said before..get a clue.​

It really is quite a poor reflection on you when you continually pick science words and try to use them in sentences that are totally wrong or are complete nonsense.

Interesting that even this basic bit of mechanical force eludes you. Imagine how much you don't know, and what a poor reflection it is upon you if you are living under the impression that air molecules at the top of the atmosphere are the same distance apart as molecules at the bottom of the atmosphere...and if you are unaware that pressure actually moved those molecules closer together...and imagine if you thought that the force that moved them closer together and kept them closer together was not work?

 

[SSDD]

Your ability to debate is really bad since you make declarative support for the IPCC, yet you say here that you WILL ignore the evidence presented. Yet make clear you have no idea what the controversy is about.

Crick is a believer and all believers are at a disadvantage in a debate. He makes declarative statements based on his faith and then when asked for actual evidence that supports that faith, he can't deliver...but his faith is so strong that he can't, not make declarations based upon it...then when asked upon what evidence is your faith based, again he can't deliver...and on and on in a vicious circle. All he can do is state that people whom he perceives as more intelligent than himself say that it is so...when asked for the evidence upon which they make the claim that it is so...he can't deliver and goes right back into the circle again... His faith is such that it doesn't allow him to wonder how the people he believes in so fervently know if they don't have any actual evidence to support their claims.

It appears that I will soon have to make a post that is all about IPCC predictive failures to make clear that you are badly mistaken.

Wouldn't make any difference if you made 100 posts outlining the failure of the ipcc and climate science in general...wouldn't matter if you include the entire weight of observed measured facts that dispute the claims of the IPCC...he has faith and faith is impervious to fact....and his faith is strong... he is a true believer and as such is unable to see anything that calls his faith into question.

 

[Wuwei]

And you keep going back to "net" and I keep asking if you have a single piece of observed measured evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow...at which case, rather than simply say "no...there are no measurements of spontaneous two way energy flow...there are only models predicting spontaneous two way energy flow." You go right back through the whole process again. Are you unaware that at the end of the whole thing where you claim two way net energy flow,, I am going to just ask again if you have any physical evidence...observations, measurements etc? Does that pattern escape you? Is pattern recognition not part of abstract thinking in your little part of the world?

Unless you can provide some observed measured evidence of two way energy flow, there is no point in taking another lap on this merry go round again...the fact is that you don't...you have a model and its predictions...a hundred year old model whose prediction has yet to be observed or measured...that is what you have and that is all you have...

I have no idea if there's observed measured evidence of two way energy flow. In fact I doubt if anyone has actually tested that because the results are already known by, yes, mathematical models which you pretend to eschew. Also why would anyone test something as simple as that when they know it would violate other laws of physics which have been proven time and again over the last one hundred years.

The irony is that you needlessly cling to demanding observed measured evidence on one very simple topic of thermodynamics at the expense of turning around and denying the observed measured evidence of the rest of science that would nullify your opinion.
That is hypocrisy at it's best.

As you well know, net two way flow of thermal radiation and thermal kinetic energy at the molecular level is totally compatible with all of thermodynamics, classical mechanics and quantum mechanics.

Since one way flow of radiation violates well-known laws of physics, which have been observed and measured countless times your anti-science stance on physical law is not only illogical, it is also pathological.

I really don't care if you want to be resolutely obstinate against one hundred years of physics. I'm simply showing the (low) readership of this board how illogical and pathological you are on science, and that your ideas are totally anti-science and simply wrong.

So, if you want to run off, I really don't care. Meanwhile it has been fun.

 

[Wuwei]

For god's sake! Pressure is NOT mechanical energy!

While pressure is not a form of energy, it the forces of pressure produce mechanical work. Are you going to claim that pressure applied to a gas does not decrease its volume....that is [the molecules, by force, have been moved some distance and therefore closer together] Is that what you are going to claim?

Like I said...get a clue. you are not going to get spontaneous two way energy movement from anything no matter how many avenues you try...maybe you should look up the word spontaneous...that seems to be where you are missing the boat.

Mechanical energy is a force over a moved distance measured by Newtons times meters.

And you don't think meters can be converted to other terms? Is that what you think?

What Is "work" in Physics?

In physics, "work" is when a force applied to an object moves the object in the same direction as the force. If someone pushes against a wall, no work is done on the wall because it does not move. However, depressing a letter on a computer keyboard requires work.​

And you don't think that the downward pressure applied by the column of air that is the atmosphere moves the molecules at the bottom closer together? You think the molecules are the same distance apart at the top of the atmosphere as they are at the bottom? You don't think the fact that they have been forced closer together by the pressure applied by the weight of the atmosphere above them have moved them closer together? Is that what you are claiming?

Like I have said before..get a clue.​

It really is quite a poor reflection on you when you continually pick science words and try to use them in sentences that are totally wrong or are complete nonsense.

Interesting that even this basic bit of mechanical force eludes you. Imagine how much you don't know, and what a poor reflection it is upon you if you are living under the impression that air molecules at the top of the atmosphere are the same distance apart as molecules at the bottom of the atmosphere...and if you are unaware that pressure actually moved those molecules closer together...and imagine if you thought that the force that moved them closer together and kept them closer together was not work?

Your whole post is strawman or non-sequitur, or bluster. When you accuse me of saying or believing things that I have not mentioned, or believe, or are way outside of the topic, it seems that you have no argument left.

I'm talking about the basics of thermodynamics that you pretend not to believe. But you want to bring in simple but unrelated facts about the conversion of meters, gravity in the atmosphere and mechanical force.

You are obviously evading the well-known fact that molecules of a cold gas can strike a warm surface, which shows energy is two way and still follows the SLoT.

 

[jc456]

If you place a piece of hot iron in a bath of cold air, the only energy transfer happening is the iron is losing energy to the cold air....the iron doesn't gain any energy whatsoever ....

Exactly. I already quoted that from the hyperphysics site. Why do you choose to ignore that? Just so you can rant? When you get angry like that you just don't think straight.

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. ​

The rest of your post is non-sequitur.

that statement is referring to net transfer of energy.

does it state that or are you filling in the blanks?