The Sound of Settled Science

[Wuwei]

Want to show us the one where they bubbled water with CO2 filling the bottle with water vapor again...that one was funny...the experiment showed that water vapor could be warmed...what a discovery...all you manage to prove is that you can be fooled by any side show huxter

I certainly remember you didn't understand that experiment either.


.

 

[Wuwei]

Did the battery require energy from its surroundings in order to have energy to discharge? If you didn't charge the battery, would it discharge? Sorry that this simple concept is so difficult for you....

Apparently you don't understand the concept. A battery is a Galvanic Cell.
See Difference Between Galvanic and Electrolytic Cell | Definition, How They Work

Galvanic Cell: In Galvanic cells, a spontaneous reaction occurs.
​

No sites mention the prior work in constructing the battery.

They are using the physics definition of spontaneous.

Google galvanic cell spontaneous. You will get many hits.

It seems that everyone but you believes batteries spontaneously supply energy.
.

 

[SSDD]

Want to show us the one where they bubbled water with CO2 filling the bottle with water vapor again...that one was funny...the experiment showed that water vapor could be warmed...what a discovery...all you manage to prove is that you can be fooled by any side show huxter

I certainly remember you didn't understand that experiment either.


.

I understood it well enough to not be fooled by it...you on the other hand gobbled it up like candy corn.....

 

[SSDD]

Did the battery require energy from its surroundings in order to have energy to discharge? If you didn't charge the battery, would it discharge? Sorry that this simple concept is so difficult for you....

Apparently you don't understand the concept. A battery is a Galvanic Cell.
See Difference Between Galvanic and Electrolytic Cell | Definition, How They Work

Galvanic Cell: In Galvanic cells, a spontaneous reaction occurs.
​

No sites mention the prior work in constructing the battery.

They are using the physics definition of spontaneous.

Google galvanic cell spontaneous. You will get many hits.

It seems that everyone but you believes batteries spontaneously supply energy.
.

Did the battery require energy from an outside source? Let me guess...you think batteries don't have to be charged at the end of the assembly line...go ahead and say it...

You are a dupe...and living proof of the old adage..."you can't fix stupid"

 

[Wuwei]

I understood it well enough to not be fooled by it.

Nope, you didn't understand it at all.

 

[Wuwei]

Did the battery require energy from its surroundings in order to have energy to discharge? If you didn't charge the battery, would it discharge? Sorry that this simple concept is so difficult for you....

Apparently you don't understand the concept. A battery is a Galvanic Cell.
See Difference Between Galvanic and Electrolytic Cell | Definition, How They Work

Galvanic Cell: In Galvanic cells, a spontaneous reaction occurs.
​

No sites mention the prior work in constructing the battery.

They are using the physics definition of spontaneous.

Google galvanic cell spontaneous. You will get many hits.

It seems that everyone but you believes batteries spontaneously supply energy.
.

Did the battery require energy from an outside source? Let me guess...you think batteries don't have to be charged at the end of the assembly line...go ahead and say it...

You are a dupe...and living proof of the old adage..."you can't fix stupid"

You always resort to name calling when you choose to defy scientists or scientific terminology. Face it. Science says batteries discharging through a conductor is a spontaneous process. You have absolutely no argument otherwise. You simply believe no physical process is spontaneous.


.

 

[daveman]

Give it up man.. Those statements are only about the INCREASED efficiency of infra red on DIRECT radiation to objects OTHER then air.. Never blatantly says the "air can NOT be warned" by IR.. Only that the heat capacity of the AIR is much less than the heat capacity of a steakburger or a human body..

The air can be heated by energy...just not in the form of infrared....as if it really mattered since radiation is barely a bit player in the movement of energy through the troposphere. Conduction is the primary mode of energy movement through the troposphere...climate models, war mists, and luke warmers assume wrongly that radiation is the primary means of energy transport through the troposphere which is why the climate models fail so miserably.

If you have some experimental evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a trace gas and warming in the atmosphere, I would like to see it. My bet, however, is that no such evidence will be forthcoming.

Flacalten is correct. Experiments to show IR heats CO2 has been shown in science fair type experiments, not to mention Foote's controlled experiment.


.

Oh, you mean science fair experiments like the one Bill Nye had to fake?

One of my favorite days with SSDD and his fractured physics was when I linked to several commercial sites offering CO2 compressors for heating and cooling... That one was painful for him...

Like for instance ---
Sanden CO2 Heat Pump Water Heater - SanCO2 - Sanden

I feel like I need to point out that CO2 heat pumps operate on the heat generated by compression, not irradiation.

 

[SSDD]

Give it up man.. Those statements are only about the INCREASED efficiency of infra red on DIRECT radiation to objects OTHER then air.. Never blatantly says the "air can NOT be warned" by IR.. Only that the heat capacity of the AIR is much less than the heat capacity of a steakburger or a human body..

The air can be heated by energy...just not in the form of infrared....as if it really mattered since radiation is barely a bit player in the movement of energy through the troposphere. Conduction is the primary mode of energy movement through the troposphere...climate models, war mists, and luke warmers assume wrongly that radiation is the primary means of energy transport through the troposphere which is why the climate models fail so miserably.

If you have some experimental evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a trace gas and warming in the atmosphere, I would like to see it. My bet, however, is that no such evidence will be forthcoming.

Flacalten is correct. Experiments to show IR heats CO2 has been shown in science fair type experiments, not to mention Foote's controlled experiment.


.

Oh, you mean science fair experiments like the one Bill Nye had to fake?

One of my favorite days with SSDD and his fractured physics was when I linked to several commercial sites offering CO2 compressors for heating and cooling... That one was painful for him...

Like for instance ---
Sanden CO2 Heat Pump Water Heater - SanCO2 - Sanden

I feel like I need to point out that CO2 heat pumps operate on the heat generated by compression, not irradiation.

These guys will jump on anything that they think will help them demonstrate a radiative greenhouse effect...some of the things they use, like that example illustrate how badly they misunderstand the topic.

 

[daveman]

Oh, you mean science fair experiments like the one Bill Nye had to fake?

Nye screwed up on that. But there were better constructed experiments that show that CO2 raised the temperature within a container compared to a control container.

You also seem to be one who believes CO2 that absorbs LW radiation cannot turn it to heat.

The reason that the air heats up near the earth (or in a controlled experiment) is given by these simple steps:

1. Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
2. The absorbed energy becomes vibrational energy of the GHG molecules.
3. The vibrating GHG molecules will largely hit random air molecules and transfer the vibrational to kinetic energy.
4. Gain of random energy by air molecules is thermal energy, or heat.
5. That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the earth radiation energy absorption. (conservation of energy)

That simple physics shows a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. If you disagree with that, which of the 5 steps do you think is wrong.


.

Yes, you're right, plant food is going to kill us all. Obviously, world socialism is the only thing that can save us.

 

[SSDD]

Did the battery require energy from its surroundings in order to have energy to discharge? If you didn't charge the battery, would it discharge? Sorry that this simple concept is so difficult for you....

Apparently you don't understand the concept. A battery is a Galvanic Cell.
See Difference Between Galvanic and Electrolytic Cell | Definition, How They Work

Galvanic Cell: In Galvanic cells, a spontaneous reaction occurs.
​

No sites mention the prior work in constructing the battery.

They are using the physics definition of spontaneous.

Google galvanic cell spontaneous. You will get many hits.

It seems that everyone but you believes batteries spontaneously supply energy.
.

Did the battery require energy from an outside source? Let me guess...you think batteries don't have to be charged at the end of the assembly line...go ahead and say it...

You are a dupe...and living proof of the old adage..."you can't fix stupid"

You always resort to name calling when you choose to defy scientists or scientific terminology. Face it. Science says batteries discharging through a conductor is a spontaneous process. You have absolutely no argument otherwise. You simply believe no physical process is spontaneous.


.

Does the battery need to be charged before it discharges? It is a simple yes or no question...why are you afraid to answer?

I didn't write the SB law nor did I derive the calculations that go with it...I am able to read an equation and I don't find that I need to alter it, or bastardize it, or ignore the fundamental assumptions of the law in order to try to make it support my argument. I am perfectly find with it as it stands..because as it stands, it supports my position..not yours.

 

[daveman]

Did the battery require energy from its surroundings in order to have energy to discharge? If you didn't charge the battery, would it discharge? Sorry that this simple concept is so difficult for you....

Apparently you don't understand the concept. A battery is a Galvanic Cell.
See Difference Between Galvanic and Electrolytic Cell | Definition, How They Work

Galvanic Cell: In Galvanic cells, a spontaneous reaction occurs.
​

No sites mention the prior work in constructing the battery.

They are using the physics definition of spontaneous.

Google galvanic cell spontaneous. You will get many hits.

It seems that everyone but you believes batteries spontaneously supply energy.
.

Did the battery require energy from an outside source? Let me guess...you think batteries don't have to be charged at the end of the assembly line...go ahead and say it...

You are a dupe...and living proof of the old adage..."you can't fix stupid"

You always resort to name calling when you choose to defy scientists or scientific terminology. Face it. Science says batteries discharging through a conductor is a spontaneous process. You have absolutely no argument otherwise. You simply believe no physical process is spontaneous.


.

If batteries discharging is spontaneous, then there will be times when they will not discharge despite being charged and in a circuit with conductors and a load.

That doesn't happen. Ever.

 

[airplanemechanic]

This thread is not about fucking batteries. It's about global fucking warming. Stay on topic people, shit.

 

[daveman]

The air can be heated by energy...just not in the form of infrared....as if it really mattered since radiation is barely a bit player in the movement of energy through the troposphere. Conduction is the primary mode of energy movement through the troposphere...climate models, war mists, and luke warmers assume wrongly that radiation is the primary means of energy transport through the troposphere which is why the climate models fail so miserably.

If you have some experimental evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a trace gas and warming in the atmosphere, I would like to see it. My bet, however, is that no such evidence will be forthcoming.

Flacalten is correct. Experiments to show IR heats CO2 has been shown in science fair type experiments, not to mention Foote's controlled experiment.


.

Oh, you mean science fair experiments like the one Bill Nye had to fake?

One of my favorite days with SSDD and his fractured physics was when I linked to several commercial sites offering CO2 compressors for heating and cooling... That one was painful for him...

Like for instance ---
Sanden CO2 Heat Pump Water Heater - SanCO2 - Sanden

I feel like I need to point out that CO2 heat pumps operate on the heat generated by compression, not irradiation.

These guys will jump on anything that they think will help them demonstrate a radiative greenhouse effect...some of the things they use, like that example illustrate how badly they misunderstand the topic.

Flacaltenn's a smart woman. She pointed out how heat pumps work a few posts later. And she damn sure hasn't fallen for the pseudo-science of AGW.

 

[daveman]

This thread is not about fucking batteries. It's about global fucking warming. Stay on topic people, shit.

I will correct false statements when I see them.

 

[SSDD]

This thread is not about fucking batteries. It's about global fucking warming. Stay on topic people, shit.

Amen to that...These guys glom onto any tangent that they believe they can twist hard enough to try and make their invalid points. It serves no purpose for them to remain on topic because there isn't a shred of evidence that they can use as support...ergo the endless supply of misguided, and misunderstood tangents.

 

[SSDD]

Flacalten is correct. Experiments to show IR heats CO2 has been shown in science fair type experiments, not to mention Foote's controlled experiment.


.

Oh, you mean science fair experiments like the one Bill Nye had to fake?

One of my favorite days with SSDD and his fractured physics was when I linked to several commercial sites offering CO2 compressors for heating and cooling... That one was painful for him...

Like for instance ---
Sanden CO2 Heat Pump Water Heater - SanCO2 - Sanden

I feel like I need to point out that CO2 heat pumps operate on the heat generated by compression, not irradiation.

These guys will jump on anything that they think will help them demonstrate a radiative greenhouse effect...some of the things they use, like that example illustrate how badly they misunderstand the topic.

Flacaltenn's a smart woman. She pointed out how heat pumps work a few posts later. And she damn sure hasn't fallen for the pseudo-science of AGW.

And yet he holds up a heat pump as an example of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...or that CO2 can store energy in the atmosphere or some other misguided attempt to support a radiative greenhouse effect? Did he use that terribly flawed example out of ignorance, or to deliberately try to trick anyone gullible enough to bite. I would prefer that it was out of ignorance because if it was a deliberate attempt to fool people, that speaks volumes.

 

[Wuwei]

Does the battery need to be charged before it discharges? It is a simple yes or no question...why are you afraid to answer?

Of course a NiCd battery does. What is your point? When it is discharging through a load there is no external source of power and that is defined by science to be spontaneous.
.

I didn't write the SB law nor did I derive the calculations that go with it...I am able to read an equation and I don't find that I need to alter it, or bastardize it, or ignore the fundamental assumptions of the law in order to try to make it support my argument. I am perfectly find with it as it stands..because as it stands, it supports my position..not yours.

It's not just my position it is Stefan's position and the position of every physicist after that. So you want to defy well established basic physics principle and invent fake physics. That's what you do.

This is a translation of Stefan's 1879 original text. The German is below.

The absolute magnitude of the heat emitted by a body can not be determined by experiment. Experiments can only give the excess of heat radiated by the body over the warmth simultaneously absorbed by it, which latter is dependent on the heat radiated from the environment.

Die absolute Grosse der von einem korper ausgestrahlten warmenenge kann durch Versuche nicht bestimmt werden. Versuche konnen nur den uberschuss der von dem korper ausgestrahlten uber die von ihm gleichzeitig absorbirte warmemge geben welch letztere von der ihm aus der umgebung zugestrahlten warme abhangig ist.


.

 

[Wuwei]

Amen to that...These guys glom onto any tangent that they believe they can twist hard enough to try and make their invalid points. It serves no purpose for them to remain on topic because there isn't a shred of evidence that they can use as support...ergo the endless supply of misguided, and misunderstood tangents.

You are an absolute liar. You "glommed" onto that tangent. You started the battery topic again in post #117 in this thread. You were wrong then and you are still making up fake physics now.

 

[Wuwei]

If batteries discharging is spontaneous, then there will be times when they will not discharge despite being charged and in a circuit with conductors and a load.

That doesn't happen. Ever.

Your sentence is muddled. If you are saying batteries discharge until the circuit stops working, of course. Spontaneous processes generally loose their energy exponentially. Is that your point?

.

 

[daveman]

Oh, you mean science fair experiments like the one Bill Nye had to fake?

One of my favorite days with SSDD and his fractured physics was when I linked to several commercial sites offering CO2 compressors for heating and cooling... That one was painful for him...

Like for instance ---
Sanden CO2 Heat Pump Water Heater - SanCO2 - Sanden

I feel like I need to point out that CO2 heat pumps operate on the heat generated by compression, not irradiation.

These guys will jump on anything that they think will help them demonstrate a radiative greenhouse effect...some of the things they use, like that example illustrate how badly they misunderstand the topic.

Flacaltenn's a smart woman. She pointed out how heat pumps work a few posts later. And she damn sure hasn't fallen for the pseudo-science of AGW.

And yet he holds up a heat pump as an example of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...or that CO2 can store energy in the atmosphere or some other misguided attempt to support a radiative greenhouse effect? Did he use that terribly flawed example out of ignorance, or to deliberately try to trick anyone gullible enough to bite. I would prefer that it was out of ignorance because if it was a deliberate attempt to fool people, that speaks volumes.

Spontaneously? No. That was not her intent.