The Sound of Settled Science

[daveman]

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?

.

Ahhh, I see the problems.

1. You don't know how batteries work, and
2. You're using a definition of "spontaneous" that goes "something totally not spontaneous".

My sentence is not at all muddled. Your understanding is, and that's your problem, not mine.

 

[Wuwei]

Ahhh, I see the problems.

1. You don't know how batteries work, and
2. You're using a definition of "spontaneous" that goes "something totally not spontaneous".

My sentence is not at all muddled. Your understanding is, and that's your problem, not mine.

I see you want to respond with insults and not clarification.
I'm using the physics definition of spontaneous. Look it up.

A battery is one type of galvanic cell and they discharge spontaneously. Look it up.


.

 

[daveman]

Ahhh, I see the problems.

1. You don't know how batteries work, and
2. You're using a definition of "spontaneous" that goes "something totally not spontaneous".

My sentence is not at all muddled. Your understanding is, and that's your problem, not mine.

I see you want to respond with insults and not clarification.
I'm using the physics definition of spontaneous. Look it up.

A battery is one type of galvanic cell and they discharge spontaneously. Look it up.


.

Okay. My problem is with the characterization that no external energy is required for the reaction.

Yet production of the metals of the anode and cathode, as well as the electrolyte, require energy to produce. The reaction within the battery may be spontaneous, but the production of the battery is not. Therefore it's a poor analogy for global warming.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ahhh, I see the problems.

1. You don't know how batteries work, and
2. You're using a definition of "spontaneous" that goes "something totally not spontaneous".

My sentence is not at all muddled. Your understanding is, and that's your problem, not mine.

I see you want to respond with insults and not clarification.
I'm using the physics definition of spontaneous. Look it up.

A battery is one type of galvanic cell and they discharge spontaneously. Look it up.


.

Okay. My problem is with the characterization that no external energy is required for the reaction.

Yet production of the metals of the anode and cathode, as well as the electrolyte, require energy to produce. The reaction within the battery may be spontaneous, but the production of the battery is not. Therefore it's a poor analogy for global warming.

This is a continuation of a years long debate with SSDD.
He insists that back radiation, photons from the cooler atmosphere traveling down toward the surface, is not allowed because of the 2nd Law. Every time a flaw in his "theory" is pointed out, he piles a new flaw on top.

Whatever you do, don't ask him about equilibrium.

 

[Wuwei]

Okay. My problem is with the characterization that no external energy is required for the reaction.

Yet production of the metals of the anode and cathode, as well as the electrolyte, require energy to produce. The reaction within the battery may be spontaneous, but the production of the battery is not. Therefore it's a poor analogy for global warming.

Let me clarify what Tod said.

SSDD says no type of energy can move spontaneously from cold to hot objects. That is crucial to his fake science in questioning the role of GHGs.

He doesn't believe in radiation exchange equilibrium.

I gave a counter example that a battery discharge through a conductor is spontaneous, and it can fire a cold LED spontaneously, That shows photon energy can move from a cold to a hot object.

He got all bent out of shape and fired email to physics professors and asked if LEDs were spontaneous. They of course rightly said no. He didn't tell the professors that my contention is that it is the battery that is spontaneously furnishing the energy.

Another example that he went ape over is the spontaneity of phosphorescence. So his current assertion is if prior work was involved, it is no longer spontaneous. Of course a phosphor needs illumination (energy) before it spontaneously discharges it weaker glow.

He really went over the edge when he said anything man-made can never be spontaneous. He said that radium emission is not spontaneous because the radium was refined by man.

The idiocy is still continuing. He had to bring up the crap again on this thread. It is not strictly off topic because it addresses a very faulty process of SSDD's thinking when it comes to GHG's and atmospheric warming. But it does get tedious.

.

 

[JoeB131]

No...we don't. The earth, without human beings produces between 200 and 215 gigaton of CO2 per year...the variation from year to year can be as much as 15 gigaton. Human beings, with all our machines and cars, etc, produce about 8 gigatons of CO2 every year...about half of the amount that the earth's own CO2 making machinery varies from year to year.

Yes, more than the system can handle,that's the point.. every year, and increasing.

It's a cumulative effect.

But again, the oil companies are paying good money for useful idiots. They've probably got their underground domes already built for when the planet becomes uninhabitable.

 

[SSDD]

Anyone who believes a flashlight represents a spontaneous movement of energy is without a doubt, an abject idiot....congratulations.

 

[MAGAman]

what propaganda. I'm 57 years old. I know it's warmer now than when I was a kid.

Yeah... That's scientific..

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah... That's scientific..

No, it's pragmatic. You can see the world, or at least my little corner of it, has changed a lot.

Now, personally, I don't mind that Chicago Winters are milder now. Trust me, you haven't lived until you've waited for a CTA bus in -30 wind chill.

But I recognize on a global level, this is a bad thing if it continues, mostly because the ecosystem can't adapt that fast.

 

[SSDD]

No...we don't. The earth, without human beings produces between 200 and 215 gigaton of CO2 per year...the variation from year to year can be as much as 15 gigaton. Human beings, with all our machines and cars, etc, produce about 8 gigatons of CO2 every year...about half of the amount that the earth's own CO2 making machinery varies from year to year.

Yes, more than the system can handle,that's the point.. every year, and increasing.

It's a cumulative effect.

View attachment 260650

But again, the oil companies are paying good money for useful idiots. They've probably got their underground domes already built for when the planet becomes uninhabitable.

I doubt that they will have any effect on your belief (since your belief is based in politics rather than science) but here are several papers...peer reviewed, and published by climate scientists who show pretty convincingly that humans have little to no effect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

CLIP"
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL040613/full

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”

Even someone who can't read a graph should be able to look at that one produced by hansen and see that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere simply does not track with the amount of CO2 that we produce.

You can go on endlessly about what you believe...and what you have been told but when you look at the actual science, it is clear that what you believe and what you have been told simply is not true. That is the problem with letting someone else provide you with an opinion...if they don't want you to know the problems inherent in your opinion, they don't give you information like the published, peer reviewed papers above...they simply let you believe that we are the cause of rising CO2 in the atmosphere and tell you that it is true without having any data at all to support the claim.

You continue to believe what you like...it is clear by now that is precisely what you will do...but the information above is peer reviewed and published by climate scientists...and supports my claim that we are no the ones driving the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere. I am pretty sure that you will disregard all the data above in favor of what you want to believe...which makes you the denier...not me. I can provide actual published science to support my claim...published science which you will deny in favor of your belief and political leaning.

I always enjoy pointing out who the real deniers are.

 

[JoeB131]

I doubt that they will have any effect on your belief (since your belief is based in politics rather than science) but here are several papers...peer reviewed, and published by climate scientists

again, 95% of climate scientists say we are having an effect. What a few sellouts to the Koch Brothers say doesn't bother me all that much.

Here's the thing. If you're wrong and we do nothing- EVERYONE IS GOING TO DIE!

If I'm wrong, and we do something- well, no harm. Probably a lot of good reasons to get off fossil fuels that have nothing to do with AGW. You know, like protecting other aspects of the environment and defunding very bad people.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I doubt that they will have any effect on your belief (since your belief is based in politics rather than science) but here are several papers...peer reviewed, and published by climate scientists

again, 95% of climate scientists say we are having an effect. What a few sellouts to the Koch Brothers say doesn't bother me all that much.

Here's the thing. If you're wrong and we do nothing- EVERYONE IS GOING TO DIE!

If I'm wrong, and we do something- well, no harm. Probably a lot of good reasons to get off fossil fuels that have nothing to do with AGW. You know, like protecting other aspects of the environment and defunding very bad people.

again, 95% of climate scientists say we are having an effect.

75/77 say we're doomed!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I doubt that they will have any effect on your belief (since your belief is based in politics rather than science) but here are several papers...peer reviewed, and published by climate scientists

again, 95% of climate scientists say we are having an effect. What a few sellouts to the Koch Brothers say doesn't bother me all that much.

Here's the thing. If you're wrong and we do nothing- EVERYONE IS GOING TO DIE!

If I'm wrong, and we do something- well, no harm. Probably a lot of good reasons to get off fossil fuels that have nothing to do with AGW. You know, like protecting other aspects of the environment and defunding very bad people.

If I'm wrong, and we do something- well, no harm.

More expensive, less reliable energy with trillions wasted is "no harm"?

 

[Wuwei]

again, 95% of climate scientists say we are having an effect. What a few sellouts to the Koch Brothers say doesn't bother me all that much.

Here's the thing. If you're wrong and we do nothing- EVERYONE IS GOING TO DIE!

Not everyone. I'm sure, among others, the Koch Brothers and their families will survive.


.

 

[Wuwei]

Anyone who believes a flashlight represents a spontaneous movement of energy is without a doubt, an abject idiot....congratulations.

Ah, more ad hominem when you are wrong. Read about galvanic cells (or voltaic cells). Don't just guess the science.

You still don't understand what you are saying.

In essence you are saying, All scientists for the last 150 years are abject idiots.

Is that really what you believe?


.

 

[JoeB131]

More expensive, less reliable energy with trillions wasted is "no harm"?

How much are you paying for energy now? And you do really think petroleum is reliable when the whole market can be thrown into a panic because someone sank a tanker today?

 

[JoeB131]

Not everyone. I'm sure, among others, the Koch Brothers and their families will survive.

I'm sure those wrinkled old fucks have their underground lair with their supermodel slave girls.

 

[JoeB131]

Meanwhile in the not crazy world.

Emissions of carbon dioxide into Earth's atmosphere reach record high

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

More expensive, less reliable energy with trillions wasted is "no harm"?

How much are you paying for energy now? And you do really think petroleum is reliable when the whole market can be thrown into a panic because someone sank a tanker today?

How much are you paying for energy now?

Less than they pay in Germany for their "green energy".

And you do really think petroleum is reliable

I don't use petroleum to heat or cool my house.
Not to generate electricity for my house either.

 

[daveman]

Okay. My problem is with the characterization that no external energy is required for the reaction.

Yet production of the metals of the anode and cathode, as well as the electrolyte, require energy to produce. The reaction within the battery may be spontaneous, but the production of the battery is not. Therefore it's a poor analogy for global warming.

Let me clarify what Tod said.

SSDD says no type of energy can move spontaneously from cold to hot objects. That is crucial to his fake science in questioning the role of GHGs.

He doesn't believe in radiation exchange equilibrium.

I gave a counter example that a battery discharge through a conductor is spontaneous, and it can fire a cold LED spontaneously, That shows photon energy can move from a cold to a hot object.

He got all bent out of shape and fired email to physics professors and asked if LEDs were spontaneous. They of course rightly said no. He didn't tell the professors that my contention is that it is the battery that is spontaneously furnishing the energy.

Another example that he went ape over is the spontaneity of phosphorescence. So his current assertion is if prior work was involved, it is no longer spontaneous. Of course a phosphor needs illumination (energy) before it spontaneously discharges it weaker glow.

He really went over the edge when he said anything man-made can never be spontaneous. He said that radium emission is not spontaneous because the radium was refined by man.

The idiocy is still continuing. He had to bring up the crap again on this thread. It is not strictly off topic because it addresses a very faulty process of SSDD's thinking when it comes to GHG's and atmospheric warming. But it does get tedious.

.

Yeah, I don't give a crap what he said. My issue is as I stated. Batteries are not a good analogy for climate change.