Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

[mamooth]

I approach this from a different angle. I test your beliefs based upon what has happened in the past. From that perspective, your beliefs do not match reality. Why? There are more gases in the atmosphere than CO2 and CH4. The transfer of heat is not well understood. The timing is not well understood. The effect of water vapor is not well understood. The system is more complex and there is more we don't understand than we do understand.

First, there's no evidence that those things are not well understood. You saying it does not make it true. That's just more of your usual "BECAUSE I SAY SO!".

Second, perfect knowledge is not required. We don't perfectly understand gravity, yet we launch rockets. According to your standard, we shouldn't have launched rockets until we had absolutely perfect knowledge of gravity. That's not how science works. The standard is "good enough", not "perfection", and climate science is way, way beyond "good enough".

My problem with all of this is the attempt to shut down debate and analysis.

Then tell your side to stop doing that. Your side is the only side trying to censor the science and silence opposing views.

It is a group think herd mentality that is the antithesis of science. People like you are nazi's when it comes to this.

Awww, did we trigger you, Snowflake?

Your side says hilariously stupid crap. Hence, everyone points out you say hilariously stupid crap. That's not censoring you, Snowflake, no matter how much you cry that it is. Nobody is stopping you from saying hilariously stupid crap, and nobody is stopping the normal people from laughing at you. Isn't freedom grand? Odd, how such freedom upsets you so. If you want to people to stop laughing at you, the way to do it isn't by censoring them, it's by not being stupid.

 

[SSDD]

You lose hairball...but it is appropriate that you go ahead and set the tone for your side of this discussion....there will be great loss of face on the warmer side of this topic over the next few years...I can't say that I will miss you when you disappear out of sheer humiliation when the facts about AGW start coming to light....

 

[Wuwei]

http://web.pdx.edu/~bseipel/The Laws of Thermodynamic2.pdf

The second law of thermodynamics (the entropy law or law of entropy)

Heat can never pass spontaneously from a colder to a hotter body. As a result of this fact, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible.

Yes everyone knows nature is irreversible, but I'm surprised you quoted the above definition of the 2nd law. Contrary to the title, that is the Clausius definition of the 2nd law. It is not the entropy definition. The author gives the classical physics entropy definition at the end of the article as:
∆S = Q/T always positive for an irreversible process

But the modern universal way to define it mathematically comes from statistical mechanics and works with both classical and quantum mechanics:

If there is a substance with certain state variables of volume, pressure and temperature, pi is the number of microstates that give those state variables.

With the second law defined in terms of the modern definition, there is no requirement that thermal radiation is constrained from striking an object at any temperature. In other words, energy flow between two objects can be two way without a problem, as long as the total number of microstates of the two objects always increases. That last sentence results in the colder object warming and the warmer object cooling.

 

[Wuwei]

Explain to us exactly what physical mechanism prevents a "hot" atom from radiating a photon towards a "cold" atom. Be precise, no vague handwaving.

SSDD, polarbear, and ding are three of a kind.

 

[ding]

I approach this from a different angle. I test your beliefs based upon what has happened in the past. From that perspective, your beliefs do not match reality. Why? There are more gases in the atmosphere than CO2 and CH4. The transfer of heat is not well understood. The timing is not well understood. The effect of water vapor is not well understood. The system is more complex and there is more we don't understand than we do understand.

First, there's no evidence that those things are not well understood. You saying it does not make it true. That's just more of your usual "BECAUSE I SAY SO!".

Second, perfect knowledge is not required. We don't perfectly understand gravity, yet we launch rockets. According to your standard, we shouldn't have launched rockets until we had absolutely perfect knowledge of gravity. That's not how science works. The standard is "good enough", not "perfection", and climate science is way, way beyond "good enough".

My problem with all of this is the attempt to shut down debate and analysis.

Then tell your side to stop doing that. Your side is the only side trying to censor the science and silence opposing views.

It is a group think herd mentality that is the antithesis of science. People like you are nazi's when it comes to this.

Awww, did we trigger you, Snowflake?

Your side says hilariously stupid crap. Hence, everyone points out you say hilariously stupid crap. That's not censoring you, Snowflake, no matter how much you cry that it is. Nobody is stopping you from saying hilariously stupid crap, and nobody is stopping the normal people from laughing at you. Isn't freedom grand? Odd, how such freedom upsets you so. If you want to people to stop laughing at you, the way to do it isn't by censoring them, it's by not being stupid.

Given that their models are wrong, I'd say there was plenty of evidence that the GHG effect and all the other variables I mentioned are not well understood. Given that there models can't explain past climate changes where climate did not do what their models said should have happened I'd say that is plenty of evidence that the GHG effect and all the other variables are not well understood. If we are to believe you, everything is settled and understood. That just isn't so. The system is way to complex for that.

We understand gravity well enough that their models work, lol. Climate models, not so much. The only people impeding the debate are you idiots and your high priests. Snowflake? That's your response to your herd mentality. Your are just proving my point. I have news for you... I am one of the normal people. I've been laughed at before, it's not so bad, but given that you believe that should matter and given that you are in the minority, they are laughing at you and your religious climate change fanatics.

 

[SSDD]

With the second law defined in terms of the modern definition, there is no requirement that thermal radiation is constrained from striking an object at any temperature. In other words, energy flow between two objects can be two way without a problem, as long as the total number of microstates of the two objects always increases. That last sentence results in the colder object warming and the warmer object cooling.

Modern definition = unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...untestable hypothesis.....nothing more....nothing less.

 

[Wuwei]

Modern definition = unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...untestable hypothesis.....nothing more....nothing less.

You are wrong. The modern form of entropy is so fundamental and rigorous that it is almost axiomatic. It's results are observable, measurable, and testable
Now you really don't believe entropy is a correct expression of the second law although you promoted it in prior posts. Go figure.
For that matter, you really don't believe 99.9% of the hard sciences do you.
You apply your mantra "unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable" only to the science you personally don't want to believe in, but ignore your mantra for things that you think make your shallow case against AGW. In doing so you reject all science and scientists for the last 150 years. Fortunately science doesn't abide by your mantra, otherwise there would be no lasers, GPS systems, internet ........ etc. It's hard for me to imagine the intellectual corruption of your mind.

 

[polarbear]

Reading stuff like this is even more entertaining than watching Chris Mathews on MSNBC.

When one of my points is that every single denier is just a brainwashed member of the right-wing-fringe loser political cult, reinforcing that point by openly weeping about those awful liberals and socialists probably isn't your best choice of tactics. Those who know science talk about the science. Those who don't, they cry about politics.

We all know that "Heat" is energy and is measured as such. So now you claim that energy has no meaning at the atomic level and that the equation E= h*c/ λ what the energy quantum of a photon is can not be applied when arguing physics in the wonderland of AGW pissics.

No, I said "heat" and "temperature" have no such meaning for a single atom. It's only your claim I said "energy".

How about you respond to what I say, instead of what you wish I'd said? You'll look less dishonest that way.

You also claim:" They are free to exchange energy however they want. They are not bound in any way by the Second Law"

So when are you writing your paper to explain how the entire field of Statistic Mechanics is totally wrong?

Explain to us exactly what physical mechanism prevents a "hot" atom from radiating a photon towards a "cold" atom. Be precise, no vague handwaving. This ought to be good. Do you perhaps subscribe to SSDD's "intelligent atoms and photons" theory?

That would mean that an atom which is in the ground state can transfer energy to another one which is in the excited state.

WTF does that have to do with the Second Law and heat flow? I'll answer that. Nothing. It's just another of your loopy deflections. No matter what the topic is, you're throw in some deranged interpretation of some science bit you read somewhere that isn't related to the topic at all, and then declare victory.

The reason people don't respond to you isn't because your brilliance has overwhelmed them. It's because your gibberish is never worth the mental effort it takes to decode it. Nobody cares about what special crank pseudoscience you came up with today.

No problem, but first let`s not move the goal posts as you just did (as usual):
In post #247 you said"Heat has no meaning on the level of single atoms and photons. They are free to exchange energy however they want."
And now you are trying to load in temperature:"No, I said "heat" and "temperature" have no such meaning for a single atom. It's only your claim I said "energy".
Why? Because there is no way to deny that heat=energy. I never said that you said that heat=energy.
I did and you damn well know that, but for some reason that fact can`t fit that into your AliceGoestoWonderland theory where you have "hot" and "cold" atoms.
I have never seen any physics text book that calls an atom in the excited state a "hot atom" and one that is in the ground state a "cold atom". If there is, they probably have pictures of little atoms in there that look like Walt Disney cartoon characters, some are sweating and the cold ones are shivering.

Seriously how would one of your "cold" atoms emit a photon?
It can only do that when it`s not in the ground state, but only if it is in the excited state, like one of your Disney World "hot atoms"

 

[Wuwei]

No problem, but first let`s not move the goal posts as you just did (as usual):
In post #247 you said"Heat has no meaning on the level of single atoms and photons. They are free to exchange energy however they want."
And now you are trying to load in temperature:"No, I said "heat" and "temperature" have no such meaning for a single atom. It's only your claim I said "energy".
Why? Because there is no way to deny that heat=energy. I never said that you said that heat=energy.
I did and you damn well know that, but for some reason that fact can`t fit that into your AliceGoestoWonderland theory where you have "hot" and "cold" atoms.
I have never seen any physics text book that calls an atom in the excited state a "hot atom" and one that is in the ground state a "cold atom". If there is, they probably have pictures of little atoms in there that look like Walt Disney cartoon characters, some are sweating and the cold ones are shivering.

I agree with Mamooth. Your posts are confused to the extent that I thought it was amusing. I think Mamooth is running circles around you. Perhaps you should think a bit more carefully about what your'e trying to say before typing it.

 

[SSDD]

No problem, but first let`s not move the goal posts as you just did (as usual):
In post #247 you said"Heat has no meaning on the level of single atoms and photons. They are free to exchange energy however they want."
And now you are trying to load in temperature:"No, I said "heat" and "temperature" have no such meaning for a single atom. It's only your claim I said "energy".
Why? Because there is no way to deny that heat=energy. I never said that you said that heat=energy.
I did and you damn well know that, but for some reason that fact can`t fit that into your AliceGoestoWonderland theory where you have "hot" and "cold" atoms.
I have never seen any physics text book that calls an atom in the excited state a "hot atom" and one that is in the ground state a "cold atom". If there is, they probably have pictures of little atoms in there that look like Walt Disney cartoon characters, some are sweating and the cold ones are shivering.

I agree with Mamooth. Your posts are confused to the extent that I thought it was amusing. I think Mamooth is running circles around you. Perhaps you should think a bit more carefully about what your'e trying to say before typing it.

Says the guy who believes in models over reality....you and the crazy cat lady make quite the pair.

 

[Billy_Bob]

With the second law defined in terms of the modern definition, there is no requirement that thermal radiation is constrained from striking an object at any temperature. In other words, energy flow between two objects can be two way without a problem, as long as the total number of microstates of the two objects always increases. That last sentence results in the colder object warming and the warmer object cooling.

Modern definition = unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...untestable hypothesis.....nothing more....nothing less.

Common Core Physics....

 

[Wuwei]

Says the guy who believes in models over reality....you and the crazy cat lady make quite the pair.

Pair? We are just two among millions who know how models are used to design the stuff that you buy. We are the norm in science understanding. You and your friends are the crazy ones who make up phony "science" or read it in blogs and think it's real.

 

[Old Rocks]

You know, as soon as we get into the smart photons again, I just skip over the whole thing. Many pages from physics books have been posted showing how silly SSDD's opinions on this are. Does no good, he just comes back with the same idiocy. The only thing it is good for is that when we see someone join in his fantasies we know immediatly that they are also full of shit.

 

[Wuwei]

You know, as soon as we get into the smart photons again, I just skip over the whole thing. Many pages from physics books have been posted showing how silly SSDD's opinions on this are. Does no good, he just comes back with the same idiocy. The only thing it is good for is that when we see someone join in his fantasies we know immediatly that they are also full of shit.

As I said before, SSDD is intellectually corrupt. He is smart enough to know better, but he refuses to admit well known science for reasons that are unfathomable. However the others aren't so much intellectually corrupt. They are simply ignorant, but don't realize it. They think science is a word game, and by putting science sounding words into sentences, they are making a cogent point. It's a sad state of affairs that millions are like them, especially those that are elected politicians.

 

[ding]

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature bject to a higher temperature object.

You are essentially saying that the second law as defined using entropy is wrong. Do you reject the entropy version?

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

Let's talk in simple terms... 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: there is a cost for all mass to energy and energy to mass conversions, right? Usable energy/heat will be lost for all transfers in form. Right? Isn't this the fundamental principle of the 2nd Law?

 

[ding]

http://web.pdx.edu/~bseipel/The Laws of Thermodynamic2.pdf

The second law of thermodynamics (the entropy law or law of entropy)

Heat can never pass spontaneously from a colder to a hotter body. As a result of this fact, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible.

Yes everyone knows nature is irreversible, but I'm surprised you quoted the above definition of the 2nd law. Contrary to the title, that is the Clausius definition of the 2nd law. It is not the entropy definition. The author gives the classical physics entropy definition at the end of the article as:
∆S = Q/T always positive for an irreversible process

But the modern universal way to define it mathematically comes from statistical mechanics and works with both classical and quantum mechanics:

If there is a substance with certain state variables of volume, pressure and temperature, pi is the number of microstates that give those state variables.

With the second law defined in terms of the modern definition, there is no requirement that thermal radiation is constrained from striking an object at any temperature. In other words, energy flow between two objects can be two way without a problem, as long as the total number of microstates of the two objects always increases. That last sentence results in the colder object warming and the warmer object cooling.

Help me understand quantum mechanics in simple terms: we cannot know the position and velocity of a particle, right? The act of measuring causes the particle to choose, right? Particles are being forced to choose all of the time, right?

 

[SSDD]

http://web.pdx.edu/~bseipel/The Laws of Thermodynamic2.pdf

The second law of thermodynamics (the entropy law or law of entropy)

Heat can never pass spontaneously from a colder to a hotter body. As a result of this fact, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible.

Yes everyone knows nature is irreversible, but I'm surprised you quoted the above definition of the 2nd law. Contrary to the title, that is the Clausius definition of the 2nd law. It is not the entropy definition. The author gives the classical physics entropy definition at the end of the article as:
∆S = Q/T always positive for an irreversible process

But the modern universal way to define it mathematically comes from statistical mechanics and works with both classical and quantum mechanics:

If there is a substance with certain state variables of volume, pressure and temperature, pi is the number of microstates that give those state variables.

With the second law defined in terms of the modern definition, there is no requirement that thermal radiation is constrained from striking an object at any temperature. In other words, energy flow between two objects can be two way without a problem, as long as the total number of microstates of the two objects always increases. That last sentence results in the colder object warming and the warmer object cooling.

Help me understand quantum mechanics in simple terms: we cannot know the position and velocity of a particle, right? The act of measuring causes the particle to choose, right? Particles are being forced to choose all of the time, right?

Interesting point....they know we are peeking so they show up in another position, but they don't know to move from warm to cool...

 

[Wuwei]

Let's talk in simple terms... 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: there is a cost for all mass to energy and energy to mass conversions, right? Usable energy/heat will be lost for all transfers in form. Right? Isn't this the fundamental principle of the 2nd Law?

Conversions from mass to energy are at the nuclear level. A bunch of plutonium converts radiation byproducts to heat. But that isn't the fundamental principle of the 2nd law. The second law can simply be stated that heat cannot spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects.

 

[ding]

http://web.pdx.edu/~bseipel/The Laws of Thermodynamic2.pdf

The second law of thermodynamics (the entropy law or law of entropy)

Heat can never pass spontaneously from a colder to a hotter body. As a result of this fact, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible.

Yes everyone knows nature is irreversible, but I'm surprised you quoted the above definition of the 2nd law. Contrary to the title, that is the Clausius definition of the 2nd law. It is not the entropy definition. The author gives the classical physics entropy definition at the end of the article as:
∆S = Q/T always positive for an irreversible process

But the modern universal way to define it mathematically comes from statistical mechanics and works with both classical and quantum mechanics:

If there is a substance with certain state variables of volume, pressure and temperature, pi is the number of microstates that give those state variables.

With the second law defined in terms of the modern definition, there is no requirement that thermal radiation is constrained from striking an object at any temperature. In other words, energy flow between two objects can be two way without a problem, as long as the total number of microstates of the two objects always increases. That last sentence results in the colder object warming and the warmer object cooling.

Help me understand quantum mechanics in simple terms: we cannot know the position and velocity of a particle, right? The act of measuring causes the particle to choose, right? Particles are being forced to choose all of the time, right?

Interesting point....they know we are peeking so they show up in another position, but they don't know to move from warm to cool...

I wasn't trying to make a specific point, I was trying to find common ground to progress the conversation. Nature is constantly forcing particles to choose, right?

 

[ding]

Let's talk in simple terms... 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: there is a cost for all mass to energy and energy to mass conversions, right? Usable energy/heat will be lost for all transfers in form. Right? Isn't this the fundamental principle of the 2nd Law?

Conversions from mass to energy are at the nuclear level. A bunch of plutonium converts radiation byproducts to heat. But that isn't the fundamental principle of the 2nd law. The second law can simply be stated that heat cannot spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects.

The 2nd law seems to cover a bunch of things, lol. I have always viewed it in its simplest terms as there is no such thing as a free lunch. There is a cost for every exchange and that cost is a loss of usable energy. If we started from that position how does that inform us that heat cannot spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects. Is this the domain of QM? Or does QM not really apply since nature is constantly forcing particles to choose?