Yes, 97%

[IanC]

I was trying to think of a simple way of showing that the radiation continues in both objects even if their temperatures are the same. when a photon is emitted it imparts a small amount of momentum to the emiiter and the same amount of momentum in the opposite direction in the absorber. (this is one of the forms of entropy increase that precludes perpetual motion machines). therefore the two objects should slightly move away from each other. if SSDD is right, and the objects simply stop radiating, then the objects will not only lose the slight repulsive force but the unopposed momentum shift from the opposite side of the objects will actually drive the objects closer. this would decrease entropy. isnt there some pretty strict rules about S ?

SSDD- I couldnt help but notice that your response to this comment ignored the entropy problem with your unexplained on/off radiation theory.

I don't understand why you have to make up a position for me....I have stated it as clearly as possible...I have said over and over that I can't explain why energy only flows from warm to cool...and I have never said on/off...I have said that I don't think objects radiate towards warmer objects....and every observation ever made bears that out....

As to strict rules...there are some pretty strict ones regarding the direction of energy flow but you have no problem disregarding them in favor of an unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical model.

And do explain how you think a photon (if they exist) with no mass can impart momentum to anything...more magic?

I would like to thank you. it is an interesting puzzle to try and explain quantum related aspects of reality without being able to use quantum physics. of course it is impossible, but there are certainly paradoxes that can be pointed out which show the need for understanding more than just newtonian physics.

an example to show photons have momentum; a comet tail. the momentum from sunlight pushes dust away from the comet in the opposite direction of the sun. interesting sidebar; when the comet is still quite far away there is often a second tail at a slightly different angle. what causes that one, and why the different angle? (hint- speed)

to get the idea of how a massless particle can have momentum all we have to do is look at particle accelerators (unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable? hahahaha). by classical physics the energy needed to accelerate an electron or proton up to the speed of light is actually quite small. but when the particle starts getting closer to the speed of light, the energy is converted into momentum rather than velocity, giving the impression that the particle has gained mass. but it is not mass as classical newtonian physics describes it and neither is the momentum.

quantum physics is not unobserved, untested or unmeasured. but it doesnt easily make sense when compared to the non relativistic, macroscopic world that we live in.

 

[Crick]

I'd like to repeat the question to SSDD as to why he chooses a hypothesis that requires all the matter in the universe to be alive and sentient and aware of the temperatures of all its surroundings no matter the distance, violating special relativity and causality, when the results he gets are identical to what is had by the rest of the human race simply using basic algebra to arrive at net transfer.

So, why take the route that requires magic when you get NOTHING out of it except being called an idiot by almost everyone?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'd like to repeat the question to SSDD as to why he chooses a hypothesis that requires all the matter in the universe to be alive and sentient and aware of the temperatures of all its surroundings no matter the distance, violating special relativity and causality, when the results he gets are identical to what is had by the rest of the human race simply using basic algebra to arrive at net transfer.

So, why take the route that requires magic when you get NOTHING out of it except being called an idiot by almost everyone?

He still can't explain how the hotter object knows the temperature of the cooler object, in order to decide how fast it will radiate, in the absence of any radiation from the cooler object.

 

[Crick]

He claims he doesn't have to. But I just wonder why he picks the nonsensical interpretation when the results are identical to what everyone else gets without the magically intelligent atoms.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature [Wikipedia]
Just over 97% of published climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming.[108][109][110]
Main article: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[111] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[112][113][114][115]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[116] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[117]

The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[118]

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[119]


A survey of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 2013 finds that only 2 of 10885 reject anthropogenic global warming
A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers, finding 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming and reporting:

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.[120]

Additionally, the authors of the studies were invited to categorise their own research papers, of which 1,381 discussed the cause of recent global warming, and:

Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[121] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[122]​

Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Fucking hilarious!

Cook Et. Al. is like a bad case of indigestion from over cooking the lie... There is simply no way to cover up the odor or the bad taste..

 

[Crick]

It doesn't bother you that there results line up with everyone else's results? What's your explanation for that? Massive conspiracy?

 

[Billy_Bob]

It doesn't bother you that there results line up with everyone else's results? What's your explanation for that? Massive conspiracy?

Any paper that cites Cook Et. Al. as factual isnt worth the paper its printed on. You guys seem to think that consensus will somehow give you credibility even when its all garbage...

 

[Crick]

You didn't answer my question. I don't believe you've got shit with which to attack Cook et al. But even if you did, it's hardly the only study there. Move on down the list. You've only got about 20 more to try to refute (not that you've provided a single iota of reason to doubt Cook).

 

[skookerasbil]

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature [Wikipedia]
Just over 97% of published climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming.[108][109][110]
Main article: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[111] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[112][113][114][115]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[116] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[117]

The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[118]

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[119]


A survey of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 2013 finds that only 2 of 10885 reject anthropogenic global warming
A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers, finding 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming and reporting:

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.[120]

Additionally, the authors of the studies were invited to categorise their own research papers, of which 1,381 discussed the cause of recent global warming, and:

Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[121] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[122]​

Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Fucking hilarious!

Cook Et. Al. is like a bad case of indigestion from over cooking the lie... There is simply no way to cover up the odor or the bad taste..

LMAO.......lock the thread.


Gotta remember to add Billy Bob to the Matrix Domination visual......he's definately an official member now!!!


The propaganda of the AGW religion has gotten so old.......nobody cares about it anymore which is proven in poll after poll by Gallup, Pew et. al......

These assholes need to reinvent themselves......but they wont. They stay with the same 4 or 5 talking points and haven't moved the goalposts but a yard in the last 20 years.

 

[skookerasbil]

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/DOMINATION-3.jpg.html][/URL]

Billy Bob earns a spot......hes done a lot of damage just in the last 2-3 weeks.

 

[Crick]

The Pyramid of Lunacy.

You like Billy Bob? I supposed I shouldn't be surprised. Birds of a feather. Loony Birds.

 

[SSDD]

It's all about information.[/quot3e]

Not for you...you have already told me more about you than you know yourself in this particular arena.

How does the temperature information get from the cooler to the warmer object?

Two microwave dishes transmitting at different magnitudes with overlapping paths...how does the weaker signal know to be interfered with?

Two radio towers transmitting on the same frequency at different magnitudes...how does the weaker signal know not to simply go on to your radio for broadcast?

Anthromorphizing, as I said, is a very weak sort of defense mechanism....surprises me that people like you and Ian resort to it....it is the sort of defense mechanism a child uses...one would think that you would have grown out of it by now.

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.



Why are you ignoring this article from 1963?
Did Science Magazine misunderstand the 2nd Law?

Why are you ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann constant?

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, symbolized by the lowercase Greek letter sigma ( ), is a physical constant involving black body radiation. A black body, also called an ideal radiator, is an object that radiates or absorbs energy with perfect efficiency at all electromagnetic wavelength s. The constant defines the power per unit area emitted by a black body as a function of its thermodynamic temperature .

You'll notice it is a function of temperature of a body and not a function of the temperature of the surroundings. Were they wrong?
Do we need an SSDD amendment to the constant?

So lets hear why the SB law is not simply the SB constant. And by the way, where is the back radiation in your post...or is it something that you just have to believe?

 

[Crick]

Let's try this again. Why try to use an interpretation that requires magic when you get the exact same result with the interpretation that doesn't?

 

[SSDD]

I would like to thank you. it is an interesting puzzle to try and explain quantum related aspects of reality without being able to use quantum physics. of course it is impossible, but there are certainly paradoxes that can be pointed out which show the need for understanding more than just newtonian physics.

What you mean is a best guess in an attempt to explain things we don't understand....You speak like a religious zealot claiming to know what is at present unknowable.

an example to show photons have momentum; a comet tail. the momentum from sunlight pushes dust away from the comet in the opposite direction of the sun. interesting sidebar; when the comet is still quite far away there is often a second tail at a slightly different angle. what causes that one, and why the different angle? (hint- speed)

Instead of providing an imaginary example of how photons have momentum...why don't you first show some actual proof that photons exist...that would be interesting and give an actual dimension of reality to your claims.

quantum physics is not unobserved, untested or unmeasured. but it doesnt easily make sense when compared to the non relativistic, macroscopic world that we live in.

It makes no sense because we are a very long way from observing, measuring, or actually testing what is going on...we are reaching into a dark box with heavy polar mittens covering our anesthetized hands feeling very small objects and trying to explain what we think we are feeling. What is amusing is how you talk about it as if we really had a clue rather than a swirling mass of chaos and contradictions that can't even adequately explain the electron cloud of a hydrogen atom without some ad hoc fix.

 

[Crick]

I really think the consistency with which you choose to argue such nonsense shouts "TROLL" in bold, hot pink, 72 point comic sans

 

[SSDD]

I'd like to repeat the question to SSDD as to why he chooses a hypothesis that requires all the matter in the universe to be alive and sentient and aware of the temperatures of all its surroundings no matter the distance, violating special relativity and causality, when the results he gets are identical to what is had by the rest of the human race simply using basic algebra to arrive at net transfer.

So, why take the route that requires magic when you get NOTHING out of it except being called an idiot by almost everyone?

You don't think that Stefan Boltzman knew algebra or the distributive property? My bet is that he did...and the equation in the end does not include the distributive property. The thing is, that in physics, equations are descriptions of physical processes....each part of the equation describes something that is happening...if you are going to apply a property to an equation, you must define what that property is describing. Lets see the paper outlining the definition and justification of what the application of the distributive property is doing and why it is OK to do it. After all, the SB law does not include the application of the distributive property and therefore describes a one way energy flow.

 

[SSDD]

Let's try this again. Why try to use an interpretation that requires magic when you get the exact same result with the interpretation that doesn't?

I am afraid that it is you guys who are interpreting.....the SB law, as written does not describe a two way energy flow....and it does not include the distributive property...THe physical law is stated as a one way flow of energy whose magnitude is dependent on the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings. That is how the equations are written and what they describe...you are not describing the SB law as it is written, therefore you are the one adding your own interpretation. I am fine with the physical laws as they are stated, it is you guys who want them to say something else.

 

[SSDD]

I really think the consistency with which you choose to argue such nonsense shouts "TROLL" in bold, hot pink, 72 point comic sans

You don't think at all crick...you just react like all zealots.

 

[Crick]

Are you shitting me? You ACTUALLY want to tell us that the Distributive Property can't be applied here? Are you out of your fucking mind?

How have you managed to keep yourself sheltered and fed up to this point? Based on the quality of what you write here, you should have been locked up in the mental health system long, long ago.

 

[SSDD]

Are you shitting me? You ACTUALLY want to tell us that the Distributive Property can't be applied here? Are you out of your fucking mind?

Of course it can be applied, but when speaking the language of mathematics, an alteration of the equation equals an alteration of the process being described...even if the answer remains the same...Lets see the justification for applying the distributive property....not only is it incorrect, but the application of the distributive property to this equation

is just plain bad math. Lets hear a mathematically sound reason to apply the distributive property to this equation other than the simple fact that you want it to describe a mythical two way energy flow rather than the one way flow it describes.

You have painted yourself into a corner now crick...lets hear a rational reason to alter the way a physical law is written.