Yes, 97%

[Toddsterpatriot]

heat flows from hot areas to cold...NOT THE OTHER WAY

Absolutely. Now show me your definition of heat and I'll point out your error.
Here's a hint, that's still not helping your claim of one way flow of energy.

We are finished...I declare absolute victory. Anyone who can say absolutely, heat flows from hot to cold but not the other way and still claim that it is a two way street is just too stupid to talk to. See you later toddster...it was a pleasure proving you wrong.

I asked you for your definition of heat and you were afraid to provide one since I already proved that science, here nearly 14 years into the 21st century remains unclear as to what heat is...if science isn't clear exactly what heat is, then it is just stupid to ask for my definition of heat as if there were a correct definition of heat. All you are doing, and have been doing now for 23 pages is weaseling...trying to find a way around the second law. It can't be done and I have grown quite tired of watching your weak struggles. Pity on my part brings this to an end.

I asked you for your definition of heat and you were afraid to provide one

You claimed that because heat flows from hot to cold, that means energy only flows one way.
Why would I need to provide the definition for your claim?

I already proved that science, here nearly 14 years into the 21st century remains unclear as to what heat is

Why would you use an unclear concept to prove your silly claim?

if science isn't clear exactly what heat is, then it is just stupid to ask for my definition of heat as if there were a correct definition of heat.

If science isn't clear exactly what heat is, then you are stupid to use heat when we're discussing energy.

All you are doing, and have been doing now for 23 pages is weaseling...trying to find a way around the second law.

Still waiting for anything in the 2nd Law that says one way flow of energy.

 

[skookerasbil]

If anybody is interested.....go back over the last few posts in this thread made by the omnipotent Mamooth. They are unique in such a forum in that there is nothing unique about them......in fact, all of them are almost exactly alike. Two or three sentences about skeptic people being part of a denier cult. Never a direct response ( because he gets his clock cleaned like my post # 453 above ). Never a link. Just bomb throwing and weak attempts to denigrate. Limpwrister stuff........guy more concered about whether I am gay or not. Now theres a new one.......a gay skeptic!!

 

[SSDD]

Still waiting for anything in the 2nd Law that says one way flow of energy.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Here, one apparently closer to your grade level

Physics4Kids.com Thermodynamics Heat Second Law of Thermodynamics

Heat flows from hot areas to cold, not the other way. If its energy is to flow from cold to hot, it needs additional energy.

Second Law of Thermodynamics - Physics Video by Brightstorm

he Second Law of Thermodynamics can be rephrased in several ways. Fundamentally, it says that heat always flows from hot objects to cold objects (unless work is exerted to make it flow the other direction).

Second Law of Thermodynamics

The application of the second law describes why heat is transferred from the hot object to the cool object. Let us assume that the heat is transferred from the hot object (object 1) at temperature T1 to the cold object (object 2) at temperature T2. The amount of heat transferred is Q and the final equilibrium temperature for both objects we will call Tf. The temperature of the hot object changes as the heat is transferred away from the object. The average temperature of the hot object during the process we will call Th and it would be the average of T1 and Tf.

Th = (T1 + Tf) / 2

Similarly, for the cold object, the final temperature is Tf and the average temperature during the process is Tc which is the average of Tf and T2.

Tc = (T2 + Tf) / 2

Th will always be greater than Tc, because T1 is greater than T2.

Th > Tc

Note the one way equations...

 

[mamooth]

Limpwrister stuff........guy more concered about whether I am gay or not. Now theres a new one.......a gay skeptic!!

There's not anything wrong with how you feel, skook, and don't ever let anyone tell you there is.

However, I will point out this forum is an inappropriate spot for cruising, and you'd probably have better luck elsewhere.

 

[flacaltenn]

Still waiting for anything in the 2nd Law that says one way flow of energy.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Here, one apparently closer to your grade level

Physics4Kids.com Thermodynamics Heat Second Law of Thermodynamics

Heat flows from hot areas to cold, not the other way. If its energy is to flow from cold to hot, it needs additional energy.

Second Law of Thermodynamics - Physics Video by Brightstorm

he Second Law of Thermodynamics can be rephrased in several ways. Fundamentally, it says that heat always flows from hot objects to cold objects (unless work is exerted to make it flow the other direction).

Second Law of Thermodynamics

The application of the second law describes why heat is transferred from the hot object to the cool object. Let us assume that the heat is transferred from the hot object (object 1) at temperature T1 to the cold object (object 2) at temperature T2. The amount of heat transferred is Q and the final equilibrium temperature for both objects we will call Tf. The temperature of the hot object changes as the heat is transferred away from the object. The average temperature of the hot object during the process we will call Th and it would be the average of T1 and Tf.

Th = (T1 + Tf) / 2

Similarly, for the cold object, the final temperature is Tf and the average temperature during the process is Tc which is the average of Tf and T2.

Tc = (T2 + Tf) / 2

Th will always be greater than Tc, because T1 is greater than T2.

Th > Tc

Note the one way equations...

NONE of that violated by radiative physics which accounts for the 2 way propagation of ElectroMagnetic Energy (not heat) that can be absorbed by BOTH objects.. ElectroMagnetic Energy that is CAUSED by heat in matter and which can INDUCE heat in matter. But EM Energy is NOT heat. That's the part you're missing here..

Excuse me now -- I'm tapped out of thermo brilliance for the day..

 

[Crick]

But heat is EM energy, so some of it is.

 

[IanC]

heat flows from hot areas to cold...NOT THE OTHER WAY

Absolutely. Now show me your definition of heat and I'll point out your error.
Here's a hint, that's still not helping your claim of one way flow of energy.

We are finished...I declare absolute victory. Anyone who can say absolutely, heat flows from hot to cold but not the other way and still claim that it is a two way street is just too stupid to talk to. See you later toddster...it was a pleasure proving you wrong.

I asked you for your definition of heat and you were afraid to provide one since I already proved that science, here nearly 14 years into the 21st century remains unclear as to what heat is...if science isn't clear exactly what heat is, then it is just stupid to ask for my definition of heat as if there were a correct definition of heat. All you are doing, and have been doing now for 23 pages is weaseling...trying to find a way around the second law. It can't be done and I have grown quite tired of watching your weak struggles. Pity on my part brings this to an end.

hahahahahahahahahahahaha....

you declare absolute victory????????



you are a total joke. a solitary figure declaring physics wrong. even Don Quixote had Sancho. your proof? a bizarre SSDD version of the semantics involved in describing thermodynamics, and when pushed to describe what and why things are happening you simply state, "just because". hahahahahaha....

you have failed to address any of the multitude of weaknesses and logical inconsistencies in your wacko theory, but somehow you think you are winning the debate?

 

[IanC]

But heat is EM energy, so some of it is.

be careful where you are going with this. photons carrying away excess energy are the simplest version. photons transferring force in electric or magnetic fields are more complicated. movement of 'heat' is more complicated still.

 

[Crick]

I'm not going anywhere with it. I just wanted to make certain that FCT wasn't able to imply that IR was not EM radiation.

 

[IanC]

I'm not going anywhere with it. I just wanted to make certain that FCT wasn't able to imply that IR was not EM radiation.

OK. I dont want to speak for flac, and I dont want to put words in your mouth either.

EMR is more of a symptom of heat than a cause. sure, radiation is one of the ways that heat is dissapated, and it can be used to 'heat' something, but the original source of the available energy known as 'heat' is always something else.

 

[Crick]

I suspect that every man-jack of the 97% of climate scientists that accept AGW as valid understand that point.

 

[IanC]

I suspect that every man-jack of the 97% of climate scientists that accept AGW as valid understand that point.

OK, let's go back to the original thread.

is there 97% agreement on the amount of warming that happened over the last 1000, 100, 50, 25, 17, 10 or 5 years? is there 97% agreement on the figure for climate sensitivity? is there 97% agreement on the validity of GCM models, or even the inputs that they should be initialized with?

 

[skookerasbil]

Heres the thing with this whole 97% debate thing........

At the end of the day, its a moot point if one is a realist and I'm not even being flip here.

Lets say that many more people accept that AGW is a given. The next logical question is......

And?

According to a UN statement in 2012, it would cost the world 76 trillion dollars for the world to go green and get off fossil fuels. Forgetting about the stoopid amount of $$ that is ( bit a trite point to the AGW crowd ) we would necessarily be asking the entire worlds population to discard their way of life!! Now......connect the dots on the political possibilities of this happening!!! Imagine for a moment, a political leader having a press conference and stating, "The time has come people to ban fossil fuels for the future of out planet!! My plan will work. Of course, we will have to give up many of our common conveniences like air conditioning!! Power will necessarily need to be rationed in terms of heating, but we can adapt by wearing lots of sweaters indoors on cold days!! Cell phones will have to become a thing of the past but people in prior centuries made due without them. So can we!! Everyone will necessarily have to drive a motor vehicle much like the SMARTFORTWO but lets not forget there was a time where people traveled only by train or horse and buggy!! The candle industry will become enormous once again and bring lots of jobs to our economy........"






Need I continue???






Those in the AGW crowd.......their thinking is and will always be, "Anything is possible if we set our mind to it!!". But in the real world, that's not how it works. For Christsakes, our leaders cant even get up the balls to close our borders or make a decision on immigration for the last 40 years. Its a connect the dots thing people.......those that can see the folly in taking this 97% stuff past something resembling a game of trivia!!! The k00ks say, "What about the future of our grandchildren?"......as if people will EVER be OK with getting slammed with enormous levels of taxes and accepting a poverty level of living standards because "the models are predicting doom!!!"


The perfect analogy?

Bush and Obama spiking the football on the death of Islamic terrorism. Feel good moments are gay. What matters is the stark realities when you have to confront the inevitable.......only the suckers don't get it.



Now......you will notice that none of the AGW crowd will directly address my post. The response will be "You're a retard!!" or "You're a greedy, cold conservative" or "Going green will be an economic boom!!". Lets face it.......responding to the stark realities is 100% impossible.



Which is why, 97% or no, the AGW crowd is losing and will continue to lose.......and on that point, I spike the football every day in this forum!!!


Because I can!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Still waiting for one of the k00ks to respond to my post above ^^^ with something substantive besides name calling.

Or do I have to post the cricket vid again?

 

[Crick]

I suspect that every man-jack of the 97% of climate scientists that accept AGW as valid understand that point.

OK, let's go back to the original thread.

is there 97% agreement on the amount of warming that happened over the last 1000, 100, 50, 25, 17, 10 or 5 years? is there 97% agreement on the figure for climate sensitivity? is there 97% agreement on the validity of GCM models, or even the inputs that they should be initialized with?

97% of active climate scientists believe human activities are the primary cause of the global warming we've experienced over the previous 150 years. How many times have you heard that?

I thought you said you wouldn't try to put words in my mouth.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I suspect that every man-jack of the 97% of climate scientists that accept AGW as valid understand that point.

OK, let's go back to the original thread.

is there 97% agreement on the amount of warming that happened over the last 1000, 100, 50, 25, 17, 10 or 5 years? is there 97% agreement on the figure for climate sensitivity? is there 97% agreement on the validity of GCM models, or even the inputs that they should be initialized with?

97% of active climate scientists believe human activities are the primary cause of the global warming we've experienced over the previous 150 years. How many times have you heard that?

I thought you said you wouldn't try to put words in my mouth.

If only we could convince some of those 75 "active climate scientists" that they're wrong, we wouldn't have this phony stat polluting so many threads.......

 

[skookerasbil]

I suspect that every man-jack of the 97% of climate scientists that accept AGW as valid understand that point.

OK, let's go back to the original thread.

is there 97% agreement on the amount of warming that happened over the last 1000, 100, 50, 25, 17, 10 or 5 years? is there 97% agreement on the figure for climate sensitivity? is there 97% agreement on the validity of GCM models, or even the inputs that they should be initialized with?

97% of active climate scientists believe human activities are the primary cause of the global warming we've experienced over the previous 150 years. How many times have you heard that?

.

And????

 

[SSDD]

NONE of that violated by radiative physics which accounts for the 2 way propagation of ElectroMagnetic Energy (not heat) that can be absorbed by BOTH objects.. ElectroMagnetic Energy that is CAUSED by heat in matter and which can INDUCE heat in matter. But EM Energy is NOT heat. That's the part you're missing here..

Excuse me now -- I'm tapped out of thermo brilliance for the day..

As I have shown...science isn't clear about what heat is...you seem to be. Maybe you could settle the issue for them.

 

[SSDD]

But heat is EM energy, so some of it is.

be careful where you are going with this. photons carrying away excess energy are the simplest version. photons transferring force in electric or magnetic fields are more complicated. movement of 'heat' is more complicated still.

Science isn't sure what heat is but you are sure that photons exist and that you know what they are up to.

 

[skookerasbil]

None of the AGW nuts can make a response to post #473.......far easier to ignore on a public forum than to look stoopid.