Your version of the basic laws of thermodynamics are absolutely totally false and have never been supported by any observation whatsoever.[/qipte]
So you can provide an observed, measured example of energy moving from a cool object to a warmer one? Oh, goodie....lets see it.
There are no “climate science” versions of the physical laws. Those laws have been around for more than 100 years, long before climate science came about.
OF course there are....backradiation for one...is only taught in soft science physics for climatologists....no hard science physics text teaches back radiation...are you sure you don't also believe in back conduction and back convection? And if you don't believe in them, why?
They are not my versions. I'm not that old.
You accept them so you make them yours.
You are replete with double-talk, and change the interpretation of the classical discoveries to fit your whims.
Really? Show me the word net in the second law of thermodynamics before you accuse me of interpretation of anything. Failing to show the word net is an admission that it is you who is prone to interpretation.
All these concepts in physics have been around for well over 100 years, and you don't believe them!! Again here is a partial list of the concepts you totally misunderstand along with the dates of discovery.
I believe them all and find no need to add to or subtract from their statements...you, on the other hand, don't.
Second-law of thermodynamics. (1854)
You can only accept the second law if the word net is added.
Bidirectional radiation between hot and cold substances (1879)
Refer to the second law...and again, do you believe in back convection and back conduction?
Stefan-Boltzmann equation. (1884)
The SB law describes one way gross energy movement...not two way net flow.
Wien's Displacement Law (1893)
Wien's displacement law is a simple equation that calculates the emission maximum of a perfect black
body at a given temperature. This calc gives either the
wavelength from the temperature, or the
temperature from the wavelength.
Here calculate it for yourself....let me know what numbers you get.
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/p_thermo/wien
Incoherent radiation. (1850)
Radiation is temporarily coherent if its coherence time is equal to or greater than some arbitrarily chose value.
Are you going to deny that poynting vector calculus is used daily by communications engineers to assure that radiation from one or more sources doesn't cause or result in cancelation or destructive interference in the radiation they are transmitting?
Since you don't believe the original discoveries, you are well over 100 years behind the times. To think that those laws were designed for current climate science is totally naive. What is most amazing is that you are totally anti-science and yet you vehemently argue scientific idiocy.
To the contrary, since the discoveries were made, no observation has ever rendered them invalid, I accept them as they are stated...you on the other hand only accept any of them conditionally...so long as they don't run afoul of your faith in climate change....if they do, they, like observational data must be tortured and altered till they support your belief.
Here, have another example: If your faith is strong enough, you can believe any bogus reason for altering data to this extent.
