Hottest Year Ever????

[Lagboltz]

You think pressure is radiative energy transfer

No

You think no work is being done in your example?

No external work is done after the original experimental setup.

You think energy is spontaneously moving from a cool object to a warm one?

Kinetic energy of atoms are spontaneously striking the walls of the box at an average velocity of around 1000 miles per hour.

So cold air being forced into the box is not work? The air being sucked out of the box was not work? The whole experiment is one of external work being done. Heat a box and stand back and wait for zero degree air to rush inside...you will be waiting till the box has cooled to zero if you don't do some sort of work to force the zero degree air inside....failure...sorry.

Yes. Only this part of the experimental setup involves external work. After the box is sealed no further external work is done.

Touching does not equal radiative energy transfer which is the topic of discussion if you are talking about the fictitious greenhouse effect as described by climate science. And again, there is nothing spontaneous about your experiment...work is being done from the time you remove the air from the box.

The focus in this experiment is not radiative transfer nor the greenhouse effect. It is about spontaneous kinetic energy transfer from a colder object to a warmer object.

Tell me lagboltz, since you are so concerned about the cold air touching the hot box

The air molecules “touch” the hot box at speeds of over 1000 miles per hour. That's hardly a touch. That contact is called kinetic energy transfer.

do you also believe in back conduction and back convection?

No

You have admitted that electrons “touch” the box (at 1000mph, I might add.) More specifically it is an example of energy from a colder object moving toward a warmer object. However the net or total heat energy flow is from the warmer box to the colder gas. Thus, the Second Law of Thermodynamics must be stated that “Heat cannot spontaneously flow from a colder to a hotter object.”

Nothing can convince you....no matter how many examples of data manipulation, tampering, and outright fraud you are given...from anywhere on earth, your faith will remain strong and you will reject all evidence that is in conflict with that faith.

You have not given any examples or evidence of data tampering or outright fraud. The graphs in and of themselves do not prove fraud. What you have given me are updated data from newer theories or computations.

You want sources...here are sources although they are from climate conspiracy sites...GISS, NOAA, NCDC, etc a most certainly a climate conspiracy sites as they and others are perpetrating and propagating the greatest, most expensive hoax in human history.
....

Again the graphs in those sources show upgraded data for a few local regions, but do not show the newer theories or computations behind the upgrades. There is no way to judge maleficent tampering from the graphs alone, unless you use faith to justify your suspicions.

 

[palerider]

No external work is done after the original experimental setup.

What are you calling the original experimental setup?....building a box, heating the box, sucking the air out of the box and then forcing the cold air into the box? The initial set up is building a box...and heating the box. Further work is required at eac

Yes. Only this part of the experimental setup involves external work. After the box is sealed no further external work is done.

So the only part that doesn't require external work is watching what happens after you have introduced additional work at every step? You call that a thermodynamics experiment? Again, I am laughing in your face. Is this the best you can do? If so, why didn't you just acknowledge that neither energy nor heat will spontaneously move from a cool object to a warm object. There is nothing spontaneous whatsoever about your experiment.

The focus in this experiment is not radiative transfer nor the greenhouse effect. It is about spontaneous kinetic energy transfer from a colder object to a warmer object.

First, there is nothing spontaneous about it. The whole set up involves introducing external work and apparently the only part that doesn't require external work is watching what all of the external work causes. And the topic of discussion is climate change and the so called greenhouse effect....now you acknowledge that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the greenhouse effect and is, in fact, just a straw man? Congratulations on your epic fail.

No

You don't believe in back convection and conduction but you do believe in back radiation. Tell me, how does your "experiment" (tongue firmly in cheek) demonstrate in any way that CO2 can cause energy in the cooler atmosphere to spontaneously radiate to, and be absorbed by the warmer surface of the earth?

You have admitted that electrons “touch” the box (at 1000mph, I might add.) More specifically it is an example of energy from a colder object moving toward a warmer object. However the net or total heat energy flow is from the warmer box to the colder gas. Thus, the Second Law of Thermodynamics must be stated that “Heat cannot spontaneously flow from a colder to a hotter object.”

You do love your straw men don't you? Lets review:

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.

There is nothing spontaneous about your experiment....you use external work to withdraw the air from the box...you use external work to force cold air into the box...you use external work to seal the box...and then you claim that energy is spontaneously moving from cold to warm? Again....laughing in your face. Heat the box and then stand back and watch how much cold air spontaneously goes into the opening in an effort to expand the box.

You have not given any examples or evidence of data tampering or outright fraud. The graphs in and of themselves do not prove fraud. What you have given me are updated data from newer theories or computations.

I asked you for a rational, scientifically sound reason to alter temperature data taken even 10 years ago, much less from a hundred years or more in the past. Got one? As I said, you warmers aren't very good at thinking....you simply accept what you are spoon fed and told to believe. Your faith is certainly strong to believe that some new theory of reading a thermometer has popped up requiring that past data be adjusted down wholesale in an effort to make the present appear warmer.

Again the graphs in those sources show upgraded data for a few local regions, but do not show the newer theories or computations behind the upgrades. There is no way to judge maleficent tampering from the graphs alone, unless you use faith to justify your suspicions.

Tell me O faithful one...what new theory of thermometer reading requires lowering the temperature data of the past? Got an answer or just more shuckin and jivin....bobbin and weavin....duckin and coverin?

 

[Lagboltz]

What are you calling the original experimental setup?....building a box, heating the box, sucking the air out of the box and then forcing the cold air into the box? The initial set up is building a box...and heating the box. Further work is required at eac

Yes

So the only part that doesn't require external work is watching what happens after you have introduced additional work at every step?

Yes.

... the only part that doesn't require external work is watching what all of the external work causes.

Yes.

You don't believe in back convection and conduction but you do believe in back radiation. Tell me, how does your "experiment" (tongue firmly in cheek) demonstrate in any way that CO2 can cause energy in the cooler atmosphere to spontaneously radiate to, and be absorbed by the warmer surface of the earth?

It demonstrates that when no external work is done, the Second Law of thermodynamics is concerned with the spontaneous exchange of heat energy. Not other forms of energy.

Lets review: 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.

That is correct.

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

That is correct only if word Energy refers to net energy or heat energy.

The whole point of the experiment is to show that there is a two way flow of kinetic energy between the hotter box and the colder air. But of course the balance of the two way flow is such that the net flow of energy is from the hot box to the cold air. In short more kinetic energy is flowing from the box to the air than from the air to the box as it should from the second law.

Aside from kinetic energy flow as shown above, there is also a two way flow of electromagnetic energy between two radiative bodies, but the net flow of energy is always from the hotter body to the colder body. This is very basic physics believed by all climate scientists, no matter what they believe about AGW.

That is the way physicists describe earth radiation and back-scatter between the earth and air above. It is a two way flow of radiant energy. That is the only concept that can fully explain the fact that the earth surface is radiating over two and a half times more radiant energy than all the energy it is absorbing from the sun? Do you disagree that there is a two way flow of that radiation?

I asked you for a rational, scientifically sound reason to alter temperature data taken even 10 years ago, much less from a hundred years or more in the past....what new theory of thermometer reading requires lowering the temperature data of the past?

Again the graphs in those sources show upgraded data for a few local regions, but do not show the newer theories or computations behind the upgrades. I would imagine the updates came from more accurate renormalization and extrapolation concepts. You will have to ask the scientists who updated those graphs. There is no reason for a conspiracy theory until you explore those details.

 

[palerider]

Yes

NEWSFLASH!!!! That is not a set up...that is just watching what happens after you add external work at every step.

Yes.

So you are proving that neither heat nor energy will transfer spontaneously from cold to warm without doing external work.

Yes.

The second law says that you can make energy move from cold to warm if you do external work...what is the point of your experiment as it merely confirms what the second law says...you do external work and you can get energy to move from cold to warm.....so what?

It demonstrates that when no external work is done, the Second Law of thermodynamics is concerned with the spontaneous exchange of heat energy. Not other forms of energy.

The second law is concerned with every form of energy from the potential energy of a ball balanced at the top of a hill to to the water behind a dam, to the stored energy in a battery, to the workings within a cell....all forms of energy are slave to the second law of thermodynamics...not just heat exchanges.

That is correct.

So you acknowledge that energy can't spontaneously move from cool to warm.

That is correct only if word Energy refers to net energy or heat energy.

The second law applies to all energy...and it, so far as I know, has not been altered to include the word net. Energy form of energy gets only one turn at the sliding board...all natural energy exchanges are irreversible.

The whole point of the experiment is to show that there is a two way flow of kinetic energy between the hotter box and the colder air. But of course the balance of the two way flow is such that the net flow of energy is from the hot box to the cold air. In short more kinetic energy is flowing from the box to the air than from the air to the box as it should from the second law.

Then you missed the point of your own experiment....the point of the experiment is that you can make energy move uphill if you do work to make it happen...nothing new there.

Aside from kinetic energy flow as shown above, there is also a two way flow of electromagnetic energy between two radiative bodies, but the net flow of energy is always from the hotter body to the colder body. This is very basic physics believed by all climate scientists, no matter what they believe about AGW.

No, as your experiment shows, there is only a one way flow of energy unless you introduce external work to make a two way flow happen.

That is the way physicists describe earth radiation and back-scatter between the earth and air above. It is a two way flow of radiant energy. That is the only concept that can fully explain the fact that the earth surface is radiating over two and a half times more radiant energy than all the energy it is absorbing from the sun? Do you disagree that there is a two way flow of that radiation?

That is how climate scientists describe back radiation....classical physics....physics for the hard sciences do not teach back radiation as it is unphysical....

Again the graphs in those sources show upgraded data for a few local regions, but do not show the newer theories or computations behind the upgrades. I would imagine the updates came from more accurate renormalization and extrapolation concepts. You will have to ask the scientists who updated those graphs. There is no reason for a conspiracy theory until you explore those details.

Upgraded data? I am still waiting for you to give a rational, scientifically sound reason for altering temperatures of even a decade back...much less a hundred years and more.... Why not just admit that you don't know of any rational scientifically valid reason to alter temperature data from the past....unless of course, you are trying to perpetrate a fraud.

 

[Lagboltz]

Then you missed the point of your own experiment....the point of the experiment is that you can make energy move uphill if you do work to make it happen...nothing new there.

No, as your experiment shows, there is only a one way flow of energy unless you introduce external work to make a two way flow happen.

You missed the point. It is simply an example of two way flow of kinetic energy in a system that is not experiencing external work. Yes, work was done to put the system into a non-equilibrium thermal state. But after the work is terminated thermal equilibrium will spontaneously occur where there is a two way flow of energy:

1) Air molecules are imparting kinetic energy to the hotter box (with no further external work).
2) Box molecular vibrations are imparting kinetic energy to the colder air (with no further external work).

I am surprised you keep failing to understand this.

That is how climate scientists describe back radiation....classical physics....physics for the hard sciences do not teach back radiation as it is unphysical....

You are wrong. It is not classical physics. It is quantum physics. The hard sciences have been teaching the quantum principles underlying back-radiation for over 100 years. It also involves a two way flow of radiant energy.

Physicists describe earth radiation and back-scatter between the earth and air as a two way flow. That is the only concept that can explain why the earth does not freeze everywhere. How do you explain the fact that the earth surface is radiating over two and a half times more radiant energy than it is absorbing from the sun? You have shied away from that question many times: Do you disagree that there is a two way flow of radiation between the earth surface and the air above?

Upgraded data? I am still waiting for you to give a rational, scientifically sound reason for altering temperatures of even a decade back...much less a hundred years and more.... Why not just admit that you don't know of any rational scientifically valid reason to alter temperature data from the past....unless of course, you are trying to perpetrate a fraud.

Read my previous post. I addressed your question there.

 

[palerider]

You missed the point. It is simply an example of two way flow of kinetic energy in a system that is not experiencing external work. Yes, work was done to put the system into a non-equilibrium thermal state. But after the work is terminated thermal equilibrium will spontaneously occur where there is a two way flow of energy:]/quote]

The entire experiment was comprised of external work except watching the result of all of the external work. You really don't have any sort of grasp on this do you. Try the experiment without doing any external work....build the box, heat it up and watch. Then you have an experiment that really doesn't involve any external work.

1) Air molecules are imparting kinetic energy to the hotter box (with no further external work).

They are only imparting kinetic energy to the hotter box because they were forced (external work) into the box, and the box was sealed (more external work).... Learn something.

2) Box molecular vibrations are imparting kinetic energy to the colder air (with no further external work).

Energy flows from warm to cool...so what?

I am surprised you keep failing to understand this.

I am surprise that your IQ has slipped so much since we last spoke. What happened? Head injury? Stroke? High fever? Drug Problem?

You are wrong. It is not classical physics. It is quantum physics. The hard sciences have been teaching the quantum principles underlying back-radiation for over 100 years. It also involves a two way flow of radiant energy.

So we are back to you acknowledging that you can't provide any observed measured example of energy spontaneously moving from a cool object to a warm object....You are back to acknowledging that you place your faith in an unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical model as opposed to every observation ever made.

Physicists describe earth radiation and back-scatter between the earth and air as a two way flow.

No. Climate scientists claim backscatter and two way flow based on a flawed mathematical model. Have a look at the physics texts.

Radiative Heat Transfer by Modest: (physics for the hard sciences) does not teach back radiation
Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar: (physics for the hard sciences) does not teach back radiation
An Introduction to Radiative Transfer by Peraiah: (physics for the hard sciences) does not teach back radiation

If you want to learn back radiation, you must study physics for climate science...a soft science

An Introduction to Atmospheric Physic by Andrews
A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation by Petty
An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation by Liou
Assessing Climate Change by Rapp
Advancing the Science of Climate Change 2010 by NRC

That is the only concept that can explain why the earth does not freeze everywhere.

Guess you never considered the atmospheric thermal effect which can accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse effect can't even come close to predicting the temperatures of other planets in the solar system and can only predict the temperature here with constant adjustment.

How do you explain the fact that the earth surface is radiating over two and a half times more radiant energy than it is absorbing from the sun? You have shied away from that question many times: Do you disagree that there is a two way flow of radiation between the earth surface and the air above?

I have not shied away from any such question before because that is the first time you have ever said something that stupid. Hell, I don't think anyone has ever said anything that stupid to me since the climate debate began. Outgoing LW at the TOA has been steadily increasing and is now between 237 and 240 wm2...nothing like the 850 wm2 that would represent 2.5 times the incoming. Where did you get such a crazy idea that the atmosphere was more than doubling the incoming energy from the sun?

There is less outgoing than there is incoming which explains why everything doesn't freeze.

Note, the text below the graph assumes that the energy budget associated with the claimed greenhouse effect is correct....clearly it is not as outgoing LW is on the increase even as CO2 increases. It certainly lends creedence to my position that CO2 is a cooling agent in the atmosphere...Radiative gasses are not like blankets....radiative molecules are like small holes in the blanket which is the non radiative gasses in the atmosphere. If there were no radiative gasses in the atmosphere, then heat could only escape via convection and conduction. Radiative gasses add another means for heat to escape the atmosphere.

Read my previous post. I addressed your question there.

I read your previous post...you dodged my question there rather than simply admit that you can't think of any rational or scientifically valid reason to reduce the temperature of the past wholesale while infilling areas that are not well covered instrumentally with warmer temperatures. You can't bring yourself to say fraud and perhaps your faith is so strong, you can't even bring yourself to wonder...even in the most remote part of your mind. Your faith is strong and you simply accept.

 

[palerider]

Here is another altered record...this one from Puerto Casado in Paraguay.

Temperature of the past reduced...temperature of the present elevated.....even though GISS has 4 separate graphs of the area, all showing that the temperature decrease since the 1960's was real. Can't have observed data running contrary to model predictions so torture the observations till they scream that the models must be right....and all the faithful sheep and useful idiots accept and say amen.

 

[Lagboltz]

You are totally confused. Tell me what external work is being done on the box after it is sealed. You can't because you are confused with the preparation of the box in the past. You can't tell the difference between past and present. I have provided an example of spontaneous energy exchange. It is so simple and you still can't understand it. I can't spoon-feed you physics. You are going to have to get books and read them. There are a lot of simplified books on heat science that you should be able to understand.

I asked this question in a previous thread several times:
https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/settled-science.17472/page-18

In post 258 I asked,
“Your reference largely agrees with the average value of 161 W/mm from the sun warming the earth surface. However the earth emits 396 W/mm from it's surface. How do you reconcile that such a large output emission can come from such a small input?”

In post 263 I asked,
“How do you and the author reconcile the fact that the earth is radiating over two and a half times what it is absorbing from the sun? Hint: look at Trenberth's diagram.”

In post 265, I asked,
“How do you reconcile the fact that the earth is radiating over two and a half times more radiation than what it is absorbing from the sun?”

I asked the same question in
post 266,
post 274,
post 282,
post 284

In post 9 of this thread I asked,
“If you don't believe radiative gas cannot exhibit back-scatter, how do you reconcile the fact that the earth surface is radiating over two and a half times more radiant energy than it is absorbing from the sun?”

In post 18 of this thread I asked,
“[Back-scatter] is the only concept that can fully explain the fact that the earth surface is radiating over two and a half times more radiant energy than all the energy it is absorbing from the sun? Do you disagree that there is a two way flow of that radiation?”

And I asked again in the post 20,
“How do you explain the fact that the earth surface is radiating over two and a half times more radiant energy than it is absorbing from the sun?”

And now you say,

I have not shied away from any such question before because that is the first time you have ever said something that stupid.

That is one of the most amazing bald faced lies that I have ever seen.

Where did you get such a crazy idea that the atmosphere was more than doubling the incoming energy from the sun?

What? You don't remember that either!!!! It was your posting of Trenberth's diagram at: https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/settled-science.17472/page-14 . Look at the lower left which shows 161 W/m2 sun energy absorbed by the surface. Look at the the lower right which shows 396 Surface Radiation. How do you reconcile that huge difference? Even the 3% anti AGW scientists believe that difference!!! C'mon focus, focus.

 

[palerider]

You are totally confused. Tell me what external work is being done on the box after it is sealed.

Fing *****...everything up to and including sealing the box is external work....you wouldn't get the effect you see without the external work....heat the box and d

That is one of the most amazing bald faced lies that I have ever seen.

Actually, I said it is one of the most stupid comments I have ever heard but since you clearly said it before, it is a repeat of one of the stupidest comments I have ever heardl

What? You don't remember that either!!!! It was your posting of Trenberth's diagram at: https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/settled-science.17472/page-14 . Look at the lower left which shows 161 W/m2 sun energy absorbed by the surface. Look at the the lower right which shows 396 Surface Radiation. How do you reconcile that huge difference? Even the 3% anti AGW scientists believe that difference!!! C'mon focus, focus.

It can't be reconciled because it is false. Trenberth's cartoon is a fiction. The observed, measured radiation at the top of the atmosphere puts the lie to his claim. Maybe you are unaware that trenberth's cartoon is no longer used in NASA's educational materials. It turns out that trenberth assumed in his cartoon that because the atmosphere is 3 dimensional that additional layers multiply energy...imagine if that were true.....our energy worries would be over...add some layers get additional energy for free. Triple any energy input...perpetual motion in our grasp. And you believe it.....still I wager.

The fact is that Poynting's vector calculus, coupled with actual observation at the top of thermosphere put the lie to trenberth's cartoon...that cartoon is as dead as mann's hockey stick. Only the truly foolish or truly faithful (which is which) even mention either in an attempt to make their case any more.

Are you really stupid enough to believe that the atmosphere can nearly triple the energy coming in from the sun? Do you really believe such nonsense? Has your ability to think been completely stripped from you? You think the atmosphere provides more energy than the sun?

Face it, trenberth's "missing heat" is long gone...it left the atmosphere with elvis....it is on its way to parts unknown.

 

[palerider]

Let me guess, you were blissfully unaware that trenberth's energy budget had been proven by observed data to be wrong. Not to worry, that is how it goes with climate science. Big media splash when information is made public...when papers are published. Worse than we thought etc etc. And then when the information is found to be irretrievably flawed, the papers are quietly withdrawn, and the information is simply no longer used in hopes that it will go away at some point. No media storm over the hopelessly flawed science they trumpeted a short while ago being withdrawn... it simply lurks about for the true believers and useful idiots of the world to keep regurgitating. How does it feel to be a useful idiot doing his job continuing to post trenberths' energy budget cartoon as if it were true?...worse yet, how does it feel to still actually believe it is true?

 

[Lagboltz]

Fing *****...everything up to and including sealing the box is external work....you wouldn't get the effect you see without the external work....heat the box and d

There is no question that you don't understand the thermodynamics of an adiabatic process in isolated systems. You substitute empty cursing and bluster for conceptual thought. You know a few “science” words and can put them into sentences, but your sentences are devoid of scientific understanding.

Actually, I said it is one of the most stupid comments I have ever heard but since you clearly said it before, it is a repeat of one of the stupidest comments I have ever heardl

You absolutely misunderstood the question I posed at least ten times. I continually referred to the radiation at the bottom of the atmosphere which is much better understood and you steer it to the upper atmosphere which is not understood. Yes. I get it. Now lets go back to my question and not your diversion.

Let me hold your hand and carefully guide you through the concept that you have not been able to get. To calculate the radiation from the bottom of the atmosphere, simply use the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You have mentioned it so many times but don't seem to know how or when to apply it.

The S-B law:
Radiation in W/mm is given by emissivity * sigma * Temperature to fourth power.

Emissivity of earth = 0.96
Sigma = 5.67 / 10^8 in units of Watts /m^2 / K^4
Global Mean Annual Temperature Average = 14.5 C = 288 K
Temperature to fourth power = 288 ^4 = 68.5 *10^8

Get out your slide rule. Use the S-B law. Multiply the three and you get:
Surface radiation = 0.96 * 5.67 * 68.5 = 373 W/mm

That is what is radiating from the air closest to the earth. That very simple calculation is well within the ballpark of what ALL climate scientists understand. But you do not. The near-earth radiation of roughly 373 W/mm is well over twice the energy 161 W/mm that it receives from the sun. Again let me remind you we are NOT talking about the colder top of the atmosphere. We are talking about the near-earth temperature.

If you do not agree with the global mean annual temperature of 14.5 C. Let's be very conservative and pretend the entire near-earth temperature is -30 F, like near the north pole. The earth would still radiate 175 W/mm which still exceeds the sun input.

Again, how do you and your blogger friends reconcile that the air near the earth is radiating around two and a half times what it is getting from the sun. Lets see if you can seriously address that question without substituting cursing, bluster, digression, and diversion for real science. I really don't care what you believe about the climate. But if you continue with your dim understanding to bastardize science in the process I will call you on it every time.

 

[palerider]

There is no question that you don't understand the thermodynamics of an adiabatic process in isolated systems. You substitute empty cursing and bluster for conceptual thought. You know a few “science” words and can put them into sentences, but your sentences are devoid of scientific understanding.

Heat your box and watch without introducing any further external work...let me know what happens to the box.

You absolutely misunderstood the question I posed at least ten times. I continually referred to the radiation at the bottom of the atmosphere which is much better understood and you steer it to the upper atmosphere which is not understood. Yes. I get it. Now lets go back to my question and not your diversion.

So now you believe that CO2 can destroy energy? The amount of energy the earth radiates is measured and known...and it isn't 3 times the incoming energy from the sun.

Let me hold your hand and carefully guide you through the concept that you have not been able to get.

Pretending to know more at this point is just piling idiocy on top of stupid. You demonstrated that when you claimed your experiment didn't involve external work....and again when you attempted to use trenberths discredited cartoon as support for your argument.....and if you grasped the first thing about the SB law, you would recognize that it describes a one way flow of energy from a radiator to its cooler surroundings with the magnitude of that flow being determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings.

That is what is radiating from the air closest to the earth. That very simple calculation is well within the ballpark of what ALL climate scientists understand.

The problem is that climate scientists don't understand...they are still looking for missing heat that never existed and their climate models, which are their understanding of thermodynamics and the climate incarnate are failing miserably....lack of understanding is the basis for their abject failure.

Again, how do you and your blogger friends reconcile that the air near the earth is radiating around two and a half times what it is getting from the sun.

Nothing to reconcile as it is not happening....there is no way to multiply energy...if there were, don't you think we would have done it by now? Every attempt runs right up agains the second law of thermodynamics which says that energy won't move uphill unless you provide work to make it happen...

 

[Old_Trapper70]

As one reads through these posts it becomes clear that no one really knows for certainty what is happening, or what will happen. Then the question becomes what do we know, and what can we do about it.

What we do know is that man is polluting the world. The waterways, the soil, the air, whatever man touches he pollutes. We know that the Rain Forests are the purification filters for the Earth, yet we cut them down for the special woods in the forests. We know that the rivers, etc., are the filtering process for the water, yet we pollute them with farm chemicals, cosmetics, medications, plastics, tin cans, table scraps, whatever. We know that fracking is destroying grazing land, streams, and creating fissures in the layers of the earth. Coral reefs are being destroyed by the acidification of the oceans, and fish are dying.

Yet even though we could fix these problems, and then see if it helps overall in regards ot climate change, man wants to do nothing. Things get worse, and the debate goes on. God made the earth for man, and God says he will destroy those who destroy the earth.

Rev. 11: 18 "The nations were angry, and Your wrath has come, And the time of the dead, that they should be judged, And that You should reward Your servants the prophets and the saints, And those who fear Your name, small and great, And should destroy those who destroy the earth"

 

[Lagboltz]

So now you believe that CO2 can destroy energy? The amount of energy the earth radiates is measured and known...and it isn't 3 times the incoming energy from the sun.

CO2? That is a weird straw-man. I never said anything about CO2. Yes near-earth radiation is measured and known to be around 396 W/mm give or take.

Pretending to know more at this point is just piling idiocy on top of stupid. You demonstrated that when you claimed your experiment didn't involve external work....

Vitriolic bluster doesn't support your argument. You simply don't understand an isolated system.

and again when you attempted to use trenberths discredited cartoon as support for your argument.....and if you grasped the first thing about the SB law, you would recognize that it describes a one way flow of energy from a radiator to its cooler surroundings with the magnitude of that flow being determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings.

The SB law describes a one way flow of energy from a radiator independent of it's surroundings. If the surroundings are hotter there will be a larger one-way flow of energy from the surroundings to the radiator. That is what preserves the second-law.

The problem is that climate scientists don't understand...they are still looking for missing heat that never existed and their climate models, which are their understanding of thermodynamics and the climate incarnate are failing miserably....lack of understanding is the basis for their abject failure.

That is another straw-man. You are still evading the question. The the question is what is the amount of near-earth radiation propagating outward from the earth.

Nothing to reconcile as it is not happening....there is no way to multiply energy...if there were, don't you think we would have done it by now?

That is another straw-man. Nobody is saying that energy is multiplied. There is a law of conservation of energy you must know.

Every attempt runs right up agains the second law of thermodynamics which says that energy won't move uphill unless you provide work to make it happen...

You are evading the question for the 12th time. You don't understand that in thermal systems energy moves between all objects in radiative or molecular contact. The second-law simply states that more energy is emitted from a hotter object than received from a colder object. Your lack of understanding of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and the second-law is what is totally confusing you.

 

[palerider]

As one reads through these posts it becomes clear that no one really knows for certainty what is happening, or what will happen. Then the question becomes what do we know, and what can we do about it.

What we do know is that man is polluting the world. The waterways, the soil, the air, whatever man touches he pollutes. We know that the Rain Forests are the purification filters for the Earth, yet we cut them down for the special woods in the forests. We know that the rivers, etc., are the filtering process for the water, yet we pollute them with farm chemicals, cosmetics, medications, plastics, tin cans, table scraps, whatever. We know that fracking is destroying grazing land, streams, and creating fissures in the layers of the earth. Coral reefs are being destroyed by the acidification of the oceans, and fish are dying.

True. There are a host of genuine environmental problems that desperately need to be addressed and that we can, in fact, do something about. Alas, the climate change hoax sucks all of the air out of the room and all of the treasure from the coffers. Nothing can be done to address the genuine environmental problems that we face till the hoax is finally nailed into its coffin and buried deep.

Yet even though we could fix these problems, and then see if it helps overall in regards ot climate change, man wants to do nothing. Things get worse, and the debate goes on. God made the earth for man, and God says he will destroy those who destroy the earth.

Climate change isn't about fixing anything....it is about redistributing wealth from industrial countries to the third world and the IPCC has admitted as much.....that and foisting higher energy costs on people who can least afford to pay them.

Rev. 11: 18 "The nations were angry, and Your wrath has come, And the time of the dead, that they should be judged, And that You should reward Your servants the prophets and the saints, And those who fear Your name, small and great, And should destroy those who destroy the earth"

Before you go quoting bible verses...perhaps you should compare the mound of corpses that can be laid at the alter of environmentalism....to date, environmentalism is responsible for tens of millions of deaths...

 

[palerider]

CO2? That is a weird straw-man. I never said anything about CO2. Yes near-earth radiation is measured and known to be around 396 W/mm give or take.

Being this is a discussion of the so called greenhouse effect, it is a discussion of CO2. No, the 396 figure is an an assumption based on a flawed model.

Vitriolic bluster doesn't support your argument. You simply don't understand an isolated system.[?quote]

And referring to discredited bunk like trenberth's cartoon doesn't help yours....and the earth is not an isolated system. If you believe it is, chalk up one more fundamental flaw in your thinking.

The SB law describes a one way flow of energy from a radiator independent of it's surroundings. If the surroundings are hotter there will be a larger one-way flow of energy from the surroundings to the radiator. That is what preserves the second-law.

Insofar as it applies to the climate of the earth, the equation is stated

which describes an energy transfer as I described...aside from that the SB law is incorrectly applied to earth as the earth is not a blackbody and the atmosphere certainly isn't.

That is another straw-man. Nobody is saying that energy is multiplied. There is a law of conservation of energy you must know.

Of course you are saying that energy is multiplied...161 absorbed by the surface of the earth...nearly 3 times that much radiated....and yet, energy is not being multiplied...you just keep digging and digging and digging. Climate science via your trenberth cartoon claims that greenhouse gas back radiation is 324W/m2 or roughly 95% of the total 342 incoming from the sun. If the greenhouse hypothesis is to be believed, then greenhouse gasses radiate LW from the surface in all directions. If the energy backradiated is 324, then an equal amount must also be radiated on out into space. TOA instrumentation tells us that this simply is not happening. TOA instrumentation tells us that somewhere in the neighborhood of 240 is radiating out. Now you tell me how 324 can be back radiated and an equal amount can be radiated on out into space without multiplying energy. The greenhouse hypothesis is a great steaming pile of shit....the climate models are the greenhouse hypothesis incarnate and they are failing miserably because.....the foundation is so flawed as to be laughable.

You are evading the question for the 12th time. You don't understand that in thermal systems energy moves between all objects in radiative or molecular contact. The second-law simply states that more energy is emitted from a hotter object than received from a colder object. Your lack of understanding of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and the second-law is what is totally confusing you.

The second law states that energy can not move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object without doing some external work to make it happen. The second law says nothing about net energy flows...it is an absolute statement that, to date, has not been changed as a result of unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable, unobservable mathematical models proposed by QM.

 

[palerider]

Come on labboltz...lets hear your response. You provided this graph as evidence to support your claims and stressed that energy was not being multiplied.

Look at what it says...161 absorbed by the ground from the sun 333 coming back to the earth in the form of back radiation.....what the graph neglects show is the required 333 that is radiated straight on out into space....and if you consider poynting vectors the amount of energy must be even more as 333 radiates back to the surface and 333 radiates out into space which covers up and down but does not cover the radiation moving in lateral directions which would ammount to how much energy being radiated if of the energy moving in every possible direction 333 were radiated back to the surface??....

So again, tell me how climate science is not multiplying energy.