Hottest Year Ever????

[palerider]

You have shown time and again that you have no ability to understand these areas:

Second-law of thermodynamics.
Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
Black body radiation
Wien's Displacement Law
Difference between coherent and incoherent radiation.
Poynting vectors
The list goes on......

And for all your lamenting, the fact remains that every observation ever made supports what you like to call my version of the above laws. You, I am afraid are the one who fails to understand....you do parrot the climate science line very well but alas, the climate science line is wrong as evidenced by their abject failure to accurately model the atmosphere with their version of the available physical laws...failure which has led to wholesale data tampering and outright fraud across the globe... Here are some more examples..

Climate models are based on the climate science versions of the physical laws which just happen to be your versions...well padded with evasion and double-talk...and which have failed spectacularly....why?...Because they are wrong. Physical laws say what they say for a reason...neither heat nor energy nor both will move from cool to warm...every observation ever made bears this out...CO2 can't cause warming in the atmosphere...radiative gasses are not like blankets...they are like holes in blankets....remove radiative gasses from the atmosphere and all you have left is convection and conduction to move heat out...and on and on and on....the models are wrong because the physics they are based upon are flawed ad hoc versions of actual physical laws.

 

[Lagboltz]

the fact remains that every observation ever made supports what you like to call my version of the above laws...

Your version of the basic laws of thermodynamics are absolutely totally false and have never been supported by any observation whatsoever.

Climate models are based on the climate science versions of the physical laws which just happen to be your versions

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. They are not my versions. I'm not that old.

...well padded with evasion and double-talk...and which have failed spectacularly ...why?... Because they are wrong. Physical laws say what they say for a reason...

You are replete with double-talk, and change the interpretation of the classical discoveries to fit your whims.

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.

Second-law of thermodynamics. (1854)
Bidirectional radiation between hot and cold substances (1879)
Stefan-Boltzmann equation. (1884)
Black body radiation (1860)
Wien's Displacement Law (1893)
Incoherent radiation. (1850)
Poynting vectors (1884)

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.

 

[palerider]

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.

Poynting vectors (1884)

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.

 

[Lagboltz]

So you can provide an observed, measured example of energy moving from a cool object to a warmer one?

Many times you were showed how energy moves according to the original 1884 form of the Stefan-Boltzmann law with many many web citations. That law is still the basis for radiant energy emanating from all objects no matter their temperature to all other objects no matter their temperature. Ah, pale, my favorite pen-pal 'tis a shame your abject hubris prevents you from understanding the science expressed in all university textbooks and by all physicists over the last hundred years.

Second-law of thermodynamics. (1854)
Stefan-Boltzmann equation. (1884)
Black body radiation (1860)
Wien's Displacement Law (1893)
Incoherent radiation. (1850)
Poynting vectors (1884)

You need to stay away from those science blogger sites. They are destroying your mind and turning you into an internet troll. With most people the truth makes you free. But with you the truth makes you flee.

 

[palerider]

Many times you were showed how energy moves according to the original 1884 form of the Stefan-Boltzmann law with many many web citations. That law is still the basis for radiant energy emanating from all objects no matter their temperature to all other objects no matter their temperature. Ah, pale, my favorite pen-pal 'tis a shame your abject hubris prevents you from understanding the science expressed in all university textbooks and by all physicists over the last hundred years.

So you admit that you can't show any rewording of the second law stating that it is concerned with net flows rather than the one way gross flows of energy it describes...even though you remain unable to recognize an equation that describes a one way energy flow as is the case with the SB law when the topic is a radiator radiating to its cooler surroundings.....thanks....and you have no answer to any of my other statements regarding the other laws and maths....thanks again.....your double-talk, shuckin and jivin, and bobbin and weaving were growing tiresome.

 

[Lagboltz]

So you admit that you can't show any rewording of the second law stating that it is concerned with net flows rather than the one way gross flows of energy it describes

Of course I showed many times the second-law law for spontaneous radiant systems addresses heat flow. The Stefan-Boltzmann law applied to those radiant systems shows that radiant heat flow is a net flow of energy. If you don't believe that show me a source that says the second law applied to spontaneous systems is not a net flow of energy. C'mon read a physics book.

...even though you remain unable to recognize an equation that describes a one way energy flow as is the case with the SB law when the topic is a radiator radiating to its cooler surroundings

There are no statements in journals nor text books in over one hundred years that says the radiant EM energy of one object cannot flow to a cooler object. And yes I remember you think that the energy from two light bulbs cancels out leaving a black streak between them.

.....thanks....and you have no answer to any of my other statements regarding the other laws and maths....thanks again.

You want an answer? Sure, you can copy definitions or statements from a web site but you showed time and again that you do not understand their meaning, nor do you know how to apply them.

You still get a failing grade on the understanding or use of:
Second-law of thermodynamics. (1854)
Stefan-Boltzmann equation. (1884)
Black body radiation (1860)
Wien's Displacement Law (1893)
Incoherent radiation. (1850)
Poynting vectors (1884)

 

[palerider]

Of course I showed many times the second-law law for spontaneous radiant systems addresses heat flow. The Stefan-Boltzmann law applied to those radiant systems shows that radiant heat flow is a net flow of energy. If you don't believe that show me a source that says the second law applied to spontaneous systems is not a net flow of energy. C'mon read a physics book.

With you, its all lies all the time isn't it? You have showed no such thing...The SB equation describes one way energy flow from a radiator to its cooler surroundings in a vacuum...that's it.

are no statements in journals nor text books in over one hundred years that says the radiant EM energy of one object cannot flow to a cooler object. And yes I remember you think that the energy from two light bulbs cancels out leaving a black streak between them.

They defer to the second law which says exactly that.

Neither heat nor energy can move from cool to warm...one way gross energy movement and no amount of tooth gnashing on your part will ever change that... the only "examples" you have ever provided required input of work in every step except watching what all of the input of work achieved....and you claim I don't grasp the basics....You always provide comic relief.

 

[Lagboltz]

Hey PailRider! My favorite Troll is back, still pretending to understand physics.

With you, its all lies all the time isn't it? You have showed no such thing...The SB equation describes one way energy flow from a radiator to its cooler surroundings in a vacuum...that's it.

That's not quite it. Show me a source that says that the SB equation must radiate to a cooler surrounding. It actually can radiate to surroundings at any temperature. The surroundings can, and will radiate energy back to the radiator. That is what preserves the second-law of thermodynamics.

I'm not the liar here. Your ad hominem argument is ludicrous. I'm just a messenger of what has been known in physics for over 100 years. We covered this many many times. Why can't you understand such a simple concept?

They defer to the second law which says exactly that.

Neither heat nor energy can move from cool to warm...one way gross energy movement and no amount of tooth gnashing on your part will ever change that... the only "examples" you have ever provided required input of work in every step except watching what all of the input of work achieved....and you claim I don't grasp the basics....You always provide comic relief.

You are wrong. Radiant energy will move from any object to any other object. It doesn't matter what the temperature difference is. That fact is in every physics book that covers the subject. All your tooth gnashing will wear away your enamel. You should see a dentist, my comic relief troll.

 

[palerider]

Hey PailRider! My favorite Troll is back, still pretending to understand physics.

That's not quite it. Show me a source that says that the SB equation must radiate to a cooler surrounding. It actually can radiate to surroundings at any temperature. The surroundings can, and will radiate energy back to the radiator. That is what preserves the second-law of thermodynamics.

Again, it is always either lies or ignorance with you...at this point, I am really not sure which.

Do you really not know the difference between a black body radiating into a vacuum and a radiator radiating into cooler surroundings?

This version of the SB law expresses a radiator radiating into a vacuum...you can drop the emissivity if the radiator is a perfect black body.

If, however, the radiator is not radiating into a vacuum, the SB law is expressed as a radiator radiating into its cooler surroundings as so:

If the surroundings are warmer,then it is they who become the radiator.

I'm not the liar here. Your ad hominem argument is ludicrous. I'm just a messenger of what has been known in physics for over 100 years. We covered this many many times. Why can't you understand such a simple concept?

Of course you are...and if it has been known for 100 years that energy can radiate from cool to warm, then why are you unable to provide an observed measured example?

 

[dogtowner]

a perfect black body.
/QUOTE]
im getting a mental image dealing with "hot" that has nothing to do with this topic.
thanks !

 

[Lagboltz]

Again, it is always either lies or ignorance with you...at this point, I am really not sure which.
Do you really not know the difference between a black body radiating into a vacuum and a radiator radiating into cooler surroundings?
This version of the SB law expresses a radiator radiating into a vacuum...you can drop the emissivity if the radiator is a perfect black body.

If, however, the radiator is not radiating into a vacuum, the SB law is expressed as a radiator radiating into its cooler surroundings as so:

If the surroundings are warmer,then it is they who become the radiator.

We went through this many times. Here it is again.
You disagree with the Dartmouth physics department.

Of course you are...and if it has been known for 100 years that energy can radiate from cool to warm, then why are you unable to provide an observed measured example?

I did provide an example. We went through that many times too.

 

[Lagboltz]

a perfect black body.

im getting a mental image dealing with "hot" that has nothing to do with this topic.
thanks !

I hope you are thinking of a body that radiates the maximum possible warmth to other surrounding bodies.

 

[palerider]

We went through this many times. Here it is again.
You disagree with the Dartmouth physics department.

Yes, I disagree....it is describing a process that the equation does not describe....energy does not move from cool to warm and has never been observed to do so.

did provide an example. We went through that many times too.

You provided a failed example...energy does not move from cool to warm unless some work is done to make it happen...your example was all about work being performed to make energy move from cool to warm...you can not provide an example of energy moving from cool to warm spontaneously... Again, it is all lies al the time with you.

 

[palerider]

I hope you are thinking of a body that radiates the maximum possible warmth to other surrounding bodies.

The equation he was talking about was a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum....no other bodies are present.

 

[Lagboltz]

Yes, I disagree....it is describing a process that the equation does not describe....energy does not move from cool to warm and has never been observed to do so.

You not only pretend to disagree with Dartmouth, you pretend to disagree with every physicist and every university course. Radiant energy moves from all bodies to all other bodies no matter what temperature is involved according to every physicist. You are basing your argument on something you cannot prove. Go ahead and find a prove for the second law as you see it.

Because of your pretended petulant disagreements you are a troll and nothing more.