"Settled Science"??

[palerider]

I gave you the example. I will post it again:

Build a box out of thin metal. Insulate the box on the outside. Heat everything inside of the box to 500 degrees. Suck out the air from the box and reintroduce air at 0 degrees. Seal the box. As the metal of the box heats the inside air, the sides of box will bow out from the increased pressure. The box cannot expand unless the colder atoms actually hit the sides of the hotter box with kinetic energy.

If you include pressure gauge and thermometers to measure the temperature of the box and air, that is an observed measured example of energy moving form a cooler object to a warmer object.

Sorry, but that is not an example. I will check back periodically although we both know that no observation of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object has ever been made.

In your mind experiment, you are assuming that because atoms from the cooler air inside touch the warmer container that they are transferring energy to the warmer box. They are certainly absorbing energy from the container. Chalk up another failed attempt to get energy to move from a cool object to a warmer one.

You may as well admit that no observation exists...two way energy transfer between cool and warm objects is a mathematical construct that doesn't happen in reality.

 

[Lagboltz]

you are assuming that because atoms from the cooler air inside touch the warmer container that they are transferring energy to the warmer box. They are certainly absorbing energy from the container. Chalk up another failed attempt to get energy to move from a cool object to a warmer one.

You say, an atom will "touch" the warm container?

http://www.teachastronomy.com/astropedia/article/Velocity-of-Gas-Particles
The average velocity of an atom at room temperature is about 509 meters per second.

That is 1139 miles per hour! You call that a "touch"?! You are definitely confusing thermal energy with kinetic energy. Over 3% of the atoms in the gas are going 10 times that speed!

Every high school physics student knows that an atom going that fast will definitely exchange energy with any other atom that it strikes. Of course, like a tennis racquet, the even more rapidly vibrating wall of a hotter container will impart more energy on average to the colder atoms in the gas. Every high school physics student knows, that you can't violate the laws of conservation of energy and momentum.

You may as well admit that no observation exists...two way energy transfer between cool and warm objects is a mathematical construct that doesn't happen in reality.

You may as well admit that you are wrong wrong wrong. In reality kinetic energy and radiant energy can travel both ways. Thermal energy (heat) goes only from hot to cold. The second law of thermodynamics must be, Heat cannot spontaneously flow from a cold to a hot substance. That allows greenhouse gases to backscatter IR energy to a colder earth.

 

[palerider]

If you are right then you should have no problem providing an observed, measured example of energy moving from a cool object to a warm one. Again, in your mind experiment, energy was certainly transferring from warm to cold and one could easily measure that happening....not so with the claim that energy was transferring from cold to warm.

Keep trying, your failures provide a certain comic relief to the tragedy of the AGW hoax....not much, but any is better than none.

 

[Lagboltz]

If you are right then you should have no problem providing an observed, measured example of energy moving from a cool object to a warm one. Again, in your mind experiment, energy was certainly transferring from warm to cold and one could easily measure that happening....not so with the claim that energy was transferring from cold to warm.

If energy never transfers from a cold gas to a warm container, why does the sides of a warm container bow out under pressure. Your lack of explanation is another failure on your part.

Since an atom in a container at room temperature can move at 1139 mph, what happens to it's forward momentum. Does it simply reverse without imparting momentum to the warm container? Energy must move from the cold gas to the warm container. It's obvious you don't understand the conservation of momentum. That is another failure on your part.

It is a very simple high school mind experiment, yet your mind can't grasp it. That is another failure on your part.

I asked many times why you can't reconcile that the earth emits 2 1/2 times more radiation than what it is absorbing from the sun. You can't answer that simple question. That is another failure on your part.

Keep trying, your failures provide a certain comic relief to the tragedy of the AGW hoax....not much, but any is better than none.

You raised a good point! This whole thread is comic relief.

Lagboltz the science straight man
vs.
Palerider the anti-science buffoon,
who thinks quantum mechanics "is a hoax" and "pseudoscience",
who thinks modern science has "abandon reality for fantasy".

Yes, your ignoble arrogance and ignorance is what gives this thread a comic relief.

 

[GBFan]

 

[palerider]

Still waiting for that observed, measured example of energy moving from a cold object to a warm object...I will keep checking back although we both know no such example will ever be forthcoming.

 

[palerider]

I asked many times why you can't reconcile that the earth emits 2 1/2 times more radiation than what it is absorbing from the sun. You can't answer that simple question. That is another failure on your part.

It doesn't. Just when I think you have been as stupid as one person can get...you lower the bar. If the eath were actually emitting more than twice as much energy as it absorbs...it would be cooling at a very rapid pace. The problem is that you believe the energy budget cartoon...you believe the earth is a flat disk that doesn't rotate...has no night or day and is 4 times further from the sun than it really is...the trenberth energy budget cartoon is a piece of shit and anyone who believes it is a dupe of the first order.

 

[Lagboltz]

View attachment 698

I don't expect this to be interesting to anyone, but I'm having fun and am amused by it.

 

[Lagboltz]

Still waiting for that observed, measured example of energy moving from a cold object to a warm object...I will keep checking back although we both know no such example will ever be forthcoming.

Now that's very funny. I gave you physical proof using the sides of a container bowing and the conservation of momentum. And you like a sullen child simply repeat your drone as though that were an argument for adults? How about an argument from you against pressure and momentum being valid physical laws. That would be amusing too.

 

[Lagboltz]

If the eath were actually emitting more than twice as much energy as it absorbs...it would be cooling at a very rapid pace.

If that were simply all there was to it, you would be correct. But you forgot backscatter.

C'mon Pale you are totally confused. I will help you try to understand. You already have it at your fingertips but just can't seem to go the last mile.

To calculate the radiation from earth, simply use the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You have mentioned it so many times but don't seem to know when to apply it.

The S-B law:
The 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 well over twice the 161 W/mm that it receives from the sun. Think backscatter, then everything that puzzles you will be resolved.

Interesting fact: The surface radiation at the north pole is 175 W/mm at it's average temperature of -30 deg F. That is still larger outgoing radiation than the input radiation from the sun.

Why isn't the earth frozen? I will say it again: Backscattered radiation.

you believe the earth is a flat disk that doesn't rotate...has no night or day and is 4 times further from the sun than it really is

Pale, we went through that before. The model does not use a flat disk. And if the earth were 4 times further than the sun then the inverse square law would cut down the radiation by a factor of 16. What is wrong with your brain. Think think.

Just when I think you have been as stupid as one person can get...you lower the bar....the trenberth energy budget cartoon is a piece of shit and anyone who believes it is a dupe of the first order.

As usual you substitute rational thought with childish invectives.

 

[palerider]

Now that's very funny. I gave you physical proof using the sides of a container bowing and the conservation of momentum. And you like a sullen child simply repeat your drone as though that were an argument for adults? How about an argument from you against pressure and momentum being valid physical laws. That would be amusing too.

No what you did was attempt to pass off a change in pressure as a radiative energy exchange. Your claim is that more than twice as much energy is absorbed by the surface of the earth from the atmosphere than is absorbed from the sun...prove it.

 

[Lagboltz]

No what you did was attempt to pass off a change in pressure as a radiative energy exchange.

No, no, no. You are totally mixed up again. You said,

Still waiting for that observed, measured example of energy moving from a cold object to a warm object...

So I gave you an example that atoms of a hot gas must strike a colder container in order for the sides to bow out. That is observed, measured example of energy moving from a cold object to a warm object. It is from the ideal gas law which you are obviously not familiar with.

That simple counterexample proves that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is valid only if you refer to "heat" and NOT "energy".

This is wrong wrong wrong (proved by the counterexample I gave):
Energy cannot spontaneously flow from a cold to a hot substance.

These are Right:
Net Energy cannot spontaneously flow from a cold to a hot substance.
Heat cannot spontaneously flow from a cold to a hot substance.

In many physical processes there is a two way flow of energy, with the constraint that more energy must flow from the hotter to the colder.

Your claim is that more than twice as much energy is absorbed by the surface of the earth from the atmosphere than is absorbed from the sun...prove it.

It's Tyndal's claim. It's all in his diagram. Just look at it. Add up the energies and there is an energy balance.

Many times I have asked this question that has nothing to do with climate change. It is just a simple straightforward circumstance: how can you reconcile that the earth emits 2 1/2 times more radiation than what it is absorbing from the sun. You still can't answer that simple question. That is continual failure on your part. If you can answer that question then you will finally understand climate science.

 

[palerider]

Still waiting on that observed, measured example of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object at ambient temperature...Nothing?

You have told us all about your faith and what you believe...don't you think it is about time now to present what you can prove? Actual measurements...actual observations...real science?

Or are you prepared to admit that "real science" has no observation or measurements of energy moving from cool to warm...and that such energy movement is an artifact of a mathematical model and nothing more.

 

[Lagboltz]

Still waiting on that observed, measured example of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object at ambient temperature...Nothing?

You have told us all about your faith and what you believe...don't you think it is about time now to present what you can prove? Actual measurements...actual observations...real science?

Or are you prepared to admit that "real science" has no observation or measurements of energy moving from cool to warm...and that such energy movement is an artifact of a mathematical model and nothing more.

Howdy Pale, my BFF! you haven't been around for three weeks!

You forgot I already answered that question several times. I gave you an example of how atoms of a cold but warming gas must strike a hotter container in order for the sides to bow out. That is an observed, measured example of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object.

Another thing you forgot is to answer my question: how you can you reconcile the fact that the earth emits 2 1/2 times more radiation than what it is absorbing from the sun?

 

[dogtowner]

Howdy Pale, my BFF! you haven't been around for three weeks!

You forgot I already answered that question several times. I gave you an example of how atoms of a cold but warming gas must strike a hotter container in order for the sides to bow out. That is an observed, measured example of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object.

Another thing you forgot is to answer my question: how you can you reconcile the fact that the earth emits 2 1/2 times more radiation than what it is absorbing from the sun?

Your example if the former would seem to trigger the caveat in 2nd law regarding 'without external work'. Its a closed system if thrre are walls to blow upon.