"Settled Science"??

[Lagboltz]

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.

Yes, it's a closed system and there is no external work. It shows energy does spontaneously flow from a cold substance to a hot substance. In this case the caveat is that even more energy is flowing from the the hotter to the colder substance. This means that the 2nd law of thermodynamics allows two way energy flow, and pale is wrong when he says atmospheric backscatter is forbidden.

Do you also think atmospheric backscatter is impossible?

 

[dogtowner]

Yes, it's a closed system and there is no external work. It shows energy does spontaneously flow from a cold substance to a hot substance. In this case the caveat is that even more energy is flowing from the the hotter to the colder substance. This means that the 2nd law of thermodynamics allows two way energy flow, and pale is wrong when he says atmospheric backscatter is forbidden.

Do you also think atmospheric backscatter is impossible?

The so called external work is the box creating the closed system. A curious expression from a different era.
As to back scatter i have not waded much into yalls chatting on that. Sorry but you boys can be longwinded as i can be lazy. If it involves "heat/energy of some sort/whatever you think if it as" bouncing off co2 (in some form or fashion) then it would seem unlikely given co2's capabilitirs to absorb and emit the energy/heat/some other term. Which is to say its a very poor mirror in the beam of light analagy.
sorry about conviluted but i kniw you boys go round and round on the naturenof this stuff (understandably) but i eas not terribly attentive as to the particulars of your views.

 

[kowalskil]

And misinformation is queen, and data tampering is the court jester.

The very nature of science is skepticism. Real science is all about questioning everything and constantly examining hypotheses....and in real science, as soon as a hypothesis fails one test or prediction, it is tossed out and real science goes back to the drawing board to try to find out what is really going on. The list of predictions and tests the greenhouse/agw hypothesis have failed is as long as michael jordan's leg...beginning with the fact that there has been no warming for damned near 20 years now in spite of steadily increasing atmospheric CO2.

Alarmists approach the issue from the position of religious zealots. They have faith and no amount of observed data contradicting their belief will convince them otherwise. Want proof of that statement? Ask a climate alarmist what would falsify the AGW hypothesis for them? Ask pocket full of shells above what would falsify the hypothesis. You won't get an answer because it might happen and they can't conceive of giving up their faith. And in accordance with the tactics of religious zealots the world over and throughout time, those who question the faith are labeled with derogatory names and every attempt is made to silence or marginalize them.

Yes indeed.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

 

[Lagboltz]

The so called external work is the box creating the closed system. A curious expression from a different era

The box and air are internal to the system. There are no external dynamic forces on the box in this example.

As to back scatter i have not waded much into yalls chatting on that. Sorry but you boys can be longwinded as i can be lazy. If it involves "heat/energy of some sort/whatever you think if it as" bouncing off co2 (in some form or fashion) then it would seem unlikely given co2's capabilitirs to absorb and emit the energy/heat/some other term. Which is to say its a very poor mirror in the beam of light analagy.

sorry about conviluted but i kniw you boys go round and round on the naturenof this stuff (understandably) but i eas not terribly attentive as to the particulars of your views.

I know what you mean about going in circles, but pale keeps ignoring my arguments and going through the same thing over and over. My only recourse is to repeat what he always seems to miss.

Scattering of light through a gas is a well known phenomenon. That's what makes the sky blue. It is no different than scattering of infrared through CO2. Scattering is not like a mirror. A photon undergoing resonate absorption with CO2 will be re-scattered in an arbitrary direction, unlike a mirror.

 

[dogtowner]

The box and air are internal to the system. There are no external dynamic forces on the box in this example.



I know what you mean about going in circles, but pale keeps ignoring my arguments and going through the same thing over and over. My only recourse is to repeat what he always seems to miss.

Scattering of light through a gas is a well known phenomenon. That's what makes the sky blue. It is no different than scattering of infrared through CO2. Scattering is not like a mirror. A photon undergoing resonate absorption with CO2 will be re-scattered in an arbitrary direction, unlike a mirror.

Ok light/mirror bad example, sorry.
With that chacterization of back scattering as I read it, no I dont think that works for me.

 

[Lagboltz]

With that chacterization of back scattering as I read it, no I dont think that works for me.

Back-scatter is a well known physical phenomenon accepted by all physicists no matter what they believe is happening in climate science. If your gut feeling tells you back-scatter does not happen, there is no explanation of why the earth is radiating 2 1/2 times more energy than it is receiving from the sun. Don't forget that water vapor is the most important green house gas and does most of the back-scatter.

 

[dogtowner]

Yes indeed.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

The profesor chimes in !

 

[dogtowner]

Back-scatter is a well known physical phenomenon accepted by all physicists no matter what they believe is happening in climate science. If your gut feeling tells you back-scatter does not happen, there is no explanation of why the earth is radiating 2 1/2 times more energy than it is receiving from the sun. Don't forget that water vapor is the most important green house gas and does most of the back-scatter.

Water could do this. But i spoke specifically to co2 and cant buy it doing it. Had warmers tried building a case on water they might have been credible. But then they cant achueve the desired political end. They sold their credibility for politics.
Bad idea.

 

[Lagboltz]

Water could do this. But i spoke specifically to co2 and cant buy it doing it. Had warmers tried building a case on water they might have been credible. But then they cant achueve the desired political end. They sold their credibility for politics.

??You let politics guide your thinking on science! Both H2O and CO2 molecules are similar on how they vibrate. It is the vibration modes of GHGs that provide their ability to absorb and re-radiate IR energy from the earth. If you buy H2O doing this, you have to buy CO2 doing the same. The GIF's below show that the molecules do a similar thing.

CO2:

H2O

 

[palerider]

Good job with my sig line...thanks. Demonstrates what a humorless f*ck you are and goes a long way towards demonstrating how self loathing can lead one to fall for a hoax, especially a hoax that has the potential to make everyone on the earth suffer.

 

[GenSeneca]

Good job with my sig line...thanks. Demonstrates what a humorless f*ck you are and goes a long way towards demonstrating how self loathing can lead one to fall for a hoax, especially a hoax that has the potential to make everyone on the earth suffer.

Um... potential? If the Warmers actually had the global power necessary to drastically reduce mankinds CO2 emissions... The alternatives that exist are not adequate to maintain current population levels... So, it would quickly become necessary for some 'ultimate government authority' to choose who shall live, and who shall be forced to die, for the good of the collective.... The forced application of their policy would be nothing short of a global holocaust.

 

[palerider]

Um... potential? If the Warmers actually had the global power necessary to drastically reduce mankinds CO2 emissions... The alternatives that exist are not adequate to maintain current population levels... So, it would quickly become necessary for some 'ultimate government authority' to choose who shall live, and who shall be forced to die, for the good of the collective.... The forced application of their policy would be nothing short of a global holocaust.

True enough...which segways beautifully to the fact that modern liberalism = authoritarianism...that debate was won hands down by the conservative side of the argument...https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/modern-liberalism-authoritarianism.1879/

It is already happening at a smaller scale with obamacare....a panel decides based on a mathematical formula whether the expense of treatment will yield sufficient return on investment when determining whether or not treatment will be authorized....if you are young and sick...you may be treated....if you are old and sick...you won't make the cut....we are heading in that direction and it won't be long before even being young won't be enough if it looks like the return on investment will leave a deficit.