"Settled Science"??

[palerider]

Since less sunlight reaches the surface when the atmosphere is more dense, one would expect the high mountains to be warmer than the lowlands as the atmosphere is less dense there.

One would only expect that if one didn't understand the ideal gas laws. Pressure creates heat....not the composition of the atmosphere.

, of course, you've uncovered scientific principles that have somehow escaped all of the scientific organizations in the world. Congratulations!

Of course I haven't. But what I have said is true. It is politically expedient to ignore the facts in favor of cherry picked hype....in case you aren't aware, the American Physical Society is reviewing their position on AGW....they have a panel of 6 (3 alarmists, 3 skeptics) who are going to review the facts....this time, unlike all the other times, the review is going to be done in public with the results being not only run by the membership but released to the public as well. The questions the alarmists on the panel will be asking are going to cause the APS to reverse its position on AGW. The APS is the biggest dog on the block in so far as scientific organizations go and if they chance their position, every other academy will be tripping over its feet to change as well. The days of the hoax are numbered.

Here are some of the questions that will be asked of the alarmists....perhaps you might like to answer one or two.

While the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) rose strongly from 1980-98, it has shown no significant rise for the past 15 years…[The APS notes that neither the 4th nor 5th IPCC report modeling suggested any stasis would occur, and then asks] …

To what would you attribute the stasis?

If non-anthropogenic influences are strong enough to counteract the expected effects of increased CO2, why wouldn’t they be strong enough to sometimes enhance warming trends, and in so doing lead to an over-estimate of CO2 influence?

What are the implications of this stasis for confidence in the models and their projections?

What do you see as the likelihood of solar influences beyond TSI (total solar irradiance)? Is it coincidence that the statis has occurred during the weakest solar cycle (ie sunspot activity) in about a century?

Some have suggested that the ‘missing heat’ is going into the deep ocean…

Are deep ocean observations sufficient in coverage and precision to bear on this hypothesis quantitatively?

Why would the heat sequestration have ‘turned on’ at the turn of this century?

What could make it ‘turn off’ and when might that occur?

Is there any mechanism that would allow the added heat in the deep ocean to reappear in the atmosphere?

Climate Sensitivity

[This relates to the size of feedbacks to the agreed and mild CO2-induced warming. If feedbacks are powerful and positive, the alarmist case is strong. If feedbacks are weak or negative, there is no basis for any climate scare or for trillions of dollars to be spent on curbing CO2 emissions].

A factor-of-three uncertainty in the global surface temperature response to increasing atmospheric CO2 as expressed by equilibrium climate sensitivity, has persisted through the last three decades of research despite the significant intellectual effort that has been devoted to climate science.

What gives rise to the large uncertainties in this fundamental parameter of the climate system?

How is the IPCC’s expression of increasing confidence in the detection/attribution/projection of anthropogenic influences consistent with this persistent uncertainty?

Wouldn’t detection of an anthropogenic signal necessarily improve estimates of the response to anthropogenic perturbations?


Models and Projections

The APS notes that the IPCC draws on results and averages from large numbers of models, and comments, “In particular, it is not sufficient to demonstrate that some member of the ensemble [of models] gets it right at any given time. Rather, as in other fields of science, it is important to know how well the ‘best’ single model does at all times.”

Sea Ice

The APS notes that the models seem able to reproduce the Arctic declining ice trend, but not the Antarctic rising ice trend. Moreover, the APS has spotted that the IPCC had done its ice graphs using only 17 out of its 40 models, these 17 happening to produce reasonable fits with the data. The APS says,

“One may therefore conclude that the bulk of the CMIP5 [latest] models do not reproduce reasonable seasonal mean and magnitude of the ice cycle. Is that the case? And if so, what are the implications for the confidence with which the ensemble [the whole 40 models] can be used for other purposes?


Some of the other questions that will arise can be found here. A very uncomfortable time is ahead for those who have supported the hoax....maybe you should start looking for the nearest path to the tall grass yourself.

 

[Lagboltz]

The second law says that energy will not move from a cooler object to a warmer object. While it is possible for a CO2 molecule to radiate in any direction, what makes you think it will radiate in the direction of a warmer object.

Electricity can flow in most directions....it will not flow "upstream to a more powerful source of electricity however. Why doesn't it? Does it "know" that the source at the other end is greater or does it simply follow the laws of physics and move in the only direction it can? Same for energy radiating from a CO2 molecule...it doesn't have to know which direction is cooler....it just radiates in the only direction it can just as electricity moves along a wire in the only direction it can...and water flows in the only direction it can, and dropped objects fall in the only direction they can. The laws of nature tell energy where it must go....and there it goes.

You didn't give an EM mechanism at all. You just gave analogies. You didn't give the forces or mechanisms for the analogies, so I will supply them.

Electrons in a wire are repelled by a negative charge produced on, for example a cathode. Electrons travel through a conductor to a relatively positive charge on an anode. This is an example of electrostatic forces.

Water and other objects, if unimpeded, fall because of gravity. This is an example of gravitational forces.

I gave the two force mechanisms for your two examples. However your statement, “a CO2 molecule...it doesn't have to know which direction is cooler....it just radiates in the only direction it can.” does not provide a physical mechanism. What is the force involved that defines “the only direction it can”?

 

[palerider]

You didn't give an EM mechanism at all. You just gave analogies. You didn't give the forces or mechanisms for the analogies, so I will supply them.

Describe the mechanism by which gravity works. You seem to believe that science has answers for and understands everything, when in fact, we are just now beginning to understand what we don't know.

I asked you for a real world observed example of energy moving from a cool object to a warmer one and you couldn't provide that and you want an em mechanism for energy movement? There are no known mechanisms for any energy movement.....there are theories...there are hypotheses....and there are best guesses. The bottom line, however is that we remain unsure exactly how energy moves around. We can't even say precisely what mechanism makes a dropped rock fall to the ground....we don't know what makes gravity work.

in a wire are repelled by a negative charge produced on, for example a cathode. Electrons travel through a conductor to a relatively positive charge on an anode. This is an example of electrostatic forces.

It is an example of forces, but the mechanism of those forces is not well understood at all. We can predict this will happen if we do that but precisely how it happens remains a mystery/

and other objects, if unimpeded, fall because of gravity. This is an example of gravitational forces.

And again, if you can describe the mechanism of gravity there is surely a nobel in it for you. There are theories, hypotheses....and best guesses but we don't know exactly how gravity works.

gave the two force mechanisms for your two examples.

No you didn't...because we don't understand the mechanisms. Describe the mechanism at the sub atomic level by which a negative charge repels a positive charge. It can't be done and yet, you want me to describe the mechanism that might make a molecule emit a photon in one direction and not the other? The second law says that energy won't move from a cooler object to a warmer object. If a molecule could actually emit a photon along a vector that would take it to a warmer object, why wouldn't it? The fact is that energy doesn't move in that direction so it stands to reason that it doesn't even try just as a dropped rock doesn't try to go up and an electron moving down a wire doesn't try to run against the current...and air doesn't try to enter a hole in a tire and on and on. The laws of physics tell all forms of energy where they may and may not go. Why would a quanta of energy try to move in a direction that it can't go?

your statement, “a CO2 molecule...it doesn't have to know which direction is cooler....it just radiates in the only direction it can.” does not provide a physical mechanism. What is the force involved that defines “the only direction it can”?

And your statement that a dropped rock is reacting to gravity doesn't provide a physical mechanism. How does gravity work? You are really to much sometimes. You think in terms a half a mile wide and less than a mm deep.

 

[GBFan]

Mine's bigger than yours ...

 

[Lagboltz]

Greetings my petulant pal Pale. Just as I thought you can't explain your erroneous idea of CO2 scattering.

Describe the mechanism by which gravity works...

And your statement that a dropped rock is reacting to gravity doesn't provide a physical mechanism. How does gravity work?

We can't even say precisely what mechanism makes a dropped rock fall to the ground.

And again, if you can describe the mechanism of gravity there is surely a nobel in it for you.

It's the gravitational inverse square law. Don't you believe in the gravitation law? You should have learned it in high school. That is all you need for any terrestrial gravitation calculation. Newton deserves the credit. Not me. But really, you should have learned the inverse square law in high school. It is really really simple.

I asked you for a real world observed example of energy moving from a cool object to a warmer one

This is the example I gave several times: “Two bodies will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature.” That is what is in the physics books.

The fact is that energy doesn't move in that direction so it stands to reason that it doesn't even try just as a dropped rock doesn't try to go up and an electron moving down a wire doesn't try to run against the current

Can you cite a reference for the Doesn't-even-try theory of gravity and EM.

The second law says that energy won't move from a cooler object to a warmer object.

Show me a reliable reference for your version of the second law. It's not in any book on thermodynamics. You got it wrong as usual. Replace the word “energy” by the word “heat” then you will get it right.

 

[palerider]

Greetings my petulant pal Pale. Just as I thought you can't explain your erroneous idea of CO2 scattering.

And just as I thought, you can't explain the mechanisms of any of the phenomena I asked for...including gravity which is probably the most well "understood". What's your point?

the gravitational inverse square law. Don't you believe in the gravitation law? You should have learned it in high school. That is all you need for any terrestrial gravitation calculation. Newton deserves the credit. Not me. But really, you should have learned the inverse square law in high school. It is really really simple.

Sure, I remember from high school, and college....unlike you, however, I remember that that law doesn't describe a mechanism by which gravity works. Sure, it predicts the effect of the phenomenon we call gravity, but it does't even try to explain a mechanism, because we don't know what the mechanism is. We have some guesses, but we don't know. Again, your misunderstanding at work. Science doesn't have all the answers....today, science is just beginning to understand how much it doesn't know.

You asked me for the mechanism which would cause a molecule to radiate towards a cooler area...I asked you for the mechanism of gravity. I acknowledged that I don't know and pointed out that science doesn't know either...you claimed to know what science freely admits that it doesn't know. I suppose I could have said the second law since it states that energy won't move from a cooler object to a warmer object, but that doesn't describe a mechanism by which it happens any more than the gravitational inverse square law explains why gravity happens. Both simply state what happens, no clue as to what is actually happening way down that makes it happen.

It is that sort of shallow thinking that has led you to be duped into believing the hoax in the first place.

is the example I gave several times: “Two bodies will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature.” That is what is in the physics books.

Yeah, I heard you say it the first time. The thing is though, that you saying it, or even a science book saying it does not make it so. Science textbooks used to say that plate tectonics was not a workable hypothesis....science textbooks used to say that stomach ulcers were caused by stress...until very recently, science textbooks used to say that quasicrystals did not exist.

You can say it till you are blue in the face. I asked for an observed, measured example of it actually happening. As I knew when I asked the question, you could not provide any such example. Also predictably, you can't bring yourself to admit that you can't....you keep going on and on incessantly describing your faith to me. Here is a clue for you...I'm not interested in your faith. If you are going to claim that energy.....any amount of energy....even one hypothetical photon moves from a cooler object to a warmer object, then you are going to have to provide an observed, measured demonstration of the event happening. Hypotheses regarding things that science is decades if not centuries away from actually understanding don't cut it. Anyone who has actually looked at science should be the first to admit that what science believes to be true is changing almost daily....even things that it has thought to be true for centuries.

you cite a reference for the Doesn't-even-try theory of gravity and EM.

You should be able to do an actual experiment/observation within a few feet of your back door any time. Take an object and drop it. Do you observe any hesitation when you let go? Does it appear to try to rise? Do you get the feeling from it that it wants to soar with the eagles? No. Good enough, you have actually done an experiment and have actual observational evidence.

Now, can you provide any observational evidence of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object...an instance where setting a cool object next to a warm object actually resulting in the warm object getting warmer and the cool object getting cooler?

Show me a reliable reference for your version of the second law. It's not in any book on thermodynamics. You got it wrong as usual. Replace the word “energy” by the word “heat” then you will get it right.

Gads, but you are dense. You talk about me being stuck in the past. Once more, and I do hope you begin to understand because stupidity is so very tiring...

Anyone who actually has even a tenuous grasp of physics knows that exactly the opposite is true...replace the word heat with the word energy. Heat is not a thing...it is the result of a process. And I don't have any personal version of the second law. The one I provided was from the physics departement of Georgia State...one of the more respected physics departments in academia I might ad. The idea of heat as a thing is old and has been superceded by the knowledge that heat is a process for quite some time now.

Historically this phenomenon was attributed to a flow of “heat” from the hotter to the colder object. It has been known for a while that this flow of

heat is a transfer of energy....

http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/thermo/glossary.shtml

Heat is a transfer of energy that occurs when objects with different temperatures are placed into contact. Heat is a process, not a property of a material.
http://physics.csustan.edu/Marvin/HowThingsWork/Temperature/Temperature.htm

Heat is a transfer of energy, not a substance.

http://www.metallacycle.com/chemistry/thermodynamics/what-is-heat/

Heat is not a substance unto itself; it is not a physical “thing” that can be moved from one object to another. The term “heat transfer” is ubiquitous, but it suggests the incorrect idea that heat is a physical object that moves from a hot substance to a cold substance. It is not.


Here, from the Glossary of Frequently Misused, or Misunderstood Physics Terms and Concepts:

Heat. Heat, like work, is a measure of the amount of energy transferred from one body to another because of the temperature difference between those bodies. Heat isnot energy possessed by a body. We should not speak of the "heat in a body." The energy a body possesses due to its temperature is a different thing, called internal thermal energy. The misuse of this word probably dates back to the 18th century when it was still thought that bodies undergoing thermal processes exchanged a substance, called caloric or phlogiston, a substance later called heat. We now know that heat is not a substance. Reference: Zemansky, Mark W. The Use and Misuse of the Word "Heat" in Physics Teaching" The Physics Teacher, 8, 6 (Sept 1970) p. 295-300.

homepage.smc.edu/rodriguez.../2ndLawHints.doc

We use the phrase “heat flows” here for historical reasons going back to a time when heat was considered a kind of fluid. In reality heat is not a substance so it cannot “flow”, but is rather a process that transfers energy between objects in thermal contact. We will continue to say “heat flows” because it is traditional and is well understood that the phrase is not meant to be literally true.

How many more credible sources do you need before you finally understand that heat isn't a thing that can move from one place to another....heat is one possible result of an actual thing (energy) moving from one place to another. If you can't even grasp this simple fact, out here in public, then you truly have no idea how ridiculous you look when you pretend to condesend to anyone regarding physics.

 

[Lagboltz]

And just as I thought, you can't explain the mechanisms of any of the phenomena I asked for...including gravity which is probably the most well "understood".

Random House Dictionary - mechanism definition #5. routine methods or procedures.

You are hung up on the word mechanism. My usage is #5, choosing the right method or procedure for the calculation. The inverse square law gives the mechanism according to definition 5. I hope this clears it up for you.

There is nothing in the dictionary that says that 'mechanism' refers to an underlying concept in physics.

What you are doing is using an escape mechanism (See def. # 8) for your lack of ability to deal with the right method or procedure or even understanding what it might be.

even a science book saying it does not make it so

My my, you are really that anti-science.

I don't have any personal version of the second law. The one I provided was from the physics departement of Georgia State...one of the more respected physics departments in academia I might ad.

Your personal version refers to the transfer of energy without qualifying it only as heat energy. You cite a reference that you think is supposed to prove your point but ironically it proves the opposite of what you think is the second law. This is what your reference to Georgia State. (one of the more respected physics departments in academia) says:
“Spontaneous flow of heat from a cold area to a hot area would constitute a perfect refrigerator, forbidden by the second law.”
Your Georga State reference does not say 'flow of energy' it says 'flow of heat'. Yes everyone knows heat transfer is a transfer of energy, but your confusion of the second law is that you think the transfer of any type of energy is always a transfer of heat.

[Many posts that refer to ] ... Heat is a transfer of energy

Again you copy and paste the obvious, but you don't understand that the second law refers to the transfer of heat energy between warm and cold bodies, and not transfer of other types of energy between warm and cold bodies. This was clearly written in the above reference to Georgia State. (one of the more respected physics departments in academia)

 

[Cruella]

 

[palerider]

Random House Dictionary - mechanism definition #5. routine methods or procedures.

You are hung up on the word mechanism. My usage is #5, choosing the right method or procedure for the calculation. The inverse square law gives the mechanism according to definition 5. I hope this clears it up for you.

5th definition down? Really? You need to improve your vocabulary. If you wanted the physical laws that supported my position that no energy moves from a cool object to a warm object, why not just ask rather than putting on this whole dog and pony show?

First, no les than the second law of thermodynamics supports my position, as it clearly states that energy won't move from a cool object to a warm object without the input of some work. Then there is the Stephan Boltzman Law.

Show me the backradiation in the Stefan Boltzman Law.

is nothing in the dictionary that says that 'mechanism' refers to an underlying concept in physics.

Word games. That's all you have? You know what mechanism means as well as I and the 5th definition down certainly isn't the common usage of the word.

you are doing is using an escape mechanism (See def. # 8) for your lack of ability to deal with the right method or procedure or even understanding what it might be.

That seems to be your tactic...not mine. You are clearly trying to escape from the fact that you can show no example of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object even thought that is the basis of your position.

my, you are really that anti-science.

Again, look in the mirror. You are operating on faith, not science.

personal version refers to the transfer of energy without qualifying it only as heat energy. You cite a reference that you think is supposed to prove your point but ironically it proves the opposite of what you think is the second law. This is what your reference to Georgia State. (one of the more respected physics departments in academia) says:
“Spontaneous flow of heat from a cold area to a hot area would constitute a perfect refrigerator, forbidden by the second law.”
Your Georga State reference does not say 'flow of energy' it says 'flow of heat'. Yes everyone knows heat transfer is a transfer of energy, but your confusion of the second law is that you think the transfer of any type of energy is always a transfer of heat.

And as I have pointed out and provided credible references to support, heat is commonly used as an analog to energy....what is actually being transferred is energy...heat is the result of that transfer.

And as to what my reference says...it appears that you have a reading problem as well as a science deficit.

Here it is again...maybe you can get a grown up to help you read it this time.

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.

See the second sentence? That gets included as well. Editing another's words is against the rules here, isn't it?

you copy and paste the obvious, but you don't understand that the second law refers to the transfer of heat energy between warm and cold bodies, and not transfer of other types of energy between warm and cold bodies. This was clearly written in the above reference to Georgia State. (one of the more respected physics departments in academia)

It is clearly you who can't understand what has been posted. And again, look at the second sentence above...it doesn't specify type of energy...it says energy. No energy moves from a cool object to a warm object and if you believe it does, you have been invited to provide an observed, measured example.

 

[Lagboltz]

Yeaaa! My favorite anti-science pen pal is back! I was beginning to worry about you. You were gone for a whole week.

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.

Oops! You quoted that out of context again. You forgot to add the next sentence from the site that you quote. I'll put it in for you:

“Spontaneous flow of heat from a cold area to a hot area would constitute a perfect refrigerator, forbidden by the second law.”

See the second sentence? That gets included as well. Editing another's words is against the rules here, isn't it?

See the sentence you purposely omitted? Quoting out of context is against the rules, isn't it. Naughty naughty you.

That next sentence you omitted defines what type of energy is referred to. It's heat energy not any type of energy. How many times do I have to tell you. I will let some university sites tell you . They also illustrate that the second law refers to heat and not just any type of energy:

MIT http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node38.html#SECTION05224000000000000000
"the flow of heat occurs naturally from hotter to colder bodies, in the absence of other influences"

Florida State University: http://www.eng.fsu.edu/~alvi/EML3015/Lecture-notes/lecture notes/second-law/tsld001.htm
"Heat can only transfer from a hot object to a cold object, not the other way around."

California State U: http://www.csupomona.edu/~tknguyen/che302/Notes/chap5-1.pdf
"Heat flows from a higher to a lower temperature object."

"It is impossible for any system to operate in such a way that the sole results would be an energy transfer by heat from a cooler to a hotter body."

Georgia State http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c3
"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."

“Spontaneous flow of heat from a cold area to a hot area would constitute a perfect refrigerator, forbidden by the second law.”

BYU Fulton College http://www.et.byu.edu/~vps/ME321/TABLES/23.pdf
"No device can operate on a cycle and produce an effect that is solely the heat transfer from a lower-temperature body to a higher-temperature body."

The following reference is from a book series that is more at your level of comprehension:
Physics I For Dummies, 2nd Edition
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/flowing-from-hot-to-cold-the-second-law-of-thermod.html
"The second law of thermodynamics says that heat flows naturally from an object at a higher temperature to an object at a lower temperature, and heat doesn’t flow in the opposite direction of its own accord."

You are clearly trying to escape from the fact that you can show no example of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object even thought that is the basis of your position.

You are clearly trying to escape from the fact that I did show it many times. Let me be more clear. You should know this if you are going to talk about the field: Since 1760 Black body radiation has been experimentally measured and known to broadcast in all directions. (See the earliest reference: Lambert, Photometria, sive de Mensura et gradibus luminis, colorum et umbrae). See Wikipedia for later references on BB radiation.

There is no experiment or theory that shows black body radiation can be blocked by any non-contacting outside influence. Please show me a physical concept, or construct, or method, or procedure, or formula or diagram or general idea that you think would keep black body radiation from being inhibited from transmitting in any direction allowed by the black body radiation experiments.

In post #107 you said,

“a CO2 molecule...it doesn't have to know which direction is cooler....it just radiates in the only direction it can.”

That is an observation that you might find in a toddler's book. Please stick with science. You have failed to give a physical means that would cause black body radiation from CO2 to disobey experiments and inhibit CO2 from exchanging radiation with anything else in the universe. In the past you said the radiation from a cooler body would be canceled by that from a hot body. Do you still believe that?

 

[palerider]

Yeaaa! My favorite anti-science pen pal is back! I was beginning to worry about you. You were gone for a whole week.

Business travel to Iowa. Unfortunate that you can't converse without lying. I understand how frustrating it must be to encounter people who don't have the same faith as you, but lying doesn't boost your credibility. I am all about science...observation...measure....record.....concude. You, on the other hand believe in things that have never been observed, measured, or recorded and you call it science when in fact, it is faith.

! You quoted that out of context again. You forgot to add the next sentence from the site that you quote. I'll put it in for you:

“Spontaneous flow of heat from a cold area to a hot area would constitute a perfect refrigerator, forbidden by the second law.”

By now, you should know, and everyone who may be reading certainly knows that heat is not a thing that can flow. Your anti science tendencies are brought into high relief when you refuse to accept statements from more than credible scientific sources. Heat is the result of energy flowing and as you have also been shown by credible sources, stating heat flows is one in the same as stating that energy flows. Using the term heat, rather than energy is a tip of the hat to the less educated....or perhaps those stuck in the 19th century when we last believed that heat was a thing in and of itself rather than a result of something else....namely the flow of energy.

the sentence you purposely omitted? Quoting out of context is against the rules, isn't it. Naughty naughty you.

As you can see, it is you who is out of context...pretending that heat is a thing. Do you think stupidity is cute?....it isn't.

next sentence you omitted defines what type of energy is referred to. It's heat energy not any type of energy. How many times do I have to tell you. I will let some university sites tell you . They also illustrate that the second law refers to heat and not just any type of energy:

Again, you have been shown that using the term heat flows instead of energy flows is a nod to those who aren't up with the times.

Here, perhaps you would like to correct your erroneous belief...or perhaps you prefer to keep it because it is all that supports your position...But for those who do care to learn something:

From ACS publications...maybe you know who they are...but probably not.

Heat and Work are Not "Forms of Energy"

Here, from Statistical Physics - Classical Thermodynamics:

Heat is not a type of energy. It is a process — a mode of transfer of energy. There
is no sense in which we can divide up the energy E{p, V) of the system into heat and
work. We can't write ''E = Q + W" because neither Q nor W are functions of state.

Here, from CFBT-US

In everyday language the word heat is used in a variety of ways (many of which are incorrect from a thermodynamic perspective). In thermodynamics, heat is a method of energy transfer. Heat is not a form of energy (a commonly stated misconception), but simply the name of the process of energy transfer based on temperature difference.

And on and on and on it goes. Heat is not a thing that can move about....it is the result of energy moving about...specifically from warm objects to cooler objects, as that is the only direction it can move.

are clearly trying to escape from the fact that I did show it many times. Let me be more clear. You should know this if you are going to talk about the field: Since 1760 Black body radiation has been experimentally measured and known to broadcast in all directions. (See the earliest reference: Lambert, Photometria, sive de Mensura et gradibus luminis, colorum et umbrae). See Wikipedia for later references on BB radiation.

Reference page 591 in Physics for Scientists and Engineers:

(1)Heat is not energy in a hot substance. For example, "the boiling water has a lot of heat" is incorrect; the boiling water has internal energy. (2) Heat is not radiation. For example, "It was so hot that the sidewalk was radiating heat" is incorrect; energy is leaving the sidewalk via electromagnetic radiation.....

I am afraid it is you who is trying to escape. Heat is not a type of energy and if you are going to try and discuss the topic, trying to weasel word your way to a point is no better than losing outright.....in fact, it is worse since it displays a lack of character and an inherent dishonesty.

is no experiment or theory that shows black body radiation can be blocked by any non-contacting outside influence. Please show me a physical concept, or construct, or method, or procedure, or formula or diagram or general idea that you think would keep black body radiation from being inhibited from transmitting in any direction allowed by the black body radiation experiments.

Look at the SB equations. If you were half as smart as you believe yourself to be, everything you need to know is right there. P=net radiated power, e=emissivity, sigma= Stefan's constant, A=the radiating area, T = temperature of the radiator, and Tc = temperature of the surroundings. Show me where radiation can move to an object that is warmer than the radiator. According to that equation, if an object is as warm or warmer than the radiator, the energy loss from the radiatior will be zero or less than zero indicating that the radiator has become the cooler of the two objects and is receiving energy...not gaining it.

is an observation that you might find in a toddler's book. Please stick with science. You have failed to give a physical means that would cause black body radiation from CO2 to disobey experiments and inhibit CO2 from exchanging radiation with anything else in the universe. In the past you said the radiation from a cooler body would be canceled by that from a hot body. Do you still believe that?

CO2 can exchange radiation with anything in the universe that is cooler than itself....just like everything else in the universe. Energy moves in one direction...from warm to cool...from greater potential, to lesser potential...from low entropy to high entropy. You need to show a physical means by which CO2 can violate the must fundamental law of nature and radiate to an object warmer than itself...then show an observed, measured example of it happening.

 

[Lagboltz]

Unfortunate that you can't converse without lying.

Hey, I wasn't lying. You are my favorite anti-science guy. It's always fun to see what kind of silly anti-science you come up with next.

everyone who may be reading certainly knows that heat is not a thing that can flow

There are four references to heat flow from the university sites that I cited, and three references to heat transfer. One of the references is one that you yourself posted. Your hypocrisy and irony abound. I see that Mr. Anti-science doesn't believe nor understand the university physics departments. You don't have to be so grouchy. I'm just a messenger citing reliable physics department sites. If you don't want to believe all those references, then you are truly anti-science embracing truthiness (Look up the word if you don't know it).

CO2 can exchange radiation with anything in the universe that is cooler than itself

Your statement is incomplete. Radiation goes both ways. Heat goes only one way. The following is correct:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_equilibrium
"Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, ... will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature"'

If you reject that concept of radiation thermodynamics, then go on Wikipedia and change it. Here is your problem: Look at the definition from Georgia State you are citing . It is clearly stated as the second law as it applies to refrigeration. It was from Clausius in 1850 concerning refrigeration not radiation. You must find a statement of the second law concerning radiation, and not refrigerators, or Carnot heat engines. Every legitimate site that states the second law as you do are always referring to refrigeration or heat engines, where the energy involved is understood to be heat or mechanical work.

When you say "energy will not move from a cooler object to a warmer object," you are not specifying what type of energy. Energy has all sorts of guises: It can mean gravitational potential, mechanical work, kinetic energy, radiation energy, atomic energy, chemical energy, etc, and yes, thermal energy. The second law does not refer to all forms of energy.

 

[palerider]

Hey, I wasn't lying. You are my favorite anti-science guy. It's always fun to see what kind of silly anti-science you come up with next.

Of course you were, and still are lying. Again, it is you who is anti science. You can prove you aren't by providing an observed, measured example of energy spontaneously moving from a cooler object to a warmer object. That event forms the basis for your position. Either you can prove it happens or not.

are four references to heat flow from the university sites that I cited, and three references to heat transfer. One of the references is one that you yourself posted. Your hypocrisy and irony abound. I see that Mr. Anti-science doesn't believe nor understand the university physics departments. You don't have to be so grouchy. I'm just a messenger citing reliable physics department sites. If you don't want to believe all those references, then you are truly anti-science embracing truthiness (Look up the word if you don't know it).

If you aren't bright enough to grasp that heat is the result of energy moving from one place to another...then we really are done. Provide a credible source that states unequivocally that heat is a form of energy.

statement is incomplete. Radiation goes both ways. Heat goes only one way. The following is correct:

Is radiation energy? If so, it only moves towards more entropy....ie towards cooler objects and areas.

://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_equilibrium

"Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, ... will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature"'

So show me the back radiation in the SB equation.

And again, when are you going to provide an observed, measured example of that energy moving from a cooler area to a warmer area. You can state it till the cows come home, but the fact remains that you can't provide a single observed, measured example of it happening. Why do you suppose that is?

you say "energy will not move from a cooler object to a warmer object," you are not specifying what type of energy. Energy has all sorts of guises: It can mean gravitational potential, mechanical work, kinetic energy, radiation energy, atomic energy, chemical energy, etc, and yes, thermal energy. The second law does not refer to all forms of energy.

ANY ENERGY. NO ENERGY MOVES FROM COOL OBJECTS TO WARM OBJECTS...TAKE A LOOK AROUND...

Do objects spontaneously lift from the surface of the earth?...or do they tend to remain where they are till acted upon? That energy doesn't spontaneously move from a high entropy to a lower entropy state.

Mechanical work is not energy...mechanical work is the result of expended energy...again, the idea that you pretend to have a grasp of this topic is laughable. Mechanical energy is any energy associated with motion or force and again, it doesn't move from a high entropy state to a lower entropy state....no perpetual motion.

Can an object in motion do more work than its mass and volume would allow it to do? Kinetic energy obeys the laws of thermodynamics.....all energy obeys the laws of thermodynamics.

Can a low energy microwave signal overcome a high energy microwave signal? Of course not....great care is taken when setting up microwave communications to assure that the signal from a weaker array does not cross the signal from a more powerful array.

Do chemical reactions spontaneously reverse themselves? Of course not.

All energy obeys the laws of thermodynamics....none is exempt...if it were, that form could be used to power a perpetual motion machine and alas, no such machine is possible. You are a fraud lagboltz....you obviously don't have even the slightest grasp of this topic. It is clear from past conversations that you drag out this song and dance of yours so that you never have to actually discuss the nuts and bolts of your position.

 

[Lagboltz]

it is you who is anti science.

Nope. All my statements came from reliable sources such as universities. They originally came from Pauli, Einstein, and many others who formulated radiation thermodynamics in terms of quantum mechanics. All the disparaging remarks you make are toward the giants of modern physics, not me, the messenger. On the other hand, you reek of anti-science.

Post 34: "quantum mechanics is not proven science."
Post 34 "And you believe in a hoax....You act as if quantum mechanics were scientific law"
Post 39: "Quantum mechanics is an ad hoc construct that attempts to explain things we can't explain"
Post 40 "Do I question QM?.....damned right"

The fact that you reject quantum mechanics reeks of anti-science

Post 47: "it has to do with post modern science abandoning reality for fantasy"
Post 57: "post modern science has left the realm of reality and entered into a fantasy land"

The fact that you think modern science is fantasy reeks of anti-science

Post 47: "Once you have proven the existence of photons, then we can move on"
Post 57: About those photons that you seem to be so sure exist?

The fact that you need proof to believe photons exist reeks of anti-science.

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

Your quote came from a site describing refrigerators.

Here is the irony: You reject quantum mechanics, modern physics, and photons, yet you embrace the second law as it was formulated by Clausius in 1850 for refrigerators.

Why do you embrace refrigerator physics of the 1800's and not modern science of the 1900's?

Pale Pale, we are dealing with black bodies and radiation thermodynamics. Find a reference to the second law that refers to EM radiation. I showed you a good site. Thermal radiation is the topic.

when are you going to provide an observed, measured example of that energy moving from a cooler area to a warmer area

I did but you rejected it because you reject quantum mechanics, modern science, and photons. Quit stalling and show me proof that your statement is true for radiation thermodynamics then we can move on.

 

[Lagboltz]

Of course you were, and still are lying. Again, it is you who is anti science. You can prove you aren't by providing an observed, measured example of energy spontaneously moving from a cooler object to a warmer object. That event forms the basis for your position. Either you can prove it happens or not.

It is not up to me to prove it. It is the physicists of the past two centuries who have already proved it. I can't take credit for what they proved. This is their proof.

The power radiated from an object was measured by Dulong and Petit, in 1817 and later by Tyndall in 1865. More experimental data came from Ericsson (1872) and Draper (1878).

In 1879 Stefan's used the data and found purely through experimental means that the total power radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's temperature, T, measured in Kelvins. Stefan's discovery was clarified and theoretically verified by Boltzman and named the Stefan-Boltzman law. In short, the law is:

(Radiant energy per unit area) = s x T^4
(The constant s is sigma x emissivity)

The experiments show that radiation law depends only on the body temperature and is independent of temperatures outside the body. Lambert's experiments show that the radiation broadcasts in all directions. Nothing in the experiments or theory show that radiant energy is inhibited from from striking warmer bodies.

However if a warmer body was present, that warmer body would also transmit radiant energy in all directions according to Stefan-Boltzman and Lambert's laws. The difference between the two radiant energies from those bodies shows that the second law is preserved in that the colder body always receives more radiant energy than it transmits, and thus gets warmer.

Pale, since you claim BB radiation can't go in certain directions you go against well established theory and empirical evidence that proves you wrong and proves those scientists were right. Now, Pale, it is up to you to tell why you think all the experimental data and theory for the Stefan-Boltzman law combined with Lambert's law would be violated, and why you think you know more than those scientists.