1. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

More Evidence Contradicting the Climate Change

Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by palerider, Dec 22, 2014.

  1. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,624
    Likes Received:
    153
    From your post, I am not quite sure where you stand on the issue...Do yo believe AGW is actually happening? If you do, and you are suggesting that there is "blindingly obvious evidence" perhaps you could answer the few very basic and straight forward questions I asked above...I will repeat them for you here.

    • Do you have any actual empirical evidence that would support the claim that the climate today is unprecedented? What sort of observed data do you have that prove that the climate today is outside the bounds of natural variability....or even approaching the borderlands of natural variability for that matter? If you are depending on proxy data, what sort of proxy data do you have that would have the sort of resolution required to make any claim at all about the short climate window we are talking about here?
    • The claim that mankind is altering the global climate which must mean that climate science is able to tease out a human fingerprint from all of the climate noise. They must be able to do it otherwise the claim that man is changing the climate to his own detriment would be nothing more than hysterical alarmist handwaving based on nothing more than political motivations.. So what sort of empirical evidence can you provide that would put a precise number on the climate sensitivity to CO2? A precise number would be required if you are going to claim that X percent of the warming we have seen over the past century and a half is due to mankind.
    • The climate is a chaotic system. Do you believe that climate science can state with any confidence at all that climate science knows all of the natural variables that effect the climate....how much each variable alone affects the climate (put a number to it) and how that numerical variable changes when it interacts with one, or multiple other variables? They would need to be able to do that with a high degree of accuracy in order to identify a human fingerprint within the chaos that is the natural variability of the climate.
    • Aside from the claim that man is causing warming...there is the claim that warming is going to cause us harm. Do you believe climate science can state with any certainty precisely what the ideal temperature is for life on planet earth? Upon what empirical evidence do they base their claim?
    • This action that climate science wants for me to take based upon their claim is going to cost money...and if they want everyone to act, it is going to cost a lot of money....a whole great big stinking pile of money. Money that we might use, for example to address the very real and serious environmental problems facing this planet right now.... pollution, habitat loss, etc. How much change in the climate do you believe will result from our taking this action that they want? What will the cost to benefit ratio be if we take this action...keep in mind that unless they can state with any precision what the ideal temperature for life on planet earth is, any claim that the cost is worth it doesn't carry much weight. Relative to the present temperature, will this action they want us to take move us towards, or away from the ideal temperature for life on planet earth...and for that matter, can they give any assurance based on real empirical evidence that making this change will result in any alteration of the present climate at all.
    Now if "blindingly obvious" evidence exists in support of the AGW hypothesis, those questions above should be a snap...and actual observed, empirical evidence should exist in abundance to answer any of them. I would be very interested in seeing blindingly obvious evidence in answer to even one of them.

    If I misread the intent of your post and you are not an alarmist warmer, then my bad. Disregard the questions above.
     
  2. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,624
    Likes Received:
    153
    There is a preponderance of evidence that people can be quite easily fooled if they allow themselves to be and that they are very hesitant to admit to having been fooled even when all the evidence (or lack of) seems to b quite clear. By bullshit meter pegs whenever I see someone claim that there is even any actual evidence that man is altering the global climate...much less when I see the claim that that the evidence is overwhelming....or obvious....0r even adequate.
     
  3. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,039
    Likes Received:
    149
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    You just made my point Mr. Antiscience that you don't believe in quantum mechanics and that modern science is fantasy. You have an ability to pick and choose what hard science is crap and what you can misinterpret for your own ends.

    But you didn't answer my point about the Planck and Einstein work on radiation thermodynamics. They and textbooks on thermodynamics say that radiation is exchanged between bodies no matter what their temperature differences. But you insist that two bodies at arbitrary temperatures cannot both radiate at each other and you have said that two light bulbs cannot radiate energy to each other, which would cause a black streak between them. You are just wrong on so many levels.

    In the thread Settled Science you stated,
    Yes, the radiation cancels out, or will eventually. If you measure the temperature of the two filaments and they are the same, then the radiation between the two are cancelling out.
     
  4. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,624
    Likes Received:
    153
    And you believe whatever comes out of QM why? Are you convinced because of any actual evidence?

    The second law of thermodynamics still states that energy, or heat will not move spontaneously from a cooler object to a warmer object. Till such time as the law is rewritten, I will trust it to be so. You on the other hand appear to disregard physical laws based on what?

    And still no answer to even one of my questions...why does that fail to surprise me?
     
  5. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,039
    Likes Received:
    149
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    You, my loyal friend, have forgotten what all physicists knew since 1879, that thermal radiation moves both ways between two substances at any temperature. Stefan discovered that way back in 1879.

    But as we saw before, you have no understanding of Stefan-Boltzman law:

    In the thread "Settled Science" you said,
    No, no, no. It is not a subtraction of EM fields!

    The SB equation states that thermal radiation energy per square meter is proportional to the temperature to the fourth power. Stefan and Boltzman did not know anything about the EM fields of black body radiation in 1879. It wasn't until 1900 when Planck revealed it.

    The second law of thermodynamics states heat will not move spontaneously from a cooler object to a warmer object.
    In radiation it is net energy that will not move spontaneously from a cooler object to a warmer object. Radiation energy can flow both ways between hot and cold objects. You were told this many times.
     
  6. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,624
    Likes Received:
    153
    I never forget anything....The second law:
    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.

    What we saw was that you have no idea what the word spontaneous means...your mind experiment supposedly showing energy moving from cool to warm was nothing but work from start to the time you actually performed enough work to move energy from cool to warm.

    The SB law, as it applies to a radiator radiating into cooler surroundings states that the amount of radiation a radiator can emit is equal to the emissivity of the object times the Stefan Boltzman constant, times the area of the object, times the difference between the temperature of the object and the temperature of the surroundings to the 4th power...nothing more...no two way flow.... Just gross one way energy moment.

    Which is precisely what is happening.

     
  7. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,039
    Likes Received:
    149
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    That is one of the correct forms.
    That is never correct when there is radiation exchanged as in the SB equation.
    That is a derived form of the SB equation and is correct, but your conclusion is wrong. The difference is between temperature emitted from the body minus the temperature absorbed by the body from background radiation. That is two way radiation flow. How may times to I have to remind you of this. Two way flow is believed by every physical scientist. You and maybe others who are hell bent against AGW are trying to invent a misinterpretation for your own ends. Everyone knows your (mis)interpretation is wrong wrong wrong.
    Exactly. But you said, and I quote
    The SB equation is not about EM fields. It's about radiation energy density.
    We covered this months ago. The answer depends on context. Remember we were joking that the word "heat" can be used as “in the heat of the moment”, “the heat of the law”, the “heat of sex”, etc.
     
  8. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,624
    Likes Received:
    153
    So you say, but that is not what the SB equations say.

     
  9. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,039
    Likes Received:
    149
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    This sentence in my previous post is wrong,
    This is a clarification. I should not have said "temperature emitted" or "temperature absorbed" because temperature doesn't by itself emit anything. I should reword it as.

    The difference is between radiation emitted from the body minus the radiation absorbed by the body from background radiation.
     
  10. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,624
    Likes Received:
    153

    In any case, there is nothing in the SB law that provides for the radiator to receive any energy from anywhere....any such claim is nothing more than an assumption unsupported by the SB law.
     
  11. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,039
    Likes Received:
    149
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    No physical scientist will ever agree with you because you are misinterpreting what the SB equation is.

    We can look at thermal radiation from any substance as photons streaming in all directions. What is to prevent photons from a colder substance from hitting a warmer substance. Remember that the warmer substance will stream more photon energy at the colder substance than it receives. Therefore the colder substance will warm up and the warmer substance will never get warmer under those conditions, thus preserving the 2nd law. That was obvious over a century ago.

    If you want to continue what you think the SB equation means, you are going to have to explain what happens to photons between two light bulbs at the same temperature... or two bonfires, or even two stars.
     
  12. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,624
    Likes Received:
    153
    I am not misinterpreting anything...in fact, I am not interpreting at all. The equations say what they say. Any suggestion that they mean something other than what they say meets the very definition of interpretation which is not necessary for so straight forward and elegant equations..

    [​IMG] This equation for example, states quite clearly that the energy radiated, by an object that is not a black body radiator (in a vacuum) of a particular area is proportional to the proportional to the 4th power of its absolute temperature. Take away the emissivity (e) and you have the same statement except that it is for a perfect black body radiator. That is all it says...there is nothing there that provides for energy coming back to the radiator....it describes one way gross energy flow from the radiator.....period.

    [​IMG] This equation, on the other hand states, equally clearly that the energy radiated by an object, (not a perfect black body, radiating into cooler surroundings) is equal to the emissivity of the object, times the Stefan Boltzman constant times the area of the object times the difference between the temperature of the object and its surroundings to the 4th power....that's it. It doesn't say anything else. There is no provision in it for energy to come back to the radiator....it describes a one way gross energy flow from the radiator to its surroundings. If you have half the math skills that you claim, then you should be able to read what it says as easily as you read words on a page...I know I can.

    Mostly, you can fool yourself with instrumentation. You can point an instrument at an object and then see a temperature that is the result of a mathematical equation...if you believe you are actually seeing radiation coming from a cooler object towards a warmer sensor, then as I said, you are fooling yourself with instrumentation.

    Couldn't say any more than we can describe the fundamental mechanism by which gravity operates...and I don't really need to know. The fact that every observation ever made supports the fact that something does is good enough for me...when they change the law to state that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm, then you will have something upon which to base your claims...right now, the second law of thermodynamics says otherwise.

    It isn't a matter of what I "think"....the equations say what they say and if you can't read them and know what they say, then you are admitting that you never even got past junior high level algebra. The equations are very clear and concise statements...and they don't agree with your claims.
     
  13. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,039
    Likes Received:
    149
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    The following two sources indicate that the subtraction in the SB equation is a subtraction of radiated energy and absorbed energy. A two way flow.

    http://physicscatalyst.com/heat/heat_transfer_1.php
    • Thus, the net loss of thermal energy per unit time is

    • The rate Urad at which an object emits energy via EM radiation depends on objects surface area A
      and temperature T in kelvin of that area and is given by
      Urad = σεAT^4
      Where
      σ= 5.6703×10-8 W/m2K4
      is stefan boltzmann constant and ε is emissivity of object's sunface with value between 0 and 1.
    • Black - Body radiator has emissivity of 1.0 which is an ideal limit and does not occuer in nature.
    • The rate uabs at which an object absorbs energy via thremal radiation from its environment with temperature Tenv (in kelvin) is
      Uabs = σεA(Tenv)^4
      Where ε is same as in equation 2
    • Since an object radiate energy to the enviornment and absorbs energy from environment its net energy exchange due to thermal radiation is
      U=Uabs - Urad
      = σεA{ (Tenv)^4 - T^4 }
    • U is positive if net energy is being absorbed via radiation and negative if it is being lost via radiation.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    http://www.tutorvista.com/content/p...t-and-thermodynamics/stefan-boltzmann-law.php

    Thus, the energy of the radiation absorbed per unit time is
    [​IMG]
    Now, suppose the temperature of the body is changed to T but the room temperature remains To, the energy of the thermal radiation emitted by the body per unit time is
    [​IMG]
    The energy absorbed per unit time by the body is
    [​IMG]
    Thus, the net loss of thermal energy per unit time is
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    These derivations show what every scientist knows. The subtraction is between radiated energy and absorbed energy. They disagree with you.
     
  14. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,039
    Likes Received:
    149
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    You didn't answer the question, what do you think happens with radiation between two stars? They can get extremely close with an orbit period of 5 days and even down to 2.5 days. What will happen to the intense heat of the stars in the areas adjacent to each other? Will they stop radiating between them?
     
  15. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,624
    Likes Received:
    153
    Pure mental masturbation...does it make you feel better? If so, great, clearly it doesn't take much to get you off...a bit of fantasy...a bit of mathematical sleight of hand and whooohoooo you are there. No wonder you believe in the AGW hoax...interested in some beachfront property in Steamboat Springs?
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice