|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 3, 2012 14:36:03 GMT
Political? Certainly not Pacific Institute level, certainly requires a bit of knowledge as the sun's heliosphere interacts with cosmic rays that interact with the earth's atmosphere creating clouds. Proper scale and looks to me very reasonable science. But then one does not get to go around yelling at their "moral inferiors". Must be YAD06 or some manufactured email. Notice how the earth has failed to warm as AGW suggests it should. Notice how the temps have missed all of the IPCC predictions. "Response of Cloud Condensation Nuclei (> 50 nm) to changes in ion-nucleation Henrik Svensmark, Martin B. Enghoff, Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen (Submitted on 23 Feb 2012) In experiments where ultraviolet light produces aerosols from trace amounts of ozone, sulphur dioxide, and water vapour, the number of additional small particles produced by ionization by gamma sources all grow up to diameters larger than 50 nm, appropriate for cloud condensation nuclei. This result contradicts both ion-free control experiments and also theoretical models that predict a decline in the response of larger particles due to an insufficiency of condensable gases (which leads to slower growth) and to larger losses by coagulation between the particles. This unpredicted experimental finding points to a process not included in current theoretical models, possibly an ion-induced formation of sulphuric acid in small clusters. " arxiv.org/abs/1202.5156v1 |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 3, 2012 14:51:05 GMT
Iceskater: There really is no spin. You had a disagreement about the mechanics of cooling with Magellan and Icefisher. Instead of staying on topic, at times it became a personality difference. Backradiation is not nearly as clear cut as some would believe. However, with the noise on the subject, the primary item of physics was lost. All matter is continuously cooling. That is basic fact. How it is transferred, absorbed, etc is the mechanics, which are not totally, nor really well understood. I lost interest in the back radiation thread when discussing the scienfic merits, pro and con, degenerated. As far as climate concensus, that is impossable to achieve as there is so much that we do not understand, or do not have knowledge of why.....one must keep an open mind. Prof Brown posted a very apt reply at WUWT to the consensus idea. I enjoy socolds posts because I might learn something. I very much enjoy discussion about climate when done in a respectful and informative fashion. Ya see, I am one of those Icelanders that you hear about. There is a reason Iceland has the highest level of cognitative ability. It is in our genes.....LOL. There is a reason I post papers on this board. It is to generate interest, and discussion about those papers. The ole I don't know much, and I might glean a new perspective from someone elses perception and cognitative ability thing. Read Dr. Browns post......it might open your eyes. Dr. Mann thinks it has become a climate war, he is wrong in that thinking. It has become a pure physics war.....the physics as known shows what "should" be happening.......reality is trumping the physics showing us what we don't "know" about what is happening. Sigurdur >>Backradiation is not nearly as clear cut as some would believe. Backradiation is totally clear cut unless you want to rewrite the basic science of radiation. >>with the noise on the subject, the primary item of physics was lost. All matter is continuously cooling. That is basic fact. I dont agree. And unfortunately you said earlier >>ALL matter is trying to achieve absolute zero And it was not clear to me you were able to help me. Not all matter is trying to cool, and not all matter is cooling. And again i will note that i responded to you and you did not answer me that I am aware of. You said you would. At times I have begun to wonder if you, Icefisher and Magellan are the same person or in some manner connected with each other. The whole saga sounds like a smear campaign to descredit climate models where the people involved are somewhat scientifically illiterate or just reading a script Once again for the record i have no axe to grind here and no faith in climate models. My only interest was that I find science interesting and teaching and learning about science seems to be part of the joy of science. |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 3, 2012 15:43:53 GMT
I am sure not the only explanation of Entropy but an interesting read. Not sure how it relates to this thread but here it is. Of course thermodynamics is really a subject of the cooling stars and our planet. "Entropy Explained (2003, 2005) Richard Carrier" "The concept of entropy is generally not well understood among laymen. With the help of several physicists, including Wolfgang Gasser and Malcolm Schreiber, I have composed the following article in an attempt to correct a common misunderstanding.[1] Contrary to what many laymen think, there is no Law of Entropy which states that order must always decrease. That is a layman's fiction, although born from a small kernel of reality. The actual Law of Entropy is better known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The First Law is that energy is not created or destroyed, and the Third Law is that absolute zero cannot be achieved--each of these laws is actually entailed from the first, in conjunction with certain other assumptions. But it is the Second Law that many laymen incorrectly think says that order must always decrease. In traditional thermodynamics, entropy is a measure of the amount of energy in a closed system that is no longer available to effect changes in that system. A system is closed when no energy is being added to or removed from it, and energy becomes unavailable not by leaving the system, but by becoming irretrievably disordered, as a consequence of the laws of statistical mechanics. But even though the total amount of energy that is irretrievably disordered will increase, this does not mean order cannot increase somewhere else in that same system. This is where confusion arises. Of course, entropy can be measured in an open system, too, but this introduces additional variables, and of course the Second Law then no longer applies. But even when the Second Law applies, it is still possible for a closed system to produce order, even highly elaborate order, so long as there is a greater increase in disorder somewhere else in the system. Consider, for example, how the atmosphere remains attached to earth in an orderly sphere rather than just wandering off at random. In fact, though a layman would say this system is highly ordered and doesn't become notably disordered over time (billions of years and the air is still here), the entropy of this system does increase: though a relatively orderly arrangement of gases around earth is also produced, at the same time a large quantity of energy has become disordered as a result. For example, friction created by the impact of these gas molecules striking the earth and each other produces heat that ultimately radiates off into space. Thus, the Second Law is conserved: the total amount of disordered energy is increased, even as a visible increase in order is produced. Thus, though an increase in entropy entails an increase in disorder, it does so only overall, and therefore as long as the amount of energy that becomes ordered is less than the amount of energy that becomes disordered, any amount of order can arise in a closed system without violating the Second Law.[2] The natural universe is filled with examples of local order being produced by increasing overall entropy: the structure of atoms has this effect on crystalization, the nature of subatomic particles has an ordering effect on the sorts of molecules that can form, and so on.[3] In fact, the whole of chemistry, the foundation of life, is an ideal example. Hence the Second Law cannot be invoked against a natural origin of life, since under certain conditions there can be a significant increase in order while the total amount of disordered energy also increases.[4]" www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/entropy.html |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 3, 2012 15:52:44 GMT
Iceskater:
Basic molecular physics shows all matter is cooling. That is a fact that I know is correct.
That is why there is radiation from all matter that is above absolute zero.
Climate models are not nearly complex enough to project, much less predict climate. Climate models also do not incorporate what is known very well, and they for sure do not incorporate what is unknown.
I have no axe to grind either, other than maintaining scientific integrity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 3, 2012 16:46:53 GMT
Iceskater: Basic molecular physics shows all matter is cooling. That is a fact that I know is correct. That is why there is radiation from all matter that is above absolute zero. You are stating that incorrectly. An atom that is not emitting radiation and not giving up energy via collision is not cooling until it does. An atom that is receiving radiation is becoming more energetic or what we know as 'becoming hotter' You are not the only person here who wants scientific integrity The nuts and bolts of it is that you are wrong. More sympathetically you are half right. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 3, 2012 17:08:59 GMT
Iceskater:
All atoms emit radiation. The rate of emission is dependant on temperature.
2. Yes, the atom is becoming hotter at the expense of the atom that is cooling.
This is an interchange of heat, but does NOT negate the fact that all matter is constantly cooling. Without an imcoming source of heat, absolute zero would eventually be achieved, all motion would stop.
Iceskater:
Do you understand the molecular science of physics?
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 3, 2012 17:09:43 GMT
Even the sun is constantly cooling. By chemical reaction, it is useing the stored fuel.....which will eventually be depleted.
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 3, 2012 21:22:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 3, 2012 21:34:31 GMT
trbixler:
Not being picky at all. Even a thermonuclear reaction is a chemical reaction.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 3, 2012 21:35:50 GMT
I will let the back radiation dog go back to the proper thread.
The continueing drop in global temperatures is getting a bit more concerning now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 3, 2012 21:44:53 GMT
Iceskater: All atoms emit radiation. The rate of emission is dependant on temperature. 2. Yes, the atom is becoming hotter at the expense of the atom that is cooling. This is an interchange of heat, but does NOT negate the fact that all matter is constantly cooling. Without an imcoming source of heat, absolute zero would eventually be achieved, all motion would stop. Iceskater: Do you understand the molecular science of physics? Sigurdur You are mixing up ideas that you do not fully understand. You cannot say that ALL matter is cooling while simultaneously saying that some atoms are getting hotter. You cannot say that molecules are trying to get to absolute zero because you could just as equally say they are trying to get hotter. Chemistry is the study of reactions between atoms and molecules rather like a childs lego set dealing with whole bricks of lego of different shapes and colours. A thermonuclear process is an atomic process that involves the nuclei of atoms splitting or recombining to form new atoms. In chemistry atoms never split or combine to form new atoms |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 3, 2012 22:29:33 GMT
trbixler: I was wrong, and you are correct. Thank you for pointing that out. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 3, 2012 22:32:23 GMT
Iceskater: All atoms emit radiation. The rate of emission is dependant on temperature. 2. Yes, the atom is becoming hotter at the expense of the atom that is cooling. This is an interchange of heat, but does NOT negate the fact that all matter is constantly cooling. Without an imcoming source of heat, absolute zero would eventually be achieved, all motion would stop. Iceskater: Do you understand the molecular science of physics? Sigurdur You are mixing up ideas that you do not fully understand. You cannot say that ALL matter is cooling while simultaneously saying that some atoms are getting hotter. You cannot say that molecules are trying to get to absolute zero because you could just as equally say they are trying to get hotter. Chemistry is the study of reactions between atoms and molecules rather like a childs lego set dealing with whole bricks of lego of different shapes and colours. A thermonuclear process is an atomic process that involves the nuclei of atoms splitting or recombining to form new atoms. In chemistry atoms never split or combine to form new atoms iceskater: You are correct about the chemical verses nuclear reations. However, you are NOT correct about all matter cooling. That is what it does....and is striving to do. When a portion of matter recieves a photon, it warms.....yes....but that only delays its eventual cooling. I know that is hard to wrap ones mind around........I had one heck of a time with it myself...but that is how it is. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 3, 2012 22:44:23 GMT
Sigurdur You are mixing up ideas that you do not fully understand. You cannot say that ALL matter is cooling while simultaneously saying that some atoms are getting hotter. You cannot say that molecules are trying to get to absolute zero because you could just as equally say they are trying to get hotter. Chemistry is the study of reactions between atoms and molecules rather like a childs lego set dealing with whole bricks of lego of different shapes and colours. A thermonuclear process is an atomic process that involves the nuclei of atoms splitting or recombining to form new atoms. In chemistry atoms never split or combine to form new atoms iceskater: You are correct about the chemical verses nuclear reations. However, you are NOT correct about all matter cooling. That is what it does....and is striving to do. When a portion of matter recieves a photon, it warms.....yes....but that only delays its eventual cooling. I know that is hard to wrap ones mind around........I had one heck of a time with it myself...but that is how it is. Sigurdur You are mixing up language You cannot say all matter is cooling if you know that some matter is getting hotter Matter does not strive. It does not try. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 4, 2012 0:25:04 GMT
|
|
