|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 6, 2015 15:06:20 GMT
Andrew you need to stop this its not even slightly interesting anymore. People can have different views even come to different conclusions based on the same inputs. If people like Leif Svalgaard can have different conclusions to Nautonnier then why does Nautonnier feel the need to lie about what he has said?? He has been repeatedly told that the suns wobble is not controversial. Please ask him to stop this stupid attack on Svalgaard. One response to this because you take any attempt to explain things simply as errors or now lies.... From WUWT " Leif Svalgaard September 7, 2013 at 9:08 pm
David Thomson says: September 7, 2013 at 5:55 pmLook at the Earth – Moon system. The center of gravity of these two bodies is neither in the Earth nor the Moon, yet both orbit the barycenter. The Sun does the same thing.
Great confusion here. The Earth+Moon orbits the center of the Sun as do all other planet+moon systems. You do not need to understand the theory [although it is simple enough]. We have very precise measurements of the Earth’s orbit and they show that the E+M orbit the center of the Sun. A simple consequence hereof is the measured value of TSI which varies with the square of the distance to the center. "My bold. And final response on this subject.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 6, 2015 17:59:18 GMT
And where the sun goes the planets follow.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 6, 2015 18:08:41 GMT
Where has Andrew gone anyway....I was just growing to like him....
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 6, 2015 18:42:58 GMT
Where has Andrew gone anyway....I was just growing to like him.... Family visit to the mother in law
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jun 6, 2015 21:10:28 GMT
Theodore: I hope you are wrong. I know we are due for a Bond Event, but for my children's sake I hope it skips a cycle. What actions would you suggest for preparing? Anything am individual can be working on? In preparing for global cooling Tracee, I've advised several general things people can do: The first thing for an individual in preparing is to look at where you live, be it urban or country setting and to determine your energy, food, general consumer needs through the first decade of global cooling in the 2020s. Then, determine from those needs how you want to live and work in that location with colder temperatures and wetter conditions primarily. Another important factor is health, as the relationship between climate and health is very important. it is essential to get into good physical shape leading up to the 2020s and to stay in shape in order to deal with the resultant weather conditions from the climate change to global cooling.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 7, 2015 6:32:19 GMT
The dialogue was shut down by the assault of Icefisher who did his best to divert attention from Nautonniers claim that Leif Svalbaard is stupid. As it happens Theo is also making the same stupid claim. As it happens both Theo and Icefisher have a major problem with the basic greenhouse theory. Here we go again. It is you Andrew who has the problem with the greenhouse theory, and not icefisher or me. You know, who is the liar here in fact? The greenhouse theory only needs an understanding of very simple physics, but while it is true "simple physics" is itself not totally simple and is usually beyond most ordinary people, I would estimate that many 16 year olds could do a very good presentation of the principles involved. I can honestly say the conversations I had with Icefisher about the Greenhouse effect were the strangest conversations I have ever had in my entire life. Today it is hard for me to believe, and painful for me to realise, I spent many many months of my life attempting to help him understand the greenhouse theory! I cannot remember what you said about the greenhouse effect the last time you and I talked about it, but I do recall it quickly resulted in you announcing to the board you would no longer post on the board. It is you Andrew who has the problem with the greenhouse theory, and not icefisher or me. You know, who is the liar here in fact? I am a bit like Leif Svalgaard with the exception he is very accomplished and apparently enormously clever. Leif feels he has a duty in the age of the internet to correct people so that strange ideas do not take root. Therefore it is true the greenhouse theory or the "barycentric" theory can create problems for me.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 7, 2015 9:48:21 GMT
Here we go again. It is you Andrew who has the problem with the greenhouse theory, and not icefisher or me. You know, who is the liar here in fact? The greenhouse theory only needs an understanding of very simple physics, but while it is true "simple physics" is itself not totally simple and is usually beyond most ordinary people, I would estimate that many 16 year olds could do a very good presentation of the principles involved. I can honestly say the conversations I had with Icefisher about the Greenhouse effect were the strangest conversations I have ever had in my entire life. Today it is hard for me to believe, and painful for me to realise, I spent many many months of my life attempting to help him understand the greenhouse theory! I cannot remember what you said about the greenhouse effect the last time you and I talked about it, but I do recall it quickly resulted in you announcing to the board you would no longer post on the board. It is you Andrew who has the problem with the greenhouse theory, and not icefisher or me. You know, who is the liar here in fact? I am a bit like Leif Svalgaard with the exception he is very accomplished and apparently enormously clever. Leif feels he has a duty in the age of the internet to correct people so that strange ideas do not take root. Therefore it is true the greenhouse theory or the "barycentric" theory can create problems for me. the important thing to note is the "greenhouse theory" is a theory and not a law. Its a theory based on several weak theories in physics. 1) The warming source flip flopping between a cold object warming a warmer object, or the sun warming a surface in excess of what is allowed by the inverse square distance law of radiation. 2) The application of albedo in calculating the equilibrium temperature of planetary surface in contravention of Stefan-Boltzmann equations. 3) The one way glass theory of an atmosphere. 4) that electromagnetic radiation is spurious and not induced magnetically. (the cartoon photon model taught to all students of physics) 5) that cooler IR absorbing gases do not lose the same amount they absorb to cooler gases or outerspace. (only implied by the cartoon model) The failure or partial failure of any of those assumptions could negate any significant average warming from greenhouse gases. What we do know is a greenhouse effect has never been established experimentally. The usual EXCUSE is they don't have a planet to experiment upon. My experience is that if you have a solid and true idea you can find some way of demonstrating the basic principle in experiment. For example, the cosmic ray challenge was raised and some bright guys did an experiment that showed yes precursors for cloud nuclei were being produced by rays of cosmic frequencies. But you never see the results of failed experiments as its not considered good science to use a failed experiment as evidence. I would love for some experiments to start eliminating some of the above uncertainties but so far I have seen nothing but loud mouths calling people stupid because they don't believe what they believe. Like the universally popular photon cartoon theory, I mean everybody likes it, everybody teaches it, its cute, its simple, its understandable, its consistent, it fits the greenhouse theory, but is it real? (after all these forces have been poorly defined as opposed to say vectors of gravity forces.)
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 7, 2015 10:48:15 GMT
The greenhouse theory only needs an understanding of very simple physics, but while it is true "simple physics" is itself not totally simple and is usually beyond most ordinary people, I would estimate that many 16 year olds could do a very good presentation of the principles involved. I can honestly say the conversations I had with Icefisher about the Greenhouse effect were the strangest conversations I have ever had in my entire life. Today it is hard for me to believe, and painful for me to realise, I spent many many months of my life attempting to help him understand the greenhouse theory! I cannot remember what you said about the greenhouse effect the last time you and I talked about it, but I do recall it quickly resulted in you announcing to the board you would no longer post on the board. I am a bit like Leif Svalgaard with the exception he is very accomplished and apparently enormously clever. Leif feels he has a duty in the age of the internet to correct people so that strange ideas do not take root. Therefore it is true the greenhouse theory or the "barycentric" theory can create problems for me. the important thing to note is the "greenhouse theory" is a theory and not a law. Its a theory based on several weak theories in physics. 1) The warming source flip flopping between a cold object warming a warmer object, or the sun warming a surface in excess of what is allowed by the inverse square distance law of radiation. 2) The application of albedo in calculating the equilibrium temperature of planetary surface in contravention of Stefan-Boltzmann equations. 3) The one way glass theory of an atmosphere. 4) that electromagnetic radiation is spurious and not induced magnetically. (the cartoon photon model taught to all students of physics) 5) that cooler IR absorbing gases do not lose the same amount they absorb to cooler gases or outerspace. (only implied by the cartoon model) The failure or partial failure of any of those assumptions could negate any significant average warming from greenhouse gases. What we do know is a greenhouse effect has never been established experimentally. The usual EXCUSE is they don't have a planet to experiment upon. My experience is that if you have a solid and true idea you can find some way of demonstrating the basic principle in experiment. For example, the cosmic ray challenge was raised and some bright guys did an experiment that showed yes precursors for cloud nuclei were being produced by rays of cosmic frequencies. But you never see the results of failed experiments as its not considered good science to use a failed experiment as evidence. I would love for some experiments to start eliminating some of the above uncertainties but so far I have seen nothing but loud mouths calling people stupid because they don't believe what they believe. Like the universally popular photon cartoon theory, I mean everybody likes it, everybody teaches it, its cute, its simple, its understandable, its consistent, it fits the greenhouse theory, but is it real? (after all these forces have been poorly defined as opposed to say vectors of gravity forces.) The greenhouse idea is so trivial that to date nobody has been much bothered in proving it. Spencers fridge thought experiment was trivially true - it would be sucessful in reality or the laws of physics are wrong. At night your objections about a one way glass become irrelevant, never mind the fact your objection is anti scientific. >>>1) The warming source flip flopping between a cold object warming a warmer object, or the sun warming a surface in excess of what is allowed by the inverse square distance law of radiation. You are the only person in the world who knows what this means. I spent about 3-6 months with you attempting to work out what you are saying: 1. Each time I found holes in your argument you just changed the goal posts 2. Your very own single molecule molecular sieve thought experiment proved the greenhouse effect theory was a very simple idea that was well grounded in practical science of the kind a heating engineer would use.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jun 7, 2015 14:13:57 GMT
The greenhouse theory only needs an understanding of very simple physics, but while it is true "simple physics" is itself not totally simple and is usually beyond most ordinary people, I would estimate that many 16 year olds could do a very good presentation of the principles involved. I can honestly say the conversations I had with Icefisher about the Greenhouse effect were the strangest conversations I have ever had in my entire life. Today it is hard for me to believe, and painful for me to realise, I spent many many months of my life attempting to help him understand the greenhouse theory! I cannot remember what you said about the greenhouse effect the last time you and I talked about it, but I do recall it quickly resulted in you announcing to the board you would no longer post on the board. I am a bit like Leif Svalgaard with the exception he is very accomplished and apparently enormously clever. Leif feels he has a duty in the age of the internet to correct people so that strange ideas do not take root. Therefore it is true the greenhouse theory or the "barycentric" theory can create problems for me. the important thing to note is the "greenhouse theory" is a theory and not a law. Its a theory based on several weak theories in physics. 1) The warming source flip flopping between a cold object warming a warmer object, or the sun warming a surface in excess of what is allowed by the inverse square distance law of radiation. 2) The application of albedo in calculating the equilibrium temperature of planetary surface in contravention of Stefan-Boltzmann equations. 3) The one way glass theory of an atmosphere. 4) that electromagnetic radiation is spurious and not induced magnetically. (the cartoon photon model taught to all students of physics) 5) that cooler IR absorbing gases do not lose the same amount they absorb to cooler gases or outerspace. (only implied by the cartoon model) The failure or partial failure of any of those assumptions could negate any significant average warming from greenhouse gases. What we do know is a greenhouse effect has never been established experimentally. The usual EXCUSE is they don't have a planet to experiment upon. My experience is that if you have a solid and true idea you can find some way of demonstrating the basic principle in experiment. For example, the cosmic ray challenge was raised and some bright guys did an experiment that showed yes precursors for cloud nuclei were being produced by rays of cosmic frequencies. But you never see the results of failed experiments as its not considered good science to use a failed experiment as evidence. I would love for some experiments to start eliminating some of the above uncertainties but so far I have seen nothing but loud mouths calling people stupid because they don't believe what they believe. Like the universally popular photon cartoon theory, I mean everybody likes it, everybody teaches it, its cute, its simple, its understandable, its consistent, it fits the greenhouse theory, but is it real? (after all these forces have been poorly defined as opposed to say vectors of gravity forces.) Of course Icefisher, since one cannot replicate the Earth's climate in a laboratory. Moreover, the reason why anthropocentric global warming, aka, the 'man-made greenhouse theory' has never been established is because it is not real. It violates the laws of thermodynamics and physics from start to finish. Anyone who believes in AGW does not have all 52 cards in their deck. It is also very curious how the loudest and rudest voices do not and cannot forecast. They talk but do not walk the walk. Those who have played with climate models to forecast continue to fail miserably, with the most recent examples being last year's prediction for a 'Super El Nino,' which I said would not take place, despite all the hype, and arrogant talk to the contrary. The only way to forecast advanced climate conditions is by astronomic means and that is what I do as an astromet. As for the 'greenhouse theory,' no, of course it is not true because pink elephants do not fly.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 7, 2015 15:01:02 GMT
the important thing to note is the "greenhouse theory" is a theory and not a law. Its a theory based on several weak theories in physics. 1) The warming source flip flopping between a cold object warming a warmer object, or the sun warming a surface in excess of what is allowed by the inverse square distance law of radiation. 2) The application of albedo in calculating the equilibrium temperature of planetary surface in contravention of Stefan-Boltzmann equations. 3) The one way glass theory of an atmosphere. 4) that electromagnetic radiation is spurious and not induced magnetically. (the cartoon photon model taught to all students of physics) 5) that cooler IR absorbing gases do not lose the same amount they absorb to cooler gases or outerspace. (only implied by the cartoon model) The failure or partial failure of any of those assumptions could negate any significant average warming from greenhouse gases. What we do know is a greenhouse effect has never been established experimentally. The usual EXCUSE is they don't have a planet to experiment upon. My experience is that if you have a solid and true idea you can find some way of demonstrating the basic principle in experiment. For example, the cosmic ray challenge was raised and some bright guys did an experiment that showed yes precursors for cloud nuclei were being produced by rays of cosmic frequencies. But you never see the results of failed experiments as its not considered good science to use a failed experiment as evidence. I would love for some experiments to start eliminating some of the above uncertainties but so far I have seen nothing but loud mouths calling people stupid because they don't believe what they believe. Like the universally popular photon cartoon theory, I mean everybody likes it, everybody teaches it, its cute, its simple, its understandable, its consistent, it fits the greenhouse theory, but is it real? (after all these forces have been poorly defined as opposed to say vectors of gravity forces.) Of course Icefisher, since one cannot replicate the Earth's climate in a laboratory. Moreover, the reason why anthropocentric global warming, aka, the 'man-made greenhouse theory' has never been established is because it is not real. It violates the laws of thermodynamics and physics from start to finish. Anyone who believes in AGW does not have all 52 cards in their deck. It is also very curious how the loudest and rudest voices do not and cannot forecast. They talk but do not walk the walk. Those who have played with climate models to forecast continue to fail miserably, with the most recent examples being last year's prediction for a 'Super El Nino,' which I said would not take place, despite all the hype, and arrogant talk to the contrary. The only way to forecast advanced climate conditions is by astronomic means and that is what I do as an astromet. As for the 'greenhouse theory,' no, of course it is not true because pink elephants do not fly. Greenhouse theory does not violate the 2nd law.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 8, 2015 1:07:21 GMT
Of course Icefisher, since one cannot replicate the Earth's climate in a laboratory. Moreover, the reason why anthropocentric global warming, aka, the 'man-made greenhouse theory' has never been established is because it is not real. It violates the laws of thermodynamics and physics from start to finish. Anyone who believes in AGW does not have all 52 cards in their deck. It is also very curious how the loudest and rudest voices do not and cannot forecast. They talk but do not walk the walk. Those who have played with climate models to forecast continue to fail miserably, with the most recent examples being last year's prediction for a 'Super El Nino,' which I said would not take place, despite all the hype, and arrogant talk to the contrary. The only way to forecast advanced climate conditions is by astronomic means and that is what I do as an astromet. As for the 'greenhouse theory,' no, of course it is not true because pink elephants do not fly. Greenhouse theory does not violate the 2nd law. Depends upon whose theory you are talking about.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 8, 2015 1:11:22 GMT
Theodore: I hope you are wrong. I know we are due for a Bond Event, but for my children's sake I hope it skips a cycle. I'm not so sure about the timing Sig. A bit like the next big one in Washington State. Sure we have entered the window for the next big quake but it could be anytime within the next 200 years or more. The next bond event? After just a tiny, tiny bit of reading I'm not so sure when the next cycle will start, given that "Bond events are North Atlantic climate fluctuations occurring every ≈1,470 ± 500 years" and the last one was the little ice age then we have at least 500 years. Right? Code: Actually, Bond Events are world wide events as confirmed by Antarctic Ice cores. Just as the MWP was world wide. Ya see, the AGW crowd can't figure out how to model past events if they are world wide, and they have no explanation for them world wide so they started the false mantra that somehow the MWP and past Bond Events were not world wide. The Little Ice Age was not a Bond type of event, as this appears to BE a regional event. Make sense?
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jun 8, 2015 15:05:37 GMT
Of course Icefisher, since one cannot replicate the Earth's climate in a laboratory. Moreover, the reason why anthropocentric global warming, aka, the 'man-made greenhouse theory' has never been established is because it is not real. It violates the laws of thermodynamics and physics from start to finish. Anyone who believes in AGW does not have all 52 cards in their deck. It is also very curious how the loudest and rudest voices do not and cannot forecast. They talk but do not walk the walk. Those who have played with climate models to forecast continue to fail miserably, with the most recent examples being last year's prediction for a 'Super El Nino,' which I said would not take place, despite all the hype, and arrogant talk to the contrary. The only way to forecast advanced climate conditions is by astronomic means and that is what I do as an astromet. As for the 'greenhouse theory,' no, of course it is not true because pink elephants do not fly. Greenhouse theory does not violate the 2nd law. Andrew, people like you, whom speak ignorantly without thinking are often the loudest mouths in the room. What is called 'anthropogenic' global warming, or 'man-made global warming' violates both the First and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The ignorant and inane notion of those who promote the lie of 'man-made global warming' means that they are ignorant of the fact that colder matter does not radiate towards hotter matter. That means that they do not have both their oars in the water. That belief in AGW defies all the laws of physics and thermodynamics and of course, plain old common sense. For instance, Energy from the hotter body has left that body and so cools down. This law (which is still in operation and has not ceased to exist) means that the smaller amount of energy from a cooler body cannot fully replace that lost energy as it simply slows the rate of cooling. Depicted below is a blackbody plate that radiates 1000 W/m² toward another plate, and because of distance will absorb half of that intensity, or that of 500 W/m². Now, at equilibrium, the receiving plate radiates 250 W/m² towards the 1000 W/m² plate. Here is a question for you Andrew, since you claim that, quote: "Greenhouse theory does not violate the 2nd law." Does the 1000 W/m² plate rise to 1250 W/m²? And if you say it does, then by that statement, in raising the radiator’s temperature without adding more energy, you have become the most famous person in the entire world because you have done what no one else has and that would be to disprove the first law of thermodynamics. What I am saying is this: That, in all your glory and superiority above all of us mere mortals Andrew, you have caused the radiator to heat itself? And then, to prove your immense glory above all the insignificant among us - now at 1250 W/m² - you have also caused the radiator to heat the other plate even more, and to absorb yet another dose of back-radiated energy that will then reach 1562 W/m². And so on and on and on - forever and ever and ever. Wow, you have caused the laws of thermodynamics to cease to exist, your magnificence. The fact of the matter is this - Either radiative heat transfer obeys the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or it doesn't. And as the Second Law continues to operate, that means of course that light can only transfer energy to something that is radiating less and that would mean that the physics of radiative forcing is a total myth. Moreover, greenhouse gases cannot add any energy to the climate system and in fact is colder than the surface of the Earth, so it cannot cause additional warming of the Earth either. It simply slows the rate of cooling - not warming. And on top of that, the cooling effect of 'greenhouse' gases outweighs the heating effect because of the absorption of incoming solar energy to the Earth - by a factor of 100. So, how can you claim that 'man-made global warming' exists - with a straight face - and presume to call the rest of us on this board who know better "liars?" How is that even possible?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 8, 2015 15:30:46 GMT
Greenhouse theory does not violate the 2nd law. Andrew, people like you, whom speak ignorantly without thinking are often the loudest mouths in the room. What is called 'anthropogenic' global warming, or 'man-made global warming' violates both the First and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The ignorant and inane notion of those who promote the lie of 'man-made global warming' means that they are ignorant of the fact that colder matter does not radiate towards hotter matter. That means that they do not have both their oars in the water. That belief in AGW defies all the laws of physics and thermodynamics and of course, plain old common sense. For instance, Energy from the hotter body has left that body and so cools down. This law (which is still in operation and has not ceased to exist) means that the smaller amount of energy from a cooler body cannot fully replace that lost energy as it simply slows the rate of cooling. Depicted below is a blackbody plate that radiates 1000 W/m² toward another plate, and because of distance will absorb half of that intensity, or that of 500 W/m². Now, at equilibrium, the receiving plate radiates 250 W/m² towards the 1000 W/m² plate. Here is a question for you Andrew, since you claim that, quote: "Greenhouse theory does not violate the 2nd law." Does the 1000 W/m² plate rise to 1250 W/m²? And if you say it does, then by that statement, in raising the radiator’s temperature without adding more energy, you have become the most famous person in the entire world because you have done what no one else has and that would be to disprove the first law of thermodynamics. What I am saying is this: That, in all your glory and superiority above all of us mere mortals Andrew, you have caused the radiator to heat itself? And then, to prove your immense glory above all the insignificant among us - now at 1250 W/m² - you have also caused the radiator to heat the other plate even more, and to absorb yet another dose of back-radiated energy that will then reach 1562 W/m². And so on and on and on - forever and ever and ever. Wow, you have caused the laws of thermodynamics to cease to exist, your magnificence. The fact of the matter is this - Either radiative heat transfer obeys the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or it doesn't. And as the Second Law continues to operate, that means of course that light can only transfer energy to something that is radiating less and that would mean that the physics of radiative forcing is a total myth. Moreover, greenhouse gases cannot add any energy to the climate system and in fact is colder than the surface of the Earth, so it cannot cause additional warming of the Earth either. It simply slows the rate of cooling - not warming. And on top of that, the cooling effect of 'greenhouse' gases outweighs the heating effect because of the absorption of incoming solar energy to the Earth - by a factor of 100. So, how can you claim that 'man-made global warming' exists - with a straight face - and presume to call the rest of us on this board who know better "liars?" How is that even possible? Theo thanks for taking this seriously and taking the time to deal with the question. >>This law (which is still in operation and has not ceased to exist) means that the smaller amount of energy from a cooler body cannot fully replace that lost energy as it simply slows the rate of cooling.The basis of the greenhouse effect is that the addition of a second supposedly unheated radiator slows the cooling rate of the first heated radiator.Therefore once the first radiator has reached equilibrium in the presence of a colder environment, the addition of the second unheated radiator enables the first heated radiator to achieve a higher temperature as the second radiator is heated by the first radiator. To see the greenhouse effect in action we first have to see the consequences of a heated radiator without the presence of the other apparently unheated radiator. We then add the presence of the other radiator and find our first radiator is now warmer due to the second radiator becoming heated by the first radiator and therefore slowing down the heat losses of the first radiator.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jun 8, 2015 15:46:48 GMT
Andrew, people like you, whom speak ignorantly without thinking are often the loudest mouths in the room. What is called 'anthropogenic' global warming, or 'man-made global warming' violates both the First and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The ignorant and inane notion of those who promote the lie of 'man-made global warming' means that they are ignorant of the fact that colder matter does not radiate towards hotter matter. That means that they do not have both their oars in the water. That belief in AGW defies all the laws of physics and thermodynamics and of course, plain old common sense. For instance, Energy from the hotter body has left that body and so cools down. This law (which is still in operation and has not ceased to exist) means that the smaller amount of energy from a cooler body cannot fully replace that lost energy as it simply slows the rate of cooling. Depicted below is a blackbody plate that radiates 1000 W/m² toward another plate, and because of distance will absorb half of that intensity, or that of 500 W/m². Now, at equilibrium, the receiving plate radiates 250 W/m² towards the 1000 W/m² plate. Here is a question for you Andrew, since you claim that, quote: "Greenhouse theory does not violate the 2nd law." Does the 1000 W/m² plate rise to 1250 W/m²? And if you say it does, then by that statement, in raising the radiator’s temperature without adding more energy, you have become the most famous person in the entire world because you have done what no one else has and that would be to disprove the first law of thermodynamics. What I am saying is this: That, in all your glory and superiority above all of us mere mortals Andrew, you have caused the radiator to heat itself? And then, to prove your immense glory above all the insignificant among us - now at 1250 W/m² - you have also caused the radiator to heat the other plate even more, and to absorb yet another dose of back-radiated energy that will then reach 1562 W/m². And so on and on and on - forever and ever and ever. Wow, you have caused the laws of thermodynamics to cease to exist, your magnificence. The fact of the matter is this - Either radiative heat transfer obeys the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or it doesn't. And as the Second Law continues to operate, that means of course that light can only transfer energy to something that is radiating less and that would mean that the physics of radiative forcing is a total myth. Moreover, greenhouse gases cannot add any energy to the climate system and in fact is colder than the surface of the Earth, so it cannot cause additional warming of the Earth either. It simply slows the rate of cooling - not warming. And on top of that, the cooling effect of 'greenhouse' gases outweighs the heating effect because of the absorption of incoming solar energy to the Earth - by a factor of 100. So, how can you claim that 'man-made global warming' exists - with a straight face - and presume to call the rest of us on this board who know better "liars?" How is that even possible? Theo thanks for taking this seriously and taking the time to deal with the question. >>This law (which is still in operation and has not ceased to exist) means that the smaller amount of energy from a cooler body cannot fully replace that lost energy as it simply slows the rate of cooling.The basis of the greenhouse effect is that the addition of a second supposedly unheated radiator slows the cooling rate of the first heated radiator.Therefore once the first radiator has reached equilibrium in the presence of a colder environment, the addition of the second unheated radiator enables the first heated radiator to achieve a higher temperature as the second radiator is heated by the first radiator. To see the greenhouse effect in action we first have to see the consequences of a heated radiator without the presence of the other apparently unheated radiator. We then add the presence of the other radiator and find our first radiator is now warmer due to the second radiator becoming heated by the first radiator and therefore slowing down the heat losses of the first radiator. No, I don't think so Andrew. You have much to learn about your own planet's climate and how it functions in the real world. Quit with the nickel and diming and for heaven's sake, stop denying the laws of thermodynamics and please, learn how to do and understand mathematics. Pink elephants (aka 'anthropogenic global warming') do not fly son.
|
|