Coffeehouse Thread

153 posts

Conversation Locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.

Crown Capital Earth Management Fraud Warriors: Earth Hour

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • Maddus Mattus

    @Sven Groot: I think we are in agreement about the general physics. Radiation flows freely, heat flows from hot to cold.

    We can discuss whether the hot object actually gains energy from it's surroundings or not another time. It's semantics really. As long as there are temperature differences, heat will flow, till the system is in thermal balance.

    What we do not, clearly, agree on, is what the greenhouse effect is.

    What according to you is the greenhouse effect? In detail or a link,. please.

  • evildictait​or

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    What according to you is the greenhouse effect? In detail or a link,. please.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#Mechanism

  • Maddus Mattus

    @evildictaitor:

    Most of this thermal radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and re-radiated both upwards and downwards; that radiated downwards is absorbed by the Earth's surface.

    Like we discussed, this is in violation of the second law. You can't absorb radiation comming from a lower energy system, it's impossible. Therefore the greenhouse effect as described there, cannot be.

  • Sven Groot

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @Sven Groot: I think we are in agreement about the general physics. Radiation flows freely, heat flows from hot to cold.

    Clearly we are not in agreement, since you just repeated the same bullshit argument again in the post above me. Hot objects do absorb radiation from their surroundings, that's at the core of the matter and is why the greenhouse effect does not violate any laws. We can't argue about that later,  because it is at the core of your misunderstanding. 

    The links I posted clearly show that the surroundings can reduce the rate of heat loss from a hot object, and that's all the greenhouse effect requires to have the stated effect. 

    Im still waiting for you to back up your claim that this radiation can't be absorbed at all with a source. Of course, such a source doesn't exist because you're wrong. 

  • cbae

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @evildictaitor:

    *snip*

    Like we discussed, this is in violation of the second law. You can't absorb radiation comming from a lower energy system, it's impossible. Therefore the greenhouse effect as described there, cannot be.

    You're embarrassing yourself.

  • Maddus Mattus

    @Sven Groot:

    Hot objects do absorb radiation from their surroundings.

    The article you posted deals with theoretical constructs, black bodies. They do not exist in real life. Therefore, if you want to represent a real life object by a black body, you have to assume that it receives energy from it's surroundings. Otherwise, as they rightly state, the black body would radiate till it reaches absolute zero. To present this as proof that hot objects receive energy from colder objects, is a misuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann equasion, as real life objects are not black bodies.

    In order for an electron to absorb a photon, the energy of the electron has to be at a lower level then the electron that emitted the photon. An electron will not just absorp any photon.

    http://cas.sdss.org/dr6/en/proj/advanced/spectraltypes/energylevels.asp

    The links I posted clearly show that the surroundings can reduce the rate of heat loss from a hot object, and that's all the greenhouse effect requires to have the stated effect.

    Changes in the mass of the system can surely effect it's rate of warming and cooling, no disagreement there. Since the atmosphere is neither growing nor shrinking in mass (significantly) your examples are rendered moot, as far as climate is concerned.

  • cbae

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    *snip*

    Changes in the mass of the system can surely effect it's rate of warming and cooling, no disagreement there. Since the atmosphere is neither growing nor shrinking in mass (significantly) your examples are rendered moot, as far as climate is concerned.

    We release billions of metric tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year by burning fossil fuels. Warming also causes the oceans to release more carbon dioxide rather than acting as a carbon dioxide sink, thus creating a positive feedback loop. So the atmosphere actually is increasing in mass. Even with your misguided premise, burning of fossil fuels can cause global warming.

  • Sven Groot

    @Maddus Mattus: two things about that link:

    1. Electron energy levels are not the same thing as molecular vibration energy. The latter is heat, the former is not. 

    2. Even that article clearly specifies that the energy of the photon must match the energy difference between two discrete energy states. it doesn't need to exceed the current energy level. 

    So not only are you using the wrong type of energy in your example, you're still misinterpreting the physics involved. This is why I generally put more stick in the statements of experts rather than random people on the web.

  • Proton2

    Random people on the web have once again corrected the experts published peer reviewed work :

    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/04/01/were-not-screwed/

    Note, random people on the web in my case are actually experts in either statistics, such as Steve McIntyre, or they're atmospheric scientists like Dr. Roy Spencer or physicists and so forth. In other words, they have the same training as the climate change scientists.

    Discussions here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/01/the-marcott-gong-show-before-in-the-unquestioning-press-and-after-the-blogosphere-review-as-told-by-ross-mckitrick/

     

    The "Slayers" are still wrong and Maddus is one of them, unfortunately. It makes skeptics look bad because some people think skeptics don't believe in the greenhouse effect.

     

    @Maddus :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature

     

    Computer models that show future warming have been proven to not work properly:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/04/ipcc-plays-hot-spot-hidey-games-in-ar5-denies-28-million-weather-balloons-work-properly/

  • evildictait​or

    , Proton2 wrote

    Random people on the web have once again corrected the experts published peer reviewed work :

    They only count if their corrections are themselves peer reviewed.

    Science does not work by some guy saying the models are wrong. It works by someone suggesting a better model, and demonstrating that the new model fits the existing data better and using it to make more accurate predictions.

    If your skeptic buddies are right, tell them to propose a model, show how it fits the existing data and get them to show how their model makes better predictions than the current climate models.

    Sitting on the sidelines and shouting that the models are wrong and that all of the scientists are in cahoots with the government in some secret plot to tax people for some sinister purpose (as if a government needs to go to so much effort and secrecy to take your money) isn't science. It's bokum conspiracy theorism.

  • Proton2

    @evildictaitor: It is currently not possible to model the earth's climate sufficiently for long term predictions. Maybe in 20 years computing power will be sufficient.

    The models have a warming bias built into them. The Earth is not warming as they predicted.

    It is clearly evident that there is something wrong in the establishment climate science. Many people call it noble cause corruption. I am considering gathering the hundreds of examples I have come across in my greater than 3 years of research on the state of climate science research.

    Trying to dismiss the problems as some kind of conspiracy theory thinking seems to be your thing.

    You only encourage me to keep teaching climate science to others. I wish I could tell you about the software development project I am involved with related to climate science, but due to tactical and strategic reasons, as the need to keep information confidential as demonstrated by what Professor Muller pulled on Anthony Watts with Muller's B.E.S.T project appropriating Watts work has taught me.

     

    March earth temperatures:

    globe temp

     

  • evildictait​or

    Trying to dismiss the problems as some kind of conspiracy theory thinking seems to be your thing.

    On the contrary. I'm saying that the notion that all scientists are in cahoots with some kind of shadow government for some unspecified purpose (to raise taxes or something?) is the conspiracy theory.

    I stick by the apparently controversial opinion that most climate scientists spend their day trying to model the climate rather than practise their secret handshakes, and that given a choice between a small number of qualification-challenged climate "skeptics" on the Internet and a clear consensus of climate scientists on the issue of "how the climate works", that I shouldn't lend as much weight to the guys with the blogs as to the guys with the PhD in climate science.

     

    You only encourage me to keep teaching climate science to others. I wish I could tell you about the software development project I am involved with related to climate science, but due to tactical and strategic reasons, as the need to keep information confidential as demonstrated by what Professor Muller pulled on Anthony Watts with Muller's B.E.S.T project appropriating Watts work has taught me.

    Well if that's true, I kindly suggest that you publish your data, astonish and confound the climate change community, and sit back and wait for the consensus to change.

    To be clear, I'm not sticking with the notion that AGW is happening because it's my personal belief. I'm sticking with it because that's the consensus of people that study it - in much the same way that I believe that people's DNA might be correlated with which illnesses people get and that airbags in my car really do increase my safety in the event of a crash.

    If you change the consensus on climate change to "AGW isn't happening after all", I'll be happy to pop some party poppers with you right here on C9.

    Since you're unwilling or unable to publish the reasons why you think the consensus should be changed here (and since we on C9 are not, strange as it may sound, a secret gathering of climate scientists who are in a position to change the position of the illuminati^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B scientnfic consensus on climate change), I have to conclude that we have reached an impasse, and must agree that this thread probably isn't going to either change the consensus on the issue or indeed anyone's personal opinion about whether or not AGW is happening.

  • Sven Groot

    I don't even care about climate change all that much. All I want to do at this point is get Maddus to realize that his knowledge of basic physics, and therefore this particular argument concerning the second law of thermodynamics, is wrong. 

    I don't mind arguing about the actual controversies in climate change, but this particular argument just doesn't hold any water. 

  • Maddus Mattus

    @Sven Groot:

    It holds more water then your claim that all real life objects behave as black bodies. Nowhere in nature can this effect be observed, yet you claim this to be true. It also holds more water then the bouncing radiation idea, or perpetuum mobile.

    As with my question, where is the work done in the climate to force the energy back down, you haven't provided answers. I have provided them, yet you continue to shake your head and deny the theory on the face of it. You are letting your emotions get in the way of your objective way of thinking.

    The greenhouse theory is not basic physics, because it violates the two basic thermodynamic physical laws;

    1. Conservation of energy
    2. Heat flows from hot to cold

    It violates law number one when they say radiation adds energy again and again to the climate. Surely you can only give off so much energy, to claim that this is somehow 'trapped', is nonsense.

    It violates law number two when they say a radiation from a cold body will give off energy to a body at a higher temperature. For this to be true, it has to be non spontaneous, there has to be additional work done. It has to increase entropy elsewhere to decrease entropy in the radiation cycle. As there is no second power source present in our climate system, it violates it. You can not radiate the same energy you absorb, there has to be a conversion (work). That's why the surface heats under the radiation of the sun, shortwave is absorbed, turned into work and then emitted as longwave.

    Prove these two points wrong, and I will concede.

    @Proton2:

    I don't give a hoot about skeptic's reputation, if something is plainly that wrong.

  • Maddus Mattus

    @cbae:

    The maximum mass of the atmosphere is determined by the mass of the planet, not by our emissions of CO2. If we can't hold it down, it will fly out into space.

    Try again.

  • Sven Groot

    @Maddus Mattus: a source, Maddus. Give me a source for your claim that hot objects cannot absorb radiation from their surroundings, and that this means you cannot reduce the rate of heat loss. 

    I'm not moving on with this discussion until you prove this ridiculous claim. 

  • evildictait​or

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @cbae:

    The maximum mass of the atmosphere is determined by the mass of the planet, not by our emissions of CO2. If we can't hold it down, it will fly out into space.

    Try again.

    That's interesting:

    Mass of Earth: 5.97219 × 10^24 kg (1 Earth mass)

    Mass of Venus: 4.867 x 10^24 kg (0.815 Earth mass)

    Atmospheric mass of Earth: exactly 5.16 ×10^18 kg (1 Earth atmospheric mass)

    Atmospheric mass of Venus: 4.8×10^20 kg (93 Earth atmospheric mass)

    Venus has 81% the mass of Earth, and 9300% times the atmospheric mass of Earth.

    Please stop saying things that are transparently unfactual Maddus. It's getting silly now.

  • ScanIAm

    You have to factor in how fast the earth is spinning.  As the planet spins, the c02 is flung off like a child holding onto a fast turning merry-go-round.  Some of those molecules are warmer, so their little molecular hands get sweaty and they can't hold on against the force.

     

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.