Remember me
▼ Content

A "challenge" for you, IB and Into



Page 1 of 3123>
A "challenge" for you, IB and Into10-10-2016 15:26
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into, what is your definition of spectral radiance, and why do you say that Planck's outputs energy, not spectral radiance?

IB, I have a 1L spherical, perfectly clear flask. It is filled with pure H2 at 2 atm, 300K. I am standing 1 m away, observing the radiation at the 700nm wavelength. How much should I measure? Show your work, and do not take the answer from previous observation; that'd be cheating.

This really shouldn't be that hard, IB; after all, you expected me, a "mathematically illiterate idiot", to do it.
Have fun!


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
10-10-2016 15:58
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
jwoodward48 wrote:IB, I have a 1L spherical, perfectly clear flask. It is filled with pure H2 at 2 atm, 300K. I am standing 1 m away, observing the radiation at the 700nm wavelength. How much should I measure? Show your work, and do not take the answer from previous observation; that'd be cheating.

This really shouldn't be that hard, IB; after all, you expected me, a "mathematically illiterate idiot", to do it.
Have fun!

You obviously haven't learned how this works.

* You are the one claiming "Global Warming."

* You are the one claiming "greenhouse effect" as the basis for the overarching Global Warming you profess.

* You bear the full burden of proof/support. Nobody is required to prove/show/calculate anything in order to "disprove" your arguments ... which cannot be done when your assertions are unfalsifiable in the first place.

* Unfortunately all your attempts to support your dogma run into violations of physics.

* Your "challenge" amounts to nothing more than a lame attempt on your part to shift your burden of proof onto others. Look up the "shift the burden of proof" fallacy. If you are happy leaving your unsubstantiated, physics-violation-riddled dogma unsupported, then I'm happy to leave it unsubstantiated as well.

.so.I take it we're done?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-10-2016 18:42
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:IB, I have a 1L spherical, perfectly clear flask. It is filled with pure H2 at 2 atm, 300K. I am standing 1 m away, observing the radiation at the 700nm wavelength. How much should I measure? Show your work, and do not take the answer from previous observation; that'd be cheating.

This really shouldn't be that hard, IB; after all, you expected me, a "mathematically illiterate idiot", to do it.
Have fun!

You obviously haven't learned how this works.


...how you have demanded it works. Bully.

* You are the one claiming "Global Warming."


You are the one claiming "no global warming." Your point?

* You are the one claiming "greenhouse effect" as the basis for the overarching Global Warming you profess.


You are the one claiming that the GHE violates several laws of thermodynamics and radation.

* You bear the full burden of proof/support.


...wait, what?

Nobody is required to prove/show/calculate anything in order to "disprove" your arguments ... which cannot be done when your assertions are unfalsifiable in the first place.


Oh, this is good. Even though you can't calculate it, you insist that since my assertions are unfalsifiable, they don't need to be tested. I'm beginning to wonder if Poe's Law applies. Are you serious?

* Unfortunately all your attempts to support your dogma run into violations of physics.


No, yours do.

* Your "challenge" amounts to nothing more than a lame attempt on your part to shift your burden of proof onto others. Look up the "shift the burden of proof" fallacy. If you are happy leaving your unsubstantiated, physics-violation-riddled dogma unsupported, then I'm happy to leave it unsubstantiated as well.


I'm not shifting the Armokdamn burden of proof! You are saying that it is possible, with Planck's Law and this mysterious second domain-thing, to describe all radiation. Then do it! Show us how this would be done! SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS! BACK THEM UP WITH EVIDENCE! DEMONSTRATE YOUR METHODS! THIS! IS! SCIENCE!!


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
10-10-2016 19:19
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
jwoodward48 wrote:Oh, this is good. Even though you can't calculate it, you insist that since my assertions are unfalsifiable, they don't need to be tested.

Nope. That is nothing close to what I wrote. Your weaseling is dismissed.

jwoodward48 wrote:...how you have demanded it works. Bully.

Nope. It's just how it works. You are the one asserting Global Warming. Have you changed your mind and no longer assert Global Warming?

jwoodward48 wrote:]You are the one claiming "no global warming." Your point?

Nope. I am not claiming anything beyond my doubts and problems with your claims. You can address my concerns if you wish; they are all based on science which I provide.

jwoodward48 wrote:You are the one claiming that the GHE violates several laws of thermodynamics and radation.

Nope. I claim that each individual's personal version of "greenhouse effect" either violates one or more laws of physics or there really is no "effect" beyond "the sun's energy warm's the earth."

jwoodward48 wrote:I'm not shifting the Armokdamn burden of proof!

Yes you are. Whenever you shift away from supporting your claim to simply assuming your claim is true and requiring someone else to prove your claim FALSE, you have attempted to shift your burden of proof.

Now get back to supporting your claim or we're done.

Bottom Line: How do you account for the additional energy REQUIRED by "greenhouse effect" to increase temperature?

Remember:

* by definition, an increase in temperature requires additional energy (assuming no chemical reaction and no compression of volume)

* energy can neither be created nor destroyed, despite being able to change form.

* no direction of electromagnetic radiation makes more of it.

Everything else amounts to EVASION and weaseling around this point.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-10-2016 19:50
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
How can he be weaseling? he is asking questions of you.

Does anything you say make sense?
10-10-2016 21:31
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:Oh, this is good. Even though you can't calculate it, you insist that since my assertions are unfalsifiable, they don't need to be tested.

Nope. That is nothing close to what I wrote. Your weaseling is dismissed.


Then why won't you calculate it?

jwoodward48 wrote:...how you have demanded it works. Bully.

Nope. It's just how it works. You are the one asserting Global Warming. Have you changed your mind and no longer assert Global Warming?


Science is objective, you idiot; I'm asserting GW, you're asserting no GW. Since we disagree over what the existing science on the matter means, I propose that we stop the whole "burden of proof" matter, as I say that you are challenging existing science, and you... insist that "that's not science, that's a WACKY religion!" It's pointless, we'll get nowhere this way.

jwoodward48 wrote:]You are the one claiming "no global warming." Your point?

Nope. I am not claiming anything beyond my doubts and problems with your claims. You can address my concerns if you wish; they are all based on science which I provide.


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

jwoodward48 wrote:You are the one claiming that the GHE violates several laws of thermodynamics and radation.

Nope. I claim that each individual's personal version of "greenhouse effect" either violates one or more laws of physics or there really is no "effect" beyond "the sun's energy warm's the earth."


Same difference...

jwoodward48 wrote:I'm not shifting the Armokdamn burden of proof!

Yes you are. Whenever you shift away from supporting your claim to simply assuming your claim is true and requiring someone else to prove your claim FALSE, you have attempted to shift your burden of proof.


I'm not asking you to prove my claim false. I'm asking you to demonstrate these "arcane domain-mancies" which you so often speak of.

Now get back to supporting your claim or we're done.


Done? Heh. You think that the threat of this conversation will deter me from... anything? Fool.

Bottom Line: How do you account for the additional energy REQUIRED by "greenhouse effect" to increase temperature?


Oh, the 1st Law? While the Earth heats, it gives off less radiation. It goes back to normal when it's done heating. (Or I suppose you could say that it's done heating once the radiation's back to normal.)

Remember:

* by definition, an increase in temperature requires additional energy (assuming no chemical reaction and no compression of volume)


Yep. That energy comes from the Sun; if less energy leaves, but the same energy arrives, the laws dictate that the temperature must increase (barring other forms of energy storage).

* energy can neither be created nor destroyed, despite being able to change form.


Conservation, yes.

* no direction of electromagnetic radiation makes more of it.


It doesn't produce more of it, no. But it increases the amount of energy striking the surface, and decreases the amount of energy leaving the Earth system.

Everything else amounts to EVASION and weaseling around this point.


Like you've ever actually answered any of my questions yourself, hypocrite.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
11-10-2016 02:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7664)
jwoodward48 wrote:

It doesn't produce more of it, no. But it increases the amount of energy striking the surface, and decreases the amount of energy leaving the Earth system.


This violates the 2nd LoT. You can't make hot coffee with ice.


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 02:56
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
jwoodward48 wrote:Then why won't you calculate it?

I don't much feel like it. I'd much rather you calculate it, show your work and I'll review what you post.


jwoodward48 wrote: Science is objective, you idiot;

It took you long enough to realize this, dumbass.


jwoodward48 wrote:I'm asserting GW, you're asserting no GW

I am not asserting that, oh logically-challenged pillock. I just explained it all to you. You don't get to decide what I'm saying. You need to learn how to read and how message boards work.

jwoodward48 wrote: Since we disagree over what the existing science on the matter means...

You don't get to disagree with it. Science is very clear. Your intentional decision to not understand does not throw its meaning into doubt in any way.

Go learn it. Your "disagreement" is irrelevant.

jwoodward48 wrote: I propose that we stop the whole "burden of proof" matter,...

Your proposal is dismissed. The entire burden of proof rests with you.


jwoodward48 wrote: It's pointless, we'll get nowhere this way.

You make it pointless. I'm not going to be party to your efforts.

jwoodward48 wrote:You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I use many words and I use them correctly.

jwoodward48 wrote: That energy comes from the Sun; if less energy leaves, but the same energy arrives, the laws dictate that the temperature must increase (barring other forms of energy storage).

Your personal preference is to violate Stefan-Boltzmann.

jwoodward48 wrote:Like you've ever actually answered any of my questions yourself, hypocrite.

I answered all your questions. You're just a dishonest fukc who simply ignored all my responses and all my explanations and is now stating that I never answered any. Blome E.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-10-2016 03:03
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:

It doesn't produce more of it, no. But it increases the amount of energy striking the surface, and decreases the amount of energy leaving the Earth system.


This violates the 2nd LoT. You can't make hot coffee with ice.


No, but insulating the coffee mug can result in the neighboring ice being warmer than it otherwise would be.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
11-10-2016 03:16
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:Then why won't you calculate it?

I don't much feel like it. I'd much rather you calculate it, show your work and I'll review what you post.

I'm sorry, IB, but I don't get the way that you use domains. Could you explain how to do so?

jwoodward48 wrote: Science is objective, you idiot;

It took you long enough to realize this, dumbass.


jwoodward48 wrote:I'm asserting GW, you're asserting no GW

I am not asserting that, oh logically-challenged pillock. I just explained it all to you. You don't get to decide what I'm saying. You need to learn how to read and how message boards work.


You don't get to redefine assertion.

jwoodward48 wrote: Since we disagree over what the existing science on the matter means...

You don't get to disagree with it. Science is very clear. Your intentional decision to not understand does not throw its meaning into doubt in any way.

Go learn it. Your "disagreement" is irrelevant.


So sayeth the closed-minded one, yea.

Also, everybody who doesn't understand your genius is doing it on purpose. Keep telling yourself that.

jwoodward48 wrote: I propose that we stop the whole "burden of proof" matter,...

Your proposal is dismissed. The entire burden of proof rests with you.

Fine. It's yours. Let's see how long we can play Hot Potato.
jwoodward48 wrote: It's pointless, we'll get nowhere this way.

You make it pointless. I'm not going to be party to your efforts.

So sayeth the one who is so sure that it's ALL MY FAULT!
jwoodward48 wrote:You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I use many words and I use them correctly.

You use many perfectly cromulent words.
jwoodward48 wrote: That energy comes from the Sun; if less energy leaves, but the same energy arrives, the laws dictate that the temperature must increase (barring other forms of energy storage).

Your personal preference is to violate Stefan-Boltzmann.

Stefan-Boltzmann really, really doesn't apply. It says how much energy will be radiated at the surface, not how much energy will escape the atmosphere. You do agree that the atmosphere affects the outgoing radiation.. right?
jwoodward48 wrote:Like you've ever actually answered any of my questions yourself, hypocrite.

I answered all your questions. You're just a dishonest fukc who simply ignored all my responses and all my explanations and is now stating that I never answered any. Blome E.

Yeah, that must be it. If my constant baseless assertions and insults didn't win him over, he must be ignoring my obvious truth on purpose. And he's a nasty person, and he twirls his moustache and kicks dogs. He's quite obviously evil.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
11-10-2016 04:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7664)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:

It doesn't produce more of it, no. But it increases the amount of energy striking the surface, and decreases the amount of energy leaving the Earth system.


This violates the 2nd LoT. You can't make hot coffee with ice.


No, but insulating the coffee mug can result in the neighboring ice being warmer than it otherwise would be.


Insulation does not make ice warmer.


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 04:29
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Sorry, I meant colder. Insulating the coffee mug can result in the neighboring ice being colder than it otherwise would be, since it's not receiving as much of the heat from the mug.
11-10-2016 11:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7664)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Sorry, I meant colder. Insulating the coffee mug can result in the neighboring ice being colder than it otherwise would be, since it's not receiving as much of the heat from the mug.


Insulting the ice does not make it colder either.


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 12:26
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Insulating the mug from the ice! It prevents as much thermal energy from being transferred to the ice!
11-10-2016 16:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
jwoodward48 wrote: I'm sorry, IB, but I don't get the way that you use domains. Could you explain how to do so?

I don't "use" them. I adhere to them. You don't want to. Apparently you believe that not adhering to domains is your ticket to rendering physics "not applicable."

It's your use of domains that is peculiar.


jwoodward48 wrote: You don't get to redefine assertion.

...and I won't.


jwoodward48 wrote: Stefan-Boltzmann really, really doesn't apply.

Amen, brother!


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-10-2016 17:56
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: I'm sorry, IB, but I don't get the way that you use domains. Could you explain how to do so?

I don't "use" them. I adhere to them. You don't want to. Apparently you believe that not adhering to domains is your ticket to rendering physics "not applicable."

It's your use of domains that is peculiar.


jwoodward48 wrote: You don't get to redefine assertion.

...and I won't.


jwoodward48 wrote: Stefan-Boltzmann really, really doesn't apply.

Amen, brother!


You left something out there.

It says how much energy will be radiated at the surface, not how much energy will escape the atmosphere. You do agree that the atmosphere affects the outgoing radiation.. right?


You seem to think that "statement, then explanation" is an assertion when it comes from me, while "statement, no explanation, then insult" is a valid argument when it comes from you.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
11-10-2016 18:09
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
jwoodward48 wrote:You seem to think that "statement, then explanation" is an assertion when it comes from me, while "statement, no explanation, then insult" is a valid argument when it comes from you.

Um, no.

Stefan-Boltzmann still applies.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-10-2016 18:41
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
1. Assertion.
2. Evasion.
11-10-2016 18:42
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
jwoodward48 wrote: 1. Assertion.
2. Evasion.

Are you constructing a list of words you don't understand?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-10-2016 21:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7664)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Insulating the mug from the ice! It prevents as much thermal energy from being transferred to the ice!


True, but that does not make the ice colder.


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 22:19
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: 1. Assertion.
2. Evasion.

Are you constructing a list of words you don't understand?


.


You are not backing up your claims. You are just saying things, with no explanation or proof or experimental observation.

You are not answering my question. You are doing something else that is not answering my question.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
11-10-2016 22:19
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Insulating the mug from the ice! It prevents as much thermal energy from being transferred to the ice!


True, but that does not make the ice colder.


Not over time, but compared to no-insulation, the ice is colder.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
11-10-2016 22:22
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
jwoodward48 wrote:Not over time, but compared to no-insulation, the ice is colder.

What if compare the ice to GDP? Will the ice think the US sucks?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-10-2016 23:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7664)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: 1. Assertion.
2. Evasion.

Are you constructing a list of words you don't understand?


.


You are not backing up your claims. You are just saying things, with no explanation or proof or experimental observation.

You are not answering my question. You are doing something else that is not answering my question.


I don't have to back up my claims with anything other than the laws of thermodynamics. If you want the history of how those laws came to be, I suggest you go look it up (on something better than wikipedia).


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 23:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7664)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Insulating the mug from the ice! It prevents as much thermal energy from being transferred to the ice!


True, but that does not make the ice colder.


Not over time, but compared to no-insulation, the ice is colder.


No, the ice is not made colder by insulation, no matter how much time you want to use.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 00:11
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: 1. Assertion.
2. Evasion.

Are you constructing a list of words you don't understand?


.


You are not backing up your claims. You are just saying things, with no explanation or proof or experimental observation.

You are not answering my question. You are doing something else that is not answering my question.


I don't have to back up my claims with anything other than the laws of thermodynamics. If you want the history of how those laws came to be, I suggest you go look it up (on something better than wikipedia).


You need to explain how the LoT leads to your statement.

"Unicorns exist, because of the 1st LoT." Wrong, right?
"Energy cannot be created, because of the 1st LoT." Just restating the 1st LoT.
"Perpetual motion machines cannot produce usable energy, because of the 1st LoT." Now we're getting somewhere!

The difference between the first and the last is that you can logically derive the last, but not the first, from the 1st LoT. Show that your statements are of the last type, and not the first.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 00:13
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Insulating the mug from the ice! It prevents as much thermal energy from being transferred to the ice!


True, but that does not make the ice colder.


Not over time, but compared to no-insulation, the ice is colder.


No, the ice is not made colder by insulation, no matter how much time you want to use.


Yes, it is. If I have two nearly-identical scenarios, with a coffee mug and ice next to it, but...

1. In Scenario A the coffee mug is not very insulative.
2. In Scenario B the coffee mug is replaced with a thermos.
3. In Scenario C state-of-the-art insulation is placed between the coffee and the ice.

Are you claiming that the ice will be at the same temperature at equal t in all scenarios? (That is, at t=0, all scenarios have IceT= 270K. At t=100, all scenarios have IceT= 300K.) Or will they have different temperatures? If so, which scenario has the coldest ice?

Edit: "no matter how much time you want to use"

You still don't understand. These three systems are separate. Distinct. Not the same ice at different t. Different ice at the same t.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
Edited on 12-10-2016 00:14
12-10-2016 00:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7664)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Insulating the mug from the ice! It prevents as much thermal energy from being transferred to the ice!


True, but that does not make the ice colder.


Not over time, but compared to no-insulation, the ice is colder.


No, the ice is not made colder by insulation, no matter how much time you want to use.


Yes, it is. If I have two nearly-identical scenarios, with a coffee mug and ice next to it, but...

1. In Scenario A the coffee mug is not very insulative.
2. In Scenario B the coffee mug is replaced with a thermos.
3. In Scenario C state-of-the-art insulation is placed between the coffee and the ice.

Are you claiming that the ice will be at the same temperature at equal t in all scenarios? (That is, at t=0, all scenarios have IceT= 270K. At t=100, all scenarios have IceT= 300K.) Or will they have different temperatures? If so, which scenario has the coldest ice?

Edit: "no matter how much time you want to use"

You still don't understand. These three systems are separate. Distinct. Not the same ice at different t. Different ice at the same t.


Attempting to contrive your way out of your basic problem again?

The ice is not made colder by insulation. The coffee is not made warmer by the ice.

You just don't get the 2nd law of thermodynamics, do you?


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 01:15
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
You keep asserting that.

The ice is colder in the situation with insulation than the situation without.

The space is colder in the situation with GHG than the situation without.

In addition, your ice/coffee analogy is flawed - it's an isolated system. The Earth is not. We have energy coming in. In the ice/coffee analogy, slowed cooling is just that - the coffee's cooling is slower. In the Earth system, since inflow and outflow are normally balanced, decreasing the latter increases the temperature.
12-10-2016 01:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7664)
jwoodward48 wrote:
You keep asserting that.

Because you keep asserting the opposite.
jwoodward48 wrote:
The ice is colder in the situation with insulation than the situation without.

No.
jwoodward48 wrote:
The space is colder in the situation with GHG than the situation without.

No.
jwoodward48 wrote:
In addition, your ice/coffee analogy is flawed - it's an isolated system.

True.
jwoodward48 wrote:
The Earth is not.

Just as isolated.
jwoodward48 wrote:
We have energy coming in. In the ice/coffee analogy, slowed cooling is just that - the coffee's cooling is slower. In the Earth system, since inflow and outflow are normally balanced, decreasing the latter increases the temperature.

This is a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. You can't get energy out of a non-energy substance such as CO2.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 10:26
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
You keep asserting that.

Because you keep asserting the opposite.

I am providing an explanation. You are not.
jwoodward48 wrote:
The ice is colder in the situation with insulation than the situation without.

No.

If I stand outside an uninsulated house, I can feel the thermal energy being dissipated into the environment, and I am warmer. If I stand outside an insulated house, I cannot, and I am not.

Do you dispute that insulation lessens the flow of energy from warmer to cooler?
jwoodward48 wrote:
The space is colder in the situation with GHG than the situation without.

No.

Until we have reached an agreement on the coffee cup, this can't be discussed, so I'm leaving it for now.
jwoodward48 wrote:
In addition, your ice/coffee analogy is flawed - it's an isolated system.

True.

Thank you -
jwoodward48 wrote:
The Earth is not.

Just as isolated.

*sigh*

Into, an isolated system is one which has no energy or matter entering or leaving it. Notably, a steady-state system with equal inflow and outflow is not an isolated system.
jwoodward48 wrote:
We have energy coming in. In the ice/coffee analogy, slowed cooling is just that - the coffee's cooling is slower. In the Earth system, since inflow and outflow are normally balanced, decreasing the latter increases the temperature.

This is a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. You can't get energy out of a non-energy substance such as CO2.
[/quote]
No, it is not. It is a redirection of the energy. This does not create energy, but rather results in more energy striking the surface, and less energy escaping.

In the coffee analogy, the energy is going through the insulation, but the insulation is not the source of energy.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 15:35
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
jwoodward48 wrote:Do you dispute that insulation lessens the flow of energy from warmer to cooler?

Do you assert that any substance can prevent/hinder/restrain/block either its own thermal radiation or the thermal radiation of another substance?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-10-2016 16:07
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Yes. This is called emissivity. The emissivity of a system can be affected by the composition of the bodies within it.
12-10-2016 21:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7664)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
You keep asserting that.

Because you keep asserting the opposite.

I am providing an explanation. You are not.

I have provided numerous and extensive explanations. You are making the argument of the Stone.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The ice is colder in the situation with insulation than the situation without.

No.

If I stand outside an uninsulated house, I can feel the thermal energy being dissipated into the environment, and I am warmer. If I stand outside an insulated house, I cannot, and I am not.

Do you dispute that insulation lessens the flow of energy from warmer to cooler?

No. I dispute the ice gets any colder as a result of it.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The space is colder in the situation with GHG than the situation without.

No.

Until we have reached an agreement on the coffee cup, this can't be discussed, so I'm leaving it for now.

You can't. It is the example of why you can't warm a warmer surface with a colder gas. I will keep bringing it up.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
In addition, your ice/coffee analogy is flawed - it's an isolated system.

True.

Thank you -
jwoodward48 wrote:
The Earth is not.

Just as isolated.

*sigh*

Into, an isolated system is one which has no energy or matter entering or leaving it. Notably, a steady-state system with equal inflow and outflow is not an isolated system.

The Sun-Earth-Space system is an isolated system, even more isolated than the ice in the coffee.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
We have energy coming in. In the ice/coffee analogy, slowed cooling is just that - the coffee's cooling is slower. In the Earth system, since inflow and outflow are normally balanced, decreasing the latter increases the temperature.

This is a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. You can't get energy out of a non-energy substance such as CO2.

No, it is not. It is a redirection of the energy. This does not create energy, but rather results in more energy striking the surface, and less energy escaping.
[/quote]
That violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. More energy is not striking the surface and being absorbed.
jwoodward48 wrote:
In the coffee analogy, the energy is going through the insulation, but the insulation is not the source of energy.

You can't make hot coffee with ice.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 22:12
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
You keep asserting that.

Because you keep asserting the opposite.

I am providing an explanation. You are not.

I have provided numerous and extensive explanations. You are making the argument of the Stone.

You're arguing from assertion. Link to one. Just one.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The ice is colder in the situation with insulation than the situation without.

No.

If I stand outside an uninsulated house, I can feel the thermal energy being dissipated into the environment, and I am warmer. If I stand outside an insulated house, I cannot, and I am not.

Do you dispute that insulation lessens the flow of energy from warmer to cooler?

No. I dispute the ice gets any colder as a result of it.

Over time, the ice gets warmer. Compared to the other scenario, the ice is warmer.

The outflow of energy from a body can be lessened, right?
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The space is colder in the situation with GHG than the situation without.

No.

Until we have reached an agreement on the coffee cup, this can't be discussed, so I'm leaving it for now.

You can't. It is the example of why you can't warm a warmer surface with a colder gas. I will keep bringing it up.

The gas itself would not warm the Earth if the Sun was not always supplying more energy. This is not an isolated system.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
In addition, your ice/coffee analogy is flawed - it's an isolated system.

True.

Thank you -
jwoodward48 wrote:
The Earth is not.

Just as isolated.

*sigh*

Into, an isolated system is one which has no energy or matter entering or leaving it. Notably, a steady-state system with equal inflow and outflow is not an isolated system.

The Sun-Earth-Space system is an isolated system, even more isolated than the ice in the coffee.


But we aren't measuring the temperature of space or the Sun. We're only looking at the Earth system and its temperature, and that's not isolated.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
We have energy coming in. In the ice/coffee analogy, slowed cooling is just that - the coffee's cooling is slower. In the Earth system, since inflow and outflow are normally balanced, decreasing the latter increases the temperature.

This is a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. You can't get energy out of a non-energy substance such as CO2.

No, it is not. It is a redirection of the energy. This does not create energy, but rather results in more energy striking the surface, and less energy escaping.

That violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. More energy is not striking the surface and being absorbed.[/quote]
How does that violate the 2nd?
jwoodward48 wrote:
In the coffee analogy, the energy is going through the insulation, but the insulation is not the source of energy.

You can't make hot coffee with ice.
[/quote]
Actually, compared to being surrounded by 1K helium, being surrounded by ice results in a slower cooling. And you keep using an isolated-system analogy. That's flawed.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
13-10-2016 02:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7664)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
You keep asserting that.

Because you keep asserting the opposite.

I am providing an explanation. You are not.

I have provided numerous and extensive explanations. You are making the argument of the Stone.

You're arguing from assertion. Link to one. Just one.

Why? You'll just ignore it like you are now.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The ice is colder in the situation with insulation than the situation without.

No.

If I stand outside an uninsulated house, I can feel the thermal energy being dissipated into the environment, and I am warmer. If I stand outside an insulated house, I cannot, and I am not.

Do you dispute that insulation lessens the flow of energy from warmer to cooler?

No. I dispute the ice gets any colder as a result of it.

Over time, the ice gets warmer. Compared to the other scenario, the ice is warmer.

The outflow of energy from a body can be lessened, right?
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The space is colder in the situation with GHG than the situation without.

No.

Until we have reached an agreement on the coffee cup, this can't be discussed, so I'm leaving it for now.

You can't. It is the example of why you can't warm a warmer surface with a colder gas. I will keep bringing it up.

The gas itself would not warm the Earth if the Sun was not always supplying more energy. This is not an isolated system.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
In addition, your ice/coffee analogy is flawed - it's an isolated system.

True.

Thank you -
jwoodward48 wrote:
The Earth is not.

Just as isolated.

*sigh*

Into, an isolated system is one which has no energy or matter entering or leaving it. Notably, a steady-state system with equal inflow and outflow is not an isolated system.

The Sun-Earth-Space system is an isolated system, even more isolated than the ice in the coffee.


But we aren't measuring the temperature of space or the Sun. We're only looking at the Earth system and its temperature, and that's not isolated.

It effectively is. The Sun is assumed to be unchanging (amazing, for a star of this magnitude), and space IS unchanging. Kirchhoff's laws allow this form of isolation to be used, since all energy entering the Earth leaves it in equal amounts.

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
We have energy coming in. In the ice/coffee analogy, slowed cooling is just that - the coffee's cooling is slower. In the Earth system, since inflow and outflow are normally balanced, decreasing the latter increases the temperature.

This is a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. You can't get energy out of a non-energy substance such as CO2.

No, it is not. It is a redirection of the energy. This does not create energy, but rather results in more energy striking the surface, and less energy escaping.

That violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. More energy is not striking the surface and being absorbed.

How does that violate the 2nd?[/quote] You are trying to warm a warmer surface using a colder substance. You are trying to make hot coffee with ice.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
In the coffee analogy, the energy is going through the insulation, but the insulation is not the source of energy.

You can't make hot coffee with ice.

Actually, compared to being surrounded by 1K helium, being surrounded by ice results in a slower cooling. And you keep using an isolated-system analogy. That's flawed.[/quote]
Not flawed you are contriving different conditions and calling them the same conditions. That's the fallacy of moving the goalposts.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 03:50
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
You keep asserting that.

Because you keep asserting the opposite.

I am providing an explanation. You are not.

I have provided numerous and extensive explanations. You are making the argument of the Stone.

You're arguing from assertion. Link to one. Just one.

Why? You'll just ignore it like you are now.

"I don't have to actually support any of my assertions, because you're a close-minded religious warmizombie." Yeah, that'd really convince most people.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The ice is colder in the situation with insulation than the situation without.

No.

If I stand outside an uninsulated house, I can feel the thermal energy being dissipated into the environment, and I am warmer. If I stand outside an insulated house, I cannot, and I am not.

Do you dispute that insulation lessens the flow of energy from warmer to cooler?

No. I dispute the ice gets any colder as a result of it.

Over time, the ice gets warmer. Compared to the other scenario, the ice is warmer.

The outflow of energy from a body can be lessened, right?
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The space is colder in the situation with GHG than the situation without.

No.

Until we have reached an agreement on the coffee cup, this can't be discussed, so I'm leaving it for now.

You can't. It is the example of why you can't warm a warmer surface with a colder gas. I will keep bringing it up.

The gas itself would not warm the Earth if the Sun was not always supplying more energy. This is not an isolated system.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
In addition, your ice/coffee analogy is flawed - it's an isolated system.

True.

Thank you -
jwoodward48 wrote:
The Earth is not.

Just as isolated.

*sigh*

Into, an isolated system is one which has no energy or matter entering or leaving it. Notably, a steady-state system with equal inflow and outflow is not an isolated system.

The Sun-Earth-Space system is an isolated system, even more isolated than the ice in the coffee.


But we aren't measuring the temperature of space or the Sun. We're only looking at the Earth system and its temperature, and that's not isolated.

It effectively is. The Sun is assumed to be unchanging (amazing, for a star of this magnitude), and space IS unchanging. Kirchhoff's laws allow this form of isolation to be used, since all energy entering the Earth leaves it in equal amounts.

The Sun isn't assumed to be unchanging, but it simplifies the equations and whatnot to make the input constant. Space is most definitely not unchanging. If I stuck another star next to the Sun, you'd have twice the radiation flowing through space. The result of the GHE is that there is less radiation in space.

Kirchhoff's only works on equal frequencies; if a body absorbs one wavelength of radiation and emits another, these need not be the same absorbance/emissivity.

Besides, here's Kirchhoff's: "For a body of any arbitrary material emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature. That universal function describes the perfect black-body emissive power."

Note the two disclaimers. The second is the most important, as far as I can see; you are committing the fallacy of circular logic. To apply Kirchhoff's, you must assume or demonstrate that the body is in thermodynamic equilibrium; if you use Kirchhoff's to prove that the body must be in thermodynamic equilibrium, then no shit, Sherlock! You started with that assumption!
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
We have energy coming in. In the ice/coffee analogy, slowed cooling is just that - the coffee's cooling is slower. In the Earth system, since inflow and outflow are normally balanced, decreasing the latter increases the temperature.

This is a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. You can't get energy out of a non-energy substance such as CO2.

No, it is not. It is a redirection of the energy. This does not create energy, but rather results in more energy striking the surface, and less energy escaping.

That violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. More energy is not striking the surface and being absorbed.

How does that violate the 2nd?
You are trying to warm a warmer surface using a colder substance. You are trying to make hot coffee with ice.[/quote]
You are ignoring that there are two sources of energy, not one. If I place coffee next to a heat lamp, and place either 1K ice or 300K ice next to the coffee, which will result in a warmer equilibrium temperature for the coffee?
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
In the coffee analogy, the energy is going through the insulation, but the insulation is not the source of energy.

You can't make hot coffee with ice.

Actually, compared to being surrounded by 1K helium, being surrounded by ice results in a slower cooling. And you keep using an isolated-system analogy. That's flawed.

Not flawed you are contriving different conditions and calling them the same conditions. That's the fallacy of moving the goalposts.[/quote]
No, it's not. I assume that these "different conditions" are the "1K surroundings" and "300K surroundings." Into, do you understand the concept of scientific tests? These different conditions are in essence the same, except that the independent variable (temperature of surroundings) has been changed. I do not say that they are the same - far from it! I say that changing the independent variable will result in a change in the dependent variable (temperature of coffee).

As for the "flawed" comment, I am pointed out the flaws of an analogy using an isolated system to represent the Earth and its atmosphere.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
13-10-2016 04:02
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
jwoodward48 wrote:"I don't have to actually support any of my assertions, because you're a close-minded religious warmizombie." Yeah, that'd really convince most people.

He's not the one who needs to convince anyone of anything. He's not the one trying to sell a WACKY religion as "thettled thience."

You keep trying to shift your burden of proof.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-10-2016 04:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7664)
jwoodward48 wrote:
The Sun isn't assumed to be unchanging, but it simplifies the equations and whatnot to make the input constant. Space is most definitely not unchanging. If I stuck another star next to the Sun, you'd have twice the radiation flowing through space. The result of the GHE is that there is less radiation in space.

You stuck another star next to the sun??? Where did you get the mass for THAT? Oh...wait...there IS NO STAR NEXT TO THE SUN!




jwoodward48 wrote:
Kirchhoff's only works on equal frequencies; if a body absorbs one wavelength of radiation and emits another, these need not be the same absorbance/emissivity.

An atom that absorbs a frequency will emit on the same frequency, if it emits at all (or on a lower frequency, if something sucks the energy out of the atom before it emits, if it does).


jwoodward48 wrote:
Besides, here's Kirchhoff's: "For a body of any arbitrary material emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature. That universal function describes the perfect black-body emissive power."

Note the two disclaimers. The second is the most important, as far as I can see; you are committing the fallacy of circular logic. To apply Kirchhoff's, you must assume or demonstrate that the body is in thermodynamic equilibrium; if you use Kirchhoff's to prove that the body must be in thermodynamic equilibrium, then no shit, Sherlock! You started with that assumption!


The Earth IS in thermal equilibrium. There is no other source of energy, and space does not change.


jwoodward48 wrote:
You are trying to warm a warmer surface using a colder substance. You are trying to make hot coffee with ice.

You are ignoring that there are two sources of energy, not one. If I place coffee next to a heat lamp, and place either 1K ice or 300K ice next to the coffee, which will result in a warmer equilibrium temperature for the coffee?

You are making hot coffee with a heat lamp.

You cannot make hot coffee with ice.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 13-10-2016 04:26
13-10-2016 04:26
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:"I don't have to actually support any of my assertions, because you're a close-minded religious warmizombie." Yeah, that'd really convince most people.

He's not the one who needs to convince anyone of anything. He's not the one trying to sell a WACKY religion as "thettled thience."

You keep trying to shift your burden of proof.


.


The point of a debate is that you support your position. A good way of doing this is to derive your point from laws, rules, facts, etc. A bad way of doing this is to insult your opponent and insist that they are idiots, and can't make a good argument, and that you are definitely right.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate A "challenge" for you, IB and Into:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
2020 Hackaday Challenge1909-05-2019 21:17
White House eyes nuclear weapons expert to lead challenge to climate science019-04-2019 19:15
Scientific Challenge8304-08-2017 02:03
GREAT ENERGY CHALLENGE GRANT PROJECT COMPLETED003-01-2014 06:44
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact