Remember me
▼ Content

I'm not quite so sure, though



Page 4 of 4<<<234
03-10-2016 21:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
jwoodward48 wrote:
It's a thought experiment.


The apparatus I am discussing is part of that thought experiment. Nothing has changed.


The Parrot Killer
03-10-2016 21:06
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
If I am sitting on one end of a seesaw, and an elephant sits down at the same distance from the center, I do not know how imbalanced the seesaw will be. I do know that I will rise.
03-10-2016 21:10
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
It's a thought experiment.


The apparatus I am discussing is part of that thought experiment. Nothing has changed.


You say it's ridiculous. I say that it's a thought experiment, and so it doesn't matter if it's ridiculous. You say "nothing has changed". How is that a rebuttal? Answer my question: would the Earth heat up?


"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!
03-10-2016 21:12
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: My hypothesis is that there is a positive correlation between the two variables.

You are familiar with math, yes?

Write out the equation that expresses the relationship you believe exists.

Why should he? It's obvious from logical argument that there will be an increase, even though it takes a bit a maths to calculate exactly what that increase will be.

If I tell you you'll hit the ground if you jump off a cliff, will you also demand that I calculate precisely how fast you'll hit the ground before you believe me?


It is not a logical argument. It's a mathematical one.

If he is going to specify some kind of mathematical relationship, showing the formula in use and how it's derived only makes sense.


I am logically showing that there will be an increase in temperature. There are no formulas involved, only basic thermodynamical laws.


"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!
03-10-2016 21:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: My hypothesis is that there is a positive correlation between the two variables.

You are familiar with math, yes?

Write out the equation that expresses the relationship you believe exists.

Why should he? It's obvious from logical argument that there will be an increase, even though it takes a bit a maths to calculate exactly what that increase will be.

If I tell you you'll hit the ground if you jump off a cliff, will you also demand that I calculate precisely how fast you'll hit the ground before you believe me?


It is not a logical argument. It's a mathematical one.

If he is going to specify some kind of mathematical relationship, showing the formula in use and how it's derived only makes sense.


I am logically showing that there will be an increase in temperature.
Logic is not involved here. Math is.
jwoodward48 wrote:
There are no formulas involved, only basic thermodynamical laws.

This sentence denies itself.


The Parrot Killer
03-10-2016 22:32
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
There is not a mathematical formula used. Merely statements like "if incoming radiation increases, temperature increases, all else being equal." These are based on laws and math, but their use does not require math.
04-10-2016 00:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
jwoodward48 wrote:
There is not a mathematical formula used. Merely statements like "if incoming radiation increases, temperature increases, all else being equal." These are based on laws and math, but their use does not require math.


You are posing a mathematical problem and saying you don't have to use math to solve it.


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2016 01:08
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
It's mathematical in the sense of numbers.

If I have a balanced scale, and I put a rock on one end, will the scale tilt?

In your answer, do you need to specify formulas, or just rules about scales? (Some of those rules may be based on math, but as IB says about models, they don't need math [or observation, as IB says] in their use.)
04-10-2016 02:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5183)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IB's saying that a change in the radiation received from a cooler object cannot induce a rise in the temperature of a warmer object. Nonsense.

Would you kindly point to the post in which I wrote that?

Thanks in advance.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
04-10-2016 03:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
jwoodward48 wrote:
It's mathematical in the sense of numbers.

If I have a balanced scale, and I put a rock on one end, will the scale tilt?

In your answer, do you need to specify formulas, or just rules about scales? (Some of those rules may be based on math, but as IB says about models, they don't need math [or observation, as IB says] in their use.)


You are evading. You can solve your own math problem (I assume). This is your model, after all.

Since you are talking solely about radiation, simply apply the square inverse law of light, and the S-B equation to your surfaces (you get to assign the emissivity!).

Then you can just show everyone the math you did. Watch out for errors of assumption, such as context change! You'll probably get called on it!

A basic error you are making is assuming that space has a practical temperature.

Since you are looking at it from purely from a radiation standpoint, you can treat space as 2.7 deg K. (the 'temperature' of the background radiation).


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2016 03:55
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
IB's saying that a change in the radiation received from a cooler object cannot induce a rise in the temperature of a warmer object. Nonsense.

Would you kindly point to the post in which I wrote that?

Thanks in advance.


.


The statements that IB has said lead to the statement which I listed above.


"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!
04-10-2016 03:56
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
It's mathematical in the sense of numbers.

If I have a balanced scale, and I put a rock on one end, will the scale tilt?

In your answer, do you need to specify formulas, or just rules about scales? (Some of those rules may be based on math, but as IB says about models, they don't need math [or observation, as IB says] in their use.)


You are evading. You can solve your own math problem (I assume). This is your model, after all.

Since you are talking solely about radiation, simply apply the square inverse law of light, and the S-B equation to your surfaces (you get to assign the emissivity!).

Then you can just show everyone the math you did. Watch out for errors of assumption, such as context change! You'll probably get called on it!

A basic error you are making is assuming that space has a practical temperature.

Since you are looking at it from purely from a radiation standpoint, you can treat space as 2.7 deg K. (the 'temperature' of the background radiation).


I did no math. There is insufficient information to deduce the exact temperature. We would need, at the very least, the distances between each body.

There IS enough information to say that the temperature would increase.

Did you not read my seesaw example?


"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!
04-10-2016 04:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
It's mathematical in the sense of numbers.

If I have a balanced scale, and I put a rock on one end, will the scale tilt?

In your answer, do you need to specify formulas, or just rules about scales? (Some of those rules may be based on math, but as IB says about models, they don't need math [or observation, as IB says] in their use.)


You are evading. You can solve your own math problem (I assume). This is your model, after all.

Since you are talking solely about radiation, simply apply the square inverse law of light, and the S-B equation to your surfaces (you get to assign the emissivity!).

Then you can just show everyone the math you did. Watch out for errors of assumption, such as context change! You'll probably get called on it!

A basic error you are making is assuming that space has a practical temperature.

Since you are looking at it from purely from a radiation standpoint, you can treat space as 2.7 deg K. (the 'temperature' of the background radiation).


I did no math. There is insufficient information to deduce the exact temperature. We would need, at the very least, the distances between each body.

Very good. You're getting there. Now the question becomes why is that?
jwoodward48 wrote:
There IS enough information to say that the temperature would increase.

No.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Did you not read my seesaw example?


I did. Is also makes some rash assumptions, even about the see-saw. You might not rise when the elephant sits down on it, even assuming the fulcrum and the beam can take the weight, and even assuming the fulcrum is between you and the elephant.

There is actually a math formula for such things. It's commonly used in vehicles moving through fluid mediums like air or water, but it can also affect land vehicles (especially trailers!). It's a big part of what determines the stability of a car you drive.

In aircraft, the fulcrum is the center of aerodynamic pressure (typically about 1/3 of the chord of a wing, where the spar is located.

In boats the fulcrum is the center hydrodynamic pressure on the hull. This includes submarines.

In sailboats, you have an additional aerodynamic center of pressure on the sails to figure in, even for a square rigged ship. This is beyond the fulcrums caused by fixed masts, booms, and spars.

In trailers and cars, the fulcrum is the center of drag caused by the wheels.

You will find see-saws everywhere. It's important to understand exactly how they work when designing any vehicle.

Works for bridges and buildings too.

In each case, you must calculate the center of mass against the fulcrum. That's the math you are ignoring and making some rash assumptions because of it. Only this way can you determine which way the see-saw will tip and how fast it will do so.

I use this formula all the time. If I ignored it like you just did, people would die.


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2016 04:57
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
If there is a balanced scale, and I unbalance it, it will move. This is always true. But refuting an analogy is a waste of time. That's not the point.

If all else is kept the same, and the energy coming into a body is increased, the temperature of said body will increase.
04-10-2016 13:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5183)
jwoodward48 wrote:If all else is kept the same, and the energy coming into a body is increased, the temperature of said body will increase.

Excellent. Set up the bait-n-switch.

You are clearly desperate to supplant Stefan-Boltzmann with your physics-violating model of "greenhouse effect," i.e. replace the science you deny with the religion you crave.

Your first step (what you're doing here) is to establish an increase in energy coming into earth ("the system") which, in reality, translates into violation of the 1st LoT. Your setup is good. You just talk about this "increase in energy" hypothetically, just waiting for the right time to state "Well that's what is happening."

Awesome. Don't let me interrupt you. Let's see if Into the Night falls for it.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
04-10-2016 14:24
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I am showing that your use of the second law is incorrect. This is NOT an analogy for the Earth. I have stated this already.
04-10-2016 23:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
jwoodward48 wrote:
If there is a balanced scale, and I unbalance it, it will move. This is always true. But refuting an analogy is a waste of time. That's not the point.

If all else is kept the same, and the energy coming into a body is increased, the temperature of said body will increase.


What energy has increased that isn't due to you changing the conditions of the thought experiment?


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2016 23:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
jwoodward48 wrote:
I am showing that your use of the second law is incorrect. This is NOT an analogy for the Earth. I have stated this already.


The only you have shown is that you like to switch contexts and call it a legitimate violation of the 2nd LoT.

I really don't get the point of your whole exercise.


The Parrot Killer
05-10-2016 00:17
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Legitimate... violation? It's not a violation at all. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not state that increasing the radiation from a cooler object cannot heat up a warmer object.

The exercise is to show you that your statement that "the 2nd LoT disproves AGW" is false.
05-10-2016 00:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5183)
jwoodward48 wrote:The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not state that increasing the radiation from a cooler object cannot heat up a warmer object.

Doesn't the 2nd LoT also not state that whenever peanut butter changes form, there is some quantity of people who become useless?

It's crucial we focus on what the 2nd LoT does not say.

jwoodward48 wrote:The exercise is to show you that your statement that "the 2nd LoT disproves AGW" is false.

I'd be interested in learning in which post Into the Night wrote that assertion...

...or are you misrepresenting his position?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
05-10-2016 00:33
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not state that increasing the radiation from a cooler object cannot heat up a warmer object.

Doesn't the 2nd LoT also not state that whenever peanut butter changes form, there is some quantity of people who become useless?

It's crucial we focus on what the 2nd LoT does not say.


No, the 2nd LoT doesn't say that. You've gone off the deep end, sir. Keep watching for the scorpions from Saturn, they'll be sending you a message any time now. Good bye.



jwoodward48 wrote:The exercise is to show you that your statement that "the 2nd LoT disproves AGW" is false.

I'd be interested in learning in which post Into the Night wrote that assertion...

...or are you misrepresenting his position?


.[/quote]

Oh, for ****'s sake. You two've been claiming all sorts of violations! The 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Planck's, S-B! You're really going to deny that one of you has ever stated that AGW violates the 2nd?


"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!
05-10-2016 00:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5183)
IBdaMann wrote: Doesn't the 2nd LoT also not state that whenever peanut butter changes form, there is some quantity of people who become useless?


jwoodward48 wrote:No, the 2nd LoT doesn't say that.

Do we need to revist the reading comprehension?


IBdaMann wrote: Oh, for ****'s sake. You two've been claiming all sorts of violations! The 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Planck's, S-B! You're really going to deny that one of you has ever stated that AGW violates the 2nd?

OK, reading comprehension it is.

I destroy your feeble attempts to render "greenhouse effect" falsifiable. Without "greenhouse effect" your WACKY AGW religion becomes embarrassingly ridiculous.

Being a religion, though, I can't prove it false.

Let me know if you need me to go over any of this.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
05-10-2016 01:01
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: Doesn't the 2nd LoT also not state that whenever peanut butter changes form, there is some quantity of people who become useless?


jwoodward48 wrote:No, the 2nd LoT doesn't say that.

Do we need to revist the reading comprehension?


I assumed that you were making sense. It's like when you see a black 3 of hearts. You subconsciously change something. I subconsciously preserved your perceived sanity; be glad.

It's crucial we focus on what the 2nd LoT does not say.


See? You had a "say A, point out how A is ridiculous, then say how B is an alternative" thing going.

...oh, you were being sarcastic? Damn internet tone removal.


IBdaMann wrote: Oh, for ****'s sake. You two've been claiming all sorts of violations! The 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Planck's, S-B! You're really going to deny that one of you has ever stated that AGW violates the 2nd?

OK, reading comprehension it is.

I destroy your feeble attempts to render "greenhouse effect" falsifiable. Without "greenhouse effect" your WACKY AGW religion becomes embarrassingly ridiculous.

Being a religion, though, I can't prove it false.

Let me know if you need me to go over any of this.


This isn't reading comprehension. Let's go over what I said:

"You are claiming that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics means that AGW cannot be happening."

What did you say in response?

"[complimentary insult] The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics means that the GH Effect cannot be happening [which means that AGW cannot be happening]."

Yup, just another "refutation by repeated what I said" argument. You'll do anything to be able to insult people.


"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!
05-10-2016 01:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Legitimate... violation? It's not a violation at all. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not state that increasing the radiation from a cooler object cannot heat up a warmer object.
Yes it does. It states exactly that.
jwoodward48 wrote:
The exercise is to show you that your statement that "the 2nd LoT disproves AGW" is false.

It is not false, dumbass. It applies...all the time...in all places.

You cannot make hot coffee with ice!


The Parrot Killer
05-10-2016 01:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not state that increasing the radiation from a cooler object cannot heat up a warmer object.

Doesn't the 2nd LoT also not state that whenever peanut butter changes form, there is some quantity of people who become useless?

It's crucial we focus on what the 2nd LoT does not say.

jwoodward48 wrote:The exercise is to show you that your statement that "the 2nd LoT disproves AGW" is false.

I'd be interested in learning in which post Into the Night wrote that assertion...

...or are you misrepresenting his position?


.


He is misrepresenting my position.

As you already know, you cannot falsify a non-falsifiable theory.


The Parrot Killer
05-10-2016 01:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not state that increasing the radiation from a cooler object cannot heat up a warmer object.

Doesn't the 2nd LoT also not state that whenever peanut butter changes form, there is some quantity of people who become useless?

It's crucial we focus on what the 2nd LoT does not say.


No, the 2nd LoT doesn't say that. You've gone off the deep end, sir. Keep watching for the scorpions from Saturn, they'll be sending you a message any time now. Good bye.



jwoodward48 wrote:The exercise is to show you that your statement that "the 2nd LoT disproves AGW" is false.

IBdaMann wrote:
I'd be interested in learning in which post Into the Night wrote that assertion...

...or are you misrepresenting his position?


.


Oh, for ****'s sake. You two've been claiming all sorts of violations! The 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Planck's, S-B! You're really going to deny that one of you has ever stated that AGW violates the 2nd?

A warming globe does not violate anything. It is the teachings of the Church of Global Warming (and you as a result of them) that violate these laws, ya bullheaded rock.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-10-2016 01:18
05-10-2016 01:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: Doesn't the 2nd LoT also not state that whenever peanut butter changes form, there is some quantity of people who become useless?


jwoodward48 wrote:No, the 2nd LoT doesn't say that.

Do we need to revist the reading comprehension?


I assumed that you were making sense. It's like when you see a black 3 of hearts. You subconsciously change something. I subconsciously preserved your perceived sanity; be glad.

It's crucial we focus on what the 2nd LoT does not say.


See? You had a "say A, point out how A is ridiculous, then say how B is an alternative" thing going.

...oh, you were being sarcastic? Damn internet tone removal.


IBdaMann wrote: Oh, for ****'s sake. You two've been claiming all sorts of violations! The 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Planck's, S-B! You're really going to deny that one of you has ever stated that AGW violates the 2nd?

OK, reading comprehension it is.

I destroy your feeble attempts to render "greenhouse effect" falsifiable. Without "greenhouse effect" your WACKY AGW religion becomes embarrassingly ridiculous.

Being a religion, though, I can't prove it false.

Let me know if you need me to go over any of this.


This isn't reading comprehension. Let's go over what I said:
It is, ****.
jwoodward48 wrote:
"You are claiming that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics means that AGW cannot be happening."

What did you say in response?

"[complimentary insult] The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics means that the GH Effect cannot be happening [which means that AGW cannot be happening]."

Yup, just another "refutation by repeated what I said" argument. You'll do anything to be able to insult people.

You deserve any and all insults you get, ingrate.


The Parrot Killer
05-10-2016 01:43
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Legitimate... violation? It's not a violation at all. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not state that increasing the radiation from a cooler object cannot heat up a warmer object.
Yes it does. It states exactly that.
jwoodward48 wrote:
The exercise is to show you that your statement that "the 2nd LoT disproves AGW" is false.

It is not false, dumbass. It applies...all the time...in all places.

You cannot make hot coffee with ice!


See? The point of disagreement. Let's test your claims. This is why I was doing thought experiments.


"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!
05-10-2016 01:44
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not state that increasing the radiation from a cooler object cannot heat up a warmer object.

Doesn't the 2nd LoT also not state that whenever peanut butter changes form, there is some quantity of people who become useless?

It's crucial we focus on what the 2nd LoT does not say.

jwoodward48 wrote:The exercise is to show you that your statement that "the 2nd LoT disproves AGW" is false.

I'd be interested in learning in which post Into the Night wrote that assertion...

...or are you misrepresenting his position?


.


He is misrepresenting my position.

As you already know, you cannot falsify a non-falsifiable theory.


Quibbling, semantics. You claim that the 2nd LoT is violated by the GH effect.


"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!
05-10-2016 01:45
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not state that increasing the radiation from a cooler object cannot heat up a warmer object.

Doesn't the 2nd LoT also not state that whenever peanut butter changes form, there is some quantity of people who become useless?

It's crucial we focus on what the 2nd LoT does not say.


No, the 2nd LoT doesn't say that. You've gone off the deep end, sir. Keep watching for the scorpions from Saturn, they'll be sending you a message any time now. Good bye.



jwoodward48 wrote:The exercise is to show you that your statement that "the 2nd LoT disproves AGW" is false.

IBdaMann wrote:
I'd be interested in learning in which post Into the Night wrote that assertion...

...or are you misrepresenting his position?


.


Oh, for ****'s sake. You two've been claiming all sorts of violations! The 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Planck's, S-B! You're really going to deny that one of you has ever stated that AGW violates the 2nd?

A warming globe does not violate anything. It is the teachings of the Church of Global Warming (and you as a result of them) that violate these laws, ya bullheaded rock.


You are claiming that the GH effect violates laws. I specified AGW.


"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 05-10-2016 01:45
05-10-2016 01:46
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: Doesn't the 2nd LoT also not state that whenever peanut butter changes form, there is some quantity of people who become useless?


jwoodward48 wrote:No, the 2nd LoT doesn't say that.

Do we need to revist the reading comprehension?


I assumed that you were making sense. It's like when you see a black 3 of hearts. You subconsciously change something. I subconsciously preserved your perceived sanity; be glad.

It's crucial we focus on what the 2nd LoT does not say.


See? You had a "say A, point out how A is ridiculous, then say how B is an alternative" thing going.

...oh, you were being sarcastic? Damn internet tone removal.


IBdaMann wrote: Oh, for ****'s sake. You two've been claiming all sorts of violations! The 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Planck's, S-B! You're really going to deny that one of you has ever stated that AGW violates the 2nd?

OK, reading comprehension it is.

I destroy your feeble attempts to render "greenhouse effect" falsifiable. Without "greenhouse effect" your WACKY AGW religion becomes embarrassingly ridiculous.

Being a religion, though, I can't prove it false.

Let me know if you need me to go over any of this.


This isn't reading comprehension. Let's go over what I said:
It is, ****.
jwoodward48 wrote:
"You are claiming that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics means that AGW cannot be happening."

What did you say in response?

"[complimentary insult] The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics means that the GH Effect cannot be happening [which means that AGW cannot be happening]."

Yup, just another "refutation by repeated what I said" argument. You'll do anything to be able to insult people.

You deserve any and all insults you get, ingrate.


What am I ungrateful for? Oh, here's a bit of mangled science. Thank you, kitty. (Ew.) See? I'm very grateful.


"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!
05-10-2016 05:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5183)
jwoodward48 wrote:"You are claiming that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics means that AGW cannot be happening."

No. I specifically stated several times that AGW is unfalsifiable and that I cannot therefore prove it false.

How many times do you need that written?

I destroy your attempts to render "greenhouse effect" falsifiable.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
05-10-2016 05:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5183)
jwoodward48 wrote:Quibbling, semantics. You claim that the 2nd LoT is violated by the GH effect.

So you don't see any difference between AGW and "greenhouse effect"?

That's very interesting.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
05-10-2016 15:24
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
AGW can only be explained by the GHE. The GHE would imply AGW. They're functionally equivalent in terms of disproving one or both.
05-10-2016 22:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
jwoodward48 wrote:
AGW can only be explained by the GHE. The GHE would imply AGW. They're functionally equivalent in terms of disproving one or both.


How do you anything is warming at all?


The Parrot Killer
05-10-2016 23:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5183)
jwoodward48 wrote: AGW can only be explained by the GHE. The GHE would imply AGW. They're functionally equivalent in terms of disproving one or both.

Do you therefore not see a difference between addition and integral calculus?

Addition is the basis for integral calculus. Addition can be used to explain the principle of integral calculus. Disproving addition would disprove integral calculus.

Does that make them functionally equivalent?

In any event, I perceive a difference and I find it interesting that you do not.

Perhaps I should create a thread for this topic. Yes, I think so.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
05-10-2016 23:26
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Thermometers.
Page 4 of 4<<<234





Join the debate I'm not quite so sure, though:

Remember me

▲ 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