I'm not quite so sure, though

jwoodward48 wrote:
It's a thought experiment.

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.

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.

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.

jwoodward48 wrote:
There are no formulas involved, only basic thermodynamical laws.

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.

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.

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.)

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.


.

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).

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.

jwoodward48 wrote:
There IS enough information to say that the temperature would increase.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Did you not read my seesaw example?

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.

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.

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.

jwoodward48 wrote:The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not state that increasing the radiation from a cooler object cannot heat up a warmer object.

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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?


.

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?

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:

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

jwoodward48 wrote:"You are claiming that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics means that AGW cannot be happening."

jwoodward48 wrote:Quibbling, semantics. You claim that the 2nd LoT is violated by the GH effect.

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.

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.