Remember me
▼ Content

I'm not quite so sure, though



Page 3 of 4<1234>
29-09-2016 18:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
jwoodward48 wrote: Is this the explanation? I don't see any explanation in there.

It is part of it, yes, in conjuction with my explanation (and acknowledgement) that some high-energy particles do manage to go the other way and that some electrons flow against the direction of electricity, ...and all in conjuction with Into the Night's explanations that you claimed to not have grasped, ...

...that all amount to a logical fallacy of weaseling to get around the 2nd LoT.

Your fallacy works this way:

Step 1: You notice that the fukcing 2nd LoT is a majorly inconvenient pain in the asss to the holy Global Warming dogma.

Step 2: You feign being in kumbayah with science by correctly stating that the 2nd LoT states that energy flows from warmer temperatures to cooler temperatures.

Step 3: You turn on the weasel. You state that in your case, yes, the "net flow" is from warmer to cooler *BUT* that there are clearly examples of when the opposite happens.

Step 4: You confidently conclude that the 2nd LoT does NOT apply in your situation.

Step 5: You resume with other arguments that violate the 2nd LoT now that it has been shown that the 2nd LoT doesn't apply in this case.

I don't wait for it to get to this point. The moment I read "net flow" I immediately know that I'm in the midst of the above weaseling attempt and I get the hell out. I'm gone. I'm off doing more productive things. Notice that my dust has not even settled. I'll let others explain if they are so inclined.


.


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
29-09-2016 18:33
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But your use of the 2nd LoT is incorrect! Why won't you acknowledge my analogies?

Let's imagine that only radiation exists, and that all objects have equal emissivities. If I stand next to a warmer thing, its radiation to me will exceed my radiation to it. If I stand next to a same-temperature thing, the radiation to and from me will be equal. If I stand next to a cooler thing, the radiation from me to it will exceed the radiation from it to me.

Now let us be warmed by a constant source of energy. If I stand next to a radiationless vacuum, I will lose energy and get none back. If I stand next to a warm object, I will lose energy at the same rate, but get more back than I lose. If I stand next to a cool object, I will lose energy at the same rate, but get back some energy, albeit at a lesser rate than the loss.

What part of this do you dispute?
29-09-2016 21:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
But your use of the 2nd LoT is incorrect!
His use of the 2nd LoT IS correct. Go look it up.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Why won't you acknowledge my analogies?
He already explained that. Go read his post again.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Let's imagine that only radiation exists, and that all objects have equal emissivities.
Why?
jwoodward48 wrote:
If I stand next to a warmer thing, its radiation to me will exceed my radiation to it. If I stand next to a same-temperature thing, the radiation to and from me will be equal. If I stand next to a cooler thing, the radiation from me to it will exceed the radiation from it to me.

Now let us be warmed by a constant source of energy. If I stand next to a radiationless vacuum, I will lose energy and get none back. If I stand next to a warm object, I will lose energy at the same rate, but get more back than I lose. If I stand next to a cool object, I will lose energy at the same rate, but get back some energy, albeit at a lesser rate than the loss.

What part of this do you dispute?


What part of the 2nd LoT is so complicated to you?


The Parrot Killer
29-09-2016 21:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
jwoodward48 wrote: But your use of the 2nd LoT is incorrect! Why won't you acknowledge my analogies?

Let's start with "Do you have a point?"

jwoodward48 wrote: What part of this do you dispute?

No part do I dispute.

I'm still waiting for you (or anyone else, I'm not singling you out) to use that as a starting point and then move to "...but over here in my example, sure, the 'net flow' is in one direction BUT there is some moving in the opposite direction, completely AGAINST what the 2nd LoT states, which is why is doesn't apply in my example.

That's when I bail.


.


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
29-09-2016 22:03
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Ah. I was referring to the net flow of radiation, not heat. Heat never flows "uphill", but radiation can - just not enough to heat the warmer thing, on its own, above the temperature of the origin of the radiation.
29-09-2016 22:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Ah. I was referring to the net flow of radiation, not heat. Heat never flows "uphill", but radiation can - just not enough to heat the warmer thing, on its own, above the temperature of the origin of the radiation.


Radiation flows?


The Parrot Killer
29-09-2016 23:18
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Oh, for Pete's sake. Radiation can travel from a cooler object to a warmer object. Pedantry over?
30-09-2016 00:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
jwoodward48 wrote:Oh, for Pete's sake. Radiation can travel from a cooler object to a warmer object. Pedantry over?


Is a "net flow" imminent?


.


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
30-09-2016 00:30
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
FOR ****'S SAKE

Do you or do you not deny the fact that radiation can travel from a cooler to a warmer object? Give a yes-or-no answer, and we can debate what the implications are later.
30-09-2016 02:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
jwoodward48 wrote:
FOR ****'S SAKE

Do you or do you not deny the fact that radiation can travel from a cooler to a warmer object? Give a yes-or-no answer, and we can debate what the implications are later.

FFS, I'm right, aren't I? A "net flow" is at the ready to be unfurled, isn't 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
30-09-2016 02:35
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
That is not a yes/no answer.
30-09-2016 02:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
jwoodward48 wrote: That is not a yes/no answer.

Well then just go ahead... give us your "net flow" - > "2nd LoT doesn't apply" argument and get it out of your system.


.


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
30-09-2016 16:05
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Would you rather stand in space or in a cool room?
30-09-2016 17:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
... just let me know when you can't hold it any longer ... "net flow" ...
30-09-2016 17:43
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
So the 2nd LoT says that things cannot heat up? Really?
30-09-2016 20:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
So the 2nd LoT says that things cannot heat up? Really?


?? Who's saying that?


The Parrot Killer
30-09-2016 20:32
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.
30-09-2016 21:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
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.


It can't. It is not nonsense. It is a requirement of the 2nd LoT.

For heat to flow backwards allows the construction of a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 30-09-2016 21:14
30-09-2016 21:48
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Not heat. RADIATION.
30-09-2016 22:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Not heat. RADIATION.


Radiation does not flow. It just is.

It is one method of heating, but it too is bound by the same laws of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer
01-10-2016 00:00
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Radiation can travel from cooler things to warmer things. Increasing that flux increases the temperature of whatever the radiation strikes.
01-10-2016 03:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Radiation can travel from cooler things to warmer things. Increasing that flux increases the temperature of whatever the radiation strikes.

Let's get to it. I know you are dying to make your "net flow" argument. Come on, let's have 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
01-10-2016 16:45
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Just to make entirely sure I understand your position, you claim that a change in the temperature of a radiating body cannot change the temperature of a warmer body receiving radiation from the former body, right? Don't want to spend half an hour writing up a refutation of a straw man.
01-10-2016 18:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
It would be great if some people provided indications as to whom their questions were directed.


It would be great if some people were to hit the "quote" button and include some quoted text to point to the main point.


What a wonderful world it would be.


.
01-10-2016 21:05
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IB, just to make entirely sure I understand your position, you claim that a change in the temperature of a radiating body cannot change the temperature of a warmer body receiving radiation from the former body, right? Don't want to spend half an hour writing up a refutation of a straw man.
01-10-2016 23:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Radiation can travel from cooler things to warmer things. Increasing that flux increases the temperature of whatever the radiation strikes.


You are describing heat. Then you are trying to redefine radiation as heat. Like any heat, it must conform to the 2nd LoT.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 01-10-2016 23:01
01-10-2016 23:14
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
It does not matter how energy is transferred from one object to another, the point is the energy is transferred.
02-10-2016 03:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote:It does not matter how energy is transferred from one object to another, the point is the energy is transferred.

Then just use the correct words. If you want to express that energy is transferred then write that energy is transferred and don't write about something else.

And when you read something, understand it for the words that are written, not for words you wish were there, e.g. if you read that the ice mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet accumulation is 2% per decade, don't understand that as a 2% increase in seasonal snowfall.

I hope that helps.


.


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
02-10-2016 21:15
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Let's imagine an experiment.

There are three bodies: on the left, a body of high and constant emission and temperature; the heat source. On the right, a body of low temperature, which may or may not be 0K; the heat sink. In the middle, the body that we are concerned with. The independent variable in this setup is the temperature of the heat sink, while the dependent variable is the temperature of the middle body. My hypothesis is that there is a positive correlation between the two variables.

1st Scenario: The temperature of the "heat sink" is 0K - it will absorb all energy that strikes it, yet none will be emitted. We measure the temperature of the middle body to be 300K as a result of the radiation from the left body.

2nd Scenario: The temperature of the "heat sink" is 200K. There is now more energy flowing into the middle body than in Scenario 1, as energy is coming from the left as before, but now energy is also coming from the right. What would the temperature be?
Edited on 02-10-2016 21:16
02-10-2016 21:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Let's imagine an experiment.

There are three bodies: on the left, a body of high and constant emission and temperature; the heat source. On the right, a body of low temperature, which may or may not be 0K; the heat sink. In the middle, the body that we are concerned with. The independent variable in this setup is the temperature of the heat sink, while the dependent variable is the temperature of the middle body. My hypothesis is that there is a positive correlation between the two variables.

1st Scenario: The temperature of the "heat sink" is 0K - it will absorb all energy that strikes it, yet none will be emitted. We measure the temperature of the middle body to be 300K as a result of the radiation from the left body.

2nd Scenario: The temperature of the "heat sink" is 200K. There is now more energy flowing into the middle body than in Scenario 1, as energy is coming from the left as before, but now energy is also coming from the right. What would the temperature be?


Insufficient information. The answer is unspecified.


The Parrot Killer
02-10-2016 22:35
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Sorry. I meant "what will happen to the temperature"? Up, down, same?
02-10-2016 23:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Sorry. I meant "what will happen to the temperature"? Up, down, same?


Still insufficient information. The problem is also based on a context switch when you arbitrarily change the heat sink.

Even with sufficient information for calculating the middle body, it wouldn't mean anything.


The Parrot Killer
03-10-2016 00:10
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
...what's a context switch? I only know of the computery meaning.

Besides, I'm only trying to show that changing the radiation from a cooler object can change the temperature of a warmer object.

How about this: if I surrounded the Earth with a 200K background radiation, would the Earth heat up?
03-10-2016 13:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
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.



.


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
03-10-2016 14:37
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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?
03-10-2016 14:43
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I do not have enough information to specify that. I have enough information (energy inflow increased, outflow the same) to state that the temperature is greater, though I do not know how much by.
03-10-2016 21:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
...what's a context switch? I only know of the computery meaning.
That's the one you switched.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Besides, I'm only trying to show that changing the radiation from a cooler object can change the temperature of a warmer object.
You are contriving an apparatus that does not exist to prove that what does exist doesn't work.
jwoodward48 wrote:
How about this: if I surrounded the Earth with a 200K background radiation, would the Earth heat up?


How about you give up with trying to build nonsensical apparatus to prove a nonsensical point?


The Parrot Killer
03-10-2016 21:03
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
It's a thought experiment.
03-10-2016 21:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
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.


The Parrot Killer
03-10-2016 21:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
I do not have enough information to specify that. I have enough information (energy inflow increased, outflow the same) to state that the temperature is greater, though I do not know how much by.


Then you're guessing.


The Parrot Killer
Page 3 of 4<1234>





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