Remember me
▼ Content

The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect"



Page 1 of 6123>>>
The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect"04-10-2015 02:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
This thread will serve as a repository and discussion of the science of the "Greenhouse Effect."

The rules:

1) Anything claimed to be "science" must be supported with the corresponding falsifiable model that resides in the current body of science.

1a) Papers and "studies" don't qualify as science, even if they are said to be "peer reviewed" ...or even "poor reviewed" ...because anyone can write a paper.

2) You must directly answer questions that are asked about your science (no dodges, no evasion) and answers to questions that are not asked don't count as answers

2a) Wikipedia citations and other non-authoritative sources don't count as "answers"

So who will start this show?


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
04-10-2015 02:59
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
What you are proposing is an oxymoron. Evidence is the bedrock of science; an argument without the facility to reference evidence is not a scientific argument. You might as well challenge someone to a game of tennis but forbid the use of racquets.
04-10-2015 05:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Surface Detail wrote: What you are proposing is an oxymoron.

That's exactly kind of excuse I was expecting. Look, if you have no science then just don't post any. Easy.

Surface Detail wrote: Evidence is the bedrock of science;

I hate to have to once again raise the issue of inability to discern religion from science but you have religion and science confused again.

"Evidence" is the stuff of religion. Evidence is used to provide an interpretation that something might be true. That's why all religions claim that "all the evidence" supports the "truth" of their dogmas.

The scientific method, on the other hand, seeks only to show falsifiable models to be false. The scientific method cares nothing for "evidence" that something might be true, but will gladly utilize anything that shows the model to be false. That's basically what experiments are, i.e. finely tailored attempts to show a derived hypothesis, and thus its model, to be false.

If one experiment fails to show a model false, the next one might. That's why there is no such thing as "settled science."

Anyway, the scientific method cares nothing for any quantity of subjective opinions. So when you hear about "all the evidence" and the "overwhelming consensus" then you know you have a religion on your hands.


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
04-10-2015 14:49
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
You seem extremely confused about the nature of science and religion.

Religion is essentially faith-based. While the adherents of a religion may sometimes claim that certain pieces of evidence support their beliefs, such evidence is not required for belief. The only requirement for religious belief is faith.

Science, on the other hand, is utterly dependent on evidence in the form of experimental results and controlled observations of the natural world. The theories and models that form the body of our scientific knowledge must be compatible with all the relevant controlled observations and must, as you say, be falsifiable by experiment or observation.

As evidence accumulates in support of a theory or model, a scientific consensus will form that it is a good representation of reality within the scope of its validity. This does not mean that the theory cannot be disproved by evidence. Einstein's theory of general relativity, for example, is supported by so much evidence that it has achieved consensus. However, if one piece of evidence were found that could not be accommodated by the theory, then the theory would have to be scrapped or modified accordingly.

But what counts as evidence? Scientific evidence is evidence that has been obtained in a scientifically controlled fashion using reproducible methods. Since anyone can post any old crap on the web forums and the like, these are often not good sources of scientific evidence. Papers that have been peer reviewed have at least passed basic quality control, though this is of course no guarantee of their correctness.

Because evidence is so central to science and scientific discussion, it is pointless to attempt to discuss science in any meaningful fashion with reference to authoritative (in general, peer reviewed) sources of information. The most you're going to achieve without evidence is some sort of hand-wavey philosophical or theological argument.
04-10-2015 16:31
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hello IBdaMann,

I applaud you for being such a staunch supporter of Karl Popper's concepts surrounding falsification as the demarcation between science and non-science. Keeping in mind that there are many other useful and thought provoking models which have been, and continue to be used in science (i.e. - classical, pragmatic, inductive, deductive, etc. - choose your poison *), I would love to participate in this exercise you have proposed.

Given the rules you have stated above, it would be most helpful to myself and others if you would begin this process by providing several examples of the kinds of statements which do follow your rules, and also several examples of statements which do not follow your rules. Detailed explanations of why they fall within or outside of your requirements would be most enlightening. Also, if possible, focusing as many of these statements as you can on climate science (regardless of whether it be theology or true science) will highly increase the educational value of your examples.

I look forward to your elucidating responses and, based upon what I learn from your pending statements, the opportunity to make my own future contributions to this thread.

* - Personally, one of my favorite tools of science, though arguably not a model in the strictest sense, is Occam's Razor (i.e. - the idea that you can only pile up so much bullshit before it collapses under it's own weight). That is why instead of Karl Popper, I prefer the KISS philosophy (Keep It Simple Stupid).
04-10-2015 19:45
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Hi trafn

I'm glad that you have joined in on this discussion, as you seem to know a lot about Karl Popper.

I myself have been doing some research on this too, and came across this really interesting blog post:

http://variable-variability.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/falsifiable-and-falsification-in-science.html

which lead me to another really interesting blog post:

https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/

The latter lists 10 ways in which anthropogenic global warmings is falsifiable. For me, the two that are most relevant to the greenhouse effect in particular are numbers 5 and 6.

5, states that warming of the stratosphere would falsify the greenhouse effect. Currently the stratosphere is cooling, as confirmed by measurements, which are presented in this report from the American Met Society (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2013BAMSStateoftheClimate.1). Greenhouse gases cause stratospheric cooling because they absorb and re-emit infrared in the troposphere in all directions, including downwards, which in turn is reducing the amount of infrared radiation heating the stratosphere (see: http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp).

6, points out that major errors in satellites that measure Earth's outgoing infrared would also falsify the greenhouse effect. The satellite data currently show that Earth's outgoing IR is significantly reduced at wavelengths that coincide with the main greenhouse gas absorption spectra. If these measurements could be shown to be wrong, then this would also disprove the greenhouse effect.

I also thought some of the preceeding text by Hans Custers was very interesting, so I have copied it here:

"First, a few more things about falsifiability in general. Bart wrote a concise post about the subject four years ago, explaining that a bird in the sky does not disprove gravity. What looks like a refutation at first, might on second thoughts be based on partial or total misunderstanding of the hypothesis. Natural climate forcings and variations do not exclude human impacts. Therefore, the existence of these natural factors in itself, cannot falsify anthropogenic climate change. A real skeptic is cautious about both scientific evidence and refutations. 'Climate change skeptics' like to mention the single black swan, that disproves the hypothesis that all swans are white. Of course that is true, unless that single black swan appears to be found near some oil spill."

"It is not very easy to find options to falsify the science of human impacts on climate. Not because climate scientists don't respect philosophical principles of science, but simply because there's such a huge amount of evidence. There are not a lot of findings that would disprove all the evidence at once. A scientific revolution of this magnitude only happens very rarely. Whoever thinks differently, doesn't understand how science works."

"Even more, the claim 'The AGW hypothesis is unfalsifiable' demonstrates a lack of understanding of Popper's ideas, in which falsifiability is so important. I don't think Popper's philosophy implies that some three word hypothesis – Anthropogenic Global Warming – can be rejected by nothing but a few simple claims. Popper would expect a more serious intellectual effort from a scientist. First, he will have to find an accurate wording for his hypothesis. The next step is some thorough thinking about the consequences. This will help him to design tests that can either support or falsify his idea. If, in the end, the result of the test appears to be worthwhile, the scientist will write a paper on this whole enterprise."

"As a matter of fact, the 'AGW-hypothesis' is not a hypothesis in the Popperian sense. The human impact on climate is a theory, supported by many hypotheses, each of them tested according to widely accepted scientific standards. Just as Popper and his successors in the philosophy of science would have wanted."


trafn - perhaps you could comment on these quotes?

I suppose that IBdaMann is now going to be upset because I am not following the 'rules'. However, it is very hard to have any sort of meaningful discussion, without showing where your information comes from, regardless of whether it is from white literature, or from a blog post.

IBdaMann - I am looking forward to the examples that trafn has requested, so that I might be able to figure out if I will be able to follow them or not.
05-10-2015 00:34
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi Climate Scientist,

Yes, I think Carl Popper, or "Ole Pops" as we liked to call him in my undergrad philosophy of science courses, would have agreed with everything in your post above. AGW is not a single hypothesis or theorem, it is a vast collection of thoroughly investigated and highly substantiated hypotheses and theorems, all of which support AGW. This is not to say that there aren't some conflictatory or paradoxical data floating about (like the fact that about 4% of the glaciers are actually getting larger while the remaining 96% are shrinking), but to cherry pick these minority circumstances as grounds for complete refutation of AGW would make Ole Pops falsify his own death just so he could come back to life and tell you how foolish it is to cherry pick.

Thank you for those citations and quotations. They are truly enlightening.

Now, I too await IBdaMann's examples.
05-10-2015 01:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
trafn wrote:Hello IBdaMann, I applaud you for being such a staunch supporter of Karl Popper's concepts surrounding falsification as the demarcation between science and non-science.

Let's take a moment to be clear on the semantics.

Falsifiability itself does not make science. Falsifiability is, however, an absolute requirement. Science is simply a collection of falsifiable models that help us predict nature. The scientific method accepts falsifiable models and tries to show them to be false.

Unfalsifiable assertions cannot be shown to be false, e.g. "God is real and active in our lives," and thus cannot even enter the scientific method, and thus can never enter the body of science.

There really is no other process for a model to become science.

trafn wrote: Given the rules you have stated above, it would be most helpful to myself and others if you would begin this process by providing several examples of the kinds of statements which do follow your rules, and also several examples of statements which do not follow your rules.

Sure. If I were to make a claim that I also were to insist is based on science, I would, at a minimum, be able to cite the falsifiable model from which I derived my hypothesis and explain the math/logic of my assertion.

Let's say that I were to claim that if you were to drop a hammer and a feather in a vacuum that they would hit the ground/floor at the same time, and let's further presume that we don't have the means, at present, to create the kind of vacuum environment needed to so drop a hammer and feather simultaneously. You might say "How did you come to this conclusion? You never created these conditions such that you ever made any such observation." I would respond that I drew my conclusion from, say, Newton's falsifiable model that G = g*(M1*M2)/(d^2) and that, as I believe, a vacuum would reduce drag/resistance to zero, the primary differing factor between between a hammer and a feather.

Now you, as a doubting, scrutinizing, questioning scientist would have all the inherent falsifiability presented that puts the burden on you to show is false. So you become an executor of the scientific method. It does no good for me to point to any quantity of other, differing observations as "evidence" that my hypothesis is true, but you can certainly use any observation to show that my hypothesis is false. In fact, all you need to do is find just one example in which Newton's equation does not hold, or show that a vacuum does not, in fact, reduce drag/resistance to zero, or you can even find someone to fund an experiment whereby you simultaneously drop a hammer or a feather in a vacuum and show that my hypothesis did not hold.

If you cannot show my falsifiable hypothesis to be false, that does not mean it is true, it just means that you and I can proceed on, for the present, presuming it to be true.

If an unfalsifiable assertion is presented, it can neither be shown to be false nor shown to be true, and anyone is free to simply dismiss it. The scientific method simply dismisses it and does not continue.

trafn wrote: * - Personally, one of my favorite tools of science, though arguably not a model in the strictest sense, is Occam's Razor

Excellent! A wise philosphy. One of the problems with Christianity that is superbly addressed by Occam's razor is the notion of an all magical being that just does miracles. This is far too complex a force to be explained. Occam's razor slices away the "God" explanation every time. Similarly, Occam's razor slices away the mystical, magical CO2-powered "Climate" miracles in favor of standard meteorological explanations for weather events.


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
05-10-2015 03:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Surface Detail wrote: You seem extremely confused about the nature of science and religion.

When you, of all people, start out a post like this, I don't need to read the rest (but I will) to know it's going to just be a non-value added waste of bandwidth.

Surface Detail wrote: Religion is essentially faith-based.

Religion is an unfalsifiable dogma used to motivate a population to behave in some socio-political manner, e.g. dress conservatively, ban abortion, pass carbon taxes, defeat the evil fossil fuel industry, pray five times per day, etc..

Surface Detail wrote: While the adherents of a religion may sometimes claim that certain pieces of evidence support their beliefs, such evidence is not required for belief. The only requirement for religious belief is faith.

So you see why Global Warming is a religion.

Surface Detail wrote: Science, on the other hand, is utterly dependent on evidence

False, unless you play very elastic semantic games with the definition of "evidence." I'm not in the mood to play games at the moment.

Evidence supporting the truth of a model has no role in science. Evidence of unfalsifiable dogmas is a big player in religions.

Surface Detail wrote: The theories and models that form the body of our scientific knowledge must be compatible with all the relevant controlled observations and must, as you say, be falsifiable by experiment or observation.

Yes, any observation, any measurement, anything whatsoever can be used to show a model is false. Evidence supporting the truth of a model has no role in science. So all the "evidence" supporting Global Warming isn't worth a proverbial hill of proverbial beans.

Surface Detail wrote: As evidence accumulates in support of a theory or model, a scientific consensus will form that it is a good representation of reality within the scope of its validity.

Maybe. Any amount of subjective opinion, or consensus, has zero role in science. Nazi Germany was as hateful and intolerant of anything coming from Einstein as Global Warming zealots are of science they don't appreciate, but it was still science in Nazi Germany as long as they couldn't falsify the falsifiable models. Darwin's theory was met with extreme religious hatred, akin to any modern Global Warming jihad, yet it was still science as the scientific method could not render it false.

Surface Detail wrote: Einstein's theory of general relativity, for example, is supported by so much evidence that it has achieved consensus.

This is nonsense. Einstein's falsifiable models still have been shown to be false. No amount of evidence supporting Einstein's models makes any difference to anything.

Surface Detail wrote: However, if one piece of evidence were found that could not be accommodated by the theory, then the theory would have to be scrapped or modified accordingly.

That's what I have been saying. Evidence in support of a model has no role in science.

Surface Detail wrote: But what counts as evidence?

This is just me but I take the forensics perspective on evidence. It needs to be empirical, i.e. observation, measurement, etc.. otherwise it is math or logic. Some consider math and logic to also be evidence. Choose whichever definition you want to use and state it up front.

Surface Detail wrote:Because evidence is so central to science and scientific discussion, it is pointless to attempt to discuss science in any meaningful fashion with reference to authoritative (in general, peer reviewed) sources of information. The most you're going to achieve without evidence is some sort of hand-wavey philosophical or theological argument.

Well, you are mistaken.


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
05-10-2015 05:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
trafn wrote: AGW is not a single hypothesis or theorem, it is a vast collection of thoroughly investigated and highly substantiated hypotheses and theorems, all of which support AGW.

Sorry, there is no falsifiable AGW model to "support," just as there is no falsifiable 'Word of God" for other science models to support.

If you think I'm mistaken, please post that fasifiable AGW model that you insist exists.

Oh, and no amount of "evidence" or "support" amounts to a hill of beans in science. There is no such thing as a falsifiable model "support group" whereby falsifiable models can get a sponsor and be "supported" into science-hood.

You need a falsifiable AGW model to have AGW science.

trafn wrote: but to cherry pick these minority circumstances as grounds for complete refutation of AGW

Just one observation or measurement that runs counter to something falsifiable is sufficient to render it false, no matter how that observation or measurement was chosen for presentation.

Warmazombie definition of "Cherry-Picking": That act of providing a valid, falsifying observations or measurements to a Global Warming assertion.


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
05-10-2015 10:30
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
IBdMann - you did not comment on my post yet. Do you have nothing to say about the two examples I described of how the greenhouse effect is falsifiable?

Here is another example:

In 1896, Arrhenius proposed that if atmospheric CO2 increased by 2.5-3 times, then Arctic temperatures would rise by 8-9 deg C.

This theory was not based on atmospheric measurements at the time, and is entirely falsifiable. Just because modern atmospheric measurements have not been able to prove Arrhenius wrong, does not mean that his theory is not falsifiable.

And now for a basic physics lesson on 1st LoT, from the I-physics text book, section 12.

"Thermal energy can be increased either by doing work, or by adding heat to a system. Thus, the total increase in the thermal energy of a system is the sum of the work done on it, and the heat added to it."

This is called the first Law of Thermodynamics, and is essentially the same as the Conservation of Energy, applied to thermal systems.

The equation for the 1st LoT is:

deltaQh = W + Ql, where W is the work done on the system, Ql is the heat added to a system, and deltaQh is the change in thermal energy.

It is easy to see from this equation that one does not require work to increase the thermal energy of the system. If W is 0, but Ql is not 0, then deltaQh will not be 0. Similarly, if Ql is 0, but W is not 0, then deltaQh will not be 0.

There are many examples of the 1st LoT in the real world, some of which show only heat being added to a system with no work done, and others that show work being done with no heat added.

For example:

If a person rubs their hands together, they are warmed, but they did not come into contact with a warmer body. This is an example of an increase in thermal energy resulting only from work done, with no heat added to the system.

A car engine, is an example of thermal energy being increased by the addition of heat only to a system, with no work done. A mixture of air and gasoline vapour is ignited to produce a very hot flame. Heat flows from the flame to the air inside the cylinder. The hot air expands, due to the increase in thermal energy of the system. This expanding air pushes on a piston, which converts the thermal energy into mechanical energy.

Another example would be heating up food using a gas hob. The thermal energy of the food increases because one adds heat (via the burning gas flame), not because there is any work done on the food.

So you see, there is plenty of technology in existence today, where thermal energy is increased by the addition of heat alone, without requiring any work to be done, and this technology is not in violation of the 1st LoT.

IBdaMann - you stated in another post that "You insist that energy is created without work being performed".

Firstly, I never stated that energy is created. The law of conservation of energy states that energy is never created or destroyed, but is instead transferred from one form to another.

Secondly, do you have any evidence/examples/reasoning to explain why you think that thermal energy can only be increased by work being done on a system?

Given the above explanation of 1st LoT, it is clear to see that the greenhouse effect does not violate the 1st LoT. As I stated before, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere emit infrared radiation upwards and downwards. The downwards radiation is absorbed by the Earth's surface. Therefore, via the 1st LoT, the Earth's surface warms. If the downwards radiation did not heat the Earth's surface, then this would be a violation of the 1st LoT, and the Law of Conservation of Energy.

As I have demonstrated, one does not require work to change the thermal energy of a system. Are you going to try and argue that cars and gas hobs, as well as numerous other technologies, which I have not described here, violate the 1st LoT?
05-10-2015 15:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
climate scientist wrote: Do you have nothing to say about the two examples I described of how the greenhouse effect is falsifiable?

I have already covered this. Only the falsifiable "Greenhouse Effect" model gets to say how it is falsifiable. You need to present the falsifiable Greenhouse Effect model for public scrutiny for people to see exactly how it is falsifiable.

That's the whole point of this thread, to post your falsifiable "Greenhouse Effect" model so we can discuss it.

climate scientist wrote: Here is another example:

Please, not a reference to Arrhenius!

climate scientist wrote:In 1896, Arrhenius proposed that if atmospheric CO2 increased by 2.5-3 times, then Arctic temperatures would rise by 8-9 deg C.

Arrhenius made a conjecture and it turns out his conjecture was mistaken. His assumption that CO2 has an effect on atmospheric temperature was wrong and thus discarded. That doesn't stop contemperary warmazombies from citing his mistaken conjecture while not mentioning that there's a reason we don't have any "Arrhenius Greenhouse Coefficients" in science today.

climate scientist wrote:And now for a basic physics lesson on 1st LoT, from the I-physics text book, section 12.

OK, I'll give you a lesson in thermodynamics. Heat is work. All heat is work, but not all work is heat. Many wordings of the 1st LoT like to distinguish heat as a special type of work so that it is specified for those applications specifically focusing on heat.

Ergo, it is perfectly fine to simplify and just say "Energy cannot increase unless work is performed." If you wish to be a little redundant for emphasis then you are free to say "Energy cannot increase unless work is performed or heat transfers."

1 US Therm = 1.055e+8 Joules
1 Kilocalorie = 4184 Joules
1 Erg = 1e-7 Joules

climate scientist wrote: This is called the first Law of Thermodynamics, and is essentially the same as the Conservation of Energy, applied to thermal systems.

Yes. You're getting there. Discussions with you are much better when you stay focused on science.

climate scientist wrote:
The equation for the 1st LoT is: deltaQh = W + Ql

This equation tells you that deltaQh is what you get if you don't specifically break out heat separately and just lump all work together.

climate scientist wrote:It is easy to see from this equation that one does not require work to increase the thermal energy of the system.

Yes, work is required, perhaps in the form of heat.

climate scientist wrote: IBdaMann - you stated in another post that "You insist that energy is created without work being performed".
Yes, that is your model as you described it. energy being created out of energy merely changing form (being absorbed, being radiated, etc.).

[quote]climate scientist wrote: Firstly, I never stated that energy is created.

Yes, you clearly specified an increase in temperature, which requires an increase in thermal energy. You also specified no other work being performed.

climate scientist wrote: The law of conservation of energy states that energy is never created or destroyed, but is instead transferred from one form to another.

Which is why your creation of energy by energy merely changing form is a violation of the 1st LoT. I clearly explained this many times, and every time you followed up insisting that I somehow never explained why. I wouldn't be surprised if you were to deny that I ever wrote this post.

climate scientist wrote: Secondly, do you have any evidence/examples/reasoning to explain why you think that thermal energy can only be increased by work being done on a system?

Total energy can only be increased by work being performed. Thermal energy can be increased by other energy changing form, e.g. absorption of electromagnetic energy.

climate scientist wrote: Given the above explanation of 1st LoT, it is clear to see that the greenhouse effect does not violate the 1st LoT.

Given your new understanding of "work" it should be clear to see that the "greenhouse effect" is a violation of the 1st LoT.


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
05-10-2015 17:12
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
"I have already covered this. Only the falsifiable "Greenhouse Effect" model gets to say how it is falsifiable. You need to present the falsifiable Greenhouse Effect model for public scrutiny for people to see exactly how it is falsifiable.

That's the whole point of this thread, to post your falsifiable "Greenhouse Effect" model so we can discuss it."


I did! Can you not read? Shall I post them again for you here?

5, states that warming of the stratosphere would falsify the greenhouse effect. Currently the stratosphere is cooling, as confirmed by measurements, which are presented in this report from the American Met Society (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2013BAMSStateoftheClimate.1). Greenhouse gases cause stratospheric cooling because they absorb and re-emit infrared in the troposphere in all directions, including downwards, which in turn is reducing the amount of infrared radiation heating the stratosphere (see: http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp).

6, points out that major errors in satellites that measure Earth's outgoing infrared would also falsify the greenhouse effect. The satellite data currently show that Earth's outgoing IR is significantly reduced at wavelengths that coincide with the main greenhouse gas absorption spectra. If these measurements could be shown to be wrong, then this would also disprove the greenhouse effect.

"Arrhenius made a conjecture and it turns out his conjecture was mistaken. His assumption that CO2 has an effect on atmospheric temperature was wrong and thus discarded. That doesn't stop contemperary warmazombies from citing his mistaken conjecture while not mentioning that there's a reason we don't have any "Arrhenius Greenhouse Coefficients" in science today."


Actually, current atmospheric measurements support his theory. He has not been proven wrong yet. But that is not the point. The point is that his theory/conjecture is falsifiable!

"Heat is work. All heat is work, but not all work is heat"


No!

Heat is the transfer of energy from one system to another by thermal interaction. Work is the transfer of energy by any means other than heat!

https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/textbooks/boundless-chemistry-textbook/thermochemistry-6/introduction-to-thermodynamics-58/heat-and-work-276-3605/

"This equation tells you that deltaQh is what you get if you don't specifically break out heat separately and just lump all work together. "


Um, no, the equation states that you can increase thermal energy either by an increase in heat, or by doing work, or by both together!

"Yes, you clearly specified an increase in temperature, which requires an increase in thermal energy"


But I never said that energy is created. The thermal energy increases because there is an increase in temperature caused by Earth's surface absorbing IR, which has been emitted downwards from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

"Which is why your creation of energy by energy merely changing form is a violation of the 1st LoT"


I am not saying that any energy is created. Thermal energy is increased due to the addition of heat.

"Total energy can only be increased by work being performed. Thermal energy can be increased by other energy changing form, e.g. absorption of electromagnetic energy."


Hang on a minute. Isn't this contradicting yourself? Above, you said that work has to be performed to increase thermal energy, and now you are saying that thermal energy can be increased from absorption of EM?! All along, I've been saying that thermal energy is increased because the Earth's surface absorbs IR. So now you are agreeing with me??? And why are you bringing up total energy anyway? We are discussing the 1st LoT, which is about thermal energy.

"Given your new understanding of "work" it should be clear to see that the "greenhouse effect" is a violation of the 1st LoT."


Your understanding of work (and physics in general) is flawed. As demonstrated clearly above.
05-10-2015 18:52
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
climate scientist wrote:
"I have already covered this. Only the falsifiable "Greenhouse Effect" model gets to say how it is falsifiable. You need to present the falsifiable Greenhouse Effect model for public scrutiny for people to see exactly how it is falsifiable.

That's the whole point of this thread, to post your falsifiable "Greenhouse Effect" model so we can discuss it."


I did! Can you not read? Shall I post them again for you here?

5, states that warming of the stratosphere would falsify the greenhouse effect. Currently the stratosphere is cooling, as confirmed by measurements, which are presented in this report from the American Met Society (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2013BAMSStateoftheClimate.1). Greenhouse gases cause stratospheric cooling because they absorb and re-emit infrared in the troposphere in all directions, including downwards, which in turn is reducing the amount of infrared radiation heating the stratosphere (see: http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp).

6, points out that major errors in satellites that measure Earth's outgoing infrared would also falsify the greenhouse effect. The satellite data currently show that Earth's outgoing IR is significantly reduced at wavelengths that coincide with the main greenhouse gas absorption spectra. If these measurements could be shown to be wrong, then this would also disprove the greenhouse effect.

"Arrhenius made a conjecture and it turns out his conjecture was mistaken. His assumption that CO2 has an effect on atmospheric temperature was wrong and thus discarded. That doesn't stop contemperary warmazombies from citing his mistaken conjecture while not mentioning that there's a reason we don't have any "Arrhenius Greenhouse Coefficients" in science today."


Actually, current atmospheric measurements support his theory. He has not been proven wrong yet. But that is not the point. The point is that his theory/conjecture is falsifiable!

"Heat is work. All heat is work, but not all work is heat"


No!

Heat is the transfer of energy from one system to another by thermal interaction. Work is the transfer of energy by any means other than heat!

https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/textbooks/boundless-chemistry-textbook/thermochemistry-6/introduction-to-thermodynamics-58/heat-and-work-276-3605/

"This equation tells you that deltaQh is what you get if you don't specifically break out heat separately and just lump all work together. "


Um, no, the equation states that you can increase thermal energy either by an increase in heat, or by doing work, or by both together!

"Yes, you clearly specified an increase in temperature, which requires an increase in thermal energy"


But I never said that energy is created. The thermal energy increases because there is an increase in temperature caused by Earth's surface absorbing IR, which has been emitted downwards from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

"Which is why your creation of energy by energy merely changing form is a violation of the 1st LoT"


I am not saying that any energy is created. Thermal energy is increased due to the addition of heat.

"Total energy can only be increased by work being performed. Thermal energy can be increased by other energy changing form, e.g. absorption of electromagnetic energy."


Hang on a minute. Isn't this contradicting yourself? Above, you said that work has to be performed to increase thermal energy, and now you are saying that thermal energy can be increased from absorption of EM?! All along, I've been saying that thermal energy is increased because the Earth's surface absorbs IR. So now you are agreeing with me??? And why are you bringing up total energy anyway? We are discussing the 1st LoT, which is about thermal energy.

"Given your new understanding of "work" it should be clear to see that the "greenhouse effect" is a violation of the 1st LoT."


Your understanding of work (and physics in general) is flawed. As demonstrated clearly above.


It's almost as funny as a Creationist claiming that evolution is false and insisting he understands the science, then says "humans can't have evolved from monkeys because monkeys still exist!"



05-10-2015 19:44
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi Everyone,

I have enjoyed participating on various threads over the past few weeks here on Cimate-Debate.com. It is wonderful to have a place where we can freely exchange ideas on this topic.

Unfortunately, some of the threads like this one have taken on negative overtones which no longer facilitate ongoing goodwill which is the foundation of this website. In cases such as this, I have decided that the best way to respond to such threads is by not responding to them at all and ceasing any further participation in them.

The reason I'm posting this is to let you know that instead of continuing participation here, I have created my own new thread, and I invite you to do the same. You can join my new thread at:

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-2-minute-warning-clock-on-climate-change-d6-e714.php

To assist in maintaining a welcoming and inclusive atmosphere on my thread, I'm going to suggest the following guidelines:

1. Please stay on topic. If you find my new thread inspires tangential ideas which you'd like to share with others, then create a new thread of your own for that purpose and post an invitation to it from my thread.

2. Please direct your critical posts/comments to the message and not the messenger (i.e. - anyone expressing themselves either on this website or outside of this website). Agreement is not required, but respect is requested.

3. Please avoid posting road blocks. Repetitive and redundant posts serve only to draw attention to oneself and create conflict.

Given I lack the capacity to take authoritative action, I cannot moderate my new thread. However, think of me like a janitor who aspires to maintain a welcoming environment for everyone.

If someone does not follow the thread's guidelines, I will post a request asking them to amend their post of concern. Should they refuse, then in the spirit of maintaining goodwill here I will contact the website administrator/moderator and ask that they intervene.

Should you find another participant violating these guidelines, I would ask that you not respond to them. Instead, if I have not already addressed your concerns by post in my new thread, please notify me so that I might do so immediately.

I look forward to your participation in my new thread and the opportunity to exchange ideas with you.

Sincerely,

Trafn
05-10-2015 20:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Climate Scientist wrote:I did! Can you not read? Shall I post them again for you here?

It's funny that you opened with a comment about an inability to read. I had explained, and you cited...

IB DaMann wrote:
Only the falsifiable "Greenhouse Effect" model gets to say how it is falsifiable. You need to present the falsifiable Greenhouse Effect model for public scrutiny for people to see exactly how it is falsifiable.

You have not posted the falsifiable "greenhouse effect" model in all its falsifiability. You do not get to speak for the model you won't produce.

Climate Scientist wrote: Actually, current atmospheric measurements support his theory.

He had no theory. He had a conjecture and he published guesstimates that would have sounded subjectively plausible had his conjecture been correct, and he fiddled with math to produce equations that would roughly approximate his guesstimates. Again, he had no theory. He was making guesses.

Then it became obvious that increases in atmospheric CO2 had zero effect on any sort of atmospheric temperature. There is definitively no statistical correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and any atmospheric temperatures anywhere, much less any proportional 125degK rise globally, bringing us surface temperatures in excess of 260degF (127degC) all over the planet.

So Arrheius publication got thrown into the trash. The only one's referring to it are warmazombies reaching for their church hymnal.

Climate Scientist wrote:No!
Heat is the transfer of energy from one system to another by thermal interaction. Work is the transfer of energy by any means other than heat!

You just repeated exactly what I wrote, except that you are insisting on breaking out heat as a special case for emphasis.

Work is the transfer of energy. All heat is work. Not all work is heat. That is the only reason you cannot claim the two terms are the same thing.

Let's run through some very basic fundamentals that really shouldn't have to be discussed, but in your case, are apparently necessary.

When units of measure can be interconverted, they necessarily apply to the same measure. For example, you can convert inches to meters. Why? Because they are both measures of distance. Milliliters can be converted to gallons because both are measures of volume. Meters cannot be converted to milliliters because they are not of the same measure.

Now, did you see the conversion values I listed for heat and work? I'll list them here for you again:

1 US Therm = 1.055e+8 Joules
1 Kilocalorie = 4184 Joules
1 Erg = 1e-7 Joules

"Heat" units and "Work" units can be interconverted. Do you understand why?

Climate Scientist wrote:Um, no, the equation states that you can increase thermal energy either by an increase in heat, or by doing work, or by both together!

I'm not going to explain addition to you nor what a sum is. You'll have to look that up yourself.

Climate Scientist wrote:But I never said that energy is created.

I'm not going to play your syntax games concerning which specific words you used or didn't use. In your model you specified an increase in temperature, which necessrily involves an increase in thermal energy. So yes you did.

You also specified no additional work being performed. So, yes again. You specified a creation of energy in violation of conservation of energy. I don't care what specific words you use to convey the violation.

Climate Scientist wrote:The thermal energy increases because there is an increase in temperature caused by Earth's surface absorbing IR, which has been emitted downwards from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Thank you. You are specifying no additional work being performed. You are specifying only energy changing form which performs no additional work, yet you are nonetheless specifying a miraculous increase in temperature.

Violation of the 1st LoT. Period.

Climate Scientist wrote: I am not saying that any energy is created. Thermal energy is increased due to the addition of heat.

...and you apparently don't know what "heat" means. (hint: it's work, check the above conversion values, and see how you don't have them in your model)


Climate Scientist wrote:Hang on a minute. Isn't this contradicting yourself?

No, it's not.

Climate Scientist wrote: Above, you said that work has to be performed to increase thermal energy,

Clue in on the words "total energy." The law of conservation of energy says that energy can change forms but the total energy remains the same. If all else is the same but thermal energy is somehow increased, then total energy is increased, and work needs to be performed somewhere in there to account for that increase in total energy.

Yes, fundamentalist or "mainstream" Global Warmers are like fundamentalist Christians. Their claims that CO2 can create heat miracles, and that the god "Climate" can perform weather miracles, is like a Christian claiming that a man miraculously rose from the dead to save us from our sins.


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
Edited on 05-10-2015 20:58
05-10-2015 20:30
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
You are quoting the wrong person again!
05-10-2015 21:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
climate scientist wrote:
You are quoting the wrong person again!

My apologies. Jumping around a bunch. thanks for pointing it out.


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
05-10-2015 21:52
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Wow, you posted something without insulting me!

Your previous post did not have any links or make any references to any source information. Can you please post some references or links to sources that support your statements about the 1st LoT? At this stage I'm not fussy - a physics textbook, wikipedia page, or blog post will do.
06-10-2015 01:01
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
climate scientist wrote:
Wow, you posted something without insulting me!

Your previous post did not have any links or make any references to any source information. Can you please post some references or links to sources that support your statements about the 1st LoT? At this stage I'm not fussy - a physics textbook, wikipedia page, or blog post will do.


Do you really want a link to a picture of his butt?



Edited on 06-10-2015 01:20
06-10-2015 04:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
climate scientist wrote: Your previous post did not have any links or make any references to any source information.

Not necessary. I did one even better. I posted the unit conversions right here in this thread for you. You are of course free to validate them but I saved you the trouble of having to look them up.

climate scientist wrote: Can you please post some references or links to sources that support your statements about the 1st LoT?

We can get to that, but I would appreciate answers to my straightforward and rather easy questions first.

Four (4) questions:

1) I asked you if you had noticed the unit conversions I posted. I even reposted them in case you missed them the first time. 2) I then asked you what they tell you. I'm now going to add two more because these get to the heart of this matter. 3) Did you, at any point while you were reading my post, come to realize that any example of heat that you could provide, I could nonetheless express in joules, i.e. as work? Finally, 4) what does that mean to you?


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
06-10-2015 10:21
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Four (4) questions:

1) I asked you if you had noticed the unit conversions I posted. I even reposted them in case you missed them the first time. 2) I then asked you what they tell you. I'm now going to add two more because these get to the heart of this matter. 3) Did you, at any point while you were reading my post, come to realize that any example of heat that you could provide, I could nonetheless express in joules, i.e. as work? Finally, 4) what does that mean to you?


Yes I noticed them.

They don't tell me anything that I didn't already know. A joule is the SI unit for energy, and all transfers of energy. It is obvious from deltaQh = W + Ql that work done, heat, and thermal energy can all be converted to the same units.

Just because you can express heat and work done in the same units does not make them the same. I can express CO2 and CO in micromol/mol, but this doesn't make them the same.

Your unit conversions have no bearing whatsoever on the statements that you have made.

Now stop evading my question, and post some source references and/or links to the following statements:

Heat is work. All heat is work, but not all work is heat


This equation tells you that deltaQh is what you get if you don't specifically break out heat separately and just lump all work together.


Energy cannot increase unless work is performed


Total energy can only be increased by work being performed


If all else is the same but thermal energy is somehow increased, then total energy is increased, and work needs to be performed somewhere in there to account for that increase in total energy.
06-10-2015 15:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
climate scientist wrote: Yes I noticed them.

They don't tell me anything that I didn't already know. A joule is the SI unit for energy, and all transfers of energy. It is obvious from deltaQh = W + Ql that work done, heat, and thermal energy can all be converted to the same units.

So you understand all the science you need to know, i.e the above and the 1st LoT, to understand that the "greenhouse effect" that you described is crap. So in the face of this I fully expect you to do everything possible to try to change the subject and to downplay the significance of the above. Since this is the main point of discussion, you can expect me to stay on track.

Let's review where we stand, lest we lose our place. You have presented a "greenhouse effect" that creates additional energy, specifically thermal energy in this case, without additional work being performed. You realize that the 1st LoT applies in all cases so you grabbed an English explanation of the 1st LoT and scrutinized the wording, noting that it emphasizes heat as a special case. Without realizing that heat is also work you argued that work was not required for adherence to the 1st LoT and that heat is not work. I provided you the conversion factors for therms and kilocalories to joules and ergs. That should have settled the matter, but clearly not when a dogma, and funding, is at stake.

So here's where we stand; you rest your defense of the "greenhouse effect" on your refusal to accept the standard science axiom that interconvertibility of units of measure implies the same measure. In science, millimeters can be converted to nautical miles because they are both measures of distance. Liters can be converted to gallons because they are both measures of volume. If the units of measure can be interconverted, they must be of the same measure.

But you say otherwise. You need to adhere to 1st LoT but you need for total energy to be able to be increased without additional work being performed, so you need for heat to be something other than work. I gave you the conversion values, telling you that heat is work. That's not what you want to hear. So your only option is to insist that interconvertibility of units of measure doesn't mean they measure the same thing.

That's where we stand. Read on.

climate scientist wrote: Just because you can express heat and work done in the same units does not make them the same.

So you stand against science. We cannot proceed. We will have to agree to disagree. I claim that interconvertibility of units of measure necessarily means they measure the same thing. I claim that you should be able to understand that basic arithmentic tells you that your deltaQh value is expressly the sum of all work when heat is not specifically broken out as a special case of work, i.e. the equation deltaQh = W + Ql tells you unambiguously in math, not English, but in math, that all heat is work, but not all work is heat. That is what that equation means.

But you say otherwise. Why? To defend your unfalsifiable dogma. If you're satisfied with your position, we can just agree that we are done.

climate scientist wrote: Your unit conversions have no bearing whatsoever on the statements that you have made.

So we're done?

climate scientist wrote: Now stop evading my question,

I haven't evaded anything. I have provided you the math. I have provided you the units of measure and conversion values.

So, are we done? Is this your final position on the "greenhouse effect"?


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
06-10-2015 15:32
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
No - I am not done. I have quoted the 1st LoT directly from a Physics textbook. You are still avoiding my question. I wouldn't have thought it was so hard for you. I will post it again:

Post some source references and/or links to the following statements:

Heat is work. All heat is work, but not all work is heat


This equation tells you that deltaQh is what you get if you don't specifically break out heat separately and just lump all work together.


Energy cannot increase unless work is performed


Total energy can only be increased by work being performed


If all else is the same but thermal energy is somehow increased, then total energy is increased, and work needs to be performed somewhere in there to account for that increase in total energy.


If you cannot do this simple task then you expose yourself as a fraud to everyone on this forum.
06-10-2015 16:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
climate scientist wrote: No - I am not done.

It certainly looks like you are, on this topic at least. As I predicted, you are going to try to change the subject. Watch how I don't let that happen.

climate scientist wrote: I have quoted the 1st LoT directly from a Physics textbook.

Great! That's exactly what we'll use.

climate scientist wrote: You are still avoiding my question.

I am avoiding nothing but your desperate attempt to change the subject.


climate scientist wrote: You are still avoiding my question. [...] I will post it again:

Post some source references and/or links to the following statements:

This is not a question. This is you stalling by demanding that I stop pressing the issue and to run off finding a bunch of irrelevant links. All I need is the following:

deltaQh = W + Ql * (You posted this)

1 US Therm = 1.055e+8 Joules
1 Kilocalorie = 4184 Joules
1 Erg = 1e-7 Joules

Heat is work. All heat is work, but not all work is heat


Your question is answered by the above.

Do you accept that deltaQh is W + Ql ?
Do you accept that deltaQh is a measure of work, normally measured in joules? Then this equation spells out that not all work is heat.
Do you accept that W is a measure of work, normally expressed in joules?

How do you claim that this equation can make any sense with Ql being anything other than a measure of work? Conclusion: All heat is work.

This equation tells you that deltaQh is what you get if you don't specifically break out heat separately and just lump all work together.

Answered. What do you not understand?

Energy cannot increase unless work is performed

Answered. Your equation says it all. deltaQh cannot increase without some quantity of joules being performed. What do you not understand?

Total energy can only be increased by work being performed

Answered. Some quantity of joules must be performed. What don't you understand?

If all else is the same but thermal energy is somehow increased, then total energy is increased, and work needs to be performed somewhere in there to account for that increase in total energy.

Answered.

So you really are done?


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
06-10-2015 17:44
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
You are obviously incapable of posting any links to any source information. You've just proved me right. Your physics knowledge is wrong, because it is based on what you are remembering from high school.

Post some links to show where your statements come from.
06-10-2015 19:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
climate scientist wrote: You are obviously incapable of posting (blah, blah, blah, ... pouting deleted, attempt to somehow declare victory deleted)

Your king is tipped. Let me know if you'd like to play again.

climate scientist wrote: Post some links to show where your statements come from.

Learn basic arithmetic. If the question is 4 + 3 = X and you are provided the answer "X = 7" you don't get to demand links. You have the science and the math in your religious little hands. I don't care how fervently you wish to deny it.

Please notice that you have added no science to this thread, which is what you were supposed to do, which is what this thread is here for.

You are a fraud.

It will be here when you find some way to define the "greenhouse effect" in a way that doesn't violate the laws of physics so we can discuss 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
06-10-2015 19:31
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Getting worked up again, are we?

Post some links to show where your statements come from.

How many times do I need to make such as simple request, from someone who claims to be such a scientific expert.
06-10-2015 19:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
climate scientist wrote: Post some links to show where your statements come from.

Nope. You failed. You are a fraud. Arithmetic needs no links.

Let me know if you want to try again.


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
06-10-2015 19:44
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Nope. You failed. You are a fraud. Arithmetic needs no links.


I asked you to post links or give source information to the following statements:

This equation tells you that deltaQh is what you get if you don't specifically break out heat separately and just lump all work together.


Energy cannot increase unless work is performed



Total energy can only be increased by work being performed



If all else is the same but thermal energy is somehow increased, then total energy is increased, and work needs to be performed somewhere in there to account for that increase in total energy.


This is not arithmetic

Post some links or prove that these statements are false, and that you are a fraud. Your attempts to evade are hilarious.
06-10-2015 22:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
climate scientist wrote: I asked you to post links or give source information to the following statements:

No. I get to choose how I answer your questions. I chose to give you the science and the math, which I explained in detail.

If you want to search for websites that will provide you a tutorial on what I posted, please don't wait on my account.

If you have an authoritative source that says I am somehow mistaken, then post it.

You don't get to demand links just because you can't find anything wrong with what I posted.

Ergo, the ball is in your court, not mine. In fact, if anything, you need to start coming up with something that shows that heat is definitely not work, because your entire argument rests on it. Good luck with that.

climate scientist wrote:This is not arithmetic

Yes, A = B + C is arithmetic, and it tells you that A is the sum of B plus C. Did you know that the "plus" is called an arithmetic operation?

It's arithmetic.

You posted the equation deltaQh = W + Ql. This is arithmetic. You add any heat you might have singled out to all the other work to get the total work potential (i.e. total energy). Addition. That's all it is.

If you have nothing to add, we're done.
07-10-2015 00:41
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
No. I get to choose how I answer your questions


Your refusal is as good to me as you shouting "I can't do it! I give up!"

Thanks
07-10-2015 02:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
climate scientist wrote:
No. I get to choose how I answer your questions


Your refusal is as good to me as you shouting "I can't do it! I give up!"


So you have nothing to add. Got 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
07-10-2015 10:37
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
So you have nothing to add. Got it.


Afraid not! I've hardly even started.

Here is what Professor Stephen Lower, from UC Davis has to say about heat and work (http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/12._Chemical_Energetics/Energy,_Heat,_and_Work#Heat_and_work):

"Heat and work are both measured in energy units, so they must both represent energy. How do they differ from each other, and from just plain "energy" itself?"

"The term "heat" has a special meaning in thermodynamics: it is a process in which a body (the contents of a tea kettle, for example) acquires or loses energy as a direct consequence of its having a different temperature than its surroundings (the rest of the world)."

"Thermal energy can flow from a higher temperature to a lower temperature. It is this flow that constitutes "heat"."

"Work refers to the transfer of energy some means that does not depend on temperature difference. Work, like energy, can take various forms, the most familiar being mechanical and electrical."

"When two bodies are placed in thermal contact and energy flows from the warmer body to the cooler one,we call the process "heat". A transfer of energy to or from a system by any means other than heat is called "work"."

So you see that Professor Lower seems to disagree with your statements:

Energy cannot increase unless work is performed

Total energy can only be increased by work being performed

If all else is the same but thermal energy is somehow increased, then total energy is increased, and work needs to be performed somewhere in there to account for that increase in total energy.


So, as I have asked many times now, post some links that back up these statements. Or you can just write another post with no links/source information to back up your statements, simply waffling on again about how I am apparently a 'Warmazombie' blindly following my 'religion', and demonstrate to everyone on this forum, once again, that your physics is flawed and you don't know what you are talking about.

Btw, I have a whole university library at my disposal, so I am really only just getting started.
07-10-2015 15:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
climate scientist wrote: Afraid not! I've hardly even started.

That's what I've been saying all along. You need to start supporting your argument.

climate scientist wrote: Here is what Professor Stephen Lower, from UC Davis has to say about heat and work

I'll humor your "appeal to authority" on this occasion but unless he's going to show how my (your) math is incorrect, I don't care what some stranger, who is not participating in this conversation and who cannot be cross-examined, has to say.

Professor Lower:
"Heat and work are both measured in energy units, so they must both represent energy.

I had to pull teeth to get you to admit this. This is what destroys your argument.

Professor Lower:
"The term "heat" has a special meaning in thermodynamics:

Thank you. I believe this adequately explains why heat is broken out as a special case, as I have had to repeat multiple times. Can we lay this issue to rest?

Professor Lower: "When two bodies are placed in thermal contact and energy flows from the warmer body to the cooler one,we call the process "heat". A transfer of energy to or from a system by any means other than heat is called "work"."

Said another way: "All heat is work, but not all work is heat."

Sadly, you are quibbling over labels (variable names). This was Dr. Lowers explanation of what each variable means in the equation. You are getting confused over the fact that one of the variables is called "Work" and the other is called "Heat." For you, it would be clearer to call them "Heat Work" and "Non-Heat Work" which when you add gives you "Total Work" or "Total Energy."

It seems Professor Lower and I are in complete agreement, and that leaves you to explain, via math and science (i.e. not someone's subjective opinion), how
heat is not work or how the 1st LoT is erroneous. Again, good luck with that.

Until you do, your "greenhouse effect" is dispatched.

climate scientist wrote:
So, as I have asked many times now, post some links that back up these statements.

I'll tell you a second time, I don't plan on providing links to explain arithmetic or to explain that interconvertible units are of the same measure.

The math says it all. Get a tutor if you need one.

climate scientist wrote:Btw, I have a whole university library at my disposal, so I am really only just getting started.

Then why not leverage me for suggestions on where to look? The end result will be the same, i.e. you will end up concluding that your "greenhouse effect" is totally bogus, but I can help you save time and reach that epiphany more quickly and efficiently than by trying to wade through bogus non-science your grant-driven friends are handing you.


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
07-10-2015 16:00
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
For you, it would be clearer to call them "Heat Work" and "Non-Heat Work" which when you add gives you "Total Work" or "Total Energy."


Oh dear! This is quite laughable! There is no such thing as 'heat work' or 'non-heat work'. There is just heat and work:

"Work is energy transferred by means of a force"

"Heat is energy transferred by means other than a force".

"The first Law of Thermodynamics: The internal energy of a body can be changed, either by heat transfer in or out of the body, or by work done on or by the body"

From 3rd Edition of Palgrave Foundations Physics textbook by Jim Breithaupt.

The greenhouse effect does not violate the 1st LoT, because energy is conserved.

I'll humor your "appeal to authority" on this occasion but unless he's going to show how my (your) math is incorrect.


It is not my maths. Everything I have posted is from the literature. You said that the greenhouse effect violates the 1st LoT. If this is the case, post some evidence by providing a link or source to where this statement comes from.
07-10-2015 16:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
climate scientist wrote:
Oh dear! This is quite laughable! There is no such thing as 'heat work' or 'non-heat work'. There is just heat and work:

So you agree that you are quibbling over labels, yes?

Come back when you have something that explains how your "greenhouse effect" incurs an increase in total energy when all you have is energy changing form.

I'm not going to waste time quibbling over wording. You have the math and you are violating 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
07-10-2015 16:26
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Come back when you have something that explains how your "greenhouse effect" incurs an increase in total energy when all you have is energy changing form.


The greenhouse effect results in an increase in the Earth's surface temperature. Energy is conserved.

I am still waiting for you to post sources/links to your information. You cannot do it can you? Find me a publication which states that the greenhouse effect violates the 1st LoT. If it is so obvious, then it won't be difficult for you to find.
07-10-2015 17:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
climate scientist wrote:
The greenhouse effect results in an increase in the Earth's surface temperature. Energy is conserved.

Your two statements above appear contradictory and require more explanation.

An increase in temperature is necessarily an increase in thermal energy
Yet you claim there is no increase in total energy.

Your model does not specify any decrease in any other energy to offset the increase in thermal energy, so until you do, energy is clearly not conserved.

The ball is still in your court.


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
07-10-2015 18:00
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Nope

Still waiting for you to post a link that shows that the greenhouse effect violates the 1st LoT.
Page 1 of 6123>>>





Join the debate The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect":

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy2422-09-2019 22:20
Bill Nye greenhouse gas experiment fail.1616-09-2019 15:51
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law64813-09-2019 05:55
Is CO2 much of a Greenhouse gas at all?10813-09-2019 05:54
Argument against AGW science314-08-2019 20:51
▲ 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