@Dandy

Quote:

But your reply didn't convince me.

I merely only gave links. My post was not to convince you per se.

Quote:

its just that I do not post to increase the number of my postings.

My time is as precious as yours.

Quote:

But you seem not to be able to discuss this subject on an rational level.

Say I try to adapt myself to the level of the thread...

Quote:

You should keep in mind that I'm a layman with regard to climate science - and bombing a layman with papers mainly consisting of strange formulas clearly cannot help your argument.

Others do not see it like you and request(ed) proper papers to support claims, sorry. Perhaps is it time to deepen your research.

Quote:

If you claim to be a scientist and are not able or not willing to explain to laymen so they can understand your point, its not astonishing if you are received as "sitting on a high horse".

I'm not sure what you mean here, but I do not consider myself as teaching some or other things here, merely pointing out wrong/unsupported/alarmist claims. But if someone learns something in doing so, great.

Quote:

You claim that coauthor of the study - Drew Shindell - used a PCA methodology (what's that meant to be at all?) to smear the slight warming of the Peninsula over the whole Antarctica - or in other words: you discredited an ozone specialist and climatologist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies:

It is not known who have done the PCA, so one refers to the first author in this case (Steig). PCA means Principal Components Analysis: it is a statistical technique to extract 'patterns' in data. I really suggest to read the 4 links I gave you (easy to read) before trying to understand what was done in the Steig's paper. And btw I discredit no one. Flawed work is discredited.

Quote:

Political Heat - Questions for Drew Shindell

Hansen used the same approach of complaining 'being muzzled' under Bush but was the one having done the more interviews and public appearances, so...bullsh!t.

Quote:

could it be that he's annoyed by your way of arguing?

I would say the arguments are so devastating that he rests speechless and prefers playing politic (the matter is more malleable).

Quote:

I'm afraid two weeks are not enough to learn the math for climate science

You are not required to learn the maths in most cases. Understanding the general approach of something at first is a good way to deepen in details afterwards.

Quote:

My quotes of Drew Shindell above are good examples for "arguments understandable for climate-science-laymen like myself"...

Let me sum up rapidly what you have provided: an I-edited-it-myself-Wikipedia presentation of a scientist, a justification for using computer models, a use of a model with a conclusion suggesting it has consistently mimicked the physical reality (while aerosol feedback is assumed, no spatial and temporal cloud grid-scaling as usual, and parametrizations according to the taste of the modeller, etc) and a political rant to finish. Where is the Science?

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy Quote: But your reply didn't convince me. I merely only gave links.

That's what I meant: what I read there didn't convince me.
Or in other words:
It didn't help me to understand your POV, not to mention that it made me think your POV is more likely than the common POV, which I share.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: My post was not to convince you per se.

That's clear.

But look:
I read more than once that you blamed the "alarmists" of believing CO2 being the sole reason for GW.

From my replies you should know that I see the climate as a very complex beast - and certainly NOT just depending on CO2 levels.

There are other factors like methane level, water vapor level, cloudiness, volcanic activity, dust, ice areas, oceanic systems, earth's orbit and sun's activity - just to name those few that currently jump to my mind.

And to me it's clear that even the climate scientists don't have "the final knowledge" about earth's climate yet - even they haven't fully identified or understood all the influencing factors yet.

So from a layman's perspective I have to rely on what the scientists present as their "common understanding" to the public and to use my brain to think about it if it makes sense to me.

I can see a "logical chain" - and in so far the climatists "common understanding" is perfectly in line with my personal perception (less winters with snow, hotter summers, increase of thunderstorms in both frequency and intensity, ... during the last 50 years here in this area).

Now the "common understanding" tells me that human activities led - besides other effects - to a rise of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, which in turn could contribute to the GW by its "greenhouse effect".

Logic now tells me that if human activities could lead to a rise of atmospheric CO2 level in the past and by that to a rise of global temperatures (to whatever degree), human activities could also lead to a decrease of atmospheric CO2 level by applying sufficiant cleaner technologies.

As we all know that CO2 isn't the only issue human activities cause to the environment, I cannot see anything wrong in re-thinking our current way of life e.g. wasting resources and polluting the environment solely for profit reasons and to think about sustainable ways to keep "our standards" as far as possible.

I see it as a good thing to have increasing public awareness for these issues - it also opens up economic perspectives.

Even if it should turn out one day that CO2 has a minor impact on the climate than commonly thought today - do you see it as a bad thing if it served to to sensibilise the broad public for environmental issues and to demand a more responsible handling of the environment?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: ... Quote: You should keep in mind that I'm a layman with regard to climate science - and bombing a layman with papers mainly consisting of strange formulas clearly cannot help your argument. Perhaps is it time to deepen your research.

It's just that my time is limited.
So I have to set priorities.
And my priorities sadly do not allow deep climate research - days only have 24 hours, you know...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: ... Quote: You claim that coauthor of the study - Drew Shindell - used a PCA methodology (what's that meant to be at all?) to smear the slight warming of the Peninsula over the whole Antarctica - or in other words: you discredited an ozone specialist and climatologist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies: It is not known who have done the PCA, so one refers to the first author in this case (Steig). PCA means Principal Components Analysis: it is a statistical technique to extract 'patterns' in data.

As I'm uncommon with PCA I can only hope it involves a mechanism to avoid seeing patterns when there are none.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: ... And btw I discredit no one. Flawed work is discredited.

O.K. - but if you discredit his work as flawed without offering something that is suited for me to understand why you think its flawed - just to claim "he used a PCA methodology to smear the slight warming of the Peninsula over the whole Antarctica" does not explain anything to me (aside from you not agreeing with him) and furthermore implies you don't like him (for whatever reasons)...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: ... Quote: I'm afraid two weeks are not enough to learn the math for climate science You are not required to learn the maths in most cases. Understanding the general approach of something at first is a good way to deepen in details afterwards.

Yeah - its just that you put so many "general approaches" into question.
It would take me years to sort all that out, I'm afraid...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: My quotes of Drew Shindell above are good examples for "arguments understandable for climate-science-laymen like myself"... Let me sum up rapidly what you have provided: an I-edited-it-myself-Wikipedia presentation of a scientist,

That was just the first "non-auto biography" in English language Google came up with...

What's wrong with that? I couldn't see any contradiction to his auto biography...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: a justification for using computer models,

Do you know how this fraction of a sentence alone comes across?

It comes across like: "Muahaha! Such an idiot! He needs computer models! I don't need computer models! I'm god - I know everything without computers!"

Is that really the way you want me to understand you?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: a use of a model with a conclusion suggesting it has consistently mimicked the physical reality (while aerosol feedback is assumed, no spatial and temporal cloud grid-scaling as usual, and parametrizations according to the taste of the modeller, etc) and a political rant to finish.

"The small particles also affect climate indirectly by seeding clouds and changing cloud properties, such as reflectivity."

and

"A new study, led by climate scientist Drew Shindell of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, used a coupled ocean-atmosphere model to investigate how sensitive different regional climates are to changes in levels of carbon dioxide, ozone, and aerosols."

Well, to me this makes clear that "spatial and temporal cloud grid-scaling" wasn't within their scope at all...


Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Where is the Science?

You shouldn't direct this question to a layman like me...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

I lost all my (long) reply to you (timeout as I was helping a cow to calve...), then I respond only to the important points.

Quote:

So from a layman's perspective I have to rely on what the scientists present as their "common understanding" to the public and to use my brain to think about it if it makes sense to me.

I was like you some years ago but eventually went deeper and was convinced that some did not tell the truth. IPCC is not the only group of scientists to output reports on climate even if it is the most 'mediatized'.

Quote:

Now the "common understanding" tells me that human activities led - besides other effects - to a rise of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, which in turn could contribute to the GW by its "greenhouse effect".

Real world data (no correlation between CO² and temperature at short and long time-scale ; 800 years lag at medium time-scale) and Physics (non-existence of GH effect, back-radiation forbidden by Thermodynamics) show the opposite.

Quote:

Logic now tells me that if human activities could lead to a rise of atmospheric CO2 level in the past and by that to a rise of global temperatures (to whatever degree), human activities could also lead to a decrease of atmospheric CO2 level by applying sufficiant cleaner technologies.

Logic does not work when premises are wrong: 20 times the current level of CO² in the past did not increase temperature. Recent study suggests even that CO² is not the driver of climate shifts (starts and ends of ice periods).

Quote:

I cannot see anything wrong in re-thinking our current way of life e.g. wasting resources and polluting the environment solely for profit reasons and to think about sustainable ways to keep "our standards" as far as possible.

I mostly concur.

Quote:

Even if it should turn out one day that CO2 has a minor impact on the climate than commonly thought today - do you see it as a bad thing if it served to to sensibilise the broad public for environmental issues and to demand a more responsible handling of the environment?

It is misleading to do so I can not support such strategy even if I understand the motives.

Quote:

As I'm uncommon with PCA I can only hope it involves a mechanism to avoid seeing patterns when there are none.

If you follow the rules, yes. But with some imagination it is worst than that: you can extract a pattern from hundred serial data while the pattern is really only embed in just 1 series and claim studies robust (Mann's "Hockey Stick" with his 1998, 1999 and 2008 papers, discussed here). Or you can cherry-pick the number of PC to retain (to conveniently select the higher signal) when the reality requires more (Steig's "Warming Antarctica" 2009 paper). There are probably other misuses.

Quote:

It would take me years to sort all that out, I'm afraid...

It took me years to have a broad view on the climate science and politics...

Quote:

Well, to me this makes clear that "spatial and temporal cloud grid-scaling" wasn't within their scope at all...

This is the node of the problem: clouds are globally parametrized in models because modellers don't know how to 'render' them locally (both spatially and temporally at their native scale resolution: kilometres and minutes): how is it possible to trust model results when such great uncertainty as clouds' dynamic is lacking?

Quote:

You shouldn't direct this question to a layman like me...

You should have understood it as an affirmation in fact

Edit: added the link.
Edit2: corrected some typos.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 16-Jul-2009 at 08:46 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 14-Jul-2009 at 09:42 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

Do you know how this fraction of a sentence alone comes across? It comes across like: "Muahaha! Such an idiot! He needs computer models! I don't need computer models! I'm god - I know everything without computers!" Is that really the way you want me to understand you?

You have to understand how and on what current models are constructed. I refer you to a previous post of me where I emphasized this point: Quote:

prediction of climate is impossible: weather/climate depends on an extensive set of highly non linear coupled differential equations (Navier-Stockes) ie is chaotic. This means that any gridding, no matter how small, or how big is the computer, will get it wrong after a number of time-steps. This is because the logic of gridded models depends really on assuming linear approximations to highly non linear coupled differential equations. Anyone that has taken some mathematics analysis knows that functions can be expanded in series, and often the first few terms are good approximations. This is not true for solutions of coupled differential equations, because usually they are highly divergent, the first terms do not describe them. After a number of time steps reality will diverge with a vengeance from the assumed approximations. This happens for weather models in a few days, for climate in a few years.

A rare quote from the UnRealClimate alarmist blog: Quote:

Nature (with hopefully some constructive input from humans) will decide the global warming question based upon climate sensitivity, net radiative forcing, and oceanic storage of heat, not on the type of multi-decadal time scale variability we are discussing here. However, this apparent impulsive behavior explicitly highlights the fact that humanity is poking a complex, nonlinear system with GHG forcing – and that there are no guarantees to how the climate may respond.

So much for the model prediction...

Edit: added the quote.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 14-Jul-2009 at 09:46 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

Not sure if this has been covered by the million links in this thread or not, but this is a nifty piece by
Steve Fieldings and one has to ask, what happened to the AGW for the past ten years?

_________________
Dammy

@damocles

Quote:

"We should respond not only to the danger but also to the opportunity," [Mr Gore] told a breakfast meeting.

On opportunism, All Gone knows what he talks about.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy I lost all my (long) reply to you

Sorry for that!
I know such events - frustrating!

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: (timeout as I was helping a cow to calve...),

Do you have a farm?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: ... Quote: Now the "common understanding" tells me that human activities led - besides other effects - to a rise of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, which in turn could contribute to the GW by its "greenhouse effect". Real world data (no correlation between CO² and temperature at short and long time-scale ; 800 years lag at medium time-scale)

I was more looking at the rise of the atmospheric CO2 caused by human activity...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: and Physics (non-existence of GE effect, back-radiation forbidden by thermodynamics) show the opposite.

Slowly, slowly!
What do you mean with "non-existence of GE effect" - did you mean "GH effect"?
And if so, do you mean GH effect in general, or with respect to CO2?

And with "back-radiation forbidden by thermodynamics" you mean DLR published a flawed paper on the "1996 Meteorological Satellite Data Users' Conference" (Vienna, 16.-20-sep-1996)?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: Logic now tells me that if human activities could lead to a rise of atmospheric CO2 level in the past and by that to a rise of global temperatures (to whatever degree), human activities could also lead to a decrease of atmospheric CO2 level by applying sufficiant cleaner technologies. Logic does not work when premises are wrong: 20 times the current level of CO² in the past did not increase temperature. Recent study suggest even that CO² is not the driver of climate shifts (starts and ends of ice periods).

As I already said - I was more looking at the rise of the atmospheric CO2 caused by human activity - to show that if human activities can increase atmospheric CO2 level by using the wrong techniques at an large scale (or the techniques wrongly - as you like), they could equally decrease atmospheric CO2 level by applying the proper techniques at an adequate scale.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: I cannot see anything wrong in re-thinking our current way of life e.g. wasting resources and polluting the environment solely for profit reasons and to think about sustainable ways to keep "our standards" as far as possible. I mostly concur.

Fine.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: Even if it should turn out one day that CO2 has a minor impact on the climate than commonly thought today - do you see it as a bad thing if it served to to sensibilise the broad public for environmental issues and to demand a more responsible handling of the environment? It is misleading to do so I can not support such strategy even if I understand the motives.

I do not feel mislead - I know the climate is a complex beast where even the scientists specialised on climate have not recognised/understood all the influencing factors yet.
What seems certain today could be prooven as not relevant tomorrow or the other way round - so why should I feel mislead?

I still inpute scientific straightforwardness to the mass of the scientists rather than conspiracy tendencies...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: ... Quote: Well, to me this makes clear that "spatial and temporal cloud grid-scaling" wasn't within their scope at all... This is the node of the problem: clouds are globally parametrized in models because modellers don't know how to 'render' them locally (both spatially and temporally at their native scale resolution: kilometres and minutes): how is it possible to trust model results when such great uncertainty as clouds' dynamic is lacking? ...

Scope of the study obviously was "to investigate how sensitive different regional climates are to changes in levels of carbon dioxide, ozone, and aerosols" - and the sentence "The small particles also affect climate indirectly by seeding clouds and changing cloud properties, such as reflectivity" seems to imply to me they might have wanted to find out more about "spatial and temporal cloud grid-scaling" (EDIT: besides others) with that study...

Last edited by Dandy on 14-Jul-2009 at 10:15 PM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

I know such events - frustrating!

Agree.

Quote:

Do you have a farm?

Yes (not so far from Germany btw).

Quote:

What do you mean with "non-existence of GE effect" - did you mean "GH effect"?

GH, yes.

Quote:

And if so, do you mean GH effect in general, or with respect to CO2?

There are misconceptions on the effect in general, and with CO² particularly.

Quote:

And with "back-radiation forbidden by thermodynamics" you mean DLR published a flawed paper on the "1996 Meteorological Satellite Data Users' Conference" (Vienna, 16.-20-sep-1996)?

Your link does not want to load. What I mean is that 2nd Law of Thermodynamics formally prohibits a cold object (atmosphere) to warm a warmer object (surface) even by radiative means. Clausius made it clear in his 1879 Mechanical Theory of Heat, chapter XII entitled "On the concentration of rays of light and heat et on the limits of its action":



Calculations also showed that back-radiations are subsequently reabsorbed so fast that the distance of re-emission has no real world meaning, consistent with the definition of the 2nd Law.

Quote:

As I already said - I was more looking at the rise of the atmospheric CO2 caused by human activity

I understand, but as CO² has nothing to do with temperature, I fail to see the point. CO² is per se not harmful but rather beneficial to plants.

Quote:

they might have wanted to find out more about "spatial and temporal cloud grid-scaling"

Perhaps. I am nevertheless always critical on how models are tuned. From IPCC AR4 chapter 1 is this: Quote:

The strong effect of cloud processes on climate model sensitivities to greenhouse gases was emphasized further through a now-classic set of General Circulation Model (GCM) experiments, carried out by Senior and Mitchell (1993). They produced global average surface temperature changes (due to doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration) ranging from 1.9°C to 5.4°C, simply by altering the way that cloud radiative properties were treated in the model. It is somewhat unsettling that the results of a complex climate model can be so drastically altered by substituting one reasonable cloud parameterization for another, thereby approximately replicating the overall intermodel range of sensitivities.

and in chapter 8: Quote:

In many climate models, details in the representation of clouds can substantially affect the model estimates of cloud feedback and climate sensitivity (e.g., Senior and Mitchell, 1993; Le Treut et al., 1994; Yao and Del Genio, 2002; Zhang, 2004; Stainforth et al., 2005; Yokohata et al., 2005). Moreover, the spread of climate sensitivity estimates among current models arises primarily from inter-model differences in cloud feedbacks (Colman, 2003a; Soden and Held, 2006; Webb et al., 2006; Section 8.6.2, Figure 8.14). Therefore, cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

timeout as I was helping a cow to calve...),

Congrats. Unfortunately, for the first time ever we lost one of our foals soon after birth this year.

Cuz you wanted unicorns instead of FUD
Projected increase in algae life in the arctic

@Dandy

Quote:

@TMTisFree .. What I mean is that 2nd Law of Thermodynamics formally prohibits a cold object (atmosphere) to warm a warmer object (surface) even by radiative mean

Please read the formal definition of the 2nd law. It says within a vaccum the net change of temperature occurs from warm object to cold object. The definition here appears that objects shut off their radiation unless a cold object appears and then they turn it back on. Objects always radiate. Radiation from the cold object does flow to the hot object. What happens here is the net effect is a warmer cold object and a cooler hot object.


Quote:

@TMTisFree ... Calculations also showed that back-radiations are subsequently reabsorbed so fast that the distance of re-emission has no real world meaning, consistent with the definition of the 2nd Law.

Hypothesis with calculations is a good starting point. The next question is what can we observe in nature to check out this conjecture?

One thing we could check would be satellites in orbit. Several have IR spectrography. The satellites are held at a temperature that's warmer than the atmosphere. If the presented definition was fully accurate the satellite probes could not work. If the above conjecture was true the cool IR from the atmosphere would not be transferred to the warm spectral probe and measures would not be possible. This would render the satellites worthless for observations. Yet they work!

The real world case being different than the conjecture tells us the conjecture is mistaken.

@BrianK

Quote:

Congrats. Unfortunately, for the first time ever we lost one of our foals soon after birth this year.

Sadly not the first time, but I replied to Dandy so you have had the pleasure to read me. More importantly, the calf is alive.

Quote:

Cuz you wanted unicorns instead of FUD. Projected increase in algae life in the arctic

Not unprecedented it seems, so possible. What global warming btw, the mere 0.2°C satellites have measured since 30 years? Certainly my bicorn is more alive than the dead AGW scam supported by brainless zealots and/or dogmatic eco-crackpots.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

The definition here appears that objects shut off their radiation unless a cold object appears and then they turn it back on.

A devious, misleading and incorrect interpretation of my sentence which correctly states that "2nd Law of Thermodynamics formally prohibits a cold object (atmosphere) to warm a warmer object (surface) even by radiative mean".

Quote:

Objects always radiate.

Again wrong. Objects at 0°K do not radiate by definition.

Quote:

Radiation from the cold object does flow to the hot object. What happens here is the net effect is a warmer cold object and a cooler hot object

This misrepresents the reality. In fact the result is:
1/ flow of thermal radiations is from the warm object to the cold object ;
2/ heat thus goes from warm to cold ;
3/ it is unphysical to describe the event as the sum of two sub-events both per time and space (from cold to hot + from hot to cold) because such events are simultaneous, instantaneous and non-discriminable ;
4/ heat therefore does not flow from cold to warm, just what I said in fact: "2nd Law of Thermodynamics formally prohibits a cold object (atmosphere) to warm a warmer object (surface) even by radiative mean".

Quote:

Hypothesis with calculations is a good starting point. The next question is what can we observe in nature to check out this conjecture?

I did not know that Beer's Law and other physical Laws I used were only conjectures: your gross on-the-fly redefinition of Physics is ridiculously unfounded and untenable.

Quote:

One thing we could check would be satellites in orbit. Several have IR spectrography. The satellites are held at a temperature that's warmer than the atmosphere. If the presented definition was fully accurate the satellite probes could not work. If the above conjecture was true the cool IR from the atmosphere would not be transferred to the warm spectral probe and measures would not be possible. This would render the satellites worthless for observations. Yet they work!

Wrong again of course. As an example, the HFI instrument of the Planck satellite, aimed at measuring and providing the mapping of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), has a cryogenic circuitry down to 0.1°K because the CMB is about 2.7°K. This is a direct application of the consequence of the 2nd Law: for the CMB to heat the thermal detector (called bolometer), this one has to be cooler. If the device would have been designated to operate above 2.7°K, nothing would have been measured. If you don't like European science or are confused by microwave, NASA also developed IR sensors which are supercooled (down to 10°K) to be able to work. This is true for nearly all IR satellites (IRAS, COBE, etc) that the limiting factor is cooling. Your explanation is then just wishful thinking without any knowledge on how IR detectors/sensors are built. Your understanding of the 2nd Law and its real world applications are therefore flawed from the root. So yes IR spectro on satellites work because engineers and scientists know that heat flows from the warm to the cold as also common sense suggests, and not the opposite, period. Thanks for providing me the opportunity to debunk you one more time.

Edit: added a word.
Edit2: removed the word.
Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 16-Jul-2009 at 09:36 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 15-Jul-2009 at 10:43 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Again wrong. Objects at 0°K do not radiate by definition.

This is true by definition. But, do note I applied this to 'objects'. By this I meant existing no theoretical. The Universe itself has a temp - 2.73K. The Boomerrang Galaxy (BG) is the coldest known natural object at ~1K. Man-made objects have come close 450 picokelvins, still infinitely larger than 0. But not 0 . The rare (read non) existence of man-made, not to mention natural, objects is small enough to use the term 'always'.

Quote:

This misrepresents the reality.

Actually no it does represent reality because as the cool object radiates heat some does go into the warm object. To be fair what it doesn't represent is the need to seperate these within the calculation. This is because, as I pointed out the 2nd law of thermodyamics is about the net flow of thermal radiations is from the warm object to the cold object.

What we see here is two attempts to define things better with nuance.


Quote:

Wrong again of course. As an example, the HFI instrument of the Planck satellite

The logic in the response doesn't make sense. You wish to disprove my example of satellites that measure the atmosphere by providing an example of a satellite that measures the universe? We got two different purposes here. Certainly you kow the Planck satellite, at .1K and the coldest object we know of in space, is not proof that the atmospheric IR satellites are at this temperature.

Quote:

I did not know that Beer's Law and other physical Laws I used were only conjectures

Misdirection.

Quote:

If the device would have been designated to operate above 2.7°K, nothing would have been measured

Interesting. Remember the first part with the BG? The BG, at 1K, was detected first with a earth based telescope above 1K in temp. It was better observed and temperature measured by Hubble. Again above 1K in temp. Thanks for providing me the opportunity to debunk you one more time.

Semi-related question to the discussion but kinda out of the thread... Absolute Zero would this not break the Heisenberg Uncertainity principle? Couldn't we tell location and direction?

@BrianK

Quote:

This is true by definition. But, do note I applied this to 'objects'. By this I meant existing no theoretical.

You had not defined what you mean by 'object' (physical, intellectual, conceptual?). Anyway, that absolute 0°K temperature exists is expressed in the form of the 3rd Law of the Thermodynamics. Your claim of non-existence of such 'objects' is just wild and unsupported speculation.

Quote:

Actually no it does represent reality because as the cool object radiates heat some does go into the warm object.

This is just garbage. If this would be true the warm object will be warmer and the cold colder. At the macroscopic level that never happens: the 2nd Law states and common sense supports the flow is irreversibly from the warmer to the colder. That a cold object radiates is here an epiphenomenon used by you as a circular logic argument to support a flawed understanding of a fundamental physical Law.

Quote:

You wish to disprove my example of satellites that measure the atmosphere by providing an example of a satellite that measures the universe? We got two different purposes here. Certainly you kow the Planck satellite, at .1K and the coldest object we know of in space, is not proof that the atmospheric IR satellites are at this temperature.

You did not provide an example, just unsupported claim. I provided diverse satellite examples with links to support my claims. That the purpose is different is just a straw man. Let me restate it more clearly as you are slow: all IR sensors in satellites are cryocooled under the temperature they are designed to measure as a direct application of the 2nd Law. The NASA example I provided is a sensor for a satellite based measuring of atmospheric IR btw. So are the IR sensors aboard the Aqua and Terra satellites. Thus 2 proofs.

Quote:

The BG, at 1K, was detected first with a earth based telescope above 1K in temp. It was better observed and temperature measured by Hubble. Again above 1K in temp.

If your BG means background, then BG is at 2.7°K and 1°K is still below 2.7°K. Let also explain how an optical device can measure temperature (without cryocooled IR sensor. Tips: search for NICMOS and Hubble for example).

Quote:

Thanks for providing me the opportunity to debunk you one more time.

You just have exemplarily and publicly deepened your grave a little more.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

You had not defined what you mean by 'object'

If you don't know what an object is then it's your responsibility to ask. I've asked you on many a term.

Quote:

Your claim of non-existence of such 'objects' is just wild and unsupported speculation

Please accurately name 3 objects at 0K and I will agree.

Quote:

At the macroscopic level that never happens

Again 2nd law predicts the net change, that was my point and I believe we both agree on that.

Quote:

I provided diverse satellite examples with links to support my claims

Yeah and when my statement had to do with the atmospheric satellites and yours was a universal satellite well my cars blue so therefore you're wrong. Also, one example doesn't disprove my case. You'd have to show us all atmospheric satellites are built at this same temp.

Quote:

If your BG means background

You appear to be lost. Let me restate the beginning of my 4th line from post #193 which you were responding to... "The Boomerrang Galaxy (BG)"

Quote:

Let also explain how an optical device can measure temperature

I understand how EM radiation (read light for ease) is received...

EDIT: spelling change

You just have exemplarily and publicly deepened your grave a little more.
EDIT2: Forgot the requred posturing include...

Last edited by BrianK on 16-Jul-2009 at 12:20 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 16-Jul-2009 at 12:19 PM.

@BrianK

Uhm, I don't quite see how the 2nd law of thermodynamics would say that a mirror needs to be hotter than me to reflect photons from a lamp to my eyes.

After all, it's not the atmosphere GENERATING heat, it's the atmosphere REFLECTING heat.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

I did not know that Beer's Law and other physical Laws I used were only conjectures:

And when "you" "use" them in a way which results in something which at least has the right unit, "you" will be one tiny step closer to actually having done some science for once.

@BrianK

Quote:

it's your responsibility to ask.

You read too fast: I asked: "You had not defined what you mean by 'object' (physical, intellectual, conceptual?)." Notice the '?'.

Quote:

Please accurately name 3 objects at 0K and I will agree.

I don't need to. The 3rd Law is precisely there to defined the existence of an absolute 0°K temperature. And why 3, when only one is sufficient? I then propose dark matter which can be detected only because of its gravitational perturbations and not directly because it emits no light, no IR, no EM, no radiation of any kind: thus dark matter is, per definition, at 0°K. As dark matter makes up about 85% of the known Universe, is it enough to win (note that the 'temperature' of dark matter one can find in literature is really the velocity of matter and has nothing to do with 'thermal' temperature)?

Quote:

Again 2nd law predicts the net change, that was my point and I believe we both agree on that.

Nowhere in the Law it is defined a 'prediction' of a 'net' flow. 2nd Law states that thermal radiation (heat) does flow from hot to cold in an irreversibly manner. Anything beyond that is mere interpretation or speculation.

Quote:

Yeah and when my statement had to do with the atmospheric satellites and yours was a universal satellite well my cars blue so therefore you're wrong. Also, one example doesn't disprove my case. You'd have to show us all atmospheric satellites are built at this same temp.

I provided sufficient examples of atmospheric satellite cryocooled IR sensors to appreciate how funny it is to rebut your wrong claim with itself and by the same time supporting my point, thanks for that.

Quote:

You appear to be lost. Let me restate the beginning of my 4th line from post #193 which you were responding to... "The Boomerrang Galaxy (BG)"

It is your responsibility to define your own abbreviated terms which nowhere you have done in your #193 for BG...you don't follow your own posting, confused you are.

Quote:

I understand how EM radiation (read light for ease) is received...

Your previous junk claims do not happen to support this one...

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@umisef

Still trolling flying around with your inability to understand this simple problem I explained you 3 times? You are not helping your case piling on this. Move on or read Dr Nichol's paper more deeply.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@olegil

While clouds effectively do reflect some Sun radiations (as water, ices, and deserts), heat moves upwards in atmosphere by convection because convective transport is far more effective than radiative (emission in a finite number of discrete band lines) and conductive processes to dissipate heat in gasses/liquids (thermal conductivity is often more than 100/10 times lower than in solids, respectively). One can also note that viscosity decreases as temperature increases in liquid while thermal conductivity only slightly increases (and then decreases) and thermal radiation decreases, meaning that convection is the dominant process to dissipate heat in liquid. Quite the same process occurs in gasses but more importantly because atoms/molecules are not attached to each other. If you want some references, feel free to ask.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".