Exceptionally erudite and informative article by Judith Curry, sadly very few on here will have the first clue regarding the content
https://judithcurry.com/2019/06/21/c...-bias-problem/
You quote the equation, but you deny it??
The 'greenhouse effect' does violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. Entropy cannot decrease in any system. It can only increase or stay the same. Heat can only flow from hot to cold.
Exceptionally erudite and informative article by Judith Curry, sadly very few on here will have the first clue regarding the content
https://judithcurry.com/2019/06/21/c...-bias-problem/
I have tried to explain this to you before, but you seem totally incapable of understanding.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new...-law-to-earth/
Rune (06-23-2019)
While this is a big problem in the science community, one must remember that science itself is not a community. It is not even people at all.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is just the theories themselves. It is not anything more. It is not anything less.
It is the responsibility of every American citizen to own a modern military rifle.
Richard Feynman said, and I paraphrase, that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. The Second Law of Thermodynamics has withstood every attempt to prove it wrong over 150 years, the only possible exceptions are black holes but that is more likely due to observational inexactitude.
The second law does not say a cold object cannot pass heat to a warmer object, it states that NET heat flow is always from warmer to colder. As stated before, any object above absolute zero radiates energy and is radiated in all directions.
Last edited by cancel2 2022; 06-23-2019 at 09:43 PM.
You are just denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You are denying Kirchoff's law.
You are attempting to remove the emissivity term from the equation, thus denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
And you made the same mistakes then too. Argument by repetition fallacy.
Then why do you deny it?
Yes it does.
There is such thing as 'net heat'. There is only heat.
You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder substance. You can't do it by conductive heat, you can't do it by convective heat, you can't do it by radiant heat. You CAN'T DO IT.
No molecule or atom will absorb a photon that has energy than what the molecule or atom already has. Such a molecule or atom appears transparent or reflective.
You cannot decrease entropy in any system. You can't heat a warmer object with a colder object. You are attempting to construct a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order.
Define 'climate change'.Originally Posted by gfm7175
The 'industrial age' began before the United States was even a nation. What about all that time when no one was worried about 'climate change' or 'global warming'?
So?
Not possible. It is not possible to trap heat. It is not possible to reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You are also attempting to decrease entropy. You cannot decrease entropy in any system. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no such thing as a global weather. Earth has many climates, not one.
Just another chorus from the Denier Choir.
Look a tad sweaty, don't they ? Haw, haw...........haw.
" First they came for the journalists...
We don't know what happened after that . "
Maria Ressa.
Bookmarks