50 years of failed eco predictions

[Grokmaster]

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

Just wanted to share this with everyone

It honestly feels like one of those rapture cults which gather together every few years because they are convinced the rapture is going to happen right then and there.

Indeed.

 

[Grokmaster]

Maybe you're just stupid.

WOW.GREAT REFUTATION OF THE FACTS HE CITED!!

 

[Grokmaster]

Failed? WTF. The signs are everywhere. The climatologists are being proven correct over and over. You can quibble degree if it makes you happy, but the warnings were correct.

SUCH AS? CLIMATE HAS ALWEAYS CHANGED. PLEASE PROVE HOW IT'S "AGW"....

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Already did. RQAA.

Radiation is not canceled out. Denial of the S-B law.

The S-B law does not calculate radiation between 2 objects. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

I have to give you credit. You have now violated S-B law, the first and second laws of thermodynamics, Kirchhoff's law and Wein's law.

Here is the relevant S-B equation that shows that S-B law does calculate the radiation of 2 objects that can result in a negative number for the radiation.

How do you explain that a cooler object radiating toward a warmer object results in negative radiation?
Please explain what you think Tc is in the equation if you think it is not a different mass than T.

 

[Airstrip One]

Question: If the prediction didn't happen, is it really a failure?

That the world hasn't ended already, in spite of numerous eco prophesies, could be considered a triumph.

 

[anonymoose]

I have to give you credit. You have now violated S-B law, the first and second laws of thermodynamics, Kirchhoff's law and Wein's law.

Here is the relevant S-B equation that shows that S-B law does calculate the radiation of 2 objects that can result in a negative number for the radiation.

Sure it calculates a negative number if you plug in a higher value for Tc than for T. But for a negative value for P to exist you're saying thermal energy radiated by a blackbody is negative. Not possible as that would increase entropy, a violation of the 2nd Law.

How do you explain that a cooler object radiating toward a warmer object results in negative radiation?

Self explanatory except that's a violation of the 2nd Law, unless E is added which you did not indicate .

Please explain what you think Tc is in the equation

Temperature of the surroundings. It's stated in S-B.

if you think it is not a different mass than T.

T has nothing to do w/ mass.

Wow, you have completely fucked up S-B!

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Sure it calculates a negative number if you plug in a higher value for Tc than for T. But for a negative value for P to exist you're saying thermal energy radiated by a blackbody is negative. Not possible as that would increase entropy, a violation of the 2nd Law.
Self explanatory except that's a violation of the 2nd Law, unless E is added which you did not indicate . Temperature of the surroundings. It's stated in S-B. T has nothing to do w/ mass.

Wow, you have completely fucked up S-B!

You seem to have missed the part about there are 2 parts of your system. One part can decrease in entropy as long as the system as a whole doesn't violate the 2nd law.

I am merely using ItN's reference that S-B must apply to all mass. T is an object that has mass. Tc is a different object/
T is the temperature of object 1. Tc is the temperature of object 2.

 

[Old Trapper]

wut. Its not the right or the left wing predicting it. Its science! Science predicted we will have a new ice age, british siberia, and multiple pacific islands sinking. We all know science is never wrong. How can you be so anti science?

Aside from right wingers, who now want deny that economics is a "science", who has said that science is infallible?

 

[Grumpy]

who has said that science is infallible?

Besides fukki ???

 

[Old Trapper]

SUCH AS? CLIMATE HAS ALWEAYS CHANGED. PLEASE PROVE HOW IT'S "AGW"....

No matter of proof will ever change the minds of the low IQ right winger. However, you cannot prove it isn't, so the real question should be why take the chance? We have the knowledge, and the intelligence to change things, and it would make it much better for all, including wildlife, so why not do it? Just to satisfy the whims of a few billionaires? Are you really that much of a slave?

https://www.sciencealert.com/anthropogenic-global-warming

 

[Old Trapper]

Besides fukki ???

Does remind one of the times when people opposed the "horseless carriage".

 

[AProudLefty]

That the world hasn't ended already, in spite of numerous eco prophesies, could be considered a triumph.

Nobody except the religious nutjobs said the world would end.

 

[moon]

Does remind one of the times when people opposed the "horseless carriage".

What a pity that they weren't listened to, eh.

 

[Into the Night]

I have to give you credit. You have now violated S-B law, the first and second laws of thermodynamics, Kirchhoff's law and Wein's law.

None of them. That would be YOU. Inversion fallacy.

Here is the relevant S-B equation that shows that S-B law does calculate the radiation of 2 objects that can result in a negative number for the radiation.

Not the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

How do you explain that a cooler object radiating toward a warmer object results in negative radiation?

You can't warm a warmer object with a cooler one. Denial of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Please explain what you think Tc is in the equation if you think it is not a different mass than T.

Irrelevant. This is not the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

 

[Into the Night]

You seem to have missed the part about there are 2 parts of your system. One part can decrease in entropy as long as the system as a whole doesn't violate the 2nd law.

False equivalence fallacy. You cannot compare two different systems as if they are the same system. You can never decrease entropy....ever.

I am merely using ItN's reference that S-B must apply to all mass.

It does.

T is an object that has mass. Tc is a different object
T is the temperature of object 1. Tc is the temperature of object 2.

Irrelevant. Not the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

 

[Into the Night]

Aside from right wingers, who now want deny that economics is a "science", who has said that science is infallible?

Liberals...because they use the word 'science' as some kind of proof, or Universal Truth.

Science is not fallible nor infallible. It simply is. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more. Nothing less. That's it. That's all.

 

[Into the Night]

No matter of proof will ever change the minds of the low IQ right winger.

You have no proof, but you argue as if you did. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

However, you cannot prove it isn't, so the real question should be why take the chance?

Pascal's Wager fallacy. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.

We have the knowledge, and the intelligence to change things, and it would make it much better for all, including wildlife, so why not do it?

To change what? Just what IS 'global warming'?

Just to satisfy the whims of a few billionaires? Are you really that much of a slave?
...deleted Holy Link...

You haven't defined the problem yet.

 

[Into the Night]

Does remind one of the times when people opposed the "horseless carriage".

They didn't, obviously.

 

[anonymoose]

You can never decrease entropy....ever.

Agreed but Debatable. If E is added , S is increased. But that’s a matter of opinion, IMO.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Agreed but Debatable. If E is added , S is increased. But that’s a matter of opinion, IMO.

I like this from Quora:

What is an example in which the entropy of a system decreases? Why is the second law of thermodynamics not violated?”

It’s lunch time. I’m eating a sandwich. One system —my body— will use the energy and the nutrients in that sandwich to increase the order within my body or, at a minimum, to reduce the amount that my entropy would have increased today if I didn’t eat.

The key is that my body is not an isolated system. My body interacts with the world around me. While my entropy may go down, the entropy of the larger world goes up. I like this example because my body’s entropy decrease is hard to see. But the sandwich’s entropy increase is pretty noticeably — it goes from individual layers of bread, ham, cheese, and mayonnaise to uniform brown poop. I can’t calculate either entropy change, so I like an example where the visuals are in the right order.