tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post8628836179372950..comments2024-03-19T07:10:27.303-07:00Comments on Quark Soup by David Appell: An Idea Unique to Climate ChangeDavid Appellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-22006279885266099012012-09-29T17:28:43.773-07:002012-09-29T17:28:43.773-07:00What do you mean, "do not feel the heat?"...What do you mean, "do not feel the heat?" <br /><br />The radiation from the chicken, which is like all other radiation, hits your skin. Like all other radiation, it interacts with the atoms of your skin, and the phenomenon is communicated to your brain via nerves. This is exactly what we call "feeling." <br /><br />Also note that this thought experiment is also not a test of the 2nd law, since you and the chicken are not an adiabatic system, but surrounded by air that can take away or supply heat. If you want, you can place the chicken in a vacuum and replace yourself by a temperature sensor. The same reasoning works.)<br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-70800541406371414152012-09-29T15:47:25.806-07:002012-09-29T15:47:25.806-07:00David Appell said: "What do you think happens...David Appell said: "What do you think happens when the radiation from the chicken hits your skin?"<br />=====================================================<br /><br />David, as I said, if you do not feel the radiative heat from the frozen chicken, it should make you suspicious about what some people say about "CO2 warming". It is not important what I think. Important is, whether they can scientifically prove their assertion or not.Greg Househttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03716831519809014931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-18483720940597070062012-09-28T08:12:46.777-07:002012-09-28T08:12:46.777-07:00>>if you open the freezer you do not feel th...>>if you open the freezer you do not feel the radiative heat from the frozen chicken.<<<br /><br />What do you think happens when the radiation from the chicken hits your skin?<br /> David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-19993196415891719742012-09-27T18:20:39.699-07:002012-09-27T18:20:39.699-07:00David Appell said: "All objects radiate energ...David Appell said: "All objects radiate energy. When that energy impinges on another objects, it increases its energy content, i.e. warms it. This is basic physics. You can do an experiment to check it if you want; it is consistent with all past experiments in thermodynamics and radiation transfer.<br /><br /> You ask for a reexamination of some of the basic assumptions behind AGW, but don't even seem aware of what exactly you're asking, or realize that such reexaminations take place all the time, by scientists all over the world, constantly, and have been taking place since the physical principles were first proposed. It's a hallmark of the scientific reasoning and the scientific method."<br />=========================================================<br /><br />This is what you think, I understand, but now look at your argumentation. It goes essentially like that: "X says: "Prove it!" and Y answers: "It is proven"".<br /><br />As I said before, no warmist I talked to on the blogs was able to present just 1 real scientific experiment proving that a colder body can warm (or reduce cooling of) a warmer body by means of radiation. And exactly like you, some of them advised me to prove it myself. You see, I should prove their point. This is a strong indication that we have to do with a sort of science fiction here.<br /><br />At the same time, your point about "radiation is radiation" or about radiation causing increase in temperature is not completely senseless, because we are familiar with IR heating devices, for example. However, if you think critically you will notice that those IR sources are very hot. At the same time you might have noticed, that if you open the freezer you do not feel the radiative heat from the frozen chicken. At least this should prompt you to start thinking in the direction whether the notion about colder bodies reducing the cooling rate of a warmer body by means of radiation is a scientific fact. And who has proven that and how. And then you will question the "colder CO2 heating" as well.<br />Greg Househttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03716831519809014931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-84872781012808972182012-09-27T17:56:32.418-07:002012-09-27T17:56:32.418-07:00David Appell said: "Maybe you don't reali... David Appell said: "Maybe you don't realize you're questioning the 2nd law of thermodynamics. [...] But the 2nd law only applies to adiabatic systems -- those that are thermally isolated and do not exchange heat with their surroundings. Obviously this excludes the Earth, since the Sun pours huge amounts of energy into it."<br />=======================================================<br /><br />You have already expressed this idea. You mean, that the "CO2 warming" does not violate the 2nd law, but I did not say it did, so your counterargument misses the point.Greg Househttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03716831519809014931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-61785349854975765782012-09-27T17:44:21.311-07:002012-09-27T17:44:21.311-07:00David Appell said: "CO2 isn't warming the...David Appell said: "CO2 isn't warming the surface; (some of) the radiation it emits is warming the surface,"<br />=================================================<br /><br />Sorry, but I find it a little bit funny. It sounds like "X did not kill Y; the bullet out of his gun did."<br /><br />I have already mentioned "by means of radiation" 2 times, by the way, like that: "I however question the alleged ability of a colder body to warm (or reduce cooling) of a warmer body by means of radiation."Greg Househttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03716831519809014931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-67701922616469705752012-09-27T16:38:27.513-07:002012-09-27T16:38:27.513-07:00>> In the same way, the narrower assertion a...>> In the same way, the narrower assertion about the CO2 warming the warmer surface is scientifically unsupported either. <<<br /><br />CO2 isn't warming the surface; (some of) the radiation it emits is warming the surface, just as the radiation from the Sun warms the surface. <br /><br />Radiation is radiation. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-34491238185203747832012-09-27T16:35:56.748-07:002012-09-27T16:35:56.748-07:00Greg House: Maybe you don't realize you're...Greg House: Maybe you don't realize you're questioning the 2nd law of thermodynamics.<br /><br />The 2nd Law is derived from a huge body of experimental results, none of which has ever been found to violate it, and a huge number of applications of it, all of which work. That's what makes it a "law." (The principle of conservation of energy is in the same category.)<br /><br />The Clausius statement of the 2nd law is that "No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature."<br /><br />But the 2nd law only applies to adiabatic systems -- those that are thermally isolated and do not exchange heat with their surroundings. Obviously this excludes the Earth, since the Sun pours huge amounts of energy into it.<br /><br />All objects radiate energy. When that energy impinges on another objects, it increases its energy content, i.e. warms it. This is basic physics. You can do an experiment to check it if you want; it is consistent with all past experiments in thermodynamics and radiation transfer.<br /><br />You ask for a reexamination of some of the basic assumptions behind AGW, but don't even seem aware of what exactly you're asking, or realize that such reexaminations take place all the time, by scientists all over the world, constantly, and have been taking place since the physical principles were first proposed. It's a hallmark of the scientific reasoning and the scientific method.<br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-16404759908931654062012-09-27T15:10:30.604-07:002012-09-27T15:10:30.604-07:00David Appell said: "[...]since you clearly do...David Appell said: "[...]since you clearly do not understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics."<br />=============================================================<br /><br />David, I did not refer to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, you might have noticed that. <br /><br />I however question the alleged ability of a colder body to warm (or reduce cooling) of a warmer body by means of radiation. More precisely, I question that this assertion has ever been proven by a scientific experiment. At the moment it looks like this assertion has never been proven, so we have to do with a sort of a scientifically unsupported tale. In the same way, the narrower assertion about the CO2 warming the warmer surface is scientifically unsupported either. So simple is that.Greg Househttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03716831519809014931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-70824839897308990992012-09-26T15:22:08.632-07:002012-09-26T15:22:08.632-07:00"Greg House": I'm asking again, have..."Greg House": I'm asking again, have you ever taken a course in basic thermodynamics? Because if so, you would understand why your question is inapplicable. <br /><br />My impression is that you have not, since you clearly do not understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics.<br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-54203046752444079082012-09-25T13:30:26.383-07:002012-09-25T13:30:26.383-07:00David, just stick to the scientific points.
He is...<i>David, just stick to the scientific points.</i><br /><br />He is. Your Internet Performance Art character is pretending to not understand them, for our amusement. <br /><br />Ewps. Did I wreck the bit?<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />DDanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-58615026536055823402012-09-25T07:24:42.522-07:002012-09-25T07:24:42.522-07:00David Appell said: ""Greg House": H...David Appell said: ""Greg House": Have you *ever*[...]"<br />=====================================================<br /><br />Come on, David, just stick to the scientific points.Greg Househttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03716831519809014931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-83516971608150291662012-09-24T21:25:38.014-07:002012-09-24T21:25:38.014-07:00"Greg House": Have you *ever* taken a co..."Greg House": Have you *ever* taken a course in basic physics, including thermodynamics? <br /><br />Please be honest.<br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-11991588690691351662012-09-24T20:28:42.581-07:002012-09-24T20:28:42.581-07:00David Appell said: "Do you understand why the...David Appell said: "Do you understand why the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to the atmosphere?"<br />====================================================================<br /><br />There are a lot of things that do or do not apply to the atmosphere. I specifically talked about a "scientific experiment proving the ability of a colder atmospheric CO2 to warm a warmer surface". <br /><br />OK, let us expand that. Is there any scientific experiment proving the ability of a colder body to warm (or reduce cooling) a warmer body by means of radiation?<br /><br />I have asked this question many times on climate blogs and no warmist had been able to present such an experiment. "Thought experiments" do not count, I hope you understand that. It does not look good for the AGW proponents.<br /><br />And again, references to textbooks were you can find the same unproven assertions are not valid arguments, because a mere repetition of an unproven assertion does not prove it to be correct.Greg Househttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03716831519809014931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-3478724949304289232012-09-24T20:02:11.212-07:002012-09-24T20:02:11.212-07:00"Greg House": You haven't studied mu..."Greg House": You haven't studied much science, have you? Please, be honest, OK, since you insist on being anonymous.<br /><br />Do you understand why the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to the atmosphere?<br /><br />Physics undergraduates learn this as freshmen.<br /><br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-44653041369076946912012-09-24T19:53:00.589-07:002012-09-24T19:53:00.589-07:00David Appell said: "Greg House: You will need...David Appell said: "Greg House: You will need a much, much, *much* better argument than you have presented."<br />=========================================================<br /><br />David, I have questioned 2 AGW basics and recommended that you and others look at the issues. Specifically at the calculations of "global warming" and whether there is a scientific experiment proving the ability of a colder atmospheric CO2 to warm a warmer surface.<br /><br />I assume, you and very many other people have never done anything like that, instead they simply rely on the press and what some scientists say. The problem of such an approach is, that if you do that, you do not actually have your own opinion, you have only been acting like a marionette. <br /><br />So, it is your choice. I can not force you to start thinking independently, I can only help a little bit, but you need to start doing your homework yourself. <br />Greg Househttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03716831519809014931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-16218445190773763712012-09-24T18:02:05.614-07:002012-09-24T18:02:05.614-07:00Greg House: You will need a much, much, *much* bet...Greg House: You will need a much, much, *much* better argument than you have presented.<br /><br />Do you have one?<br /><br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-86677763213730494442012-09-23T15:33:55.955-07:002012-09-23T15:33:55.955-07:00... and ghosts, and deniers, and people who don...<i>... and ghosts, and deniers, and people who don't believe in ESP, and gray goo, and vampires, and genetically engineered monsters, and </i><br /><br />If I were your firm, I wouldn't pay you for this low-quality, off-hours drivel. If you were hired by the word, it might work here as there is no date stamp.<br /><br />Jus' sayin'.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />DDanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-66773607375386485472012-09-23T12:53:02.328-07:002012-09-23T12:53:02.328-07:00But this idea is almost unique to climate change. ...<i>But this idea is almost unique to climate change. In other areas of public safety, such as terrorism, nuclear proliferation, inflation, or vaccination ... </i> <br /><br />... and ghosts, and deniers, and people who don't believe in ESP, and gray goo, and vampires, and genetically engineered monsters, and <br /><br /><br />Ladies and Gentlemen: Welcome to David Appell's <b>LOSERVILLE</b>Brian G Valentinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01523059818774910427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-3122714095743808482012-09-22T20:19:38.095-07:002012-09-22T20:19:38.095-07:00because I am challenging the basics of exactly tha...<i>because I am challenging the basics of exactly that "climate science".</i><br /><br />Poor addled "Greg" wishes that he wants to live on this planet without GHGs in the atmosphere, does he?<br /><br />Like I said elsewhere, the disinformation industry must be undergoing a hiring crisis - the number of talented lying shills has dropped off precipitously of late.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />DDanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-24847939015190889822012-09-22T19:36:54.745-07:002012-09-22T19:36:54.745-07:00David Appell said: "You've never taken a ...David Appell said: "You've never taken a course in climate science, or read a textbook, have you?"<br />=======================================================<br /><br />David, mere reference to "climate science" or "climate science textbooks" is not a valid argument in this particular debate, because I am challenging the basics of exactly that "climate science". To simply say "climate scientists are right about certain things because they have put them in their textbooks and teach them in their courses" is still not a valid argument, sorry.Greg Househttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03716831519809014931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-33273364807591287872012-09-22T19:12:56.885-07:002012-09-22T19:12:56.885-07:00Greg House wrote:
>> What I see is a scienti...Greg House wrote:<br />>> What I see is a scientifically outrageous calculations of "global warming" and absolutely zero scientific experimental proof that CO2 can warm a warmer surface. These 2 points are crucial.<<<br /><br />Greg: You've never taken a course in climate science, or read a textbook, have you?<br /><br />Go ahead -- you can be honest, since you're afraid to use you real name. Tell us....<br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-84705362121564080502012-09-22T19:10:03.783-07:002012-09-22T19:10:03.783-07:00Greg House wrote:
"What I want is you and ot...Greg House wrote: <br />"What I want is you and others to look closer at the AGW basics and see that they are unsupported scientifically."<br /><br />This is a fucking joke. Greg, you are an idiot. Yes - you.<br /><br />Scientists *have* been considering the basics of their field since its inceptions, in climate science, as in all sciences.<br /><br />People like you -- exactly like you -- don't even understand enough science to know this.<br /><br />Go wallow in your scientific ignorance and stupidity, and leave me alone.<br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-14888179407366074352012-09-22T18:59:54.634-07:002012-09-22T18:59:54.634-07:00David Appell said: "It is useless to argue wi...David Appell said: "It is useless to argue with people who do not understand the basic science of the greenhouse effect or the evidence for it. [...] What more do you want?"<br />==================================================<br /><br />Actually the opposite is true. It would be useless to argue on a certain subject with people who share your opinion on that subject.<br /><br />What I want is you and others to look closer at the AGW basics and see that they are unsupported scientifically. Of course, I expect some debate on those 2 crucial points I mentioned in my previous comment. And please, take into consideration that simple arguing from authority is not a valid argumentation in a scientific debate. At the same time everyone is entitled to statements like "I will not argue with you because I know they are right".<br />Greg Househttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03716831519809014931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-88191430353871948722012-09-22T17:41:31.340-07:002012-09-22T17:41:31.340-07:00Greg House (if that is your real name): It is usel...Greg House (if that is your real name): It is useless to argue with people who do not understand the basic science of the greenhouse effect or the evidence for it. <br /><br />So I won't try. <br /><br />As to "sufficient likelihood of significant damage": For over 110 years, calculations have shown that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels leads to 2-4 C of warming. Paleo data says the same, as do measurements taken since the start of the Keeling curve.<br /><br />What more do you want? Seriously -- I expect an answer.<br /><br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.com