Arctic hits record low

I glanced. Total BS. Why, again, are you talking about thermal conductivity of different materials? If you asked why does the blacktop road than greentop road, that would be a valuable question.
Again, whatever you say cannot be against the second law.
Maybe within the context I should have just said reflected away, reflected back in order not to go into the radiation laws I am not so proficient in order to be able to explain even to a cleaning lady, but no laws can violate the second, however you try.

 

Translation from denier cult dementia-talk: "The Earth is really flat!....it's so obvious!....I can see it from where I stand.....why can't you fools see that?"
***

Meanwhile, back on topic, in the real world....Arctic ice is significantly lower in extent so far this year than it was back in 2012, the last 'lowest Arctic sea ice extent on record' year.....the previous record low extent having occurred in 2007. If this trend continues through to the minimum extent in mid-September, 2017 will easily wind up as the new 'lowest Arctic sea ice extent on record' year.

To give you an idea of the scale of the recent ice losses as the Arctic melts, 2012's minimum sea ice extent was 760,000 square kilometers (293,000 square miles) below the previous record minimum extent in the satellite record, which occurred on September 18, 2007. This is an area about the size of the state of Texas.

Looking at it in a larger context, the September 2012 minimum was 3.29 million square kilometers (1.27 million square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum, which is an area nearly twice the size of the state of Alaska. The minimum extent in 2012 was 18% below 2007 and 49% below the 1979 to 2000 average. The decline in sea ice extent this year, 2017, looks like it may wind up being even larger.

 

So what do YOU think happens to all of that energy from Sun? If it isn't captured, trapped, reflected, etc. then where does it go?

 

To the infinite Cosmos which has temperature 0K.
http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/arctic-hits-record-low.499198/page-12#post-1067253516
http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/arctic-hits-record-low.499198/page-17#post-1067298755

 

I must tell you that you got me cornered by the Thermodynamics for kids. Seriously.

Let me try to get out of the corner:

A kid reading your link can picture what is going on and how heat is reflected and bounced, etc. Then the kid goes to a University and learns numbers and conducts experiments confirming the picture, the logical conclusions based on empirical experiments and evidence, like me carrying the metal on the roof or you touching blacktop or adding insulation. Then the kid becomes NASA and publishes scientific papers explaining the process of heat getting reflected and radiated in all directions like this one: http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/arctic-hits-record-low.499198/page-13#post-1067281650

This NASA picture of the world is no different from the one given to the kid in your article. It is all logical and based on evidence and measurements. The only question is that how the kid grew up to NASA without receiving any education?

Let me now emphasize the fact I failed to put in the proper first place:

Thermodynamics has no use for logical conclusions based on empirical evidence. Understand? I should have put all emphases on this fact first.

Thermodynamics is built to solve problems.

In order to solve a problem one must first identify a Thermodynamic system. This was what I did. This was what NASA kids fail to do in the kindergarten picture.

Depending on the problem one may make the system isolated, closed or leave it open because all systems in nature are open.

Then one has to identify Thermodynamics bodies, sources of heat, surroundings if any, etc.

Then one has to describe the flow of heat/energy/ Temperatures etc.

In this description the rule which must followed with no exclusions is that heat always flows from a hotter body to a colder body in a spontaneous process. If somehow somewhere it happens that heat gets reflected, contained, radiated back etc, - one has to go back to the drawing board.

It is not the matter of logic or evidence. We can take metal on the roof, touch black tops, look at mirrors, but the rule has nothing to do to our logic and evidence. It is like a rule of a game, like a tool, a trick of the trade. Understand?
You want to play cards, you have to play by rules of a game; you want to play football you have to play by other rules, you want to play Thermodynamics you have to play by its rules. Understand?

NASA scientists call it the second law. But in Thermodynamics it is called the second beginning of Thermodynamics. Understand why?

So I outlined the open system with no input of heat to it, with the hotter body, the colder body and the surroundings and draw arrows showing the flows of heat. As arrows are drawn the problem, the question – what would happen to the overage T of the earth if its atmosphere changed for 100% CO2 gets the only possible answer – nothing.

All Thermodynamics is built on 4 rules, 4 beginnings.

[3 of them in a form of a joke:
Ginsberg's Theorem (The modern statement of the three laws of thermodynamics)
1. You can't win.
2. You can't even break even.
3. You can't get out of the game.]


And so Newton’s mechanics has its own set of rules of the game, Einstein’s TOR has its own set of rules; Nuclear theory, Electrodynamics etc all have their own rules of the game which are more like abstracts, definitions, strokes of the human genius.

Understand now why heat cannot be reflected?
And understand now that the only games you were qualified to play were Theory of evolution and similar which require no education? I hoped to bring you up to the next level of the game with my explanations...

 

I have to be honest. Not only do you have no idea what you're talking about, but you come across as extremely arrogant. I mean think about it. No one can make sense of your posts and yet you claim every scientist on the planet is completely wrong. You think we all have it wrong about how solar radiation works. If everything we know about solar radiation is wrong then how is it the GFS, ECMWF, NAM, HRRR, etc. numerical weather prediction models can forecast temperatures with surprising accuracy? Are you claiming the radiation schemes in those are wrong too? Ya know what...no...don't bother answering that. I already know what you're answer is going to be.

 

Another one calling himself "we all" with no argument,
Meteorology has not been a subject of discussion, therefore no claim has been made regarding it.
We all, we the sheep - is all the argument you have and it is not new.

 

I'm making the claim that it matters. Because most of the knowledge we have accumulated about how solar radiation interacts with the biosphere is programmed into the parameterization schemes of all NWP models. Everything...from how water vapor emits EM radiation at certain frequencies, how plants and soil capture it and convert it into sensible heat, how the polar region's albedo determines how much is reflected away, how different land usages emit radiation in different frequency bands, etc. NWP is a never ending experiment in testing what we know about how solar radiation behaves, how much comes into the Earth's biosphere, and how much leaves. And multiple times per day everyday it overwhelming verifies that we actually have a really good grasp of what's going on. And you're trying to tell us that it's all wrong?

 

One more time: I have made no comments, I have said no word about NWP or any other aspect of meteorology.
One more time: I am shocked by my conclusion no less then anybody else.
I can only welcome anybody who can point to an error or a mistake I made because I myself cannot find any.
You are not here to do that.
Go away to your herd.

 

But we do have a furnace, so your objection makes no sense. Just as, for the purposes of the analogy, the earth has a furnace, the visible sunlight being absorbed and re-emitted as heat.

Semantic evasions on your part. If you add insulation and the house gets warmer, then the insulation warmed the house. More insulation causes a heat source to get warmer, no matter what weasel-like word games you try to play.

In order to pull of the condescending act, you can't be a retard. So, I can pull it off. You just cause everyone to bust up laughing when you try. It's like watching a kitten growling at people.

Now, here's a juicebox. Go watch SpongeBob, and stop annoying the grownups.

 

This Dunning-Kruger Effect afflicted poster has repeatedly resorted to a sort of logically fallacious argument that is called 'Argument From Personal Incredulity'....and it is a common response one gets from confused and ignorant but very arrogant people who actually don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, so they foolishly reject as false everything they can't understand. Another varient on the 'too incompetent to know how incompetent you are' quirk that afflicts most of the AGW denier cultists.

This logically fallacious 'argument from personal incredulity' often takes the form "this is outside of what I know or understand to be true, so it must be false"....and it contains the unspoken and rather braindead assumption that the speaker is a superhuman genius who should be able to understand everything....unless he is not seeing something (but he's sure he's a genius, so...that's out). So the "superhuman genius" concludes that some assumption ('natural cycles' and 'the scientists are all crooks') is true, because it makes things easier for him to understand.

ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY
TrulyFallacious
Asserting that because one finds something difficult to understand it can’t be true.
This fallacy is based more on lack of understanding than lack of information. Often used as a means to distrust science on the basis of it being highly technical and difficult to put into layman terms, this fallacy is the standby of regressives who wish everything to remain the way things used to be. To avoid changing one’s mind, the person merely avoids advancing their understanding of the topic at hand.
***


Argument from Personal Incredulity - Logical Fallacies
- Really Good Video -

 

Insulating a house CAN make it warm up if the insulation is transparent to incoming radiation, but opaque to outgoing radiation. You don't need a furnace or internal source of heat. That's what greenhouse gases do. That's what we're trying to explain.

 

Explained for you: http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/arctic-hits-record-low.499198/page-16#post-1067294324

 

Explained for you:http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/arctic-hits-record-low.499198/page-16#post-1067294324
Not outgoing radiation, but it prevents heat transfer by convection, the main way of heat transfer at the Earth surface.
You have to make a few meters thick filled with CO2 transparent to incoming radiation dome/big "greenhouse" and put in some where in Alaska to have no fuel heating on the principal of GW science. You can be richer than Bill Gates if you patent it. Or if to put in the words of one of your ilk:
mamooth said: ↑
"Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo,cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo ...

Hey everyone, we got a live one! iamanonman says that insulating your house with the insulation transparent to incoming radiation does make it warmer!

Home builders? You're wasting money on insulation. iamanonmansays so.

Hardware stores? They're ripping people off, selling insulation that iamanonman says is useless.

So, iamanonman, what other common sense phsyics that everyone else on the planet except you understands are you now going to declare is totally wrong?"

Before you make am investment I must let you know that in I believe 1905 it was done and it was shown, no - no CO2 warming effect, - the same old cutting the convection.

 

Explained for you: http://politicalforum.com/index.php...k-graph-reality.498157/page-8#post-1067286332

 

No, it wasn't explained. The 2nd law, which you clearly don't understand, has nothing to do with the fact that insulating a heat source raises the temperature of the heat source, and nobody can figure out why you keep saying it does.

I don't know what else to say. Your ideas about heat flow are just deranged. And your ego ... wow. Being that I'm not consumed with overwhelming narcissism, if I saw that the whole planet disagreed with me, I would assume that I'd screwed up somewhere, and I'd go back and find out where I'd screwed up. I wouldn't loudly announce that the whole planet was wrong simply because of my feelings, as you're doing.

 

Now you are in state of total denial of reality when you deny the simple explanation given by the most rabid alarmist of all times. http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/arctic-hits-record-low.499198/page-16#post-1067294361
Are you competing for his title http://politicalforum.com/index.php...k-graph-reality.498157/page-8#post-1067286332 ?

 

That's not necessarily true. Sure convection is very effective in transferring heat from the surface to the troposphere IF there isn't an inversion (warm above cold) in place. When an inversion exists radiation becomes the dominant heat transfer mechanism. And it's the only mechanism that can transfer heat completely away from the planet because there has to be a medium to transport heat for convection to work which space lacks. But, even if the atmosphere is neutrally stable (moist adiabatic lapse rate constant) or unstable (cold above warm) radiation plays a huge role in temperature variations throughout all levels of the atmosphere. Wet climates reduce temperature variability because water vapor is effective at blocking both incoming and outgoing radiation. Desert climates have large temperature swings because more incoming solar radiation makes it to the surface and more escapes during the night. CO2 and other greenhouse gases are NOT like household insulators. They don't reduce the rate of heat flow across the barrier equally in opposite directions because incoming and outgoing radiation are in different EM frequency bands and the gases behave differently because of this. Right now our biosphere allows more incoming radiation to enter than it allows outgoing radiation to escape. The difference isn't huge, but over a long period of time it starts to add up. All of this is going on without any significant internal source of heat.

 

I didn’t finish editing

http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/arctic-hits-record-low.499198/page-17#post-1067299558

And didn’t I tell you that I may choose not consider any of your posts unless

http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/arctic-hits-record-low.499198/page-17#post-1067299436

P.S. Please note the golden words of truth. Was not this truth the one I claimed and you have not be able even to attempt to refute http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/arctic-hits-record-low.499198/page-12#post-1067253516 ?
Now my claim is your claim:
the more incoming solar radiation makes it to the surface, the more escapes during the night.
Now, what are we going to do - two of us against all scientists?

 

It does! Surely you understand that a window is mostly transparent to solar radiation, but is actually a decently effective barrier to convection and conduction. That's why car's get WAY hotter on the inside than the ambient temperature on the outside even with the engine off and no internal source of heat. But, that actually wasn't the point I was making. The point was that in our hypothetical house (think Earth) and our hypothetical insulation (think atmosphere) the insulation would be more effective at blocking outgoing radiation than it is for incoming radiation. That is the scenario in which our hypothetical house (think Earth) would warm up with no internal heat source.

And yes, I understand that fiberglass and other common household insulation products are not transparent to the solar EM spectrum (though they are very transparent to other parts of the EM spectrum). You know I know that. And you know that wasn't what I was referring to. You also know there are common household building materials that are transparent to the solar EM spectrum. So why the pretense?

 

This is a statement that I absolutely agree with...at least generally speaking. But, be careful how far you run with it. It doesn't necessarily mean the amount escaping at night is equal to the amount of incoming solar radiation. It's not that simple. Also, think about what happens to the energy between the time it arrives in the biosphere and the time it leaves. Is it stored? Is it converted into another form of energy? Is it reflected away? You know the answer. And I know you know. Obviously, a lot of different things happen to these energetic photons. Some go here. Some go there. Plants make ATP out of them via photosynthesis. They get absorbed by "stuff" making the "stuff" warmer. And plenty of other things too numerous to enumerate. The point is there is lag between the response times of differing amounts of incoming and outgoing radiation. If the Sun were to spontaneously bath us in 2x as much radiation tomorrow would the outgoing radiation spontaneously jump 2x to match it? Probably not...at least not immediately. Earth's rough energy balance has been achieved over eons of complex interactions.

 

Do you agree that the picture of the world all scientists signed under http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/arctic-hits-record-low.499198/page-13#post-1067281650 is idiotic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantilism_(physiological_disorder) ?

Do you agree that if a problem is described by an idiot one cannot expect anything else but an idiotic solution?.

Do you agree that in our picture, (our energy budget if you will) The Earth receives energy only during the day ( positive net) and radiates it out only during the night (negative net, if you are so stuck on doubting simple things)?

Do you agree that you said the more energy the desert receives the more it gives out?

Do you agree that there are no special borders/ thermal barriers for the desert areas and the rule must be true for the whole planet?

Do you agree that the rule for the Earth is the same as for all planets?

Do you agree that no planet, whatever is distance from the Sun is warming even if some have all CO2 atmosphere and some don’t have at all?

Do you agree that it means exactly what it means –ALL energy received from the Sun by any planet - with or without atmosphere or whatever is atmosphere or whatever are the processes going on in atmosphere - is radiated away by the planet?


Do you agree that all planets have different lengths of days/nights (time of a 360 degrees spin)?

Do you agree that in your question “If the Sun were to spontaneously bath us in 2x as much radiation tomorrow” the doubling may be achieved by making the Earth TO SPIN 360 DEGREES NOT in 24 but in 48 hours?

Do you agree that during the night heat is radiated not back to the Sun but to what you call "void".?

Do you agree that the "void" is infinite and has Temperature 0K or absolute zero, the only one existing in physics unit of measurement which is absolute?


I have to run, but answer the questions, and you will start seeing the world around you, - it is beautiful.

 

Do you agree that scientists claim that Earth is warming not because of a lot of different things, not because of eons of complex interactions, but because of imagined by them change in amount of a trace gas in atmosphere?
Do you agree that in the light of the fact above your questions are irrelevant?

 

I think I figured out your insulation problem. Sometimes I don't realize that things which are very simple and evident for me may not be so simple for others?
You see:
during the night the furnace is inside the house and the insulation slows down heat loss, but during the day the furnace ( the Sun) is outside the house and the insulation slows down heat gain.
Understand?

 

No.

Yes and no., I agree that only the side of Earth facing the Sun receives solar radiation. No, I do not agree that outgoing radiation only occurs during the night. It happens during the day too. I agree that there is a net positive during the day and net negative during the night in the typical case. I do not agree that the sum total of all incoming and outgoing integrated over long periods is equal though.

Yes. There is a correlation between the amount of energy reaching the surface and the amount radiated away from the surface. I did not say they were equal.

No. There are special radiation barriers in different climates. Water vapor is the best example.

No. The other planets have drastically different compositions so the effects of solar radiation are different.

No.

Yes.

No. Changing the rate of rotation of the spin of Earth does not change the overall amount of solar radiation the Earth receives. Sure, each point on Earth now receives 2x as much radiation during the day. But, there are half as many days now so it cancels out.

Yes.

No. I don't necessarily agree that the void is infinite. That's a topic for another thread though. The void also is not at absolute zero (0K). It's actually measured to be ~2.7K.