We have five days to live according to scientists.

nope. the ice in an igloo, like the insulation in your home, and your jacket, and the thermos you use to keep your coffee warm, all trap heat.

 

Yes, heat flows one way, but heat comes from the net sum of all energy flow, and energy can flow freely in any direction.

So, the cold sky sends energy to the warmer areas below. As the areas below send more energy up, the heat goes up, from hot to cold, so the laws of thermodynamics are satisfied, but the energy is flowing in all directions.

But hey, let's talk about your theory, which says that a cold body can't radiate energy into a warmer body. How does that work?

Is it your contention that the cold body somehow knows not to radiate towards a warm body? Or maybe it does radiate towards the warmer body, but the warm body knows the photons came from a cold body and refuses to absorb them? Or maybe the photons just vanish for some reason?

You need to explain your theory here, as it seems that it either requires intelligent individual molecules, or it violates conservation of energy.

 

Technically, it is a "thermal barrier". It keeps hot drinks hot, it keeps cold drinks cold. It does not care which way it operates, it simply reduces the contact so prevents the exchange of heat and cold.

An igloo is interesting, because it uses snow to do so. Not ice as many think, but snow. And snow has trapped inside of it a lot of air, a great thermal barrier when separated into cells. And as one is inhabited the heat of the bodies will start to warm up the interior, generally causing the inner layer to melt, then freeze causing a crust to form inside. This adds to the barrier, keeping more heat inside as it causes more of the heat to reflect inside. I have been inside igloos that were over 60 inside without heaters, even when it was below 0 (F) outside.

That is why Winter Warfare and Survival courses still teach how to make such low tech and efficient shelters. They are great examples of thermal barriers and are highly efficient.

And it really does not matter if a "heat sink" transfers cold out or heat in, the effect is largely the same. If I put a heat sink on a solder point I am not really making it "cold", but the solder point is colder than if I did not use one, so which direction that thermal energy flows is largely irrelevant. To say otherwise is just nitpicking.

 

WRONG. They all reduce "the flow of thermal energy" (aka "heat"). They all reduce the coupling between their contents ("trapped air") and the colder "outside air".

It is not possible to trap heat. Heat still escapes. There is no such thing as a perfect insulator.

A greenhouse will eventually return back to the same temp as the outside air during the night (as the sun is no longer heating it). Heat is not being "trapped". It is being "reduced".

 

right. it traps heat.

strawman. I never said there was a perfect insulator. But it is a proven fact that heat is trapped by insulation.

no, the greenhouse remains warmer than the outside air, because the heat is trapped inside. Just like your house, thermos and a million other examples.

 

Correct so far.

This is where you are dead wrong. There is no such thing as "net flow" of thermal energy. Thermal energy only flows from hot to cold. If you open up a dam and allow the water to flow into a river below it, how much of that water will fight to flow uphill and back into the dam? If you answered 'none', then you would be correct. Likewise, thermal energy does not fight to flow from lower temperature to higher temperature. By attempting to put the word "net" in front of the word "flow", you are then claiming that some of that flow is violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

See above. Water cannot flow uphill and back into the dam. Thermal energy cannot flow uphill and back towards higher temperature.

Not my theory. I didn't come up with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

This is the common goalpost shift that Science Deniers do. We've been talking about "the flow of thermal energy" (aka "heat") up until now, but now you suddenly switch gears and act as if we've been talking about radiation direction. I have never claimed that a cold body can't radiate towards a warmer body. It can, but the warmer body will not absorb that energy. A molecule will not absorb a photon that has less energy than the molecule itself. My claim, rather, is that heat (the "flow of thermal energy") does not ever flow from cold to hot, akin to how water will not flow uphill and back into the dam. It will only flow from the dam to the river below it. Likewise, thermal energy will only flow from higher temperature to lower temperature.

Goalpost shift. See above.

Ding ding ding!! This. See above.

Nope. No appeal to Settled Science necessary. See above.

See above explanation. You were simply goalpost shifting mid-argument in an attempt to deny the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, since your Church of Global Warming membership requires you to deny it.

 

No, heat is still flowing. A thermos simply reduces the coupling between the "trapped air" that is inside the thermos and the warmer/colder outside air. Heat is not "trapped". It is still flowing from hot to cold (whether that be from the warm drink inside the thermos to the outside air, or whether that be from the warm outside air to the colder drink inside the thermos). Either way, over time, the drink inside the thermos will eventually become the same temp as the outside air. Thus, heat ("the flow of thermal energy") is not trapped. Thermal energy is still flowing, all the same.

Yup, here you got it correct. The human bodies inside the igloo are sources of thermal energy (which can warm the "trapped air" inside the igloo), and the igloo's snow walls act as a coupling reducer between the "trapped air" and the colder outside air. So, it baffles me that you can get thermodynamics correct in this instance but not in other instances...

 

I have given you numerous examples, as well as numerous experiments showing heat can be, and is trapped all the time.

You have yet to get the laws of thermodynamics correct.

 

No, reducing heat is NOT equivalent to trapping heat. Reducing heat means that there is still flow. Trapping heat means that there is no longer any flow.

You've been making claim to one this whole time. Now you're going to deny your own argumentation?

Not trapped, but reduced. There is no such thing as a perfect insulator. You are still locked in paradox:
[1] There is no such thing as a perfect insulator.
[2] [Insert object of choice here] is a perfect insulator.

It only remains warmer for X amount of time after the sun sets. Without the sun heating the greenhouse, the greenhouse will eventually become the same temperature inside as outside. Heat cannot be trapped. It can only be reduced/increased.

Define what the system is in this example.

Like the greenhouse, the drink inside of the thermos will eventually become the same temperature as the surrounding air.

Not examples.

 

...and I have already provided counterarguments against them.

Inversion Fallacy. That is you, not me.

 

yes it is. the heat is trapped by the insulation. This has been proven to you, over and over, and proven by experimentation which you reject out of hand and do not address. Your position is completely refuted by the science.

 

which consists of "nuh uh". You actually need to provide an experiment showing heat is not and can not be trapped, to counter the ones I gave you showing it can and is.

We've already established you don't know what this means.

 

No new argumentation presented. Dismissed.

 

No new argumentation. Dismissed.

 

White flag noted. I accept your concession.

 

2nd white flag noted. Your concession is accepted again.

 

That's nice. But as all energy isn't "thermal", it's meaningless. Photons don't have a temperature. Photons of energy happily flow from cold to hot. You can disbelieve that kind of observed reality, but it won't change reality. I can point an IR camera at the cold sky, and it will show accurate images of the cold clouds. Those cold clouds are spitting out IR photons, those photons strike the warmer sensors in the camera, and they are absorbed by the camera sensors. Cheap consumer electronics disprove your conspiracy theory.

And as all energy is not thermal energy, that analogy is not related to the situation.

Totally wrong. The 2nd law talks about heat, not energy. Those are two entirely different things. Energy can fly by way of photons from cold to hot, and it does. Heat is a statistical quantity of large amounts of matter, which results from a summation of energy.

And there's a big faceplant. Emission is a continuous spectrum, not a single frequency line. So even by your dumb theory, a cold body could _sometimes_ radiate towards a warmer body, because it sometimes emits higher energy photons. Your conspiracy theory needs some revisions.

Quantify that, or it's just meaningless handwaving. How does one determine the energy of a molecule?

Also explain to us what happens when a "cold" photon reaches the warm matter and fails to get absorbed. Where does it go? Does it reflect away? Are there any experiments that have measured that reflection? Do you have anything to back up your conspiracy theory other than "BECAUSE I SAY SO!"?

Asking you to explain your bizarre conspiracy theory is not a goalpost shift. You're contradicting the last century of physics here. Extraordinary claims like yours require extraordinary evidence, but you've supplied zero evidence.

You're clueless about the 2nd law. That's not an opinion, that's an observation, like saying that a flat earther is clueless about the shape of the earth.

 

Self-Proclaimed Victory mantra dismissed on sight.

No new argumentation.

 

Self-Proclaimed Victory mantra dismissed on sight.

No new argumentation.

 

3rd and 4th white flags noted. I again accept your concession.

 

Never said it was. We have been talking about heat. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. We've been talking about thermal energy. Try to stay on topic.

Goalpost shifting that I referenced in prior comment.

Yes it is. We are talking about thermal energy specifically. That is what heat is referencing. Heat is the flow of thermal energy.

Yes, and heat (the flow of thermal energy) is what we are talking about. You have been attempting to pivot away from that.

Same goalpost shifting addressed in prior comment.

Photons from a colder body have less energy than photons from a warmer body.

We can't open up a molecule and see how much thermal energy it has. Molecular motion is all that we have to measure temperature. An average of that kinetic energy is the best we can do, and it works really well.

The matter of higher energy is "transparent" to the photon of lower energy.

Already addressed.

 

No, _you've_ been talking only about thermal energy, and that's the root cause of your failure. Since you refuse to take non-thermal energy -- photons -- into account, your theory does not reflect reality, so your theory is completely wrong.

Everyone now correctly regards that statement as your admission that you can't address a point.

IR cameras show that photons from the cold sky are absorbed by the warm camera sensors. Your conspiracy theory is conclusively debunked by cheap consumer electronics. Running away from that fact doesn't change it.

You're contradicting the last century of physics here. I suggest you read up on black body radiation. Black body radiation is a curve, not a single frequency spike. Hot items can and do emit some low energy photons, cold items can and do emit some high energy photons. On average, a warmer body will emit higher energy photons, but many photons from the colder body will have more energy than the photons from the warmer body. That's not debatable, and it destroys your conspiracy theory.

Your first problem there is you ignore vibrational energy, which is the main way in which greenhouse gas molecules store energy.

Your second problem there is that you don't provide a method. How does a single gas molecule know that it's supposed to reflect or absorb a photon based upon how fast it's moving itself? You're invoking a theory of smart molecules.

Your third problem would be how you're running into problems with relativity. Velocity is all relative to the reference frame chosen. A gas molecule moving fast in one reference frame isn't moving in a different reference frame. Your theory gives different results depending on the reference frame used, which is a no-no.

Interesting.

I'm assuming you're not going to violate conservation of energy and say that the photons just vanish.

So, by your theory, the radiation from the cold sky reaches the earth, and instead of being absorbed by the warmer earth, it just passes right through the entire planet, because the whole planet is warmer. According to your theory, I should be able to point an instrument down into the ground and see the IR photons coming from the sky on the opposite side of the planet.

Your theory is bonkers, so nobody pays any attention to it.

 

No new arguments presented. Old arguments already addressed.

 

And there's the inevitable "declare victory and run" speech.

Even you know you're babbling BS, but you won't allow yourself to admit it. If you do, then you'll be admitting that those authority figures you relied on have been feeding you bad propaganda in mass quantities. If you can't trust those authority figures that direct your life, then the whole foundation of your life crumbles. No wonder you're not ready to take that step.

The important thing is that I've planted the seed of skepticism. Maybe will grow, or maybe you'll go back down into the darkness and work to kill it.

 

I'm not running anywhere. You didn't provide any new arguments, so I had nothing to respond to. Your photon bit is completely off base, as we were discussing the flow of thermal energy. Yes, photons can and will go every which way. I'm not denying that. But thermal energy can only flow in one direction (from hot to cold). It cannot flow in the opposite direction. That's the whole point.