[jeffreyH]

No,  the actual point I made which is that you can't be expected to do science if you are innumerate.

But if you want to stretch that silly argument then the argument I made was that if you cut the donkey's hair from time to time but someone else is attacking it with a meat cleaver, the's the guy with the cleaver that is going to trouble the donkey more.

Yes, I'm a donkey, you're the guy with a meat cleaver who can't add 1 plus 1/15,000, Jeffrey H. is the guy who can't read. Any other empty barrels care to make a sound?

Hey Craig. Maybe you can teach me how to read. Maybe start here and then move on to more sophisticated models using some of that calculus you love so much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model

[jeffreyH]

Just to let you know Craig I worked for 8 years developing hydrological modeling software. Look up hydrology if the term is new to you. So I spent an awful lot of time with climatologists. I also did sewer flow modeling and analysis, but that is a different story. There's your intro for another rash of insults. Look it's on a plate waiting for you.

[Bored chemist]

You're the guy with a meat cleaver who can't add 1 plus 1/15,000,

Since there was never any call to do that sum three is no way you could know whether I can do it or not is there?
No.
OK so it's another strawman.

[Bored chemist]

Yes! I'm sure I want to go there.

rather than on some random tangent about Feynman diagrams (which, BTW, have precious little to do with entropy)

Wrong on two counts.

A Fish Called Wanda is a random tangent.

When particles interact as per creation/annihilation events pictured in Feynmann diagrams, YES, there IS entropy.

the particular quote from the file (about a minute into that clip)
"Apes don't read philosophy. Yes they do; they just don't understand"
it is  not a random tangent, it's a reply to your implication that this
"I understand entropy just fine. Like I said, I have a dog-eared copy of Jeremy Rifkin's book Entropy: Into the Greenhouse World that I've read at least 4 times since 1988."
has any baring on the matters under discussion.
You may own a book.
You might even read it.
But you still know nothing about entropy.

If you want to show that I'm wrong and that you are right about this "When particles interact as per creation/annihilation events pictured in Feynmann diagrams, YES, there IS entropy."
Just tell me what the entropy change is for that reaction.

[alancalverd]

No. I am citing ancient climate changes. There was no industry back then. Why was it so warm?[/color]

Because the Romans invented underfloor heating and introduced it to Britain, and being greedy bastards without the essential hardiness of woad-clad Brits they cut down all the trees and set fire to them thus causing massive global warming so they could grow grapes and introduce malaria to East Anglia in order to weaken the invading Norse and Saxon hordes. Really, the historical ignorance of you deniers is appalling. You'll  be telling us next that the 12th century global cooling wasn't a punishment from God for the invention of Protestantism and Bruno's challenging of Papal authority.

[Tim the Plumber]

No. I am citing ancient climate changes. There was no industry back then. Why was it so warm?[/color]

Because the Romans invented underfloor heating and introduced it to Britain, and being greedy bastards without the essential hardiness of woad-clad Brits they cut down all the trees and set fire to them thus causing massive global warming so they could grow grapes and introduce malaria to East Anglia in order to weaken the invading Norse and Saxon hordes. Really, the historical ignorance of you deniers is appalling. You'll  be telling us next that the 12th century global cooling wasn't a punishment from God for the invention of Protestantism and Bruno's challenging of Papal authority.

LOL! I am unsure whether to reply in kind with an attack on your ideas and your person, to keep it in the same style as the rest of the thread, or to try to point out useful stuff. I'll do the latter just to be alternative;

If you want to have a science forum you will have to be harsh with your allowance of idiocy. It's sort of OK to have a load of simple questions asked by those who have not done any science but this needs to be in it's own section otherwise more advanced discussions will be drowned out by the noise.

It is never OK to allow a science forum to become a platform for drivel. Not only will this legitimize the drivel for the mad but it does not allow the inportant points of the thread to be hammered out. In this thread B.Chemist is on the warmist side of the argument. I would like to quiz him about why he considers all this to be at all dangerous to humanity. Because he is legitimately spending his time defending his good science from a nutter he is able, or even is forced to, avoid the more difficult questions. The debate is fouled up by the presence of loud nutters.

[Craig W. Thomson]

The debate is fouled up by the presence of loud nutters.

Yes, and the loudest nutter has a penchant for posting in blue.

[Craig W. Thomson]

Technology is a different idea to industry. You really have a problem thinking clearly don't you.

You pollute this forum with gibberish and make it very difficult to have adult conversations. I strongly request the nutters are corralled into a separate sub forum and allowed out when they can think.

The industry of the time is determined by the technology of the time. Learning to control fire to cook food or clear farm land is still "technology" and "industry" for ancient man.

You have too many gaps in your knowledge to criticize anyone for not being able to think. I suggest you read a science book and maybe even take some science courses before you come here running off at the mouth with your pseudoscience and argumentative nonsense.

Again, burning stuff creates heat and CO2. The CO2 helps the atmosphere trap that extra heat.

If you're saying anything other than that, YOU'RE polluting the forum with gibberish and need to be corralled in a separate sub-forum.

At least Bored Chemist and alancalverd are using cherry-picked science facts to prop up their flimsy arguments and nitpick at the details of climate change. You don't even have that.

[jeffreyH]

Tell me Craig when did you last see any environmental data close up? Ever done any base flow regression analysis? Selected any storm events from rainfall data. Or maybe contributed to the 100 year flood assessment? Our MD was the president of The British Hydrological society. He organised international conferences not only on hydrology but climate change. Don't stereotype or make sweeping generalisations. They come back to bite you.

[Bored chemist]

Again, burning stuff creates heat and CO2. The CO2 helps the atmosphere trap that extra heat.

At least Bored Chemist and alancalverd are using cherry-picked science facts to prop up their flimsy arguments and nitpick at the details of climate change. You don't even have that.

The point is not that the CO2 traps the tiny little bit of heat generated directly by burning fossil fuels. The point is that it traps all heat- including a share of the 15000 times more heat that we get from the sun.

I'm still waiting for you to address this
If you want to show that I'm wrong and that you are right about this "When particles interact as per creation/annihilation events pictured in Feynmann diagrams, YES, there IS entropy."
Just tell me what the entropy change is for that reaction.

[Craig W. Thomson]

I'm still waiting for you to address this
If you want to show that I'm wrong and that you are right about this "When particles interact as per creation/annihilation events pictured in Feynmann diagrams, YES, there IS entropy."
Just tell me what the entropy change is for that reaction.

See? That's why I asked you if you were sure you wanted to go there.

Lots of those diagrams indicate "one way" processes. Normally, particles decay from heavier, less stable particles to lighter, more stable particles. You're not going to see any Feynman diagrams of processes going the other way unless you've added energy to the system somehow, and probably a lot of it, such as with a particle accelerator.

Entropy is often said to be the "arrow of time," and this is why. Big Bang nucleosynthesis was the cascading of all the mass/energy in its highly ordered, "singularity particle" state into more and more stable forms of mass and energy that are spread out and diffuse. Energy naturally wants to spread out, not stay crammed together in one place. The entropy law, among other things, reflects this tendency.

Remember the log? Burn it, and you get heat, ash and smoke. Together, those things technically equal the log. That's the 1st Law. Collecting the ash, smoke and heat back together to make a log takes more energy than you got burning it. That's the 2nd Law. Using a particle accelerator to create a heavy particle that hasn't existed in large numbers since the Universe was a few seconds old is a bit like putting ashes, smoke and heat back together to get a log. Think about how much energy it takes just to get a new particle or two out of an accelerator, enough to power whole cities.

In a sense, "creating" a heavier particle in a particle accelerator by colliding a lot of mass and energy at a single point is like "turning back the clock," because everything in the early universe was much closer together back then, so it still had a temperature and density similar to the conditions at that impact point in the particle accelerator.

In short, when you see a Feynman diagram, rest assured, the entropy law is being expressed somewhere, quite possibly right there in the diagram itself.

Is there anything else you would like to know?

[Craig W. Thomson]

Don't stereotype or make sweeping generalisations. They come back to bite you.

Here's a stereotype I read about in the news:

http://www.businessinsider.com/proof-republicans-really-are-dumber-than-democrats-2012-5

[Tim the Plumber]

Technology is a different idea to industry. You really have a problem thinking clearly don't you.

You pollute this forum with gibberish and make it very difficult to have adult conversations. I strongly request the nutters are corralled into a separate sub forum and allowed out when they can think.

The industry of the time is determined by the technology of the time. Learning to control fire to cook food or clear farm land is still "technology" and "industry" for ancient man.

You have too many gaps in your knowledge to criticize anyone for not being able to think. I suggest you read a science book and maybe even take some science courses before you come here running off at the mouth with your pseudoscience and argumentative nonsense.

Again, burning stuff creates heat and CO2. The CO2 helps the atmosphere trap that extra heat.

If you're saying anything other than that, YOU'RE polluting the forum with gibberish and need to be corralled in a separate sub-forum.

At least Bored Chemist and alancalverd are using cherry-picked science facts to prop up their flimsy arguments and nitpick at the details of climate change. You don't even have that.

The word industry, today, refers to the organised use of labour to make stuff and to provide services.

Before the industrial revolution it was used to refer to working hard.

Industry and technology are separate ideas.

[alancalverd]

Again, burning stuff creates heat and CO2. The CO2 helps the atmosphere trap that extra heat.

That's not what the IPCC says. How dare you contradict the consensus of the world's best-paid climate "scientists"?

[agyejy]

From a purely black body radiation standpoint (neglecting albedo and emissivity) without its atmosphere the Earth would have a mean surface temp of 255 K or -18.15 °C/-0.67 °F. This is pretty much 100% from just the incoming solar radiation. The actual measured mean surface temp of Earth is 287 K which is a difference of about 32 K. The sun delivers approximately 783,000,000 terawatt hours of energy to the Earth over the course of the year and all this energy takes us from 3 K (the blackbody temperature of the universe) to 255 K for an increase of 252 K. This means it takes 3,110,000 TWh per year to increase mean global temperature by a single degree K and this is a significant underestimate because the rate at which energy is radiated away increases non-linearly with increasing temperature. So in reality the amount of energy is much higher than this. Now the greenhouse effect has added about 32 K so adjusting for that we get 2,760,000 TWh per year to increase mean global temperature by a single degree K. As of 2011 the world used about 150,000 TWh of energy per year (this counts all possible ways of consuming energy). So even taking into account the greenhouse effect and assuming all of this energy ends up as heat eventually the net increase of Earth's mean surface temperature due to just the actual heat humans produce is on the order of 0.05 K and of course this temperature increase would be basically a one time increase i.e we have to use this much energy each year just to maintain the unnatural extra 0.05 K increase if we stop it goes back to just the plain sun value. Thus, we would have seen the mean surface temperature increase by 0.05 K over pre-industrial values with slight yearly increases tied directly to increases in energy consumption which currently stand at about 3,000 TWh per year or 0.001 K per year.

So the takeaway from that is that if the heat generated by humans was a significant contributor to changes in global temperature than the total change should have been on the order of 0.05 K since say 1880 to today with a change of about 0.001 K per year. (Remembering that we've easily overestimated the impact of energy on temperature.) What we've actually seen is an increase of 0.8 K with yearly increases of about 0.02 K which are somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 times the overestimated values of direct heating by humans. Does human activity directly heat the Earth? Of course it does. Is that effect significant? No it is easily 20 times smaller than the observed changes. Personally I believe the evidence for anthropomorphic climate change but I also understand that the direct heating of the Earth by the human use of energy is not significant.

[Bored chemist]

I'm still waiting for you to address this
If you want to show that I'm wrong and that you are right about this "When particles interact as per creation/annihilation events pictured in Feynmann diagrams, YES, there IS entropy."
Just tell me what the entropy change is for that reaction.

See? That's why I asked you if you were sure you wanted to go there.

Lots of those diagrams indicate "one way" processes. Normally, particles decay from heavier, less stable particles to lighter, more stable particles. You're not going to see any Feynman diagrams of processes going the other way unless you've added energy to the system somehow, and probably a lot of it, such as with a particle accelerator.

Entropy is often said to be the "arrow of time," and this is why. Big Bang nucleosynthesis was the cascading of all the mass/energy in its highly ordered, "singularity particle" state into more and more stable forms of mass and energy that are spread out and diffuse. Energy naturally wants to spread out, not stay crammed together in one place. The entropy law, among other things, reflects this tendency.

Remember the log? Burn it, and you get heat, ash and smoke. Together, those things technically equal the log. That's the 1st Law. Collecting the ash, smoke and heat back together to make a log takes more energy than you got burning it. That's the 2nd Law. Using a particle accelerator to create a heavy particle that hasn't existed in large numbers since the Universe was a few seconds old is a bit like putting ashes, smoke and heat back together to get a log. Think about how much energy it takes just to get a new particle or two out of an accelerator, enough to power whole cities.

In a sense, "creating" a heavier particle in a particle accelerator by colliding a lot of mass and energy at a single point is like "turning back the clock," because everything in the early universe was much closer together back then, so it still had a temperature and density similar to the conditions at that impact point in the particle accelerator.

In short, when you see a Feynman diagram, rest assured, the entropy law is being expressed somewhere, quite possibly right there in the diagram itself.

Is there anything else you would like to know?

Yes, I'd like you to answer the question I asked.
(Please stop talking about irrelevant stuff like logs- just answer the question I actually asked)
Please calculate the entropy change for the annihilation reaction you showed the diagram for.
(as a hint, I have already told you twice)

I'm really looking forward to you posting the result of the calculation.

[Bored chemist]

From a purely black body radiation standpoint (neglecting albedo and emissivity) without its atmosphere the Earth would have a mean surface temp of 255 K or -18.15 °C/-0.67 °F. This is pretty much 100% from just the incoming solar radiation. The actual measured mean surface temp of Earth is 287 K which is a difference of about 32 K. The sun delivers approximately 783,000,000 terawatt hours of energy to the Earth over the course of the year and all this energy takes us from 3 K (the blackbody temperature of the universe) to 255 K for an increase of 252 K. This means it takes 3,110,000 TWh per year to increase mean global temperature by a single degree K and this is a significant underestimate because the rate at which energy is radiated away increases non-linearly with increasing temperature. So in reality the amount of energy is much higher than this. Now the greenhouse effect has added about 32 K so adjusting for that we get 2,760,000 TWh per year to increase mean global temperature by a single degree K. As of 2011 the world used about 150,000 TWh of energy per year (this counts all possible ways of consuming energy). So even taking into account the greenhouse effect and assuming all of this energy ends up as heat eventually the net increase of Earth's mean surface temperature due to just the actual heat humans produce is on the order of 0.05 K and of course this temperature increase would be basically a one time increase i.e we have to use this much energy each year just to maintain the unnatural extra 0.05 K increase if we stop it goes back to just the plain sun value. Thus, we would have seen the mean surface temperature increase by 0.05 K over pre-industrial values with slight yearly increases tied directly to increases in energy consumption which currently stand at about 3,000 TWh per year or 0.001 K per year.

So the takeaway from that is that if the heat generated by humans was a significant contributor to changes in global temperature than the total change should have been on the order of 0.05 K since say 1880 to today with a change of about 0.001 K per year. (Remembering that we've easily overestimated the impact of energy on temperature.) What we've actually seen is an increase of 0.8 K with yearly increases of about 0.02 K which are somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 times the overestimated values of direct heating by humans. Does human activity directly heat the Earth? Of course it does. Is that effect significant? No it is easily 20 times smaller than the observed changes. Personally I believe the evidence for anthropomorphic climate change but I also understand that the direct heating of the Earth by the human use of energy is not significant.

Thanks for doing the maths for us.
I don't think it will make any difference to Craig, but the rest of us will now accept that the direct effect from heating is small and the big change comes from something else.
Of course, some won't accept that it's the greenhouse effect, even though we have trebled the amount of one of the two biggest greenhouse effect gases (the other is too variable to model well)- but that's a different problem.

[jeffreyH]

Don't stereotype or make sweeping generalisations. They come back to bite you.

Here's a stereotype I read about in the news:

http://www.businessinsider.com/proof-republicans-really-are-dumber-than-democrats-2012-5

I'm not American so I didn't bother to read the link. You are cherry picking parts of post to avoid answering any challenge.

[Craig W. Thomson]

(Please stop talking about irrelevant stuff like logs- just answer the question I actually asked)

Burning logs is related to the thread topic. Your question is not. Answer it yourself.

[Craig W. Thomson]

I'm not American so I didn't bother to read the link. You are cherry picking parts of post to avoid answering any challenge.

You present no challenge to anyone. Your posts are devoid of useful information.