Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Joel Shore and Pierre Latour
#1
There is a fascinating debate worth reading at the Amazon books website.There the two men tangled over a book titled:

Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory

First read Joel Shore's review HERE

Then go to top of page 3 HERE

From then on you see the back and fourth between the two.

It is fascinating for me because Joel clearly shows that he is still carrying on the principal error of claiming the second law of thermodynamics is all about NET transfer of energy.When the second law itself states a ONE WAY TRANSFER of energy.

Here is what Joel wrote:

Quote:The Second Law says that the heat flow cannot be from colder to hotter. The heat flow is the NET energy flow.

Here is what the actual law states:

Quote:Clausius statement

German scientist Rudolf Clausius is credited with the first formulation of the second law, now known as the Clausius statement:[4]

No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.[note 1]

Spontaneously, heat cannot flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system, which is evident from ordinary experience of refrigeration, for example. In a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when forced by an external agent, a compressor.

Wikipedia

It is a common error all AGW believers and some skeptics make.The push for the NET transfer idea.While the law states it is ONE WAY transfer.

There is nothing in the second law about Net transfer at all.It is an invented concept by people who thinks CO2 directly promotes warming.

For the one way transfer to go beyond the simple entropy level requires work input.Such as a Compressor in a Refrigerator:

Quote:Second Law: Refrigerator

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles.

This is the "second form" or Clausius statement of the second law.

[Image: ref2.gif]

LINK

Pierre convincingly exposes the shallow replies made by Joel.Who never gets around to building a case for his claim.That the Slaying the dragon book is "complete nonsense".

Even NASA does not agree with Joel!

Quote:For example, if we bring a hot object into contact with a cold object, we observe that the hot object cools down and the cold object heats up until an equilibrium is reached. The transfer of heat goes from the hot object to the cold object.

Or this website ENTROPYLAW:

Quote:The second law of thermodynamics (the entropy law or law of entropy) was formulated in the middle of the last century by Clausius and Thomson following Carnot's earlier observation that, like the fall or flow of a stream that turns a mill wheel, it is the "fall" or flow of heat from higher to lower temperatures that motivates a steam engine. The key insight was that the world is inherently active, and that whenever an energy distribution is out of equilibrium a potential or thermodynamic "force" (the gradient of a potential) exists that the world acts spontaneously to dissipate or minimize. All real-world change or dynamics is seen to follow, or be motivated, by this law. So whereas the first law expresses that which remains the same, or is time-symmetric, in all real-world processes the second law expresses that which changes and motivates the change, the fundamental time-asymmetry, in all real-world process. Clausius coined the term "entropy" to refer to the dissipated potential and the second law, in its most general form, states that the world acts spontaneously to minimize potentials (or equivalently maximize entropy), and with this, active end-directedness or time-asymmetry was, for the first time, given a universal physical basis. The balance equation of the second law, expressed as S > 0, says that in all natural processes the entropy of the world always increases, and thus whereas with the first law there is no time, and the past, present, and future are indistinguishable, the second law, with its one-way flow, introduces the basis for telling the difference.
The active nature of the second law is intuitively easy to grasp and empirically demonstrate. If a glass of hot liquid, for example, as shown in Figure 3, is placed in a colder room a potential exists and a flow of heat is spontaneously produced from the cup to the room until it is minimized (or the entropy is maximized) at which point the temperatures are the same and all flows stop.

red bolding mine

Pierre Latour wrote a better book review HERE

The whole episode is gob smacking amazing!
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#2
Please find attached to this post a pdf of the Joel Shore / Pierre Latour Amazon debate.


Attached Files
.pdf   Amazon Posts, Shore-Latour Debate Aug-Sep11 Final.pdf (Size: 533.93 KB / Downloads: 636)
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)