The sun doesn’t have to know anything. The laws of TD account for everything you can think of.

Wrong answer. Where, perchance, is the temperature of the Sun included in the solar insolation value of 1.4kW/m2?

Not to mention that you still haven’t explained how the Sun “knows” that something is warmer, and then decides to turn off its radiation in that particular direction…

Jonathan, when the rays from the sun fall upon your skin, why does your skin feel warmer?

Because heat is transferred from the sun to your skin.

Your claims about how science works are very odd indeed.

I know my claims sound odd to you. Again, you are of the mindset that science is a set of memorized facts, while I am of the mindset that science is a process to discern truth from error by invalidating theories.

I know you are of this mindset because you said “correct theories”. No theory is complete nor correct. In order to prove a theory correct, you would have to observe all possible phenomena, which is more than the entire set of phenomena that occurs in the lifetime of the observable universe. Then you’d have to ensure that every phenomena is in strict accordance with the theory. Such a task is impossible to even contemplate.

Instead, the best we can do is say things like, “Based on what we know about, this theory appears to be correct.” But we must also append the statement: “Other theories account for the same phenomena we have observed, even if no one has thought of them yet, and are also just as correct as this theory.” A good scientist will also list all the pending experiments that could potentially invalidate the theory, and enthusiastically encourage people to attempt these experiments, in addition to experiments already performed.

You’ve already made sweeping, groundless accusations against the characters of the scientists who have collected said data.

When a scientist is shown to have a conflict of interest (as in the case of Dr. Hansen of NASA), when a scientist admits to manipulating the data (as Dr. Jones did on national TV), and when scientists would rather destroy their data than reveal it (as the CRU at East Anglia did), there are hardly any baseless accusations you can make against the character of such people. Such people are not to be trusted, and every statement they make is to be questioned.

What we have in the Global Warming community is a bunch of sincere scientists following the lead of a handful of corrupt scientists. These corrupt scientists have claimed the equivalent of discovering the Higgs Boson. When scientists approach the professed discoverer with solicitations of hard evidence, and are rebuffed, it is no longer science. It is a scam.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states quite clearly that heat does not flow from cold to hot without added work. That means you cannot use heat from the sun to heat something hotter than the sun.

If you’d like to find a violation of this law, you are strongly encouraged to demonstrate the violation through an actual experiment. Musings and math equations aren’t going to convince any physicist that the law is flawed.

Ok, this is getting absurd. You think I’m dodging the question by asking you to go ahead and try your experiment. This is what science is all about—try it out for yourself and see what results you get.

I think you have no idea. I’m not asking you to do an experiment; I’m asking what would happen known, verified scientific principles. Given the solar constant is around 1.4kW/m2 for all solar energy (note units in power over area, without temperature), I’d need very large mirrors to do what I’ve proposed, making a real experiment impractical.

Still, you should be able to tell me if it is possible, given your extensive physics background.

Jonathan, when the rays from the sun fall upon your skin, why does your skin feel warmer?

I mean, why would we possibly want to test their theories with actual experiments?

Einstein’s equation of matter with energy was very thoroughly tested, by the Manhattan Project. (It was found to be exactly correct.) Sadi Carnot’s concepts have fared very well; the science and engineering based upon them have been tremendously successful, from the smallest two-stroke motor to the most powerful jet engine. If you really believe these theories have not been tested and validated, then you’ve admitted to an even greater ignorance about science than you’d previously demonstrated, and that is a huge — albeit wholly negative — accomplishment.

I’m going to let the high energy particle physicists know that you said “E = mc^2″ and so they don’t need to even turn the LHC at CERN on because whether or not the Higgs Boson exists doesn’t matter in the light of “E = mc^2″.

Please do. I rather suspect the “high energy particle physicists know” all about the equation of matter with energy, and that it in fact forms the basis of their research. (Tell us what results you get.)

You do realize, of course, that the entire profession of physics research is based on trying to overturn prevailing theories.

Well, it’s based upon the rigorous acquisition, verification, and publication of scientific knowledge in peer-reviewed archival journals. Sometimes, as you’ve indicated, such new knowledge will “overturn prevailing theories”, as Sadi Carnot did when he showed that “caloric”, an invisible fluid released by the rending of matter, was not the answer to heat-transfer problems. Scientists have a huge incentive to do this, because, like Carnot and Einstein, it will mean enormous accomplishment in their chosen field. But it’s a bit much to make this (admittedly large) motivation the sole basis for “the entire profession of physics research.”

It’d be like the top Global Warming experts finding ways to show that AGW doesn’t exist, or evolutionists trying to find evidence of creation.

Good scientists will follow the evidence wherever it leads. Creationism is a dead end, because it does not explain anything, whereas evolution does explain observed traits in species. If the thousands of temperature-recording instruments across the biosphere started to show measurable declines in the earth’s temperature, the “top Global Warming experts” who are honest would revise their theories to suit.

The most famous theories of physics survived because their advocates were willing to take the time to convince the skeptics, and were willing to do any experiment that might overthrow their own theory. Why not the same level of scrutiny with AGW?

The correct theories are the ones validated by the data. Your claims about how science works are very odd indeed.

With a large enough set of mirrors, could you focus the rays of the Sun to heat a point to a temperature higher than the surface of the Sun?

The Earth transfers heat to the Sun all of the time, via radiation. This mechanism includes heat emitted from the surface of the Earth, and the Sun’s own radiation, reflected back via the albedo of the Earth. The net transfer of energy is from the Sun to the Earth, of course, but radiative energy can (and does) “flow” from a cold place to a hot one.

demo kid and I had similar motivations for these statements. We wanted to know if you understood the concepts of temperature and radiative heat transfer. Your answers again confirm that you do not.

BTW, screaming “SHOW ME THE DATA” like some three-year-old does not impress any adult. You’ve already made sweeping, groundless accusations against the characters of the scientists who have collected said data. It takes little imagination to envision you rejecting any data you don’t like on the same basis.

Here’s a hint: Instead of using mirrors, why don’t you get a really big magnifying glass and focus it on a point. See how hot that point gets. If you think CO2 is a wonderful insulator, you can use something encased in a chamber full of CO2.

Don’t know much about how science works, do we? The reason for that is the huge number of measurements required to obtain a defensible result. Any “summaries” which included such huge data sets would be unwieldy, to say the least.

But please, tell us what assertions Scientific American got wrong, and how you know.

… suggests that either they are making things up or they are using shoddy practices to get the results they want.

Care to support that broad smear with some examples?

Stop taking the word of people who are being paid millions to produce specific results and start questioning science.

Every scientist I have ever met will want to know about these fabulous job opportunities, because they don’t get paid “millions” of roubles, let alone dollars. Please show us NOAA’s salary tables!

You should really take some time to read rebuttals and hard evidence that the skeptics have.

Please, do educate me. Provide some links. (But, save us some time, and do not refer me to any results paid for by oil companies, or other polluters. We want to avoid the conflict of interest of which you have here accused others.)

Oh, and show me a scientist that has ever been correct about anything.

E=mc^2

Or, more relevantly, Sadi Carnot. (Have you made his acquaintance yet?)

You don’t have to go very far back to see “bad” science,

You don’t have to go ‘back’ at all: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

…or at least articles and studies that proclaimed something we today know is wrong.

You are correct. Science advances by collecting more data, and refining (or overturning) old ideas. In Sadi Carnot’s time, “caloric” was an invisible fluid, liberated from matter by grinding or slicing. He showed how heat was not an inherent property of matter.

There’s a difference between innocent ignorance and careful, studied, applied ignorance. I suggest you learn this.

You’re denying that the earth radiates energy, and that some of this energy is intercepted by the sun?

No, I never denied such a thing.

You’re confusing energy and heat again. Really, the two are very, very different.

Then go ask some scientists

The scientists refuse to share their data. Phil Jones, the one that collected the data that showed the hockey stick, “lost” his data. The NASA and NOAA summaries never include the raw data, and whatever access people do have to the raw data suggests that either they are making things up or they are using shoddy practices to get the results they want. Hansen of NASA was found to be on the take—receiving grants to demonstrate particular results. You should really take some time to read rebuttals and hard evidence that the skeptics have. It would help you understand at least how to counter their arguments.

Show me the data. Demand to see the data yourself. Stop taking the word of people who are being paid millions to produce specific results and start questioning science.

Oh, and show me a scientist that has ever been correct about anything. You don’t have to go very far back to see “bad” science, or at least articles and studies that proclaimed something we today know is wrong. SA may try to do the best they can, but at the end of the day, they are no smarter than anyone else.

Please, do educate me.

I’ve already shared my sources. It’s up to you to read them. Trust me, I’ve already read your sources.

E=mc^2

Or, more relevantly, Sadi Carnot.

You’re right, why bother researching science after Einstein and Carnot had their say? I mean, why would we possibly want to test their theories with actual experiments? I’m going to let the high energy particle physicists know that you said “E = mc^2″ and so they don’t need to even turn the LHC at CERN on because whether or not the Higgs Boson exists doesn’t matter in the light of “E = mc^2″.

On the other hand, I’m sure glad that science has progressed since Carnot. His theories were good but a bit incomplete.

You do realize, of course, that the entire profession of physics research is based on trying to overturn prevailing theories. It’d be like the top Global Warming experts finding ways to show that AGW doesn’t exist, or evolutionists trying to find evidence of creation. This, of course, boggles your mind, because you’re used to science being a memorization contest to please the teacher and get a good score on the test. You’ve forgotten, or maybe never learned, that real science is found in questioning the status quo and finding new ways of thinking and overturning the old ways.

The most famous theories of physics survived because their advocates were willing to take the time to convince the skeptics, and were willing to do any experiment that might overthrow their own theory. Why not the same level of scrutiny with AGW?