Consensus of Scientists and Proof

Frescomexico wrote:

Wake wrote:

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

http://cedegesrv7.epfl.ch/2013-2014/pluginfile.php/1054751/mod_resource/content/0/paper_correcting_Gerlich_arguments.pdf

Into the Night wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

http://cedegesrv7.epfl.ch/2013-2014/pluginfile.php/1054751/mod_resource/content/0/paper_correcting_Gerlich_arguments.pdf

There are quite a few errors in this paper. Probably the most egregious is the attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics in an effort to make the Magick Bouncing Photon argument again.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

http://cedegesrv7.epfl.ch/2013-2014/pluginfile.php/1054751/mod_resource/content/0/paper_correcting_Gerlich_arguments.pdf

There are quite a few errors in this paper. Probably the most egregious is the attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics in an effort to make the Magick Bouncing Photon argument again.

Perhaps you could quote a paragraph that you disagree with and explain why you disagree with it.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

http://cedegesrv7.epfl.ch/2013-2014/pluginfile.php/1054751/mod_resource/content/0/paper_correcting_Gerlich_arguments.pdf

There are quite a few errors in this paper. Probably the most egregious is the attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics in an effort to make the Magick Bouncing Photon argument again.

Perhaps you could quote a paragraph that you disagree with and explain why you disagree with it.

Perhaps you could explain to us what you think that paper is saying in detail?

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

http://cedegesrv7.epfl.ch/2013-2014/pluginfile.php/1054751/mod_resource/content/0/paper_correcting_Gerlich_arguments.pdf

There are quite a few errors in this paper. Probably the most egregious is the attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics in an effort to make the Magick Bouncing Photon argument again.

Perhaps you could quote a paragraph that you disagree with and explain why you disagree with it.

Perhaps you could explain to us what you think that paper is saying in detail?

I'm not the one who's disagreeing with the paper.

If someone says they disagree with an explanation, it's reasonable to expect them to explain what, exactly, it is that they disagree with. Just shouting, "Ha, magick bouncing photons!" is not a particularly constructive criticism. The more rational approach would be to cite a section or paragraph and explain why they consider it to be wrong or misleading.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

http://cedegesrv7.epfl.ch/2013-2014/pluginfile.php/1054751/mod_resource/content/0/paper_correcting_Gerlich_arguments.pdf

There are quite a few errors in this paper. Probably the most egregious is the attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics in an effort to make the Magick Bouncing Photon argument again.

Perhaps you could quote a paragraph that you disagree with and explain why you disagree with it.

Perhaps you could explain to us what you think that paper is saying in detail?

I'm not the one who's disagreeing with the paper.

If someone says they disagree with an explanation, it's reasonable to expect them to explain what, exactly, it is that they disagree with. Just shouting, "Ha, magick bouncing photons!" is not a particularly constructive criticism. The more rational approach would be to cite a section or paragraph and explain why they consider it to be wrong or misleading.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

http://cedegesrv7.epfl.ch/2013-2014/pluginfile.php/1054751/mod_resource/content/0/paper_correcting_Gerlich_arguments.pdf

There are quite a few errors in this paper. Probably the most egregious is the attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics in an effort to make the Magick Bouncing Photon argument again.

Perhaps you could quote a paragraph that you disagree with and explain why you disagree with it.

Perhaps you could explain to us what you think that paper is saying in detail?

I'm not the one who's disagreeing with the paper.

If someone says they disagree with an explanation, it's reasonable to expect them to explain what, exactly, it is that they disagree with. Just shouting, "Ha, magick bouncing photons!" is not a particularly constructive criticism. The more rational approach would be to cite a section or paragraph and explain why they consider it to be wrong or misleading.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

http://cedegesrv7.epfl.ch/2013-2014/pluginfile.php/1054751/mod_resource/content/0/paper_correcting_Gerlich_arguments.pdf

There are quite a few errors in this paper. Probably the most egregious is the attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics in an effort to make the Magick Bouncing Photon argument again.

Perhaps you could quote a paragraph that you disagree with and explain why you disagree with it.

Perhaps you could explain to us what you think that paper is saying in detail?

I'm not the one who's disagreeing with the paper.

If someone says they disagree with an explanation, it's reasonable to expect them to explain what, exactly, it is that they disagree with. Just shouting, "Ha, magick bouncing photons!" is not a particularly constructive criticism. The more rational approach would be to cite a section or paragraph and explain why they consider it to be wrong or misleading.

I described why I disagree with it. You know what the Magick Bouncing Photon argument is. You keep using it, along with the Magick Blanket argument.

I am not going to repeat the paper here in detail and pick it apart word for word.

Frescomexico wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

http://cedegesrv7.epfl.ch/2013-2014/pluginfile.php/1054751/mod_resource/content/0/paper_correcting_Gerlich_arguments.pdf

There are quite a few errors in this paper. Probably the most egregious is the attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics in an effort to make the Magick Bouncing Photon argument again.

Perhaps you could quote a paragraph that you disagree with and explain why you disagree with it.

Perhaps you could explain to us what you think that paper is saying in detail?

I'm not the one who's disagreeing with the paper.

If someone says they disagree with an explanation, it's reasonable to expect them to explain what, exactly, it is that they disagree with. Just shouting, "Ha, magick bouncing photons!" is not a particularly constructive criticism. The more rational approach would be to cite a section or paragraph and explain why they consider it to be wrong or misleading.

I described why I disagree with it. You know what the Magick Bouncing Photon argument is. You keep using it, along with the Magick Blanket argument.

I am not going to repeat the paper here in detail and pick it apart word for word.

It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Into the Night wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

http://cedegesrv7.epfl.ch/2013-2014/pluginfile.php/1054751/mod_resource/content/0/paper_correcting_Gerlich_arguments.pdf

There are quite a few errors in this paper. Probably the most egregious is the attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics in an effort to make the Magick Bouncing Photon argument again.

Perhaps you could quote a paragraph that you disagree with and explain why you disagree with it.

Perhaps you could explain to us what you think that paper is saying in detail?

I'm not the one who's disagreeing with the paper.

If someone says they disagree with an explanation, it's reasonable to expect them to explain what, exactly, it is that they disagree with. Just shouting, "Ha, magick bouncing photons!" is not a particularly constructive criticism. The more rational approach would be to cite a section or paragraph and explain why they consider it to be wrong or misleading.

I described why I disagree with it. You know what the Magick Bouncing Photon argument is. You keep using it, along with the Magick Blanket argument.

I am not going to repeat the paper here in detail and pick it apart word for word.

It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Don't need to. Science isn't a community.

Frescomexico wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

http://cedegesrv7.epfl.ch/2013-2014/pluginfile.php/1054751/mod_resource/content/0/paper_correcting_Gerlich_arguments.pdf

There are quite a few errors in this paper. Probably the most egregious is the attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics in an effort to make the Magick Bouncing Photon argument again.

Perhaps you could quote a paragraph that you disagree with and explain why you disagree with it.

Perhaps you could explain to us what you think that paper is saying in detail?

I'm not the one who's disagreeing with the paper.

If someone says they disagree with an explanation, it's reasonable to expect them to explain what, exactly, it is that they disagree with. Just shouting, "Ha, magick bouncing photons!" is not a particularly constructive criticism. The more rational approach would be to cite a section or paragraph and explain why they consider it to be wrong or misleading.

I described why I disagree with it. You know what the Magick Bouncing Photon argument is. You keep using it, along with the Magick Blanket argument.

I am not going to repeat the paper here in detail and pick it apart word for word.

It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Don't need to. Science isn't a community.

Merriam-Webster: "a body of persons of common and especially professional interests scattered through a larger society"

Frescomexico wrote:
Regardless of whether there is a scientific community or not, Into the Night often cites violations of the S-B law and the second law of thermodynamics, but rarely says, in any detail, how these laws are being violated. I like to think that most people are capable of changing their minds if presented with a detailed rebuttal.

Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.

Into the Night wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
Regardless of whether there is a scientific community or not, Into the Night often cites violations of the S-B law and the second law of thermodynamics, but rarely says, in any detail, how these laws are being violated. I like to think that most people are capable of changing their minds if presented with a detailed rebuttal.

What more detail do you need about trying to use a cold gas to heat a hotter surface? Do you like to make hot coffee with an ice cube?

The S-B law states:

radiance = S-B constant * emissivity (a constant) * temp ^ 4

In other words, radiance is always proportional to temperature. It is never inversely proportional to the temperature.

The Magick Bouncing Photon argument restricts the emission of IR light (reducing radiance overall) while temperature is increasing. That means you are trying to make temperature increase by reducing radiance, making them inversely proportional.

Now if you need more dumbing down than that, I'm afraid the concept is beyond you.

Frescomexico wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.

Every complete definition of the second law of thermodynamics deals with isolated systems and states that the entropy can only increase over time. It cannot decrease. However, the earth and its atmosphere is not an isolated system. Energy from the sun is arriving all of the time. So the second law should not be applied.

CO2, and other infrared absorbing/emitting gases in the atmosphere act more like an insulator of radiant energy as it leaves the earth toward outer space. The same amount of energy leaves the earth as it received from the sun, but the temperature gradient becomes altered causing the earth's surface temperature to rise slightly.

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.

Every complete definition of the second law of thermodynamics deals with isolated systems and states that the entropy can only increase over time. It cannot decrease. However, the earth and its atmosphere is not an isolated system. Energy from the sun is arriving all of the time. So the second law should not be applied.

CO2, and other infrared absorbing/emitting gases in the atmosphere act more like an insulator of radiant energy as it leaves the earth toward outer space. The same amount of energy leaves the earth as it received from the sun, but the temperature gradient becomes altered causing the earth's surface temperature to rise slightly.

The laws of thermodynamics are NOT something that only operate in a closed system. The fact that energy is being inserted from outside has absolutely no bearing on these laws.

CO2 is so rare even at 5 times what it presently is that it can have no effect whatsoever because the absorption bands for the energy it receives are too narrow for it to have any effect.

CO2 is simply NOT a radiator - if loses energy in the lower atmosphere through conductance. In the upper atmosphere ALL gases radiate since that is the only method of losing energy. The other gases also are higher conductors and simply drag all of this heat out of the troposphere. In the March 10th Science they report that soil releases 34-37% more CO2 than previously estimated under the natural warming. Oceans are losing CO2 and not absorbing it. Man's additions are only a small percentage of the growth.

Tell me, are you supporting the deaths of billions of people which would occur under the plans of the IPCC?

Frescomexico wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.

Every complete definition of the second law of thermodynamics deals with isolated systems and states that the entropy can only increase over time. It cannot decrease. However, the earth and its atmosphere is not an isolated system. Energy from the sun is arriving all of the time. So the second law should not be applied.

CO2, and other infrared absorbing/emitting gases in the atmosphere act more like an insulator of radiant energy as it leaves the earth toward outer space. The same amount of energy leaves the earth as it received from the sun, but the temperature gradient becomes altered causing the earth's surface temperature to rise slightly.

The laws of thermodynamics are NOT something that only operate in a closed system. The fact that energy is being inserted from outside has absolutely no bearing on these laws.

CO2 is so rare even at 5 times what it presently is that it can have no effect whatsoever because the absorption bands for the energy it receives are too narrow for it to have any effect.

CO2 is simply NOT a radiator - if loses energy in the lower atmosphere through conductance. In the upper atmosphere ALL gases radiate since that is the only method of losing energy. The other gases also are higher conductors and simply drag all of this heat out of the troposphere. In the March 10th Science they report that soil releases 34-37% more CO2 than previously estimated under the natural warming. Oceans are losing CO2 and not absorbing it. Man's additions are only a small percentage of the growth.

Tell me, are you supporting the deaths of billions of people which would occur under the plans of the IPCC?

I suggest that you contact Wikipedia and get them to change their definition which states "The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can only increase over time. It can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state (equilibrium) or undergoing a reversible process. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past."

The isolated system is defined as follows: "a thermodynamic system enclosed by rigid immovable walls through which neither matter nor energy can pass."

First you say that "CO2 is simply NOT a radiator". Later, you say "In the upper atmosphere ALL gases radiate since that is the only method of losing energy." I think you will find that CO2 gas will radiate at any pressure from a vacuum on up. At some pressures, convection and conduction predominate, but radiation can always occur.

I am in no way supporting the plans of the IPCC. In fact I think the organization should be disbanded immediately. But that does not mean that every precept of science that they endorse is in error.

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

Wake wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

Wake wrote:
More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.

Frescomexico wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.

Every complete definition of the second law of thermodynamics deals with isolated systems and states that the entropy can only increase over time. It cannot decrease. However, the earth and its atmosphere is not an isolated system. Energy from the sun is arriving all of the time. So the second law should not be applied.

Frescomexico wrote:
CO2, and other infrared absorbing/emitting gases in the atmosphere act more like an insulator of radiant energy as it leaves the earth toward outer space.

Frescomexico wrote:
The same amount of energy leaves the earth as it received from the sun, but the temperature gradient becomes altered causing the earth's surface temperature to rise slightly.

Frescomexico wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
Regardless of whether there is a scientific community or not, Into the Night often cites violations of the S-B law and the second law of thermodynamics, but rarely says, in any detail, how these laws are being violated. I like to think that most people are capable of changing their minds if presented with a detailed rebuttal.

What more detail do you need about trying to use a cold gas to heat a hotter surface? Do you like to make hot coffee with an ice cube?

The S-B law states:

radiance = S-B constant * emissivity (a constant) * temp ^ 4

In other words, radiance is always proportional to temperature. It is never inversely proportional to the temperature.

The Magick Bouncing Photon argument restricts the emission of IR light (reducing radiance overall) while temperature is increasing. That means you are trying to make temperature increase by reducing radiance, making them inversely proportional.

Now if you need more dumbing down than that, I'm afraid the concept is beyond you.

I think you overdid the "dumbing down" process with your statement of the S-B law. You left out that the law is referring to a black body. A perfect blackbody is one that absorbs all incoming light and does not reflect any. If you held pure CO2 up to light, it would appear clear, not black. Therefore it is not a black body. And, therefore, the Stefan-Boltzmann law doesn't apply to "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere.

Frescomexico wrote:
Also the scientific community, not as you say the science community, is a well-defined term. In Wikipedia: "The scientific community is a diverse network of interacting scientists. It includes many "sub-communities" working on particular scientific fields, and within particular institutions; interdisciplinary and cross-institutional activities are also significant."

Frescomexico wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.

Every complete definition of the second law of thermodynamics deals with isolated systems and states that the entropy can only increase over time. It cannot decrease. However, the earth and its atmosphere is not an isolated system. Energy from the sun is arriving all of the time. So the second law should not be applied.

CO2, and other infrared absorbing/emitting gases in the atmosphere act more like an insulator of radiant energy as it leaves the earth toward outer space. The same amount of energy leaves the earth as it received from the sun, but the temperature gradient becomes altered causing the earth's surface temperature to rise slightly.

The laws of thermodynamics are NOT something that only operate in a closed system. The fact that energy is being inserted from outside has absolutely no bearing on these laws.

CO2 is so rare even at 5 times what it presently is that it can have no effect whatsoever because the absorption bands for the energy it receives are too narrow for it to have any effect.

CO2 is simply NOT a radiator - if loses energy in the lower atmosphere through conductance. In the upper atmosphere ALL gases radiate since that is the only method of losing energy. The other gases also are higher conductors and simply drag all of this heat out of the troposphere. In the March 10th Science they report that soil releases 34-37% more CO2 than previously estimated under the natural warming. Oceans are losing CO2 and not absorbing it. Man's additions are only a small percentage of the growth.

Tell me, are you supporting the deaths of billions of people which would occur under the plans of the IPCC?

I suggest that you contact Wikipedia and get them to change their definition which states "The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can only increase over time.

Frescomexico wrote:
It can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state (equilibrium) or undergoing a reversible process.

Frescomexico wrote:
The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past."

Frescomexico wrote:
The isolated system is defined as follows: "a thermodynamic system enclosed by rigid immovable walls through which neither matter nor energy can pass."

Frescomexico wrote:
First you say that "CO2 is simply NOT a radiator". Later, you say "In the upper atmosphere ALL gases radiate since that is the only method of losing energy." I think you will find that CO2 gas will radiate at any pressure from a vacuum on up. At some pressures, convection and conduction predominate, but radiation can always occur.

Frescomexico wrote:
I am in no way supporting the plans of the IPCC. In fact I think the organization should be disbanded immediately.

Frescomexico wrote:
But that does not mean that every precept of science that they endorse is in error.

Into the Night wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.

Every complete definition of the second law of thermodynamics deals with isolated systems and states that the entropy can only increase over time. It cannot decrease. However, the earth and its atmosphere is not an isolated system. Energy from the sun is arriving all of the time. So the second law should not be applied.

CO2, and other infrared absorbing/emitting gases in the atmosphere act more like an insulator of radiant energy as it leaves the earth toward outer space. The same amount of energy leaves the earth as it received from the sun, but the temperature gradient becomes altered causing the earth's surface temperature to rise slightly.

The laws of thermodynamics are NOT something that only operate in a closed system. The fact that energy is being inserted from outside has absolutely no bearing on these laws.

CO2 is so rare even at 5 times what it presently is that it can have no effect whatsoever because the absorption bands for the energy it receives are too narrow for it to have any effect.

CO2 is simply NOT a radiator - if loses energy in the lower atmosphere through conductance. In the upper atmosphere ALL gases radiate since that is the only method of losing energy. The other gases also are higher conductors and simply drag all of this heat out of the troposphere. In the March 10th Science they report that soil releases 34-37% more CO2 than previously estimated under the natural warming. Oceans are losing CO2 and not absorbing it. Man's additions are only a small percentage of the growth.

Tell me, are you supporting the deaths of billions of people which would occur under the plans of the IPCC?

I suggest that you contact Wikipedia and get them to change their definition which states "The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can only increase over time.

Wikipedia is not a source. They are frequently in error and they are heavily biased. Wikipedia cannot override the 2nd LoT.

Frescomexico wrote:
It can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state (equilibrium) or undergoing a reversible process.

In this case there is no heat. There is also no work that can be done.

Frescomexico wrote:
The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past."

Entropy does not define time. It can be used to describe the direction of time, but that is all. It doesn't apply to all cases.

Frescomexico wrote:
The isolated system is defined as follows: "a thermodynamic system enclosed by rigid immovable walls through which neither matter nor energy can pass."

...and your point?

The 2nd LoT does not require an isolated system.

Frescomexico wrote:
First you say that "CO2 is simply NOT a radiator". Later, you say "In the upper atmosphere ALL gases radiate since that is the only method of losing energy." I think you will find that CO2 gas will radiate at any pressure from a vacuum on up. At some pressures, convection and conduction predominate, but radiation can always occur.

All gases radiate, just as the surface does. It is not possible for any colder gas to heat the hotter surface. Heat ONLY flows from hot to cold. It never flows in reverse.

Frescomexico wrote:
I am in no way supporting the plans of the IPCC. In fact I think the organization should be disbanded immediately.

Here we agree, but you can't just ban them. All you can do is get government to cut off their funding. They will keep pushing their view though. It is not possible to stop that.

Frescomexico wrote:
But that does not mean that every precept of science that they endorse is in error.

Well...that turns out to be a vacuous argument. They don't use any science.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

No. You cannot do work that way. Not even a refrigerator can do work that way.

It is not possible to have a colder gas heat a hotter surface. You can't do it by conduction. You can't do it by convection. You can't do it by radiance. Not even in a refrigerator.

Wake wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

I see you are one of those idiots that believe the Stefan-Boltzmann law does not have an emissivity constant. Very well, if you want to lock the emissivity constant to 1, then you cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann to predict what the temperature of a planet 'should' be (as if you could anyway).

Wake wrote:
More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.

WRONG. IR reaches the ground. Quite a lot of it. The atmosphere is far too thin to absorb much of it at all.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

No. You cannot do work that way. Not even a refrigerator can do work that way.

It is not possible to have a colder gas heat a hotter surface. You can't do it by conduction. You can't do it by convection. You can't do it by radiance. Not even in a refrigerator.

Wake wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

I see you are one of those idiots that believe the Stefan-Boltzmann law does not have an emissivity constant. Very well, if you want to lock the emissivity constant to 1, then you cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann to predict what the temperature of a planet 'should' be (as if you could anyway).

Wake wrote:
More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.

WRONG. IR reaches the ground. Quite a lot of it. The atmosphere is far too thin to absorb much of it at all.

You aren't thinking this through - the photon of radiation that can leave a cold gas is the same amplitude as that from a hot gas. You just get more of them from the hotter gas. This means that if it is the proper wavelength it can be absorbed by a hotter gas.

The TOTAL transfer of energy from a warmer gas is more than that from a cooler one. And indeed entropy is ONLY one way in that regard.

Wake wrote:
And again you are thinking of IR as a thing.

Wake wrote:
It is an entire bandwidth that stretches from just below the red visible spectrum to that just above the microwave bands.

Wake wrote:
The IR emitted from the Sun is the high IR.

Wake wrote:
This indeed makes it to the Earth. But this is not what the discussion encompasses.

Wake wrote:
We are discussing the specific wave lengths that come from the Earth upon being heated almost entirely by the visible spectrum from the Sun. These are very much lower than the spectrum from the Sun.

Wake wrote:
This shows that the overwhelming majority of sunlight is in the UV, visible, and high IR areas. The extremely small contribution in the rather mislabeled section of CO2 to atmospheric energy is almost unmeasurable.

Wake wrote:

This is a better chart of CO2 absorption.

Also these charts are extremely wrong by being scaled in such a manner to ignore the actual percentages in the atmosphere.

Wake wrote:
The Stephan-Boltzman law has a set of constants that ONLY work for a blackbody radiator and the Earth is more like a bluebody radiator meaning that the constants are quite different.

Wake wrote:
The frequencies of IR that are radiating from this are limited in scope. A pure blackbody radiator radiates in ALL frequencies that is regulated by the amount of energy present.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

No. You cannot do work that way. Not even a refrigerator can do work that way.

It is not possible to have a colder gas heat a hotter surface. You can't do it by conduction. You can't do it by convection. You can't do it by radiance. Not even in a refrigerator.

Wake wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

I see you are one of those idiots that believe the Stefan-Boltzmann law does not have an emissivity constant. Very well, if you want to lock the emissivity constant to 1, then you cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann to predict what the temperature of a planet 'should' be (as if you could anyway).

Wake wrote:
More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.

WRONG. IR reaches the ground. Quite a lot of it. The atmosphere is far too thin to absorb much of it at all.

You aren't thinking this through - the photon of radiation that can leave a cold gas is the same amplitude as that from a hot gas. You just get more of them from the hotter gas. This means that if it is the proper wavelength it can be absorbed by a hotter gas.

The TOTAL transfer of energy from a warmer gas is more than that from a cooler one. And indeed entropy is ONLY one way in that regard.

You cannot heat a hotter surface with a colder gas. You can't do it by conduction, convection, or radiance.

Wake wrote:
And again you are thinking of IR as a thing.

It is.

Wake wrote:
It is an entire bandwidth that stretches from just below the red visible spectrum to that just above the microwave bands.

That's a thing.

Wake wrote:
The IR emitted from the Sun is the high IR.

The Sun emits all the down into the radio bands.

Wake wrote:
This indeed makes it to the Earth. But this is not what the discussion encompasses.

It is. The claim that one color makes it to Earth but another color doesn't leave is nonsense.

Wake wrote:
We are discussing the specific wave lengths that come from the Earth upon being heated almost entirely by the visible spectrum from the Sun. These are very much lower than the spectrum from the Sun.

The Sun does put out these frequencies.

Wake wrote:
This shows that the overwhelming majority of sunlight is in the UV, visible, and high IR areas. The extremely small contribution in the rather mislabeled section of CO2 to atmospheric energy is almost unmeasurable.

The largest amount of energy from the Sun is in the infrared band. The PEAK of the energy from the Sun is in the visible bands.

Wake wrote:

This is a better chart of CO2 absorption.

Also these charts are extremely wrong by being scaled in such a manner to ignore the actual percentages in the atmosphere.

In the end it doesn't matter. Primary heating on the Earth is by infrared light, not visible. That certain frequencies in the infrared band get masked makes no difference.

Wake wrote:
The Stephan-Boltzman law has a set of constants that ONLY work for a blackbody radiator and the Earth is more like a bluebody radiator meaning that the constants are quite different.

There is no such thing as a bluebody radiator in Stefan-Boltzmann.

Wake wrote:
The frequencies of IR that are radiating from this are limited in scope. A pure blackbody radiator radiates in ALL frequencies that is regulated by the amount of energy present.

Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't care what color frequencies are radiated or absorbed. It is specifically color-blind, due to the nature of integrating Planck's law over all frequencies.

Frescomexico wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.

Every complete definition of the second law of thermodynamics deals with isolated systems and states that the entropy can only increase over time. It cannot decrease. However, the earth and its atmosphere is not an isolated system. Energy from the sun is arriving all of the time. So the second law should not be applied.

CO2, and other infrared absorbing/emitting gases in the atmosphere act more like an insulator of radiant energy as it leaves the earth toward outer space. The same amount of energy leaves the earth as it received from the sun, but the temperature gradient becomes altered causing the earth's surface temperature to rise slightly.

The laws of thermodynamics are NOT something that only operate in a closed system. The fact that energy is being inserted from outside has absolutely no bearing on these laws.

CO2 is so rare even at 5 times what it presently is that it can have no effect whatsoever because the absorption bands for the energy it receives are too narrow for it to have any effect.

CO2 is simply NOT a radiator - if loses energy in the lower atmosphere through conductance. In the upper atmosphere ALL gases radiate since that is the only method of losing energy. The other gases also are higher conductors and simply drag all of this heat out of the troposphere. In the March 10th Science they report that soil releases 34-37% more CO2 than previously estimated under the natural warming. Oceans are losing CO2 and not absorbing it. Man's additions are only a small percentage of the growth.

Tell me, are you supporting the deaths of billions of people which would occur under the plans of the IPCC?

I suggest that you contact Wikipedia and get them to change their definition which states "The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can only increase over time. It can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state (equilibrium) or undergoing a reversible process. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past."

The isolated system is defined as follows: "a thermodynamic system enclosed by rigid immovable walls through which neither matter nor energy can pass."

First you say that "CO2 is simply NOT a radiator". Later, you say "In the upper atmosphere ALL gases radiate since that is the only method of losing energy." I think you will find that CO2 gas will radiate at any pressure from a vacuum on up. At some pressures, convection and conduction predominate, but radiation can always occur.

I am in no way supporting the plans of the IPCC. In fact I think the organization should be disbanded immediately. But that does not mean that every precept of science that they endorse is in error.

Wake wrote:
He was the cause of the crash of the British lb. ...

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

No. You cannot do work that way. Not even a refrigerator can do work that way.

It is not possible to have a colder gas heat a hotter surface. You can't do it by conduction. You can't do it by convection. You can't do it by radiance. Not even in a refrigerator.

Wake wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

I see you are one of those idiots that believe the Stefan-Boltzmann law does not have an emissivity constant. Very well, if you want to lock the emissivity constant to 1, then you cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann to predict what the temperature of a planet 'should' be (as if you could anyway).

Wake wrote:
More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.

WRONG. IR reaches the ground. Quite a lot of it. The atmosphere is far too thin to absorb much of it at all.

You aren't thinking this through - the photon of radiation that can leave a cold gas is the same amplitude as that from a hot gas. You just get more of them from the hotter gas. This means that if it is the proper wavelength it can be absorbed by a hotter gas.

The TOTAL transfer of energy from a warmer gas is more than that from a cooler one. And indeed entropy is ONLY one way in that regard.

You cannot heat a hotter surface with a colder gas. You can't do it by conduction, convection, or radiance.

Wake wrote:
And again you are thinking of IR as a thing.

It is.

Wake wrote:
It is an entire bandwidth that stretches from just below the red visible spectrum to that just above the microwave bands.

That's a thing.

Wake wrote:
The IR emitted from the Sun is the high IR.

The Sun emits all the down into the radio bands.

Wake wrote:
This indeed makes it to the Earth. But this is not what the discussion encompasses.

It is. The claim that one color makes it to Earth but another color doesn't leave is nonsense.

Wake wrote:
We are discussing the specific wave lengths that come from the Earth upon being heated almost entirely by the visible spectrum from the Sun. These are very much lower than the spectrum from the Sun.

The Sun does put out these frequencies.

Wake wrote:
This shows that the overwhelming majority of sunlight is in the UV, visible, and high IR areas. The extremely small contribution in the rather mislabeled section of CO2 to atmospheric energy is almost unmeasurable.

The largest amount of energy from the Sun is in the infrared band. The PEAK of the energy from the Sun is in the visible bands.

Wake wrote:

This is a better chart of CO2 absorption.

Also these charts are extremely wrong by being scaled in such a manner to ignore the actual percentages in the atmosphere.

In the end it doesn't matter. Primary heating on the Earth is by infrared light, not visible. That certain frequencies in the infrared band get masked makes no difference.

Wake wrote:
The Stephan-Boltzman law has a set of constants that ONLY work for a blackbody radiator and the Earth is more like a bluebody radiator meaning that the constants are quite different.

There is no such thing as a bluebody radiator in Stefan-Boltzmann.

Wake wrote:
The frequencies of IR that are radiating from this are limited in scope. A pure blackbody radiator radiates in ALL frequencies that is regulated by the amount of energy present.

Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't care what color frequencies are radiated or absorbed. It is specifically color-blind, due to the nature of integrating Planck's law over all frequencies.

Let's start this from the beginning:

You do not understand that the laws of thermodynamics and the Stephan-Boltzmann Law are idealized reductions of reality.

Wake wrote:
As an example - the closest approximation to a black body radiator we have is the Sun. From a surface temperature of some 5800 degrees K into the absolute zero of space by using the Stephan-Boltzmann law you would expect a bell curve. https://www.easycalculation.com/maths-dictionary/bell_curve.html

Wake wrote:
But what we get is entirely different. We get, what, a Pearson's Curve?
http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter2/plank_sun_closer_look.html

Wake wrote:
What this means is that because of the reflection and absorption of the different components of the Earth that we do not get a smooth Bell Curve but one full of humps and flats.

Wake wrote:
As for the Second Law of Thermodynamics you are making pretty much the same sort of error. Thermodynamics isn't a unidirectional flow EXCEPT IN GROSS COMPOSITION. On a quantum level energy radiated goes in all directions but if there is more energy on one side it will tend to go equilibrate to the point that energy again going in all directions ends up with slight heat changes oscillating one way and the other but in whole remaining pretty much in equilibrium.

Wake wrote:
What you have to be careful of, is using textbook answers and descriptions of the real universe and the actual reality.

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.

Every complete definition of the second law of thermodynamics deals with isolated systems and states that the entropy can only increase over time. It cannot decrease. However, the earth and its atmosphere is not an isolated system. Energy from the sun is arriving all of the time. So the second law should not be applied.

CO2, and other infrared absorbing/emitting gases in the atmosphere act more like an insulator of radiant energy as it leaves the earth toward outer space. The same amount of energy leaves the earth as it received from the sun, but the temperature gradient becomes altered causing the earth's surface temperature to rise slightly.

The laws of thermodynamics are NOT something that only operate in a closed system. The fact that energy is being inserted from outside has absolutely no bearing on these laws.

CO2 is so rare even at 5 times what it presently is that it can have no effect whatsoever because the absorption bands for the energy it receives are too narrow for it to have any effect.

CO2 is simply NOT a radiator - if loses energy in the lower atmosphere through conductance. In the upper atmosphere ALL gases radiate since that is the only method of losing energy. The other gases also are higher conductors and simply drag all of this heat out of the troposphere. In the March 10th Science they report that soil releases 34-37% more CO2 than previously estimated under the natural warming. Oceans are losing CO2 and not absorbing it. Man's additions are only a small percentage of the growth.

Tell me, are you supporting the deaths of billions of people which would occur under the plans of the IPCC?

I suggest that you contact Wikipedia and get them to change their definition which states "The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can only increase over time. It can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state (equilibrium) or undergoing a reversible process. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past."

The isolated system is defined as follows: "a thermodynamic system enclosed by rigid immovable walls through which neither matter nor energy can pass."

First you say that "CO2 is simply NOT a radiator". Later, you say "In the upper atmosphere ALL gases radiate since that is the only method of losing energy." I think you will find that CO2 gas will radiate at any pressure from a vacuum on up. At some pressures, convection and conduction predominate, but radiation can always occur.

I am in no way supporting the plans of the IPCC. In fact I think the organization should be disbanded immediately. But that does not mean that every precept of science that they endorse is in error.

By the way Fresco - be EXTREMELY careful of wikipedia. If you look up George Soros they have a large article telling you what a wonderful man he is - they talk about how he "escaped the Nazi's" in WW II. In fact he worked with the Nazi's at an age of 13. He helped round up Jews including his own family and he knew they were being sent to the death camps. Goebbels introduced him to other Nazi's as his "god-son". When he was questioned about whether he regretted being used by the Nazi's he replied that 1944 was the greatest time of his life. That the feeling of power was overwhelming.

He bought his way into American citizenship. He has made his fortune that makes Trump look like small change by wrecking the economies of other countries and shorting their money. He was the cause of the crash of the British lb. and the failure of the Greek economy.

Today he funds virtually every single troublemaking organization on this planet. He is the Chief anti-Semite despite the Wikipedia paragraph to the contrary.

So be extremely careful of what you believe from Wikipedia. It's pretty obvious that if you have enough money you can write your own ticket.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

No. You cannot do work that way. Not even a refrigerator can do work that way.

It is not possible to have a colder gas heat a hotter surface. You can't do it by conduction. You can't do it by convection. You can't do it by radiance. Not even in a refrigerator.

Wake wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

I see you are one of those idiots that believe the Stefan-Boltzmann law does not have an emissivity constant. Very well, if you want to lock the emissivity constant to 1, then you cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann to predict what the temperature of a planet 'should' be (as if you could anyway).

Wake wrote:
More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.

WRONG. IR reaches the ground. Quite a lot of it. The atmosphere is far too thin to absorb much of it at all.

You aren't thinking this through - the photon of radiation that can leave a cold gas is the same amplitude as that from a hot gas. You just get more of them from the hotter gas. This means that if it is the proper wavelength it can be absorbed by a hotter gas.

The TOTAL transfer of energy from a warmer gas is more than that from a cooler one. And indeed entropy is ONLY one way in that regard.

You cannot heat a hotter surface with a colder gas. You can't do it by conduction, convection, or radiance.

Wake wrote:
And again you are thinking of IR as a thing.

It is.

Wake wrote:
It is an entire bandwidth that stretches from just below the red visible spectrum to that just above the microwave bands.

That's a thing.

Wake wrote:
The IR emitted from the Sun is the high IR.

The Sun emits all the down into the radio bands.

Wake wrote:
This indeed makes it to the Earth. But this is not what the discussion encompasses.

It is. The claim that one color makes it to Earth but another color doesn't leave is nonsense.

Wake wrote:
We are discussing the specific wave lengths that come from the Earth upon being heated almost entirely by the visible spectrum from the Sun. These are very much lower than the spectrum from the Sun.

The Sun does put out these frequencies.

Wake wrote:
This shows that the overwhelming majority of sunlight is in the UV, visible, and high IR areas. The extremely small contribution in the rather mislabeled section of CO2 to atmospheric energy is almost unmeasurable.

The largest amount of energy from the Sun is in the infrared band. The PEAK of the energy from the Sun is in the visible bands.

Wake wrote:

This is a better chart of CO2 absorption.

Also these charts are extremely wrong by being scaled in such a manner to ignore the actual percentages in the atmosphere.

In the end it doesn't matter. Primary heating on the Earth is by infrared light, not visible. That certain frequencies in the infrared band get masked makes no difference.

Wake wrote:
The Stephan-Boltzman law has a set of constants that ONLY work for a blackbody radiator and the Earth is more like a bluebody radiator meaning that the constants are quite different.

There is no such thing as a bluebody radiator in Stefan-Boltzmann.

Wake wrote:
The frequencies of IR that are radiating from this are limited in scope. A pure blackbody radiator radiates in ALL frequencies that is regulated by the amount of energy present.

Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't care what color frequencies are radiated or absorbed. It is specifically color-blind, due to the nature of integrating Planck's law over all frequencies.

Let's start this from the beginning:

You do not understand that the laws of thermodynamics and the Stephan-Boltzmann Law are idealized reductions of reality.

Not true. They apply everywhere in the real world. They both have reference points that are idealized. A reference point is not the total theory.

Wake wrote:
As an example - the closest approximation to a black body radiator we have is the Sun. From a surface temperature of some 5800 degrees K into the absolute zero of space by using the Stephan-Boltzmann law you would expect a bell curve. https://www.easycalculation.com/maths-dictionary/bell_curve.html

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not calculate a bell curve. It calculates no curve of any kind. Are you referring to the correct law?

Wake wrote:
But what we get is entirely different. We get, what, a Pearson's Curve?
http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter2/plank_sun_closer_look.html

Don't get a Pearson's Curve either. You don't get a curve.

Wake wrote:
What this means is that because of the reflection and absorption of the different components of the Earth that we do not get a smooth Bell Curve but one full of humps and flats.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is specifically colorblind. It does not care at all about color. I think you are confusing the Stefan-Boltzmann law with something like Wien's law.

Wake wrote:
As for the Second Law of Thermodynamics you are making pretty much the same sort of error. Thermodynamics isn't a unidirectional flow EXCEPT IN GROSS COMPOSITION. On a quantum level energy radiated goes in all directions but if there is more energy on one side it will tend to go equilibrate to the point that energy again going in all directions ends up with slight heat changes oscillating one way and the other but in whole remaining pretty much in equilibrium.

This is the 'how do you calculate the center of gravity' issue.

The center of gravity does not have to count every particle. The average of them is perfectly substitutable mathematically.

You don't have to count every particle, sub-particle, or any quantum theory stuff at all. It is just a strawman, since we are talking about thermal energy (average kinetic energy of molecules) and heat (flow of thermal energy). It is the same as using a center of gravity.

Wake wrote:
What you have to be careful of, is using textbook answers and descriptions of the real universe and the actual reality.

It IS actual reality. If you are discussing a particle or whole groups of particles, it is the same.

It is not possible for a colder gas to heat a hotter surface. You can't do it by conduction, convection, or radiance. Heat flows from hot to cold.

There is nothing idealized here. There applies to the real world just as much as quantum mechanics does.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

No. You cannot do work that way. Not even a refrigerator can do work that way.

It is not possible to have a colder gas heat a hotter surface. You can't do it by conduction. You can't do it by convection. You can't do it by radiance. Not even in a refrigerator.

Wake wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

I see you are one of those idiots that believe the Stefan-Boltzmann law does not have an emissivity constant. Very well, if you want to lock the emissivity constant to 1, then you cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann to predict what the temperature of a planet 'should' be (as if you could anyway).

Wake wrote:
More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.

WRONG. IR reaches the ground. Quite a lot of it. The atmosphere is far too thin to absorb much of it at all.

You aren't thinking this through - the photon of radiation that can leave a cold gas is the same amplitude as that from a hot gas. You just get more of them from the hotter gas. This means that if it is the proper wavelength it can be absorbed by a hotter gas.

The TOTAL transfer of energy from a warmer gas is more than that from a cooler one. And indeed entropy is ONLY one way in that regard.

You cannot heat a hotter surface with a colder gas. You can't do it by conduction, convection, or radiance.

Wake wrote:
And again you are thinking of IR as a thing.

It is.

Wake wrote:
It is an entire bandwidth that stretches from just below the red visible spectrum to that just above the microwave bands.

That's a thing.

Wake wrote:
The IR emitted from the Sun is the high IR.

The Sun emits all the down into the radio bands.

Wake wrote:
This indeed makes it to the Earth. But this is not what the discussion encompasses.

It is. The claim that one color makes it to Earth but another color doesn't leave is nonsense.

Wake wrote:
We are discussing the specific wave lengths that come from the Earth upon being heated almost entirely by the visible spectrum from the Sun. These are very much lower than the spectrum from the Sun.

The Sun does put out these frequencies.

Wake wrote:
This shows that the overwhelming majority of sunlight is in the UV, visible, and high IR areas. The extremely small contribution in the rather mislabeled section of CO2 to atmospheric energy is almost unmeasurable.

The largest amount of energy from the Sun is in the infrared band. The PEAK of the energy from the Sun is in the visible bands.

Wake wrote:

This is a better chart of CO2 absorption.

Also these charts are extremely wrong by being scaled in such a manner to ignore the actual percentages in the atmosphere.

In the end it doesn't matter. Primary heating on the Earth is by infrared light, not visible. That certain frequencies in the infrared band get masked makes no difference.

Wake wrote:
The Stephan-Boltzman law has a set of constants that ONLY work for a blackbody radiator and the Earth is more like a bluebody radiator meaning that the constants are quite different.

There is no such thing as a bluebody radiator in Stefan-Boltzmann.

Wake wrote:
The frequencies of IR that are radiating from this are limited in scope. A pure blackbody radiator radiates in ALL frequencies that is regulated by the amount of energy present.

Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't care what color frequencies are radiated or absorbed. It is specifically color-blind, due to the nature of integrating Planck's law over all frequencies.

Let's start this from the beginning:

You do not understand that the laws of thermodynamics and the Stephan-Boltzmann Law are idealized reductions of reality.

Not true. They apply everywhere in the real world. They both have reference points that are idealized. A reference point is not the total theory.

Wake wrote:
As an example - the closest approximation to a black body radiator we have is the Sun. From a surface temperature of some 5800 degrees K into the absolute zero of space by using the Stephan-Boltzmann law you would expect a bell curve. https://www.easycalculation.com/maths-dictionary/bell_curve.html

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not calculate a bell curve. It calculates no curve of any kind. Are you referring to the correct law?

Wake wrote:
But what we get is entirely different. We get, what, a Pearson's Curve?
http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter2/plank_sun_closer_look.html

Don't get a Pearson's Curve either. You don't get a curve.

Wake wrote:
What this means is that because of the reflection and absorption of the different components of the Earth that we do not get a smooth Bell Curve but one full of humps and flats.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is specifically colorblind. It does not care at all about color. I think you are confusing the Stefan-Boltzmann law with something like Wien's law.

Wake wrote:
As for the Second Law of Thermodynamics you are making pretty much the same sort of error. Thermodynamics isn't a unidirectional flow EXCEPT IN GROSS COMPOSITION. On a quantum level energy radiated goes in all directions but if there is more energy on one side it will tend to go equilibrate to the point that energy again going in all directions ends up with slight heat changes oscillating one way and the other but in whole remaining pretty much in equilibrium.

This is the 'how do you calculate the center of gravity' issue.

The center of gravity does not have to count every particle. The average of them is perfectly substitutable mathematically.

You don't have to count every particle, sub-particle, or any quantum theory stuff at all. It is just a strawman, since we are talking about thermal energy (average kinetic energy of molecules) and heat (flow of thermal energy). It is the same as using a center of gravity.

Wake wrote:
What you have to be careful of, is using textbook answers and descriptions of the real universe and the actual reality.

It IS actual reality. If you are discussing a particle or whole groups of particles, it is the same.

It is not possible for a colder gas to heat a hotter surface. You can't do it by conduction, convection, or radiance. Heat flows from hot to cold.

There is nothing idealized here. There applies to the real world just as much as quantum mechanics does.

Pardon me, rather than Stephan-Boltzmann I was thinking of Planck's Law. However, in actuality, energy is NOT from any point source meaning that the source is a central point bleeding off in both directions and causing a bell curve property.

Wake wrote:
Again, where are you coming from when you are thinking of energy as a single entity? We are in agreement that heat flows from a source to a sink until equilibrium is reached. But you think that it is like pouring water out of a pitcher and down a drain. Think of this - if you get the pitcher close enough to the sink you will have splash back that doesn't fill the pitcher but does occur.

Wake wrote:
On the quantum level it is energy being RADIATED in all directions and that means also back to the source. The end result is that the source and sink will reach an equilibrium.

You appear to be insisting that this can only happen without any interference of any sort. The energy of the source CANNOT increase from these interactions but they do occur. Since the majority of energy flow is from the source to the sink they do reach equilibrium at which point any energy they have is transmitted back and forth in any material above absolute zero.

spot wrote:How exactly has it helped the environment and is there evidence to support such an assertion. Because I fail to see how it has.

spot posted: Ice is melting worldwide, especially at the Earth's poles. This includes mountain glaciers, ice sheets covering West Antarctica and Greenland, and Arctic sea ice.

spot posted: Many species have been impacted by rising temperatures.

spot posted: The sea level has been rising more quickly over the last century.

spot posted:Some butterflies, foxes, and alpine plants have moved farther north or to higher, cooler areas.

spot posted:Precipitation (rain and snowfall) has increased across the globe, on average.

spot posted: Some invasive species are thriving. For example, spruce bark beetles have boomed in Alaska thanks to 20 years of warm summers. The insects have chewed up 4 million acres of spruce trees.

spot wrote:I think you will find most people regard The National Geographic magazine as credible.

Surface Detail wrote: Well, that's disappointing. For some reason, I was thinking that, although deeply cynical, you were arguing with some degree of intellectual honesty. Apparently not, though, given your posting of that graph:

Wake wrote:
What you have to be careful of, is using textbook answers and descriptions of the real universe and the actual reality.