Why the greenhouse effect does not violate the first law of thermodynamics

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Why the greenhouse effect does not violate the first law of thermodynamics > Page 8

Page 8 of 9

13-09-2016 20:53
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	I just finished reading this thread. Great unholy Kikubaaqudgha, my eyes! How can anybody read the same argument so many times! How can somebody -write- the same argument so many times! Let's just suppose that I have developed some marvelous material and wrapped the Earth in it. Or enveloped. That works for any material, not just solids. The peculiar property of this material is that is is perfectly transparent when light approaches from the outside, but departing light is halted and half of it redirected back inside. Remember that the system tends toward equilibrium, and that the energy departing must equal the energy coming in for the system to be in such a state. Now I ask you: what will happen to the temperature of the Earth?
13-09-2016 21:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	jwoodward48 wrote: Okay, peoples. Hello. 1. No more ad hominems. Works for me, but that is a two way street. You play nice, I'll play nice. jwoodward48 wrote: 2. Here is my argument for global warming: a. First, I establish that there is an equilibrium at play - there is energy coming into the Earth system from the Sun, and escaping via radiation. These two values are normally the same, but when -either- of them is changed, the equilibrium changes, and thus the temperature. Since space doesn't change, the sun changing would cause a temperature change certainly. jwoodward48 wrote: b. Next, let us assume that there is a magical material which lets radiation in like normal, but "reflects" (not necessarily reflection; it could be absorption and radiation) back at Earth 50% of the radiation trying to escape. This would result in the equilibrium changing, as the energy coming in would exceed the energy escaping. Far be it from the 1st LoT disproving my argument - it supports it! If the energy coming in exceeds the energy coming out, where does that excess energy go? It stays in the system, increasing the temperature. First, photons are not heat. They are converted into thermal energy only when they are absorbed (destroying the photon). Secondly, photons are not equal in energy. Third, thermal energy is conducted and convected upward. Fourth, the colder air cannot warm the warmer surface. jwoodward48 wrote: c. Now, let us note that the temperature of the Earth has increased. We have no way to measure global temperature. We have no way to calculate it either. jwoodward48 wrote: d. In addition, we have released large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. According to Mauna Loa observatory, CO2 has increased to around 0.04% of the atmosphere. According to government reports (which vary depending on which government you ask), man's activities contribute about 3.5% of the CO2. This number comes from various government surveys of estimated emissions from cars, factories, and the like. This number is an estimate only. jwoodward48 wrote: e. The energy coming from the Sun is largely visible and ultraviolet light, while the radiated light from Earth is largely infrared. Most of the sun's energy is in infrared. The peak of the sun's energy is in the visible range. Most ultraviolet energy is filtered out of the atmosphere by the presence of oxygen. Most visible energy is reflected and scattered (a diffusion of a reflection). Most heating happens at the surface, when the surface absorbs the IR from the sun. Absorption of visible light tends to cause ionization, not heating. jwoodward48 wrote: f. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation more than it does visible/UV light. Just like most substances. jwoodward48 wrote: g. Thus, carbon dioxide is a greater barrier for escaping radiation than for incoming radiation. It is not really a barrier at all. Only 0.04% of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide, so chances are both incoming and outgoing radiation are largely unaffected. Again, a photon is not heat. It is a packet of electromagnetic energy. Heat is a component of thermal energy only. A photon only becomes thermal energy when it is absorbed (typically by the surface, and generally only if the photon is IR). jwoodward48 wrote: h. This would produce the described "equilibrium lost" situation, increasing the temperature of the Earth system. The necessary energy came from the Sun, as per the 2nd LoT. The Earth is mass. So is the atmosphere. They take time to warm up and cool down. The effect of changing the energy of the sun, even if the sun were to suddenly shut off completely, will be complete within a couple of days for everything but the sea, and about a month for the sea. This is why our hottest days are about a month after summer solstice, and our coldest days are about a month after winter solstice (for that hemisphere). jwoodward48 wrote: Conclusion: Our carbon dioxide pollution is increasing the energy, and thus the temperature, of the Earth. The conclusion is based on incorrect information about the properties of carbon dioxide, the properties of light, and by ignoring the effects of thermal energy and mass. jwoodward48 wrote: Note: The melting of the ice-caps further decreases the energy being lost to space, exacerbating the problem. The ice caps are not melting. Like any source of fresh water, it moves around. It just moves more slowly around as ice. That's about it. jwoodward48 wrote: Note: As the temperature increases, the radiation from Earth's surface also increases, leading to equilibrium being reached again. The incoming energy never changes. The outgoing energy has to go through a barrier, and so is the same whether you look at old-equilibrium or new-equilibrium, but the latter is like looking through a dark glass. When equilibrium is not reached, the outgoing energy is -not- constant, thus not violating the 1st LoT. This is a repeat of the previous arguments with the addition of stating that they do not violate the 1st LoT. They do. It is not possible to warm the surface without additional energy. Carbon dioxide is not an energy source. It is not possible to warm the surface by using colder air. That violates the 2nd LoT. jwoodward48 wrote: So where exactly do you think I go wrong, IBdaMan and Into the Night? All of these things claimed are not science. Many of them violate known existing physical laws (not just the laws of thermodynamics, although they are violated too). Several statements depend on data that does not exist or on math errors in statistics. Collectively, these are all based on the circular argument of Global Warming. This argument has no predicate other than itself. Everything here is used to support a conclusion that is already made in a circular manner. This is the same pattern as any religion. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-09-2016 21:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	jwoodward48 wrote: I just finished reading this thread. Great unholy Kikubaaqudgha, my eyes! How can anybody read the same argument so many times! How can somebody -write- the same argument so many times! Let's just suppose that I have developed some marvelous material and wrapped the Earth in it. Or enveloped. That works for any material, not just solids. The peculiar property of this material is that is is perfectly transparent when light approaches from the outside, but departing light is halted and half of it redirected back inside. Remember that the system tends toward equilibrium, and that the energy departing must equal the energy coming in for the system to be in such a state. Now I ask you: what will happen to the temperature of the Earth? Assuming the magick material does not block thermal energy, nothing will happen to the temperature of the Earth. Photons are not heat. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-09-2016 21:46
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	jwoodward48 wrote: I just finished reading this thread. Great unholy Kikubaaqudgha, my eyes! How can anybody read the same argument so many times! How can somebody -write- the same argument so many times! Let's just suppose that I have developed some marvelous material and wrapped the Earth in it. Or enveloped. That works for any material, not just solids. The peculiar property of this material is that is is perfectly transparent when light approaches from the outside, but departing light is halted and half of it redirected back inside. Remember that the system tends toward equilibrium, and that the energy departing must equal the energy coming in for the system to be in such a state. Now I ask you: what will happen to the temperature of the Earth? Your confusion lies in your illiteracy on the topic of thermal conduction/convection vs. thermal radiation. But let's ask Stefan-Boltzmann your question... Case 1: Before the marvelous material, we get [Radiance / (Emissivity * StefBoltz)]^(1/4) = T Case 2: After application of the marvelous material, we get [Radiance / (Emissivity * StefBoltz)]^(1/4) = (the exact same) T Wait! No way! How did we get the exact same answer of T in both cases? Ahhh, that's right, there is no variable in the equation for "atmospheric composition" or "marvelousness of enveloping material." Once we established that the energy source (i.e. radiance) is a constant, all we had left in the equation, besides temperature, are constants. Radiance (distance from the sun) is the only factor in the average temperature of the body (earth). Well, gee, it's all so clear. You'd have to be scientifically illiterate to not see that right away. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-09-2016 22:20
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	** you, IBdaMann. Just you. I have a ing ton of accomplishments to pull out if you keep trying that shit like "oh, it's so **ing obvious, only a scientifically illiterate moron like you wouldn't notice the failures in global conspiracy-warming from a mile away." Like reading college chem textbooks... when I was six. Or finishing several college STEM classes... before the age of thirteen. Or getting twentieth place in a highly-competitive national science competition... before the age of fifteen. The hell I'm scientifically illiterate. Maybe I'm not well-read in this particular debate, but I didn't think it necessary. Calm down, jwood. Okay. Perhaps you didn't mean to insert those delightful insults with your post? Maybe it just comes naturally. Anyway, I'll read up on this, and then come back and kick your scientifically illiterate posterior. Prepare your woefully incompetent science-behind for the impressively massive arguments you will receive.

14-09-2016 00:14
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Into the Night wrote: jwoodward48 wrote: Okay, peoples. Hello. 1. No more ad hominems. Works for me, but that is a two way street. You play nice, I'll play nice. Sure. Glad to see somebody here is at least capable of civility. jwoodward48 wrote: 2. Here is my argument for global warming: a. First, I establish that there is an equilibrium at play - there is energy coming into the Earth system from the Sun, and escaping via radiation. These two values are normally the same, but when -either- of them is changed, the equilibrium changes, and thus the temperature. Since space doesn't change, the sun changing would cause a temperature change certainly. Yes. If the energy coming into the system is increased, or the energy departing the system is decreased, the equilibrium will change to a higher temperature. jwoodward48 wrote: b. Next, let us assume that there is a magical material which lets radiation in like normal, but "reflects" (not necessarily reflection; it could be absorption and radiation) back at Earth 50% of the radiation trying to escape. This would result in the equilibrium changing, as the energy coming in would exceed the energy escaping. Far be it from the 1st LoT disproving my argument - it supports it! If the energy coming in exceeds the energy coming out, where does that excess energy go? It stays in the system, increasing the temperature. First, photons are not heat. They are converted into thermal energy only when they are absorbed (destroying the photon). Secondly, photons are not equal in energy. Third, thermal energy is conducted and convected upward. Fourth, the colder air cannot warm the warmer surface. Fine, photons aren't heat, but they carry energy which may be converted to heat. Furthermore, that's pedantry. Your fourth argument seems to me to be the only argument not fixed by a simple and meaningless word-change. Yes, the cold air can warm the warmer surface. In a sense. If I have a perfect mirror, it could warm the surface by reflecting its heat back at it. Sort of. It's important to remember that this is not a closed system. Energy is flowing in and out of the Earth via radiation. If you obstruct an escape route, the temperature will increase until the outgoing energy equals the incoming energy again. So it's not like the gas itself is the source of the energy. That's like saying that the mirror is the source of the light. The energy from the Earth is hitting the gas, and some of it is going back to the Earth. This does not directly result in a heating per se, but as more energy is coming in regardless of how much leaves, it makes the Earth warmer. jwoodward48 wrote: c. Now, let us note that the temperature of the Earth has increased. We have no way to measure global temperature. We have no way to calculate it either. Technically correct, but that's like saying that I can't measure the temperature in my house, just the temperature at the thermometer. Or the temperature in my body, just my mouth's temperature. Show me any _reliable_ estimates that show the Earth cooling over a sufficient time-frame (not just a few decades!), and I'll reconsider this part. jwoodward48 wrote: d. In addition, we have released large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. According to Mauna Loa observatory, CO2 has increased to around 0.04% of the atmosphere. According to government reports (which vary depending on which government you ask), man's activities contribute about 3.5% of the CO2. This number comes from various government surveys of estimated emissions from cars, factories, and the like. This number is an estimate only. Meaningless statistics, unless you have context. Our current equilibrium is a delicate balance; adding 14 ppm of CO2 doesn't sound that small to me. (At least, I think you're basing that number off of molecules; it could also be volume, mass, anything. Use units, folks.) Furthermore, "methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and halogenated gases" all act as greenhouse gases. (scientific reference) jwoodward48 wrote: e. The energy coming from the Sun is largely visible and ultraviolet light, while the radiated light from Earth is largely infrared. Most of the sun's energy is in infrared. The peak of the sun's energy is in the visible range. Most ultraviolet energy is filtered out of the atmosphere by the presence of oxygen. Most visible energy is reflected and scattered (a diffusion of a reflection). Most heating happens at the surface, when the surface absorbs the IR from the sun. Absorption of visible light tends to cause ionization, not heating. jwoodward48 wrote: f. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation more than it does visible/UV light. Just like most substances. jwoodward48 wrote: g. Thus, carbon dioxide is a greater barrier for escaping radiation than for incoming radiation. It is not really a barrier at all. Only 0.04% of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide, so chances are both incoming and outgoing radiation are largely unaffected. Again, a photon is not heat. It is a packet of electromagnetic energy. Heat is a component of thermal energy only. A photon only becomes thermal energy when it is absorbed (typically by the surface, and generally only if the photon is IR). You are probably right about this. This was the part I was least confident about - the exact way in which greenhouse gases act. I will read more about this; it seems like an interesting scientific topic. I think it unlikely, though, that most scientists are wrong about the warming actions of a common gas. jwoodward48 wrote: h. This would produce the described "equilibrium lost" situation, increasing the temperature of the Earth system. The necessary energy came from the Sun, as per the 2nd LoT. The Earth is mass. So is the atmosphere. They take time to warm up and cool down. The effect of changing the energy of the sun, even if the sun were to suddenly shut off completely, will be complete within a couple of days for everything but the sea, and about a month for the sea. This is why our hottest days are about a month after summer solstice, and our coldest days are about a month after winter solstice (for that hemisphere). Yeeeees...? Your point? The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing over time, keeping an equilibrium from being reached. And as mountaintops lose their snow, albedo changes. Carbon dioxide isn't the only thing that affects temperature. jwoodward48 wrote: Conclusion: Our carbon dioxide pollution is increasing the energy, and thus the temperature, of the Earth. The conclusion is based on incorrect information about the properties of carbon dioxide, the properties of light, and by ignoring the effects of thermal energy and mass. Okay, let's break that up: a. Incorrect information about the properties of carbon dioxide. True. There is much that I do not know, and I am working to rectify this. b. Incorrect information about the properties of light. I cannot find a point in my argument at which a nontrivial error was made regarding light. Could you point that out? (I'm being serious here. I would actually like to see where I was wrong. Thus, please quote the paragraph and bold the sentence in which this error was made, or some similar emphasis to indicate the exact error.) c. Ignoring the effects of thermal energy. ? as with b, I cannot find any error with this. d. Ignoring the effects of mass. On a geologic scale, this matters not a whit. Weeks are nothing. Now? Weeks are still very small. jwoodward48 wrote:Note: The melting of the ice-caps further decreases the energy being lost to space, exacerbating the problem. The ice caps are not melting. Like any source of fresh water, it moves around. It just moves more slowly around as ice. That's about it. Ice... isn't melting as things get warmer? The individual molecules are moving more, but they're also not in a crystalline form, nor are they mostly stationary, making them no longer solid. This means that they are not ice, but rather water. Ice reflects more than water. Ice has a higher albedo than water. Ice increases the amount of thermal energy going away from the earth more than water does. Thus, there is a potential feedback loop - the warmer things get, the less ice, and thus the more energy absorbed by the earth. jwoodward48 wrote: Note: As the temperature increases, the radiation from Earth's surface also increases, leading to equilibrium being reached again. The incoming energy never changes. The outgoing energy has to go through a barrier, and so is the same whether you look at old-equilibrium or new-equilibrium, but the latter is like looking through a dark glass. When equilibrium is not reached, the outgoing energy is -not- constant, thus not violating the 1st LoT. This is a repeat of the previous arguments with the addition of stating that they do not violate the 1st LoT. They do. It is not possible to warm the surface without additional energy. Carbon dioxide is not an energy source. It is not possible to warm the surface by using colder air. That violates the 2nd LoT. Um. The energy is coming from the Sun, ultimately. The gas itself isn't warming anything up, it's just not cooling it. Let's use an analogy. (The analogy isn't perfect. I'm not saying that greenhouse gases are represented by turning down the cooler, just that it's possible for cool things to indirectly warm things.) I have a heater and a cooler. The heater cannot cool, and the cooler cannot heat. I am using them both in a closed box, which is entirely thermally resistant. Heat energy enters the box only through the devices, and the cooler takes in cool refrigerant, warms it with the warm inside air, and cycles it to the outside, cooling it again. Let's say that the outside is approximately 0K, so that the cooler is physically impossible of warming any reasonable box. Now, suppose that I turn down the cooler, leaving the warmer alone. This will result in the box warming up, even though the cooler is incapable of warming the box. Why? Because it's blocking an egress, which is like and unlike creating an entrance. It does not violate thermodynamical laws, unlike entrance-creating, but for the inhabitants of the box, all they know is that it's getting warmer. jwoodward48 wrote: So where exactly do you think I go wrong, IBdaMan and Into the Night? All of these things claimed are not science. Many of them violate known existing physical laws (not just the laws of thermodynamics, although they are violated too). Several statements depend on data that does not exist or on math errors in statistics. Collectively, these are all based on the circular argument of Global Warming. This argument has no predicate other than itself. Everything here is used to support a conclusion that is already made in a circular manner. This is the same pattern as any religion. Could you specifically list all of the laws, thermodynamically or otherwise, that would disagree with the phenomenon of "things can be hot sometimes"? What exactly do you disagree with? Do you think that atmosphere does not warm planets? Do you think that warming is impossible? And please, let's not accuse each other of being religious. That vile insult cut me right to the bone. Seriously, though, I'm not saying how I think that gw-deniers are dogmatic and deaf. Let's set argument against argument, not group against group.
14-09-2016 00:15
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Into the Night wrote: jwoodward48 wrote: I just finished reading this thread. Great unholy Kikubaaqudgha, my eyes! How can anybody read the same argument so many times! How can somebody -write- the same argument so many times! Let's just suppose that I have developed some marvelous material and wrapped the Earth in it. Or enveloped. That works for any material, not just solids. The peculiar property of this material is that is is perfectly transparent when light approaches from the outside, but departing light is halted and half of it redirected back inside. Remember that the system tends toward equilibrium, and that the energy departing must equal the energy coming in for the system to be in such a state. Now I ask you: what will happen to the temperature of the Earth? Assuming the magick material does not block thermal energy, nothing will happen to the temperature of the Earth. Photons are not heat. What makes the Earth warmer? Photons. Photons carry the energy that is converted to heat.
14-09-2016 00:49
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	jwoodward48 wrote:** you, IBdaMann. Just you. I have a ing ton of accomplishments to pull out if you keep trying that shit like "oh, it's so *ing obvious,... I hate to break it to you but you aren't any better at intimidating as you are at distinguishing between thermal radiation and thermal conduction. You probably didn't understand that whole Stefan-Boltzmann thing. It contained a quartic root. I suppose that wasn't exactly fair to you. In any event, you want your chance to showcase your caligiousness so have at it. Let's see what you got. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit* A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist Edited on 14-09-2016 00:50
14-09-2016 00:54
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	I wasn't trying to intimidate you. What happened was that I lost my cool. Also, seriously, man? Is that really what you're going to do? Have you ever computed a double integral? Have you ever worked with matrices in a LinearAlg class? I've not only passed, I've gotten As on every class I've ever attended, including Linear Algebra. When I was thirteen. Yeah. Stop trying to "intimidate me with formulas." It won't work. I'm actually a smart person. Edit: Where was I confusing radiation and conduction? And if so, what gives you the right to be an **** about it, or to say that I am unintelligent, or that my argument is invalidated? Edited on 14-09-2016 00:55
14-09-2016 01:14
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	jwoodward48 wrote:Yes. If the energy coming into the system is increased, or the energy departing the system is decreased, the equilibrium will change to a higher temperature. You apparently don't grasp the Stefan-Boltzmann equation I put right in front of you. Given a constant radiance, the only way to get a lower thermal emission is to decrease the temperature. Would this be a good time to mention that your opinion of your grasp of science is substantially exaggerated? jwoodward48 wrote:Fine, photons aren't heat, but they carry energy which may be converted to heat. Let me step in and help you out here for a moment. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. Electromagnetic energy, when absorbed, becomes thermal energy. Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff. jwoodward48 wrote:Yes, the cold air can warm the warmer surface. So you don't understand the 2nd LoT. Would you like a primer? jwoodward48 wrote:It's important to remember that this is not a closed system. Right. You don't understand that the "closed system" is a reference, not applicability. The 2nd LoT applies always. You really should learn it. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-09-2016 01:33
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	IBdaMann wrote: jwoodward48 wrote:Yes. If the energy coming into the system is increased, or the energy departing the system is decreased, the equilibrium will change to a higher temperature. You apparently don't grasp the Stefan-Boltzmann equation I put right in front of you. Given a constant radiance, the only way to get a lower thermal emission is to decrease the temperature. Not true. If something gets in the way of the emission from the surface, and then radiates the energy in all directions, some amount would go back to the Earth. Would this be a good time to mention that your opinion of your grasp of science is substantially exaggerated? Only if now is a good time to inform you that you are a useless individual who finds joy in making other people sad, that you are worthless scum on the boot of humanity, and that I hope that you die painfully. Oh, wait. It isn't. I am a rather smart person. Need more evidence? I was reading, actually reading, by the age of 2/3. I was reading Harry Potter as a five-year-old. I'm not unintelligent, I have a good grasp of the basics of all sciences, and a curiosity and drive to learn more. I do not at the moment have a working knowledge of global warming sufficient to refute your well-informed arguments. That doesn't mean that I am not good at science as a whole. It seems like you have made this your life's purpose (learning about as much science as possible in order to call other people stupid), while I certainly have not. Get a life. jwoodward48 wrote:Fine, photons aren't heat, but they carry energy which may be converted to heat. Let me step in and help you out here for a moment. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. Electromagnetic energy, when absorbed, becomes thermal energy. Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff. Yes. That is what I said. "In physics, heat is energy that spontaneously passes between a system and its surroundings in some way other than through work or the transfer of matter." That is the definition of heat. Is my exact wording off? Yes. I never thought that I'd find a gw-denying intellectual-elitist, but you are the first I've seen. Not having learned the information is not equivalent to being unintelligent, but that's not even the case! I know these things, I just don't remember the exact terms. It's understanding the relationships between concepts that makes up knowledge, not "can I repeat a definition". jwoodward48 wrote:Yes, the cold air can warm the warmer surface. So you don't understand the 2nd LoT. Would you like a primer? The gas partially blocks the egress of energy. How does that violate the 2nd LoT? Did you even read what I wrote? jwoodward48 wrote:It's important to remember that this is not a closed system. Right. You don't understand that the "closed system" is a reference, not applicability. The 2nd LoT applies always. You really should learn it. I have learned it. What do you mean by "reference, not applicability"? You are saying that in my theory, thermal energy travels from cool gas to warm Earth. This is partially correct. Thermal energy is being radiated from Earth to gas and from gas to Earth, but the first is more powerful. However, increasing the second will result in a still-outward net "movement" of energy, but a change in the energy escaping from the Earth. Finally, here's my big thing: If the Earth had no atmosphere, it would be cooler. The atmosphere heats it up, despite being cooler than the Earth. how does your mind even work An explanation of this real-world phenomenon: There is no actual net travel of energy from the gas to the Earth, but there is a difference in gas->Earth energy. This heats up the Earth, because same energy incoming + less energy outgoing = some energy must stay in the Earth system.
14-09-2016 03:00
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	jwoodward48 wrote:Not true. If something gets in the way of the emission from the surface, and then radiates the energy in all directions, some amount would go back to the Earth. You had two options after I directed your attention to Stefan-Boltzmann. You could have expended a modicum of mental energy, read up on it and learned something useful and fascinating...or you could have remained intellectually lazy and simply regurgitated some of your WACKY religious dogma that runs counter to the science presented. You, of course, chose the latter. As a result, you now argue that the direction of electromagnetic radiation somehow creates more energy, despite the 1st LoT stating that's not possible. jwoodward48 wrote:I am a rather smart person. Need more evidence? I was reading, actually reading, by the age of 2/3. I was reading Harry Potter as a five-year-old. I'm not unintelligent, I have a good grasp of the basics of all sciences, and a curiosity and drive to learn more. A smart person wouldn't make it difficult for me to help with the science. jwoodward48 wrote:I do not at the moment have a working knowledge of global warming sufficient to refute your well-informed arguments. That doesn't mean that I am not good at science as a whole. It seems like you have made this your life's purpose (learning about as much science as possible in order to call other people stupid), while I certainly have not. Get a life. Now you want to play the victim after playing the bully didn't work out like you hoped. You knew you needed help with the science. I knew you needed help with the science. I tried to help. You decided to be a prick. You should have been taking notes instead of arguing and whining like a baby. jwoodward48 wrote:IYes. That is what I said. No, it is not. Your wording was incorrect. jwoodward48 wrote:I"In physics, heat is energy that spontaneously passes between a system and its surroundings in some way other than through work or the transfer of matter." That is the definition of heat. Nope. Heat is the flow of specifically thermal energy. If the thermal energy changes form then you simply have an energy flow. It's straightforward. jwoodward48 wrote:IIs my exact wording off? Yes. I never thought that I'd find a gw-denying intellectual-elitist, but you are the first I've seen. Not having learned the information is not equivalent to being unintelligent, but that's not even the case! I know these things, I just don't remember the exact terms. A smart person will politely ask what the correct wording might be, and won't argue just for the sake of arguing with those who are trying to help. A stupid person will try to blame his ignorance on those who are trying to help. Try being a smart person. jwoodward48 wrote:IThe gas partially blocks the egress of energy. How does that violate the 2nd LoT? Did you even read what I wrote? Yes, I read every word. All I did was point out that you don't understand the 2nd LoT. You don't. After I pointed this out to you, you had two options: do a quick lookup and learn it or complain. You, of course, chose the latter. Can we agree that you obviously don't want me helping you on this subject because I've got the science on my side and it all runs counter to your WACKY Global Warming religion? You want to call me names like "Global Warming denier" and I just want to point out that you are a science denier. So we're good. Press on. jwoodward48 wrote:I have learned it. What do you mean by "reference, not applicability"? You have obviously not learned it. Obviously. I suppose that until you learn it it won't be obvious to you why it's obvious you haven't learned it. Hint: the 2nd LoT applies at all times, everywhere, under all conditions, whether or not there is an open system involved, a closed system, a mix of open and closed systems, etc... Hint #2: A closed system is the reference basis for entropy. jwoodward48 wrote:You are saying that in my theory, thermal energy travels from cool gas to warm Earth. This is partially correct. Thermal energy is being radiated from Earth to gas and from gas to Earth, but the first is more powerful. However, increasing the second will result in a still-outward net "movement" of energy, but a change in the energy escaping from the Earth. No. None of this happens. jwoodward48 wrote: Finally, here's my big thing: If the Earth had no atmosphere, it would be cooler. No. Stefan-Boltzmann says otherwise. jwoodward48 wrote:.how does your mind even work[/q] Awesome! You want to question the validity of science. I'm not surprised. s . c . i . e . n . c . e . * . d . e . n . i . e . r [quote]jwoodward48 wrote:An explanation of this real-world phenomenon: There is no actual net travel of energy from the gas to the Earth, There must be a net tranfer of energy from the gas to the surface for the surface to increase in temperature. This is basic. For temperature to increase, amount of energy must increase. When you reach this point, and you desperately want to say "no, temperature can be increased by blocking loss" don't do it because you will be in error per Stefan-Boltzmann. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-09-2016 03:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Due to the length of this post, I am going to split it up to cover all of these subjects separately. This should reduce the overall noise of such lengthy posts. jwoodward48 wrote: Into the Night wrote: jwoodward48 wrote: Okay, peoples. Hello. 1. No more ad hominems. Works for me, but that is a two way street. You play nice, I'll play nice. Sure. Glad to see somebody here is at least capable of civility. Me too. So far, so good. Let's keep it up! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-09-2016 03:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	jwoodward48 wrote: 2. Here is my argument for global warming: a. First, I establish that there is an equilibrium at play - there is energy coming into the Earth system from the Sun, and escaping via radiation. These two values are normally the same, but when -either- of them is changed, the equilibrium changes, and thus the temperature. Since space doesn't change, the sun changing would cause a temperature change certainly. Yes. If the energy coming into the system is increased, or the energy departing the system is decreased, the equilibrium will change to a higher temperature. [/quote] Okay. I think we've established and agree on this point also. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-09-2016 03:49
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	IBdaMann wrote: jwoodward48 wrote:Not true. If something gets in the way of the emission from the surface, and then radiates the energy in all directions, some amount would go back to the Earth. You had two options after I directed your attention to Stefan-Boltzmann. You could have expended a modicum of mental energy, read up on it and learned something useful and fascinating...or you could have remained intellectually lazy and simply regurgitated some of your WACKY religious dogma that runs counter to the science presented. You, of course, chose the latter. As a result, you now argue that the direction of electromagnetic radiation somehow creates more energy, despite the 1st LoT stating that's not possible. No. First of all, I am reading about that. I just happen to have a Real Life to take care of, too. One that involves writing a speech for speech class, finishing writing a lab report which in part involves the feedback loops that are producing our lake's hypertrophy and algae blooms, and interacting with people in a meaningful, productive, and enjoyable manner. Second, the first law of thermodynamics states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, yes? Now, is the Sun losing energy or not? It is losing energy, and some of that energy is going toward the Earth. It spends some time in Earth's system, and then leaves for some distant corner of the universe. (Or Venus, for a bit of it. Or Pluto. Or the Sun again, contrary to your interpretation of the 2nd law.) If some of the energy spends more time in Earth's system, the temperature increases. The energy would be here anyway - it just can't escape as quickly. I feel like no matter what I say, your response will be the same, unless I admit that I agree with you and that global warming is stupid. jwoodward48 wrote:I am a rather smart person. Need more evidence? I was reading, actually reading, by the age of 2/3. I was reading Harry Potter as a five-year-old. I'm not unintelligent, I have a good grasp of the basics of all sciences, and a curiosity and drive to learn more. A smart person wouldn't make it difficult for me to help with the science. You? Helping with the science? Your interpretation of it, maybe, that runs counter to literally everybody else except your insane buddies. jwoodward48 wrote:I do not at the moment have a working knowledge of global warming sufficient to refute your well-informed arguments. That doesn't mean that I am not good at science as a whole. It seems like you have made this your life's purpose (learning about as much science as possible in order to call other people stupid), while I certainly have not. Get a life. Now you want to play the victim after playing the bully didn't work out like you hoped. You knew you needed help with the science. I knew you needed help with the science. I tried to help. You decided to be a prick. You should have been taking notes instead of arguing and whining like a baby. Wait, I thought this was a debate. Arguing is literally what a debate is. I'm neither playing the victim nor the bully. I was upset and responded in kind to your post. You are only muddying the water. I do not need help with "the science". I know "the science". Do I remember the exact terms? No. Could I use a definition? Maybe. Does Google exist? Yes. Am I going to Google every term I use? Hell no. I was wrong, that I will admit, but I do not need you to call me "science-illiterate." Is that seriously your idea of help? jwoodward48 wrote:IYes. That is what I said. No, it is not. Your wording was incorrect. Fine. That is what I meant, what I intended, and what I have now clarified. jwoodward48 wrote:I"In physics, heat is energy that spontaneously passes between a system and its surroundings in some way other than through work or the transfer of matter." That is the definition of heat. Nope. Heat is the flow of specifically thermal energy. If the thermal energy changes form then you simply have an energy flow. It's straightforward. Okay... That may be true. Straightforward it is, but until you gave that definition all you had done was insult me. jwoodward48 wrote:IIs my exact wording off? Yes. I never thought that I'd find a gw-denying intellectual-elitist, but you are the first I've seen. Not having learned the information is not equivalent to being unintelligent, but that's not even the case! I know these things, I just don't remember the exact terms. A smart person will politely ask what the correct wording might be, and won't argue just for the sake of arguing with those who are trying to help. A stupid person will try to blame his ignorance on those who are trying to help. Try being a smart person. I admitted that I was wrong. That is what smart people do. Have you ever, in your life, admitted to being wrong? Everybody is wrong sometimes. I love xkcd. If I said that you had made an error, what would you do? Now think of what you are expecting from me. Think of how you have been posting, now recall how I was "playing the bully." Do you even notice this? I just can't stop. jwoodward48 wrote:IThe gas partially blocks the egress of energy. How does that violate the 2nd LoT? Did you even read what I wrote? Yes, I read every word. All I did was point out that you don't understand the 2nd LoT. You don't. After I pointed this out to you, you had two options: do a quick lookup and learn it or complain. You, of course, chose the latter. Can we agree that you obviously don't want me helping you on this subject because I've got the science on my side and it all runs counter to your WACKY Global Warming religion? You want to call me names like "Global Warming denier" and I just want to point out that you are a science denier. So we're good. Press on. I called you a "global warming denier" because you didn't like the term "skeptic." I don't want your help because you are a nasty person who insults as you help. I really don't care what you think about global warming, if you want to help that's great. I always enjoy hearing another perspective. But that was not help. I do know the 2nd LoT. Would you care to explain what your interpretation of it is, as well as how I have violated it and how I fail to understand it? jwoodward48 wrote:I have learned it. What do you mean by "reference, not applicability"? You have obviously not learned it. Obviously. I suppose that until you learn it it won't be obvious to you why it's obvious you haven't learned it. Hint: the 2nd LoT applies at all times, everywhere, under all conditions, whether or not there is an open system involved, a closed system, a mix of open and closed systems, etc... Hint #2: A closed system is the reference basis for entropy You are so obviously wrong about everything that I don't even need to say how obvious it is! Obvious obvious obvious. Argument done! Hint #1: I recently learned that closed =/= isolated. What I meant to say was isolated. Energy may be used to offset entropy in a particular corner of the universe, while making even more entropy in another part. Sort of like how refrigerators only cool by making the outside even warmer. When you chop the universe into pieces, sometimes the entropy seems to decrease over time, but a greater increase over time must be present somewhere else. The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system always increases over time. Wow! A quick Google reveals that the 2nd LoT does not apply everywhere, at least according to most scientists! You'll need to either admit that you're wrong or support your claim with studies. You'll also need to rectify your new theory with all of science. Geez, looks like you're probably wrong. I wonder if you'll accept my help or not? Hint #2: Hmm, I don't know that particular piece of jargon. I must be an unintelligent, illiterate moron. Let me guess what it means, though, with the increased context you just gave me. I think that it means that the 2nd LoT was designed with the assumption of being used within an isolated system. jwoodward48 wrote:You are saying that in my theory, thermal energy travels from cool gas to warm Earth. This is partially correct. Thermal energy is being radiated from Earth to gas and from gas to Earth, but the first is more powerful. However, increasing the second will result in a still-outward net "movement" of energy, but a change in the energy escaping from the Earth. No. None of this happens. What? Why not? Doesn't gas radiate energy, just like everything else in the universe? Don't hot objects absorb cool radiation? jwoodward48 wrote: Finally, here's my big thing: If the Earth had no atmosphere, it would be cooler. No. Stefan-Boltzmann says otherwise. How so? The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. What is a black body? A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence. What does "ideal" mean? "existing only in the imagination; desirable or perfect but not likely to become a reality." This isn't that hard, folks. All it takes is a keyboard and internet access, and you can get to the most powerful question-asking website in the world. Stefan-Boltzmann is only talking about ideal black bodies, not real-world things. Let's look at the Wikipedia page, which discusses particular real-world objects which can be considered to be black bodies for approximations. Let's see... "everything ever" isn't on that list. jwoodward48 wrote:how does your mind even work Awesome! You want to question the validity of science. I'm not surprised. s . c . i . e . n . c . e . * . d . e . n . i . e . r Awesome! You think that you get to say what science is. I'm not surprised. s . e . l . f . * . d . e . l . u . s . i . o . n . a . l jwoodward48 wrote:An explanation of this real-world phenomenon: There is no actual net travel of energy from the gas to the Earth, There must be a net transfer of energy from the gas to the surface for the surface to increase in temperatureThis is basic. For temperature to increase, amount of energy must increase. When you reach this point, and you desperately want to say "no, temperature can be increased by blocking loss" don't do it because you will be in error per Stefan-Boltzmann. No, because the energy is ultimately coming from the Sun, and because Stefan-Boltzmann is an approximation that only works if you are dealing with a particular set of real-world object, or alternatively a hypothetical ideal approximation. If I clog the drain, but not entirely, water's still flowing down, but at a lesser rate. What's going to happen to the water level? The same amount of water is flowing in, but less is escaping. Here's what will happen. The water level will increase. Eventually, newWaterLevel/oldWaterLevel will equal oldOutflowRate/newOutflowRate, and a higher equilibrium will be reached. I will admit that I was wrong; I thought that the average temperature of the Earth was higher than that of the Moon. It is not. Edited on 14-09-2016 03:56

14-09-2016 04:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	jwoodward48 wrote: b. Next, let us assume that there is a magical material which lets radiation in like normal, but "reflects" (not necessarily reflection; it could be absorption and radiation) back at Earth 50% of the radiation trying to escape. This would result in the equilibrium changing, as the energy coming in would exceed the energy escaping. Far be it from the 1st LoT disproving my argument - it supports it! If the energy coming in exceeds the energy coming out, where does that excess energy go? It stays in the system, increasing the temperature. First, photons are not heat. They are converted into thermal energy only when they are absorbed (destroying the photon). Secondly, photons are not equal in energy. Third, thermal energy is conducted and convected upward. Fourth, the colder air cannot warm the warmer surface. Fine, photons aren't heat, but they carry energy which may be converted to heat. Furthermore, that's pedantry. Your fourth argument seems to me to be the only argument not fixed by a simple and meaningless word-change.[/quote] No, it's not a meaningless word change. Heat only applies to thermal energy. Photons are not converted to heat. They are converted to thermal energy. The flow of thermal energy is heat. Heat is the movement of thermal energy. [quote]jwoodward48 wrote: Yes, the cold air can warm the warmer surface. In a sense. If I have a perfect mirror, it could warm the surface by reflecting its heat back at it. Sort of. Not even sort of. A warmer surface will lose energy just the same in the form of thermal energy (by heating something else, like the atmosphere). If the surface warms for any reason, the heat loss is greater. This is the result of the 2nd LoT. Heat can never flow from cold to hot. This is also the result of the 2nd LoT. It is also why you can't make hot coffee with an ice cube. [quote]jwoodward48 wrote: It's important to remember that this is not a closed system. Energy is flowing in and out of the Earth via radiation. If you obstruct an escape route, the temperature will increase until the outgoing energy equals the incoming energy again. While it is true that it's all radiation in the end, that radiation comes from all substances, earth, sea, air, oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, anything. [quote]jwoodward48 wrote: So it's not like the gas itself is the source of the energy. That's like saying that the mirror is the source of the light. The energy from the Earth is hitting the gas, and some of it is going back to the Earth. This does not directly result in a heating per se, but as more energy is coming in regardless of how much leaves, it makes the Earth warmer. The basic problem here is that carbon dioxide does not act like a mirror much at all. What happens when it absorbs an IR photon is that the gas becomes slightly warmer. The photon is destroyed and converted to thermal energy. That thermal energy conducts and convects upward along with the rest. As the air thins, radiation of energy becomes the predominant way of losing energy. The other basic problem is that photons are not equal. There are high energy photons and low energy photons. That is strictly dependent on the temperature of the substance emitting them. Each energy level is it's own 'color'. That's what we call color. The frequency of light determines the energy level of each photon. The intensity of light determines how many photons are emitted per second. This is where the Stefan-Boltzmann law comes in that IBDaMann keeps referring to. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-09-2016 04:18
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	And where you finally go wrong. I don't really have much beef with you; you're not nasty, and you give good, actual arguments. I actually enjoy talking with you. The Stefan-Boltzmann law as it is currently written applies only to theoretical, ideal objects. If you want to apply it to real-world objects, you have to explain how your chosen object acts like a black body. Atoms in particular, I believe, are particularly bad objects to use SB's law on; they can only emit particular wavelengths, not the continuous possibilities seen on graphs of SB's law.
14-09-2016 04:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	jwoodward48 wrote: c. Now, let us note that the temperature of the Earth has increased. We have no way to measure global temperature. We have no way to calculate it either. Technically correct, but that's like saying that I can't measure the temperature in my house, just the temperature at the thermometer. Or the temperature in my body, just my mouth's temperature. Show me any _reliable_ estimates that show the Earth cooling over a sufficient time-frame (not just a few decades!), and I'll reconsider this part. [/quote] It it not just technically correct. It is correct. The thermostat in your house only measures the temperature at the thermostat itself. It knows nothing about the attic, the open window, the inside of your refrigerator or your oven, or how hot your computer processor is getting. The temperature of your body varies also. That's why temperature is taken in various standard ways that do not change. Most adults and older children find the mouth method the easiest. Other methods produce different readings. One thing we have going for us in these situations is the accepted temperature gradient over distance in these smaller environments. This is measurable using very detailed thermoscans. The Earth is a very different story. Temperatures vary over distance on the Earth by as much as 20 degrees per mile (personally seen several times right here in Seattle). This enormously violent gradient can occur because of cloud cover, storms producing violent downdrafts and updrafts, the effect of water in the area, the altitude (which can sort of be compensated for but not fully), the effect of offshore vs onshore winds, and even the type of surface predominant in the area. Using statistics, we must take two things into account. The sample must be selected from by a random means that is not related to the data, and the possible variability must be taken into account. This is known as the margin of error by the time it is processed through statistics. Currently we have many thousands of thermometers. The great majority of them are in cities. The remainder are where we can access them (near roads). Many places have no thermometers at all for a radius of 100 miles or more. The midst of mountains away from roads, the middle of deserts (particularly within badlands or escarpment terrain), most of the sea, especially near the poles, etc. There are places in Canada, for example, where there is no thermometer within 1000 miles of a location. Other places we can't measure at all because of political differences. What's the temperature of North Korea? Are you going to believe anything that government says? So the question is, how many thermometers must there be and how must they be placed to gain anything like an acceptable margin of error? When you factor in the observed gradient and you place the thermometers as uniformly as possible (so we can generate a proper random sampling), getting the margin of error below +- 10 degrees F would require far more instrumentation than we have ever built. If we can't measure it today, we certainly don't have any useful historic measurements. The demands of statistics simply require a level of instrumentation and placement of that instrumentation that is not practical on any scale. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-09-2016 04:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	jwoodward48 wrote: d. In addition, we have released large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. According to Mauna Loa observatory, CO2 has increased to around 0.04% of the atmosphere. According to government reports (which vary depending on which government you ask), man's activities contribute about 3.5% of the CO2. This number comes from various government surveys of estimated emissions from cars, factories, and the like. This number is an estimate only. Meaningless statistics, unless you have context. Our current equilibrium is a delicate balance; adding 14 ppm of CO2 doesn't sound that small to me. (At least, I think you're basing that number off of molecules; it could also be volume, mass, anything. Use units, folks.) Furthermore, "methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and halogenated gases" all act as greenhouse gases. (scientific reference) [/quote] I completely agree. Statistics have no meaning without knowing what the original data was, where it came from, how it was collected, who collected it and for what purpose, and how it was handled after collection. It also has no meaning if the sampling is done incorrectly or if the margin of error is not given with it. The numbers I gave are from the United States Department of Energy and the Mauna Loa Observatory. The instrumentation used at Mauna Loa are another topic of debate as to it's accuracy. At this moment, let us assume for the moment that it is. Between us, therefore, it is a fact for now. The Dept of Energy is another story. There is no real indication of how they came up with their numbers. To say we've released large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is a subjective statement. So are the statistics used to try to quantify the amount released by man. I tend to believe most carbon dioxide comes from the oceans. A single volcanic belch can also put tremendous amounts into the atmosphere. It is already demonstrated the equilibrium reaction of carbon dioxide and seawater. If too much occurs in one, CO2 moves to the other. Carbon dioxide is measured in parts per million. That's in molecules. Currently about 0.04% of air contains carbon dioxide. Essentially, you would have to search through 2500 molecules before finding one carbon dioxide molecule. This measurement is at the surface. We do not have reliable measurements at any other altitude. If that molecule were warmed by one degree through IR absorption, its energy would be dissipated into 2500 other molecules, meaning a total rise of 0.00041 degrees. To raise the temperature of the air by 1 degree, therefore, that carbon dioxide molecule would have to have obtained sufficient energy to reach 2500 degrees! Now here I must get into a realm that might seem like ad hominem, but it's not. There are data sources and data sources. While the ACS is a fine institution in many ways, it is, in the end, a political organization. This political organization is made up of many scientists, most of which work for the government either directly through university programs, or through the government grant system. That government, like any government, has some rather interesting metrics for 'success'. A government doesn't produce anything. It only passes laws and regulations. So what is the success metric of a government or a government program? There is only one: Justifying it's own growth by demonstrating a need to solve a problem. It doesn't matter if the problem is a manufactured one or not. It must never actually solve the problem, or the justification goes with it. The idea is to find or create a problem, then ride in like heroes to 'solve' it, without actually solving anything. Keep the problem going, and you can keep your government program going. Scientists, because they are paid by government, are part of this problem. Either they must conform to something they don't agree with to get paid at all, or they too are using the government metric of success. Yes, it's an attack on the government and the scientists that work for them. I think it is a reasonable position to take, however. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-09-2016 04:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	jwoodward48 wrote: e. The energy coming from the Sun is largely visible and ultraviolet light, while the radiated light from Earth is largely infrared. Most of the sun's energy is in infrared. The peak of the sun's energy is in the visible range. Most ultraviolet energy is filtered out of the atmosphere by the presence of oxygen. Most visible energy is reflected and scattered (a diffusion of a reflection). Most heating happens at the surface, when the surface absorbs the IR from the sun. Absorption of visible light tends to cause ionization, not heating. jwoodward48 wrote: f. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation more than it does visible/UV light. Just like most substances. jwoodward48 wrote: g. Thus, carbon dioxide is a greater barrier for escaping radiation than for incoming radiation. It is not really a barrier at all. Only 0.04% of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide, so chances are both incoming and outgoing radiation are largely unaffected. Again, a photon is not heat. It is a packet of electromagnetic energy. Heat is a component of thermal energy only. A photon only becomes thermal energy when it is absorbed (typically by the surface, and generally only if the photon is IR). You are probably right about this. This was the part I was least confident about - the exact way in which greenhouse gases act. I will read more about this; it seems like an interesting scientific topic. I think it unlikely, though, that most scientists are wrong about the warming actions of a common gas. [/quote] Excellent! May you find your research pleasantly enlightening. I have addressed the problem of scientists making claims they really shouldn't in another post. We will continue to address it there. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-09-2016 05:05
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Thank you so much. I finally have what I wanted - a piece of my holy grail. I have some Gray, which means that I can begin to understand other people's perspectives. Before, because I only interacted with "people who believe that global warming" and people like IBdaMann, who led me to believe that most global-warming-skeptics were like him. I'm still fairly sure that the Earth is heating up, but I understand where you're coming from, and I realize that smart, non-delusional people have ideas contrary to mine. I can kind of see myself in your situation. That is my goal. Not that the debate isn't fun, either. ==== I'm trying to understand where we diverge. We agree that heat is flowing in and out of the Earth, right? Is it that I think CO2 obstructs the leaving heat, while you don't? (Just so I can keep track of two debates at once - I don't think you ever invoked the LoT or Plank/SB laws, right? If you did, how do those play into all this?) Wait, I do remember, you said that the S-B Law applied to molecules in the [s]atomsphere[/s] atmosphere. A few posts ago. Could you clarify your use of S-B Law to specific particles?
14-09-2016 05:17
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	jwoodward48 wrote: h. This would produce the described "equilibrium lost" situation, increasing the temperature of the Earth system. The necessary energy came from the Sun, as per the 2nd LoT. The Earth is mass. So is the atmosphere. They take time to warm up and cool down. The effect of changing the energy of the sun, even if the sun were to suddenly shut off completely, will be complete within a couple of days for everything but the sea, and about a month for the sea. This is why our hottest days are about a month after summer solstice, and our coldest days are about a month after winter solstice (for that hemisphere). Yeeeees...? Your point? The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing over time, keeping an equilibrium from being reached. And as mountaintops lose their snow, albedo changes. Carbon dioxide isn't the only thing that affects temperature. [/quote] My point is simply this. Equilibrium (if you want to call it that) is simply the mass of the Earth and its seas and atmosphere. Liquid water has a high specific heat. It takes longer to warm up or cool down liquid water than other substances. Quite a lot more. This is why we use liquid cooling systems in cars. Air works, but nothing can carry the heat away better than that conveyer system known as the water pump and radiator. The water stays liquid in that system too, despite the high temperatures. It only turns to steam when the pressure is released. The oceans determine the bulk of the equilibrium. Clouds (which are liquid water and not water vapor), can also do this. This is why marine environments (where there are often lots of clouds) have a narrower temperature swing from day to night than a desert area at the same latitude. The marine environment is cooler during the day, and warmer during the night than the desert is. A good way to see this is to compare the high and low temperatures of say, Monterey, CA with Las Vegas, NV. Two towns near the same latitude. Las Vegas is a bit higher in elevation, so add 5 degrees to it to compensate. That's close to the standard adiabatic rate. Measure it over time to limit the effect of localized air masses. Water keeps the world from heating up too fast. Water keeps the world from cooling down too fast. With our 12 hour on 12 hour off pulse of energy from the sun, the oceans and clouds act as a great thermal 'ballast' to keep the temperature even. All mass will 'ballast' in this way, but to varying degrees. All this mass (which includes carbon dioxide, BTW) is the real equilibrium. If the sun puts out a short pulse of higher energy, it takes hours and days for all that mass to adjust to it. The temperature stays fairly even. None of it changes the average temperature of the Earth. All that mass does is narrow the temperature swing. In this way, the entire atmosphere acts just like a blanket, limiting the warming of the surface, and limiting the cooling of the surface. I sometimes like to refer to clouds as thermal 'anvils' floating there in the sky. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-09-2016 05:25
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Ah, I see. There is indeed a smoothing or dulling of the short-term temperature changes, and that is what you describe. But that is entirely different from the equilibrium of internal<->external energy flow, modified by albedo, absorption, etc.
14-09-2016 05:36
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	jwoodward48 wrote: Okay, let's break that up: a. Incorrect information about the properties of carbon dioxide. True. There is much that I do not know, and I am working to rectify this. Good. Enjoy your research. There are several good chemistry books on this subject. [quote]jwoodward48 wrote: b. Incorrect information about the properties of light. c. Ignoring the effects of thermal energy. These are actually related. I cannot find a point in my argument at which a nontrivial error was made regarding light. Could you point that out? (I'm being serious here. I would actually like to see where I was wrong. Thus, please quote the paragraph and bold the sentence in which this error was made, or some similar emphasis to indicate the exact error.) The error is made by failing to take into account the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This law is important and acts at all times. Basically, it states that the color of light (and its corresponding energy) emitted from an object is dependent only upon its temperature and has nothing to do with its substance. Max Planck related color of light to its energy. The 'bluer' the light (the higher the frequency), the higher the energy of a photon of that light. By treating photons as equal, this equation was ignored. There is also confusion between electromagnetic energy (light) and thermal (temperature) energy. They are entirely two different kinds of energy, one electrically based, the other kinetically based. While is possible to convert one form of energy to another, you cannot treat them as if they were all the same at all times. Electricity has voltage, resistance, current, magnetic fields, and can travel through space without the use of mass. Kinetic energy has speed, inertia (mass), mechanical oscillations, and various forces working on it. Both are energy, but both cannot be described the same way while energy is in a particular form. [quote]jwoodward48 wrote: d. Ignoring the effects of mass. On a geologic scale, this matters not a whit. Weeks are nothing. Now? Weeks are still very small. This is my point. The geologic scale is not involved at all. Not even a whole year is involved at all. Changes in the sun will result in equilibrium in as short as a month, accounting for all the mass that is in the oceans and the Earth. Since mass is the only thing limiting the change of temperature over time, this is exactly the point. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-09-2016 05:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	jwoodward48 wrote:Note: The melting of the ice-caps further decreases the energy being lost to space, exacerbating the problem. The ice caps are not melting. Like any source of fresh water, it moves around. It just moves more slowly around as ice. That's about it. Ice... isn't melting as things get warmer? The individual molecules are moving more, but they're also not in a crystalline form, nor are they mostly stationary, making them no longer solid. This means that they are not ice, but rather water. Ice reflects more than water. Ice has a higher albedo than water. Ice increases the amount of thermal energy going away from the earth more than water does. Thus, there is a potential feedback loop - the warmer things get, the less ice, and thus the more energy absorbed by the earth. [/quote] The ice/water equilibrium is an interesting phenomenon. Most but chemists don't understand it well. When water (as ice) approaches the melting point, some portion will have already reached it and liquid water will begin to form somewhere. This little puddle of water has some odd things going on. Water is melting into the puddle, and water in the puddle is also freezing again. The result is an equilibrium between water melting and water freezing. That equilibrium can be disturbed by the addition of heat or by certain chemicals. A new equilibrium will be established with larger puddles. Continuing to keep the equilibrium disturbed by continuing to add energy will eventually result in all the ice melting. There is no more equilibrium to reestablish. The ice is gone and there is too much energy in the water to refreeze. During all this time of partial melting, the measured temperature stays the same. The thermometer will not move again until ALL the ice is gone. This is an instrument illusion. The thermometer can only measure the average kinetic energy in the ice. This hidden heat is called the heat of fusion (it also works going from liquid to ice). It is heat that does not show on a thermometer, but it is thermal energy nevertheless. It takes a LOT of energy to melt ice. That's why it takes so long to melt the thin layer of snow that you are more familiar with. Melting the ice takes a lot of energy out of the air to do it. That energy is used to break the bonds of the crystalline structure of ice. That energy is continually replaced by the sun. Enough to keep the air warm enough to pour MORE energy into the melting process. Once the snow has melted, that same sun will warm up the area much more quickly. So the question is, how much energy would it take to melt just one of the polar ice caps? Turns out it's a LOT. It is so much energy that the seas would be boiling before the ice cap melted. The Antarctic cap is not melting. A tiny little corner has grown large enough to slough off, that's what is being reported as 'disastrous' melting. The Arctic cap is reduced but it is not melting. Where is this energy coming from? Why isn't it affecting the Antarctic so much? It seems there is a chain of underwater volcanoes under the Arctic sea. It is why we find oil at the north slopes of Alaska. These volcanoes apparently have become active. If they stay active long enough, we might see an island form in the Arctic sea. This makes sense. The Arctic sea is the joint between several tectonic plates. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-09-2016 07:40
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Again, we are describing different equilibria. You are describing the water-ice equilibrium, which I know about. (Isn't sublimation interesting? I've heard that an equilibrium exists between ice and water vapour. I suppose that's at some odd point on the pressure-temperature graph.) I am describing the albedo of ice/water changing the equilibrium of heat flow in and out of Earth. This is getting somewhat humourous, I think. Edited on 14-09-2016 07:42
14-09-2016 07:47
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	First, would you mind elucidating your response in the "China" thread? Okay. A bit of research later, I think I have a response. The Sun is hot. [citation needed] This means that as per the S-B law, it radiates thermal radiation, which is electromagnetic radiation aka light. Since the Sun is comparable to a black body of about 5778K, the light has a corresponding range of wavelengths, at corresponding frequencies (in the statistical sense). All together, this specifies its light-curve (not sure what the actual term is). Now the radiation is hitting the Earth. Some of it is being reflected, other parts are being absorbed, but all in all most of the energy that can reach Earth does, whether it is absorbed in the atmosphere or on the ground. Since the Earth also has radiation according to the S-B law, it radiates some energy to space. The Earth has an effective temperature of =^_/=255K (that's a squiggly = sign btw). This results in more of the radiation having a longer wavelength. Up to here, we agree right? Now, here's where I think a discrepancy occurs: "Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared light more than it does shorter wavelengths. This results in outgoing light being absorbed more than incoming light, and thus the greenhouse gas "reflects" (in a layman's sense) energy back down more than it "reflects" it back into space. Since it is decreasing outflow more than inflow, equilibrium is disturbed. The only way equilibrium can be reached is if temperatures increase. Once the radiation through the greenhouse gas equals what it used to be, equilibrium is reached again. The energy to heat up Earth comes from the Sun, as it always does; the difference is that for a period, the outflow is less than the inflow, so heat "pools up" in the Earth." Where in that paragraph did I go wrong?
14-09-2016 07:54
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Hmm... I failed to take into account the different energies of the two radiations. Is that where the error comes into play?
14-09-2016 13:39
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	jwoodward48 wrote:Hmm... I failed to take into account the different energies of the two radiations. Is that where the error comes into play? You once again kicked Stefan-Boltzmann to the curb. The only way for earth to have less thermal emission is for earth's temperature to decrease. You haven't come to grips with this reality. You probably just need more time. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-09-2016 14:19
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Maybe if you say that enough, it will become true. SB law concerns radiating. Can't CO2 block some radiation? If I put a screen up that only blocks infrared, is that violating SB?

14-09-2016 15:54
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Okay, once and for all, let's establish that global warming does not violate any laws. ==The First Law of Thermodynamics== "Energy can be neither created nor destroyed; it can only change form." A common misconception is that the energy from global warming just "appears." The energy can actually be considered to come from two places: 1. The Sun The Sun is the eventual source of almost all energy in the Solar System, if you trace the energy conversions back far enough. This is no different - the energy required to increase the temperature of Earth comes from fusion reactions in the center of a gargantuan body of hydrogen, helium, and other trace elements. The energy comes from the Sun in the sense that it's "flowing from" the Sun. 2. Space But in another sense, the energy is coming from space. What? Wouldn't this violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? Good question. I'll move on to that. ==The Second Law of Thermodynamics== "The entropy of an isolated system cannot decrease." Alternatively, "Heat must flow downhill." The energy isn't actually flowing from space, it's a decrease in energy flowing to space. Imagine this: I have a house that is very inefficient. It leaks heat like nobody else's house. Even with the heater on all the way, I am cold, and the snow around my house is melting. But now I install some insulation. Now my house is warmer. I did not turn up the heater. I did not add any energy source. All I did was decrease the energy leakage. If you were in this situation, you could cry out about blatant violations of thermodynamics, because "isn't the energy supposed to be coming from a warmer place, not a colder place?" But the 2nd Law only applies to net energy flow, and Earth is still losing thermal energy, just more slowly. In the sense that energy must be balanced, and if energy increases in one place it must decrease in another place, the energy "comes from" space. (This is the 1st LoT again.) But it is not flowing from space. Imagine a river. If I dam it, a lake forms, and eventually the water will spill over the top. Until that happens, the river below will dry up. In the sense that all of the water in the lake used to be upstream, the water is coming from upstream. But in the 1st-law sense, the increase in lakewater is balanced out by the decrease in riverwater - so in a sense, the lakewater is coming from the riverwater. ==The Third Law of Thermodynamics== "The entropy of a perfect crystal at absolute zero is exactly equal to zero." Why haven't we mentioned the 3rd Law? Because it doesn't apply. Why not? Science works everywhere. There are four possible interpretations of the phrase "science works everywhere." 1. The set of methods that makes up "science" can be applied to any situation, producing a positive effect. [This is somewhat true, although it cannot be scientifically tested, due to an observation bias - if there was somewhere science didn't work, how could a scientific test be applied there? (Note the similarity to Godel's incompleteness theorems.) I'm going off on a tangent, though.] 2. The set of laws that make up our current model can be applied to all situations. [True. Every law contains within it a set of situations under which it is applicable, so applying "science" to the Moon wouldn't mean applying Archimedes's Principle to the Moon.] 3. A particular law, designed, created, and tested within a particular situation, and only defined to apply within that situation, can be applied to another situation without any thought. It simply must apply everywhere - that's science, right? [Aaaand here comes the falsities. Archimedes's Principle does not apply to the Moon, as there is no fluid for it to work on!] 4. A particular law can be used in any arbitrary argument to great effect, and this application will make me look intelligent. [False. Absolutely false.] Let's consider evaporation. Within an isolated system, you can determine the amount of liquid that will remain after equilibrium. You could even make a Scientific Law that says that. But in an open system, the Law simply will not apply. It will almost always make false assertions, although it could occasionally work as an approximation. Or consider Newton's Laws of Motion. Before people could accelerate quickly (for significant periods of time, not falling off a cliff) or get to space, there was little evidence that Newton's Laws of Motion were wrong. (Newton's Law of Gravity was disproved in part due to an eclipse allowing observation of a star behind the Sun, whose image was curved due to General Relativity.) Within the low-acceleration, pretty-constant-gravity situation that everybody lived in, Newton's LoM were as correct as could be measured. But if you're moving at near c, or in and out of gravity wells, the matter is entirely different. Newton's LoM break down and you need relativity. Newton's LoM work perfectly fine in the situation in which they were tested, but outside of that, you can't draw any conclusions. Or take laws regarding the Earth's weather. On Jupiter, they probably don't apply. On some distant exoplanet, they probably don't apply. Heck, they probably don't apply in some situations on Earth! With that, on to the Planck and S-B Laws. ==Planck's Law== "Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T." That's just it. Unless you're talking about the radiation emitted by a black body, Planck's Law simply does not apply. I don't see any black bodies in the atmosphere. If you would like to insist that Planck's Law works everywhere, you need to support that claim with evidence, experimentation, and testing, because the Law as defined was constructed and tested only on black bodies. (Hypothetical ones, too.) It was not tested on atmospheric particles, and there is no reason to think that it would apply there. Especially since I'm talking about absorption. Not emitting, but absorbing, radiation. Planck's Law has as much to do with this as my Aunt Michelle. It's like trying to apply the laws of robotics to the atmosphere! ==The Stefan-Boltzmann Law== "The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature." Again, a black body. Not an atmospheric particle. Now, if you knew absolutely nothing about the atmosphere, that would be a good first start. "Let's apply some other radiation laws, maybe they'll work?" Part of science is throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks, goes through, or explodes. (Preferably from a distance, for the latter.) But there's the significant chance that you're wrong, and that's not a sign of your scientific ability. That just means that your "layman's hypothesis" was wrong. Your educated guess, one could say. But even more than that, you do have information about the atmosphere. There is a significant body of data that suggests that the Planck and S-B Laws don't apply to non-black bodies. And since it was a guess, that's okay. Any disagreements? Queue IBdaMann claiming that I don't believe the atmosphere is a body. Why do I even try? Edited on 14-09-2016 16:22
14-09-2016 18:11
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Also, I see the error. I should have typed "Cue", not "queue." Although he does seem to have a queue of insults and baseless assertions - first come first serve. Guaranteed to have at least three insults, two deliberate interpretations, four "learn the science, I am the science" instances, and one Planck/S-B argument that has nothing to do with what you said. Edited on 14-09-2016 18:55
14-09-2016 19:28
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Deliberate -mis- interpretations. We need a better edit feature, I'm used to editing abilities always being available.
14-09-2016 21:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	jwoodward48 wrote: And where you finally go wrong. I don't really have much beef with you; you're not nasty, and you give good, actual arguments. I actually enjoy talking with you. The Stefan-Boltzmann law as it is currently written applies only to theoretical, ideal objects. If you want to apply it to real-world objects, you have to explain how your chosen object acts like a black body. Atoms in particular, I believe, are particularly bad objects to use SB's law on; they can only emit particular wavelengths, not the continuous possibilities seen on graphs of SB's law. The Stefan-Boltzmann law can apply to any body, ideally 'black' or even ideally 'white'. Real bodies are grey bodies, and the law does apply in exactly the same way for them with the compensation of emissivity of that body. This law calculates the light emitting from a body due to it's temperature. By turning it around, we can calculate an 'effective' temperature of a body receiving light. Unfortunately, there are many factors that go into real bodies beyond Stefan-Boltzmann. Using the equation this way only masks what the equation is really good for and gives you incorrect values of real temperatures on real bodies (planets). It is why this law must have a fudge factor built into every planet or moon it is calculated for. The value for this fudge factor attempts to quantify that unknown difference between effective temperature and real temperatures observed. In the case of the Earth, that fudge factor is simply attributed to the effect of greenhouse gasses. This is a rash assumption. It could come from anywhere, including sources we do not even know about. In my opinion, the fudge factor for Earth can be attributed to our molten core and volcanic activity. This is why the Stefan-Boltzmann law is basically good only for one way, to show that emitted light is dependent on temperature alone, regardless of substance. In this use, emissivity doesn't change anything about the nature of the equation. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-09-2016 23:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	jwoodward48 wrote: Thank you so much. I finally have what I wanted - a piece of my holy grail. I have some Gray, which means that I can begin to understand other people's perspectives. Before, because I only interacted with "people who believe that global warming" and people like IBdaMann, who led me to believe that most global-warming-skeptics were like him. I'm still fairly sure that the Earth is heating up, but I understand where you're coming from, and I realize that smart, non-delusional people have ideas contrary to mine. I can kind of see myself in your situation. That is my goal. Not that the debate isn't fun, either. ==== I'm trying to understand where we diverge. We agree that heat is flowing in and out of the Earth, right? Is it that I think CO2 obstructs the leaving heat, while you don't? (Just so I can keep track of two debates at once - I don't think you ever invoked the LoT or Plank/SB laws, right? If you did, how do those play into all this?) Wait, I do remember, you said that the S-B Law applied to molecules in the [s]atomsphere[/s] atmosphere. A few posts ago. Could you clarify your use of S-B Law to specific particles? Personally, I find a debate on this level enjoyable. CO2 doesn't really obstruct anything. While it can absorb certain narrow bands of IR light, the effect of that absorption is the destruction of the photon and conversion of the energy it contained into kinetic energy (temperature). This is true for a single molecule or a whole beaker full of the gas. The atmospheric density of CO2 is currently around 0.04% of the atmosphere. That means the energy the CO2 gained by absorbing a photon is dissipated across approx 2500 other nearby molecules of other stuff. This dissipation happens by conduction. That in turn is conducted and convected away from the warmer surface below. The other molecules in the air are warmed also, but through conduction and convection from the surface. If you were able to see infrared directly, you see the surface solid and 'hot'. The air above it in a 'redder' dim glow like a fog, that becomes redder and dimmer as you rise in to the sky. Once you reach the tropopause and enter the stratosphere, you will see the glow becoming 'bluer' again, but still growing dimmer as you continue to rise into the sky. Once you reach the stratopause, the light, now quite dim becomes redder once more as you rise. By the time you reach the thermosphere, the light is so dim you can't really see it anymore. You are effectively in space. The reason the light dims is because there are fewer molecules as you rise into the sky. The reason you 'see' the light at all is because each molecule is putting out photons according to it's temperature, just as Stefan-Boltzmann predicts. The reason such a dim glow cannot warm the surface is because of the 2nd LoT, which states that heat always flows from hot to cold, at a rate determined by the difference. It never flows from cold to hot. It takes energy to emit a photon from the Earth. When that photon strikes a gas and is absorbed, all of that energy is converted to kinetic form. As far as the electromagnetic energy is concerned here, it is lost completely. That molecule, after dissipating its energy in various ways to other molecules and by gaining altitude, working against gravity (which also takes energy), will emit photons according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. These are lower energy photons than what it received. If one does strike the surface and is absorbed, it cannot warm the surface as much as what it lost in the original photon. The 2nd LoT can be extended to all forms of energy. High energy areas 'flow' to low energy areas. The reverse cannot happen. This law, which is the law of entropy, affects all forms of energy, not just kinetic (thermal) energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. So the effect is that a concentrated bit of energy will be dissipated over a larger and larger area. The same energy is there, but spread over such a large area as to be effectively useless. Now substitute 'volume' for 'area' and you get the idea in three dimensions. So, the 1st LoT says that you cannot just create energy. It says that energy cannot be created (or destroyed). The 2nd LoT says that you cannot gather existing energy from somewhere without putting energy into doing so. The books must balance. Once energy is dissipated, you must spend energy to get it back. The amount you spend will equal the amount you gather. Concentrating energy isn't free. The Stefan-Boltzmann law relates electromagnetic energy (light) and kinetic energy (temperature), even for real (gray) bodies. Planck's Law relates the energy of light to its frequency (color). It describes why photons are not equal to each other. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-09-2016 23:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	jwoodward48 wrote: Ah, I see. There is indeed a smoothing or dulling of the short-term temperature changes, and that is what you describe. But that is entirely different from the equilibrium of internal<->external energy flow, modified by albedo, absorption, etc. There is no equilibrium here because you are talking about light, which is not heat. There is no delay. Light moves at ... the speed of light. While light does slow down when it enters a transparent substance, including the atmosphere, it speeds up again when it leaves. This change of speed happens only at the interface. The effect of this slowing down gives us our blue sky (instead of black) and our red sunsets (by scattering blue away from the horizon). It also produces the glory and the rainbow. It is why Snell's window exists underwater, and is what makes prisms and lenses work. It even produces the famous green flash sometimes seen at the moment of sunset in tropical climates. It also produces the desert mirage. In no case in the atmosphere will light slow down to produce the kind of equilibrium you are talking about. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-09-2016 23:21
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	jwoodward48 wrote: Again, we are describing different equilibria. You are describing the water-ice equilibrium, which I know about. (Isn't sublimation interesting? I've heard that an equilibrium exists between ice and water vapour. I suppose that's at some odd point on the pressure-temperature graph.) I am describing the albedo of ice/water changing the equilibrium of heat flow in and out of Earth. This is getting somewhat humourous, I think. Sublimation is cool. Yes, it happens best when pressure is low, but it can happen at all times. It too is an equilibrium between ice and vapor. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-09-2016 23:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	jwoodward48 wrote: Hmm... I failed to take into account the different energies of the two radiations. Is that where the error comes into play? Yes it is. The total energy is 'lost' due to dissipation over a larger volume while it is thermal energy. This is part of the loss of total energy that includes that lost by photons going every which way, and lower energy photons being emitted from the cooled substance. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-09-2016 23:33
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Okay. It turns out that S-B law doesn't care about frequency, only the outgoing energy. But then is Planck's law related to those graphs of wavelengths of radiation?
14-09-2016 23:39
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Into the Night wrote: jwoodward48 wrote: And where you finally go wrong. I don't really have much beef with you; you're not nasty, and you give good, actual arguments. I actually enjoy talking with you. The Stefan-Boltzmann law as it is currently written applies only to theoretical, ideal objects. If you want to apply it to real-world objects, you have to explain how your chosen object acts like a black body. Atoms in particular, I believe, are particularly bad objects to use SB's law on; they can only emit particular wavelengths, not the continuous possibilities seen on graphs of SB's law. The Stefan-Boltzmann law can apply to any body, ideally 'black' or even ideally 'white'. Real bodies are grey bodies, and the law does apply in exactly the same way for them with the compensation of emissivity of that body. This law calculates the light emitting from a body due to it's temperature. By turning it around, we can calculate an 'effective' temperature of a body receiving light. Unfortunately, there are many factors that go into real bodies beyond Stefan-Boltzmann. Using the equation this way only masks what the equation is really good for and gives you incorrect values of real temperatures on real bodies (planets). It is why this law must have a fudge factor built into every planet or moon it is calculated for. The value for this fudge factor attempts to quantify that unknown difference between effective temperature and real temperatures observed. In the case of the Earth, that fudge factor is simply attributed to the effect of greenhouse gasses. This is a rash assumption. It could come from anywhere, including sources we do not even know about. In my opinion, the fudge factor for Earth can be attributed to our molten core and volcanic activity. This is why the Stefan-Boltzmann law is basically good only for one way, to show that emitted light is dependent on temperature alone, regardless of substance. In this use, emissivity doesn't change anything about the nature of the equation. Yeah, I've done a bit more research. It seems like S-B actually applies to everything, but global warming still doesn't violate it. If I place a mirror above the Earth, less heat will escape. If I completely cover one side of the Earth's atmosphere with a one-way mirror (yes, I am aware those don't exist), letting light only in and not out, then energy will escape at half its normal rate. The external measurement of temperature will be off, using S-B, but that's because the light has been tampered with. (Assuming that you are looking at Earth from the side of the mirror, sort of like the half moon.) S-B only says what will be emitted from the Earth's surface - it doesn't care what happens in the atmosphere.

Page 8 of 9

Join the debate Why the greenhouse effect does not violate the first law of thermodynamics:

Threads	Replies	Last post
The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist	140	15-04-2024 19:43
'Greenhouse' Effect?	49	30-11-2023 06:45
The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect"	291	05-11-2023 22:46
17 year old cyclist murdered, do not expect the law to investigate, as the cyclist is always at fault	0	31-07-2023 22:23
Nitrate Reduction - Powerful Greenhouse Gas Emission AND Alkalinity	102	05-06-2023 13:19