Remember me
▼ Content

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



Page 2 of 9<1234>>>
11-01-2016 04:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote: What conversation? You and IBdaMann kill any rational conversation by trashing every thread with your delusional Sky Dragon Slayer pseudoscience drivel.


It's too bad that you don't understand the nature of discussion forums. You can't tolerate discussion because you can't tolerate differing viewpoints. You are so insecure in your beliefs that you refer to differing viewpoints as "trolling." You want to kill discussion, not further it, as is evidenced by your complete lack of substantive contribution in any forum.

In your world, science is the enemy, math is the enemy and ideas are the enemy. Why anyone would choose the religion you have chosen is beyond me.

It is you, IBdaMann, who are the slave to religion. I have shown a graph of experimental measurements indicating that the Earth's atmosphere does not radiate according to Planck's Law. You ignore this and keep insisting that it does. Denial of experimental observations is not science. It is religion.


I have also explained why your conclusion is wrong. You are trying to change Planck's law by using this graph. This graph does not disprove Planck's law. It applies everywhere...all the time...in all cases.


The Parrot Killer
11-01-2016 04:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
Ceist wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote: What conversation? You and IBdaMann kill any rational conversation by trashing every thread with your delusional Sky Dragon Slayer pseudoscience drivel.


It's too bad that you don't understand the nature of discussion forums. You can't tolerate discussion because you can't tolerate differing viewpoints. You are so insecure in your beliefs that you refer to differing viewpoints as "trolling." You want to kill discussion, not further it, as is evidenced by your complete lack of substantive contribution in any forum.

In your world, science is the enemy, math is the enemy and ideas are the enemy. Why anyone would choose the religion you have chosen is beyond me.

It is you, IBdaMann, who are the slave to religion. I have shown a graph of experimental measurements indicating that the Earth's atmosphere does not radiate according to Planck's Law. You ignore this and keep insisting that it does. Denial of experimental observations is not science. It is religion.
I used to waste a lot of time trying to explain in detail to dogmatic Creationists who insisted that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, why the claim made no sense. They would ignore everything and just keep insisting that it does and that I was denying science. I gave up trying to explain anything to people with ideologically induced stupidity like IBdaMann. It doesn't matter how much you explain or how much evidence you provide they just ignore it and repeat the same scientifically illiterate dogma over and over again.


Non-sequitur. We are talking about climate and thermodynamics, not evolutionists and creationists.

If you're going to spend time insulting people and contributing nothing else to the conversation, the least you can do is at least try to stay near the subject.


The Parrot Killer
11-01-2016 10:28
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1672)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote: What conversation? You and IBdaMann kill any rational conversation by trashing every thread with your delusional Sky Dragon Slayer pseudoscience drivel.


It's too bad that you don't understand the nature of discussion forums. You can't tolerate discussion because you can't tolerate differing viewpoints. You are so insecure in your beliefs that you refer to differing viewpoints as "trolling." You want to kill discussion, not further it, as is evidenced by your complete lack of substantive contribution in any forum.

In your world, science is the enemy, math is the enemy and ideas are the enemy. Why anyone would choose the religion you have chosen is beyond me.

It is you, IBdaMann, who are the slave to religion. I have shown a graph of experimental measurements indicating that the Earth's atmosphere does not radiate according to Planck's Law. You ignore this and keep insisting that it does. Denial of experimental observations is not science. It is religion.


I have also explained why your conclusion is wrong. You are trying to change Planck's law by using this graph. This graph does not disprove Planck's law. It applies everywhere...all the time...in all cases.

You've explained nothing at all. Theory predicts and experiment shows that the Earth's atmosphere does not radiate according to Planck's Law. This is because Planck's Law applies to blackbodies, which must be opaque; the atmosphere is not opaque and is therefore not a blackbody.

This dogmatic refusal to acknowledge experimental data is why we call you deniers rather than sceptics. Stop parroting nonsense and learn some science.
Edited on 11-01-2016 10:34
11-01-2016 12:50
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
@ Surface Detail - OK, let's back up a step. You posted this graph:



...and you asserted:

Surface Detail wrote:
illustrating the fact that the emissions from the Earth's atmosphere don't follow the blackbody curve corresponding to Planck's Law!


How do you figure?

For you to assert that said graphic shows that the earth does not follow Planck's Radiation Law, you would need to involve Planck's Radiation Law, yes? I don't see you posting any math showing Planck's Radiation Law results in a different graph.

I don't believe your graph is necessarily accurate but nonetheless presuming it is, what about it convinced you that it somehow shows that earth does not radiate according to Planck's Law?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
11-01-2016 13:10
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1672)
IBdaMann wrote:
@ Surface Detail - OK, let's back up a step. You posted this graph:



...and you asserted:

Surface Detail wrote:
illustrating the fact that the emissions from the Earth's atmosphere don't follow the blackbody curve corresponding to Planck's Law!


How do you figure?

For you to assert that said graphic shows that the earth does not follow Planck's Radiation Law, you would need to involve Planck's Radiation Law, yes? I don't see you posting any math showing Planck's Radiation Law results in a different graph.

I don't believe your graph is necessarily accurate but nonetheless presuming it is, what about it convinced you that it somehow shows that earth does not radiate according to Planck's Law?

The dashed lines in the graph show the theoretical blackbody radiation intensity as a function of wavenumber for 7 different temperatures. They are graphs of the equation representing Planck's Law in terms of wavenumber:



where T is set to the temperature in each case. They are, of course, the smooth curves you would expect from a mathematical function.

The solid line represents experimental measurements taken by the Nimbus 4 satellite of the IR radiation emitted from the Earth's atmosphere. As you can see, the line doesn't correspond to a blackbody emission curves for any temperature. Hence the radiation emitted from the Earth's atmosphere doesn't follow Planck's Law.

See the source of the graph (the American Chemical Society) for more information:

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html
Edited on 11-01-2016 13:14
11-01-2016 13:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote: As you can see, the line doesn't correspond to a blackbody emission curves for any temperature. Hence the radiation emitted from the Earth's atmosphere doesn't follow Planck's Law.


False. The dashed lines are simply graph indicators. For your graph to illustrate that earth does not adhere to Planck's Radiation Law, i.e.


...you only need to show that for V and T, B(V,T) for earth differs from that of the equation.

The graph does not contain sufficient information to determine if there is a variance in rate of emission between earth's actual and Planck's Law.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
11-01-2016 13:48
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Oh FFS, IBdaMann doesn't even recognise what a Planck blackbody curve looks like on a graph yet he claims to understand Plancks law well.


Then he completely dismisses out of hand the source you provided from the American Chemical Society website explaining comprehensively how Planck's law applies to the atmosphere.

Maybe he thinks the ACS and it's more than 158,000 professional members working in chemical science fields are all Marxists pushing an evil agenda to take over the world!




11-01-2016 13:56
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
.

To anyone who isn't as thick as two short Plancks and has a reasonably good handle on this topic, these graphs pretty much say it all.

To anyone who doesn't immediately understand what this shows - without any further explanation - you're only pretending to 'understand' the topic well





Edited on 11-01-2016 14:07
11-01-2016 14:06
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Ceist wrote: this graph pretty much says it all. If you don't understand what this shows - without any further explanation - you're only pretending to 'understand' the topic well



Then demonstrate for us that you know what this chart is saying wrt Planck's Radiation Law. Just say it. I hope you're not just pretending to 'understand' the topic well.

Remember, FFS, the graph pretty much says it all.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
11-01-2016 14:24
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Ipso facto - IbDaMann is as thick as two short Plancks about this topic. He doesn't have a clue what the graphs show and can't explain them.

....and so incompetent on this topic that he is completely unaware of his own incompetence.

His ideologically induced stupidity combined with overweening arrogance and an absolute and completely unwarranted belief in his own 'competence', will prevent him from even looking at the excellent ACS source material Surface Detail provided.

He could have learnt something, but he delusionally tells himself that he 'understands it well' already so he doesn't ever have to actually read anything that shows him just how little he knows and just how wrong he is.



Edited on 11-01-2016 15:23
11-01-2016 14:36
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote: What conversation? You and IBdaMann kill any rational conversation by trashing every thread with your delusional Sky Dragon Slayer pseudoscience drivel.


It's too bad that you don't understand the nature of discussion forums. You can't tolerate discussion because you can't tolerate differing viewpoints. You are so insecure in your beliefs that you refer to differing viewpoints as "trolling." You want to kill discussion, not further it, as is evidenced by your complete lack of substantive contribution in any forum.

In your world, science is the enemy, math is the enemy and ideas are the enemy. Why anyone would choose the religion you have chosen is beyond me.

It is you, IBdaMann, who are the slave to religion. I have shown a graph of experimental measurements indicating that the Earth's atmosphere does not radiate according to Planck's Law. You ignore this and keep insisting that it does. Denial of experimental observations is not science. It is religion.
I used to waste a lot of time trying to explain in detail to dogmatic Creationists who insisted that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, why the claim made no sense. They would ignore everything and just keep insisting that it does and that I was denying science. I gave up trying to explain anything to people with ideologically induced stupidity like IBdaMann. It doesn't matter how much you explain or how much evidence you provide they just ignore it and repeat the same scientifically illiterate dogma over and over again.


Non-sequitur. We are talking about climate and thermodynamics, not evolutionists and creationists.

If you're going to spend time insulting people and contributing nothing else to the conversation, the least you can do is at least try to stay near the subject.
You're not talking about climate or thermodynamics. You're inserting your ideological pseudoscience nonsense into the thread, as you do in every thread. Every subject gets turned into your pet pseudoscience obsession about 'greenhouse' effect denial and conspiracy theories about science. Just like a rabid Creationist on any forum or any thread about evolution or the BBT or any science that threatens their dogmatic religious beliefs. (By your use of the word 'evolutionists', you probably are a Creationist - which would explain a lot)



Edited on 11-01-2016 14:44
11-01-2016 14:55
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1672)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: As you can see, the line doesn't correspond to a blackbody emission curves for any temperature. Hence the radiation emitted from the Earth's atmosphere doesn't follow Planck's Law.


False. The dashed lines are simply graph indicators.

No, the dashed lines are not "graph indicators" (whatever that is supposed to mean); they are ideal blackbody emission spectra for different temperatures.

For your graph to illustrate that earth does not adhere to Planck's Radiation Law, i.e.


...you only need to show that for V and T, B(V,T) for earth differs from that of the equation.

That's exactly what the graph does show!

Take, for example, a blackbody at a temperature of 280 K. For the wavenumber 700 cm-1, plugging the numbers into the Planck formula gives a radiance of 115 mW.m-2.sr-1.(cm-1)-1. You can see this from the graph: look at the dashed curve labelled 280 K and you'll see that it indicates about 115 mW.m-2.sr-1.(cm-1)-1 for a wavenumber of 700 cm-1.

Look at the solid line, though, and you'll see that the radiance of the Earth's atmosphere at 700 cm-1 is only about 50 mW.m-2.sr-1.(cm-1)-1 (corresponding to a blackbody temperature of about 220 K).

The fact that the solid line doesn't follow a curve corresponding to a blackbody radiator of any particular temperature indicates that the atmosphere doesn't radiate in accordance with Planck's Law.
11-01-2016 14:59
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Ceist wrote: Ipso facto - IbDaMann is as thick as two short Plancks about this topic.

You're still on tap to tell us what those graphs that "say it all" are saying wrt Planck's Radiation Law. Your lengthy ad hominem does not suffice.

p.s. - aren't you due for another comment about my petard?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
11-01-2016 15:24
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: As you can see, the line doesn't correspond to a blackbody emission curves for any temperature. Hence the radiation emitted from the Earth's atmosphere doesn't follow Planck's Law.


False. The dashed lines are simply graph indicators.

No, the dashed lines are not "graph indicators" (whatever that is supposed to mean); they are ideal blackbody emission spectra for different temperatures.

For your graph to illustrate that earth does not adhere to Planck's Radiation Law, i.e.


...you only need to show that for V and T, B(V,T) for earth differs from that of the equation.

That's exactly what the graph does show!


*snort* IB hoisted with his own petard. Yet again.



Edited on 11-01-2016 15:25
11-01-2016 18:10
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote: No, the dashed lines are not "graph indicators" (whatever that is supposed to mean);

The short answer is that you are right to be confused by the indicators, i.e. the "dashed lines." Remove them. The solid line of the curve shows a particular measure of strength (rate of emission) across differing wavelengths. That's all that matters.

The total energy adds up, yes? Wait, there's no way to verify that from the chart because the charts don't sum the energy. I'll assume they add up.


Surface Detail wrote: That's exactly what the graph does show!

The graph doesn't show a single one.

You have successfully shown that the earth is not an ideal black body. That was already assumed. Planck's Radiation Law is a relationship that applies to all matter. It is not the case that the generalization of that relationship for a particular theoretical "ideal" black body makes it apply only to theoretical bodies that don't exist. All matter radiates and the radiation will be determined by temperature, with Planck's Law being that relationship.

Surface Detail wrote: Take, for example, a blackbody at a temperature of 280 K.

Help me out here. Temperature is not one of the axes. I see that the graph has temperature indicators, i.e. "dashed lines," but as previously noted, they only serve to confuse. The graph shows a measure of radiance over wavelengths.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
11-01-2016 20:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote: What conversation? You and IBdaMann kill any rational conversation by trashing every thread with your delusional Sky Dragon Slayer pseudoscience drivel.


It's too bad that you don't understand the nature of discussion forums. You can't tolerate discussion because you can't tolerate differing viewpoints. You are so insecure in your beliefs that you refer to differing viewpoints as "trolling." You want to kill discussion, not further it, as is evidenced by your complete lack of substantive contribution in any forum.

In your world, science is the enemy, math is the enemy and ideas are the enemy. Why anyone would choose the religion you have chosen is beyond me.

It is you, IBdaMann, who are the slave to religion. I have shown a graph of experimental measurements indicating that the Earth's atmosphere does not radiate according to Planck's Law. You ignore this and keep insisting that it does. Denial of experimental observations is not science. It is religion.


I have also explained why your conclusion is wrong. You are trying to change Planck's law by using this graph. This graph does not disprove Planck's law. It applies everywhere...all the time...in all cases.

You've explained nothing at all. Theory predicts and experiment shows that the Earth's atmosphere does not radiate according to Planck's Law. This is because Planck's Law applies to blackbodies, which must be opaque; the atmosphere is not opaque and is therefore not a blackbody.

This dogmatic refusal to acknowledge experimental data is why we call you deniers rather than sceptics. Stop parroting nonsense and learn some science.


Nope. Planck's law applies everywhere...all the time...without exception. ALL bodies emit light according to their temperature, regardless of substance. Bodies do not have to be black for the equation to work. A glowing coal is not a perfectly black body either. Neither is the sun. Planck's law works in both cases.

Transparency or opaqueness has nothing to do with the equation at all.


The Parrot Killer
11-01-2016 20:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
Ceist wrote:
Ipso facto - IbDaMann is as thick as two short Plancks about this topic. He doesn't have a clue what the graphs show and can't explain them.

....and so incompetent on this topic that he is completely unaware of his own incompetence.

His ideologically induced stupidity combined with overweening arrogance and an absolute and completely unwarranted belief in his own 'competence', will prevent him from even looking at the excellent ACS source material Surface Detail provided.

He could have learnt something, but he delusionally tells himself that he 'understands it well' already so he doesn't ever have to actually read anything that shows him just how little he knows and just how wrong he is.


He has explained it. You are the Stone. You are simply dismissing out of hand anything he says. You contribute nothing but ignorance and insults. You have absolutely no understanding of this law, even though the equation was presented right in front of your face. He even showed how it was used.

You are the Stone.


The Parrot Killer
11-01-2016 20:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote: What conversation? You and IBdaMann kill any rational conversation by trashing every thread with your delusional Sky Dragon Slayer pseudoscience drivel.


It's too bad that you don't understand the nature of discussion forums. You can't tolerate discussion because you can't tolerate differing viewpoints. You are so insecure in your beliefs that you refer to differing viewpoints as "trolling." You want to kill discussion, not further it, as is evidenced by your complete lack of substantive contribution in any forum.

In your world, science is the enemy, math is the enemy and ideas are the enemy. Why anyone would choose the religion you have chosen is beyond me.

It is you, IBdaMann, who are the slave to religion. I have shown a graph of experimental measurements indicating that the Earth's atmosphere does not radiate according to Planck's Law. You ignore this and keep insisting that it does. Denial of experimental observations is not science. It is religion.
I used to waste a lot of time trying to explain in detail to dogmatic Creationists who insisted that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, why the claim made no sense. They would ignore everything and just keep insisting that it does and that I was denying science. I gave up trying to explain anything to people with ideologically induced stupidity like IBdaMann. It doesn't matter how much you explain or how much evidence you provide they just ignore it and repeat the same scientifically illiterate dogma over and over again.


Non-sequitur. We are talking about climate and thermodynamics, not evolutionists and creationists.

If you're going to spend time insulting people and contributing nothing else to the conversation, the least you can do is at least try to stay near the subject.
You're not talking about climate or thermodynamics. You're inserting your ideological pseudoscience nonsense into the thread, as you do in every thread. Every subject gets turned into your pet pseudoscience obsession about 'greenhouse' effect denial and conspiracy theories about science. Just like a rabid Creationist on any forum or any thread about evolution or the BBT or any science that threatens their dogmatic religious beliefs. (By your use of the word 'evolutionists', you probably are a Creationist - which would explain a lot)


You assume a lot. You are also completely off subject now. This conversation is done.


The Parrot Killer
11-01-2016 21:34
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1672)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote: What conversation? You and IBdaMann kill any rational conversation by trashing every thread with your delusional Sky Dragon Slayer pseudoscience drivel.


It's too bad that you don't understand the nature of discussion forums. You can't tolerate discussion because you can't tolerate differing viewpoints. You are so insecure in your beliefs that you refer to differing viewpoints as "trolling." You want to kill discussion, not further it, as is evidenced by your complete lack of substantive contribution in any forum.

In your world, science is the enemy, math is the enemy and ideas are the enemy. Why anyone would choose the religion you have chosen is beyond me.

It is you, IBdaMann, who are the slave to religion. I have shown a graph of experimental measurements indicating that the Earth's atmosphere does not radiate according to Planck's Law. You ignore this and keep insisting that it does. Denial of experimental observations is not science. It is religion.


I have also explained why your conclusion is wrong. You are trying to change Planck's law by using this graph. This graph does not disprove Planck's law. It applies everywhere...all the time...in all cases.

You've explained nothing at all. Theory predicts and experiment shows that the Earth's atmosphere does not radiate according to Planck's Law. This is because Planck's Law applies to blackbodies, which must be opaque; the atmosphere is not opaque and is therefore not a blackbody.

This dogmatic refusal to acknowledge experimental data is why we call you deniers rather than sceptics. Stop parroting nonsense and learn some science.


Nope. Planck's law applies everywhere...all the time...without exception. ALL bodies emit light according to their temperature, regardless of substance. Bodies do not have to be black for the equation to work. A glowing coal is not a perfectly black body either. Neither is the sun. Planck's law works in both cases.

Transparency or opaqueness has nothing to do with the equation at all.

One condition for an object to be a blackbody is that it is opaque. Most solids (e.g. coal), liquids and dense gases (e.g. the sun) are approximate blackbodies; dilute gases such as the Earth's atmosphere are most definitely not blackbodies and hence do not radiate in accordance with Planck's Law.

See, for example:

Quantum Mechanics Page 37:

It has been known since the second half of the nineteenth century that the spectrum of the electromagnetic radiation emitted by diluted gases is not a continuous function of the wavelength. Instead, the intensity of the emitted radiation is a collection of sharp peaks which are located at wavelengths characteristic of the different elements in the periodic table.
11-01-2016 23:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote: What conversation? You and IBdaMann kill any rational conversation by trashing every thread with your delusional Sky Dragon Slayer pseudoscience drivel.


It's too bad that you don't understand the nature of discussion forums. You can't tolerate discussion because you can't tolerate differing viewpoints. You are so insecure in your beliefs that you refer to differing viewpoints as "trolling." You want to kill discussion, not further it, as is evidenced by your complete lack of substantive contribution in any forum.

In your world, science is the enemy, math is the enemy and ideas are the enemy. Why anyone would choose the religion you have chosen is beyond me.

It is you, IBdaMann, who are the slave to religion. I have shown a graph of experimental measurements indicating that the Earth's atmosphere does not radiate according to Planck's Law. You ignore this and keep insisting that it does. Denial of experimental observations is not science. It is religion.


I have also explained why your conclusion is wrong. You are trying to change Planck's law by using this graph. This graph does not disprove Planck's law. It applies everywhere...all the time...in all cases.

You've explained nothing at all. Theory predicts and experiment shows that the Earth's atmosphere does not radiate according to Planck's Law. This is because Planck's Law applies to blackbodies, which must be opaque; the atmosphere is not opaque and is therefore not a blackbody.

This dogmatic refusal to acknowledge experimental data is why we call you deniers rather than sceptics. Stop parroting nonsense and learn some science.


Nope. Planck's law applies everywhere...all the time...without exception. ALL bodies emit light according to their temperature, regardless of substance. Bodies do not have to be black for the equation to work. A glowing coal is not a perfectly black body either. Neither is the sun. Planck's law works in both cases.

Transparency or opaqueness has nothing to do with the equation at all.

One condition for an object to be a blackbody is that it is opaque. Most solids (e.g. coal), liquids and dense gases (e.g. the sun) are approximate blackbodies; dilute gases such as the Earth's atmosphere are most definitely not blackbodies and hence do not radiate in accordance with Planck's Law.

See, for example:

Quantum Mechanics Page 37:

It has been known since the second half of the nineteenth century that the spectrum of the electromagnetic radiation emitted by diluted gases is not a continuous function of the wavelength. Instead, the intensity of the emitted radiation is a collection of sharp peaks which are located at wavelengths characteristic of the different elements in the periodic table.

A false equivalence. You are taking the quote out of context.

Planck's law operates at all times...on all substances...in all cases. Opacity is not part of the equation. Material state is not part of the equation. Density is not part of the equation.


The Parrot Killer
12-01-2016 00:22
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1672)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote: What conversation? You and IBdaMann kill any rational conversation by trashing every thread with your delusional Sky Dragon Slayer pseudoscience drivel.


It's too bad that you don't understand the nature of discussion forums. You can't tolerate discussion because you can't tolerate differing viewpoints. You are so insecure in your beliefs that you refer to differing viewpoints as "trolling." You want to kill discussion, not further it, as is evidenced by your complete lack of substantive contribution in any forum.

In your world, science is the enemy, math is the enemy and ideas are the enemy. Why anyone would choose the religion you have chosen is beyond me.

It is you, IBdaMann, who are the slave to religion. I have shown a graph of experimental measurements indicating that the Earth's atmosphere does not radiate according to Planck's Law. You ignore this and keep insisting that it does. Denial of experimental observations is not science. It is religion.


I have also explained why your conclusion is wrong. You are trying to change Planck's law by using this graph. This graph does not disprove Planck's law. It applies everywhere...all the time...in all cases.

You've explained nothing at all. Theory predicts and experiment shows that the Earth's atmosphere does not radiate according to Planck's Law. This is because Planck's Law applies to blackbodies, which must be opaque; the atmosphere is not opaque and is therefore not a blackbody.

This dogmatic refusal to acknowledge experimental data is why we call you deniers rather than sceptics. Stop parroting nonsense and learn some science.


Nope. Planck's law applies everywhere...all the time...without exception. ALL bodies emit light according to their temperature, regardless of substance. Bodies do not have to be black for the equation to work. A glowing coal is not a perfectly black body either. Neither is the sun. Planck's law works in both cases.

Transparency or opaqueness has nothing to do with the equation at all.

One condition for an object to be a blackbody is that it is opaque. Most solids (e.g. coal), liquids and dense gases (e.g. the sun) are approximate blackbodies; dilute gases such as the Earth's atmosphere are most definitely not blackbodies and hence do not radiate in accordance with Planck's Law.

See, for example:

Quantum Mechanics Page 37:

It has been known since the second half of the nineteenth century that the spectrum of the electromagnetic radiation emitted by diluted gases is not a continuous function of the wavelength. Instead, the intensity of the emitted radiation is a collection of sharp peaks which are located at wavelengths characteristic of the different elements in the periodic table.

A false equivalence. You are taking the quote out of context.

Planck's law operates at all times...on all substances...in all cases. Opacity is not part of the equation. Material state is not part of the equation. Density is not part of the equation.

Opacity is one of the conditions for a blackbody specified by the man himself:

The theory of heat radiation, Dr. Max Planck, page 10.

Second, the black body must have a certain minimum thickness depending on its absorbing power, in order to insure that the rays after passing into the body shall not be able to leave it again at a different point of the surface. The more absorbing a body is, the smaller the value of this minimum thickness, while in the case of bodies with vanishingly small absorbing power only a layer of infinite thickness may be regarded as black.
12-01-2016 01:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
A false equivalence. You are taking the quote out of context.

Planck's law operates at all times...on all substances...in all cases. Opacity is not part of the equation. Material state is not part of the equation. Density is not part of the equation.

Opacity is one of the conditions for a blackbody specified by the man himself:

The theory of heat radiation, Dr. Max Planck, page 10.

Second, the black body must have a certain minimum thickness depending on its absorbing power, in order to insure that the rays after passing into the body shall not be able to leave it again at a different point of the surface. The more absorbing a body is, the smaller the value of this minimum thickness, while in the case of bodies with vanishingly small absorbing power only a layer of infinite thickness may be regarded as black.


You have again used a false equivalence. Planck is talking about absorption, not radiation.

Planck's law operates at all times...on all substances...in all cases. Nothing has changed.


The Parrot Killer
12-01-2016 01:32
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote: You've explained nothing at all. Theory predicts and experiment shows that the Earth's atmosphere does not radiate according to Planck's Law.

That is not what it "shows,"...it is the erroneous conclusion to which you have jumped.

Let me ask you, do you think Planck's Radiation Law applies to anything in nature? Does it apply to a molecule?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
12-01-2016 02:16
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1672)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: You've explained nothing at all. Theory predicts and experiment shows that the Earth's atmosphere does not radiate according to Planck's Law.

That is not what it "shows,"...it is the erroneous conclusion to which you have jumped.

Of course that's what it shows. The satellite measurements of the Earth's IR emission spectrum do not correspond to the emission spectrum for a blackbody of any particular temperature. Hence the Earth's atmosphere doesn't radiate according to Planck's Law (and nobody would expect it to). It could hardly be any simpler!

Let me ask you, do you think Planck's Radiation Law applies to anything in nature? Does it apply to a molecule?

As I've stated many times already, Planck's Law applies to ideal blackbodies. Most solids, liquids and dense gases are approximate blackbodies; dilute gases such as the Earth's atmosphere are not. A single, isolated molecule cannot radiate or absorb in accordance with Planck's Law because of the limited set of quantum vibrational states available to it. It can only absorb or radiate at discrete wavelengths.
12-01-2016 04:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: You've explained nothing at all. Theory predicts and experiment shows that the Earth's atmosphere does not radiate according to Planck's Law.

That is not what it "shows,"...it is the erroneous conclusion to which you have jumped.

Of course that's what it shows. The satellite measurements of the Earth's IR emission spectrum do not correspond to the emission spectrum for a blackbody of any particular temperature. Hence the Earth's atmosphere doesn't radiate according to Planck's Law (and nobody would expect it to). It could hardly be any simpler!

Let me ask you, do you think Planck's Radiation Law applies to anything in nature? Does it apply to a molecule?

As I've stated many times already, Planck's Law applies to ideal blackbodies. Most solids, liquids and dense gases are approximate blackbodies; dilute gases such as the Earth's atmosphere are not. A single, isolated molecule cannot radiate or absorb in accordance with Planck's Law because of the limited set of quantum vibrational states available to it. It can only absorb or radiate at discrete wavelengths.

That is the same as saying that all light is cold generated (i.e. resonance light), such as bioluminescence, LEDs, and lasers and that the light from fire cannot exist, or that a gas lantern is not possible.

Maybe you'll want to rethink this.


The Parrot Killer
12-01-2016 04:28
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote: Of course that's what it shows.

I'm afraid not. I guarantee that what it "shows" is one dataset of radiance across wavelengths.

Temperature simply is not one of the axes.

Unless you are intentionally dodging, I'd like to go back to my point of discussion.

The earth has an atmosphere.
The earth, with its atmosphere and its oceans is a body in space.
The earth is clearly not an ideal black body.

You believe that Planck's Radiation Law does not apply to the earth.

I disagree because I claim that Planck's law holds in the case of any matter that is not at absolute zero.

We have reached our point of disagreement.

Because you believe what you believe, "greenhouse effect" is a possibility. Because I believe what I believe, "greenhouse effect" is not a possibility.

Surface Detail wrote: As I've stated many times already, Planck's Law applies to ideal blackbodies. Most solids, liquids and dense gases are approximate blackbodies;

So what does that mean? Planck's Law apparently doesn't apply in nature because there is no such thing as an ideal black body.

Surface Detail wrote: A single, isolated molecule cannot radiate or absorb in accordance with Planck's Law because of the limited set of quantum vibrational states available to it. It can only absorb or radiate at discrete wavelengths.

First, Planck's Radiation Law is about radiation, not about absorption.

Second, this is another point of disagreement between us. I think all matter, even a single molecule, radiates per Planck's Law.

Is there anything we missed?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
12-01-2016 09:20
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1672)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: You've explained nothing at all. Theory predicts and experiment shows that the Earth's atmosphere does not radiate according to Planck's Law.

That is not what it "shows,"...it is the erroneous conclusion to which you have jumped.

Of course that's what it shows. The satellite measurements of the Earth's IR emission spectrum do not correspond to the emission spectrum for a blackbody of any particular temperature. Hence the Earth's atmosphere doesn't radiate according to Planck's Law (and nobody would expect it to). It could hardly be any simpler!

Let me ask you, do you think Planck's Radiation Law applies to anything in nature? Does it apply to a molecule?

As I've stated many times already, Planck's Law applies to ideal blackbodies. Most solids, liquids and dense gases are approximate blackbodies; dilute gases such as the Earth's atmosphere are not. A single, isolated molecule cannot radiate or absorb in accordance with Planck's Law because of the limited set of quantum vibrational states available to it. It can only absorb or radiate at discrete wavelengths.

That is the same as saying that all light is cold generated (i.e. resonance light), such as bioluminescence, LEDs, and lasers and that the light from fire cannot exist, or that a gas lantern is not possible.

Maybe you'll want to rethink this.

What? Now you're contradicting yourself. You're the one claiming that radiation is emitted strictly in accordance with Planck's Law at all times. The examples that you've just given contradict your claim, not mine!
12-01-2016 10:04
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1672)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Of course that's what it shows.

I'm afraid not. I guarantee that what it "shows" is one dataset of radiance across wavelengths.

Temperature simply is not one of the axes.

You sure seem to be having trouble understanding that graph! I never said temperature was one of the axes. I repeat: The solid line is indeed a plot of measured radiance against wavenumber (reciprocal of wavelength) for IR radiation from above the Earth's atmosphere; the dashed lines are plots of radiance against wavenumber for theoretical blackbodies of different temperatures (shown by the labels next to each curve) radiating in accordance with Planck's Law. You'll note that the solid line doesn't match any of the possible blackbody curves. Hence the Earth's atmosphere doesn't radiate in accordnace with Planck's Law.

Unless you are intentionally dodging, I'd like to go back to my point of discussion.

The earth has an atmosphere.
The earth, with its atmosphere and its oceans is a body in space.
The earth is clearly not an ideal black body.

You believe that Planck's Radiation Law does not apply to the earth.

I disagree because I claim that Planck's law holds in the case of any matter that is not at absolute zero.

We have reached our point of disagreement.

Indeed. Planck's Law holds only for blackbody radiators. The derivation of Planck's Law assumes a body that is a perfect radiator and absorber at all wavelengths.

Because you believe what you believe, "greenhouse effect" is a possibility. Because I believe what I believe, "greenhouse effect" is not a possibility.

I know that Planck's Law doesn't hold for material that isn't a blackbody because Planck himself assumes this in order to derive his Law!

Surface Detail wrote: As I've stated many times already, Planck's Law applies to ideal blackbodies. Most solids, liquids and dense gases are approximate blackbodies;

So what does that mean? Planck's Law apparently doesn't apply in nature because there is no such thing as an ideal black body.

That's correct. Planck's Law is an approximation. From Planck's The theory of heat radiation:

According to the law stated in Sec. 45, the intensity of a pencil, when a state of stable heat radiation exists in a diathermanous medium, is equal to the emissive power E of a black body in contact with the medium. On this fact is based the possibility of measuring the emissive power of a black body, although absolutely black bodies do not exist in nature.

Surface Detail wrote: A single, isolated molecule cannot radiate or absorb in accordance with Planck's Law because of the limited set of quantum vibrational states available to it. It can only absorb or radiate at discrete wavelengths.

First, Planck's Radiation Law is about radiation, not about absorption.

It's about both. Planck showed that all materials must emit and absorb radiation of a particular wavelength to the same degree in order to comply with the laws of thermodynamics.

Second, this is another point of disagreement between us. I think all matter, even a single molecule, radiates per Planck's Law.

That is simply wrong. Planck's Law applies to macroscopic objjects, not individual particles. It arises as a consequence of the interactions of the particles rather than being a property of the particles themselves.
12-01-2016 13:23
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote: Hence the Earth's atmosphere doesn't radiate in accordnace with Planck's Law.

You're having a small problem following your own logic.

Your conclusion is only valid under the assumption that Planck's Radiation Law only applies to ideal black bodies. Your conclusion is only valid under the assumption that Planck's Law applies to nothing in nature because there exist no ideal black bodies in nature.

Ergo, you will say the same thing about all such graphs and all such measurements in nature because all will deviate from that of an ideal black body.

The example you have provided of the earth is just one example of the universal set of all radiation measurements to which you claim Planck's Law does not apply.

Once you have denied Planck's Law, the ground is set for you to believe "greenhouse effect."

QED.

I, on the other hand, do not deny Planck's Law. I perceive it as applying to all electromagnetic radiation of matter.

I cannot accept your "greenhouse effect" on those grounds.

Surface Detail wrote: Indeed. Planck's Law holds only for blackbody radiators. The derivation of Planck's Law assumes a body that is a perfect radiator and absorber at all wavelengths.

Right here lies your confusion, i.e. you equate the derivation of the relationship with the applicability of the relationship. Laplace transforms are similarly based on a theoretical concept that does not exist, but Laplace transforms can nonetheless be used in real world engineering to build things.

Surface Detail wrote: It's about both. Planck showed that all materials must emit and absorb radiation of a particular wavelength to the same degree in order to comply with the laws of thermodynamics.

It is a common understanding that differing substances have differing absorption signatures. Nonetheless Planck's Radiation Law applies to radiation, not absorption.

Substances absorb per their absorption signature and emit per Planck's Law.

Surface Detail wrote: That is simply wrong.

I am well aware that you believe so, and thus you believe in "greenhouse effect."

Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law applies to macroscopic objjects, not individual particles.

Planck's Law applies to "bodies" (matter), be they molecules, planets, etc..

Surface Detail wrote: It arises as a consequence of the interactions of the particles rather than being a property of the particles themselves.

No. Planck's Law is simply the relationship in nature of how matter radiates.

A single molecule will radiate as long as it is not at absolute zero. As the temperature of that molecule increases, the rate of emission will increase as will the frequency. Would you care to make a wager on the equation one can use to predict how the rate of emission and frequency will change per an increase in temperature?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
12-01-2016 14:49
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1672)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Hence the Earth's atmosphere doesn't radiate in accordnace with Planck's Law.

You're having a small problem following your own logic.

Your conclusion is only valid under the assumption that Planck's Radiation Law only applies to ideal black bodies. Your conclusion is only valid under the assumption that Planck's Law applies to nothing in nature because there exist no ideal black bodies in nature.

Ergo, you will say the same thing about all such graphs and all such measurements in nature because all will deviate from that of an ideal black body.

The example you have provided of the earth is just one example of the universal set of all radiation measurements to which you claim Planck's Law does not apply.

Once you have denied Planck's Law, the ground is set for you to believe "greenhouse effect."

QED.

I, on the other hand, do not deny Planck's Law. I perceive it as applying to all electromagnetic radiation of matter.

I cannot accept your "greenhouse effect" on those grounds.

Surface Detail wrote: Indeed. Planck's Law holds only for blackbody radiators. The derivation of Planck's Law assumes a body that is a perfect radiator and absorber at all wavelengths.

Right here lies your confusion, i.e. you equate the derivation of the relationship with the applicability of the relationship. Laplace transforms are similarly based on a theoretical concept that does not exist, but Laplace transforms can nonetheless be used in real world engineering to build things.

Surface Detail wrote: It's about both. Planck showed that all materials must emit and absorb radiation of a particular wavelength to the same degree in order to comply with the laws of thermodynamics.

It is a common understanding that differing substances have differing absorption signatures. Nonetheless Planck's Radiation Law applies to radiation, not absorption.

Substances absorb per their absorption signature and emit per Planck's Law.

Surface Detail wrote: That is simply wrong.

I am well aware that you believe so, and thus you believe in "greenhouse effect."

Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law applies to macroscopic objjects, not individual particles.

Planck's Law applies to "bodies" (matter), be they molecules, planets, etc..

Surface Detail wrote: It arises as a consequence of the interactions of the particles rather than being a property of the particles themselves.

No. Planck's Law is simply the relationship in nature of how matter radiates.

A single molecule will radiate as long as it is not at absolute zero. As the temperature of that molecule increases, the rate of emission will increase as will the frequency. Would you care to make a wager on the equation one can use to predict how the rate of emission and frequency will change per an increase in temperature?

Sorry, but it's clear that you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Temperature is a collective property, so it doesn't really make sense to talk about the temperature of a single molecule, especially a small one like CO2 with just a few modes of vibration. Quantum mechanics dictates that an isolated molecule can only emit or absorb radiation at wavelengths corresponding to the transitions between its vibrational (IR) or rotational (radio) states. The emission spectrum of an isolated molecule (or sufficiently dilute gas) is therefore a series of peaks at these wavelengths, and most definitely not a Planckian distribution!
Edited on 12-01-2016 14:50
12-01-2016 14:57
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Surface Detail wrote:

What? Now you're contradicting yourself. You're the one claiming that radiation is emitted strictly in accordance with Planck's Law at all times. The examples that you've just given contradict your claim, not mine!


They not only contradict themselves, they contradict each other (see below quotes).
Into the Night wrote:
Planck is talking about absorption, not radiation.


IBdaMann wrote:First, Planck's Radiation Law is about radiation, not about absorption.


What they don't appear to comprehend, (despite you trying to explain several times to them) is that they are both contradicting Max Planck:

http://www.gutenberg.us/articles/blackbody_radiation
http://www.gutenberg.us/articles/Planck%27s_law

When IB didn't even recognise what the blackbody temperature curves in the graph you posted were, and told you to 'remove them', it was hilarious. As was ITN asserting that "Spectra has nothing to do with black body radiation".


Typical of autodidacts who pick up bits of information here and there but never study a subject fully in an environment where their mistakes and misunderstandings would get picked up, and the huge gaps in their knowledge would get filled. They never seem to realise just how incompetent they are because there was no-one to correct them when they go wrong. Combine that with ideological/religiously induced stupidity, extreme confirmation bias, and sheer arrogance and you get people like IB and ITN who seriously believe they are 'experts' and will not listen to anyone trying to show them where they are going wrong.

They'll never go read that source from ACS you provided (which would clearly show them where they are going wrong), because they already believe they 'know it all!'

All they would need to do would be to search for Planck's Law and blackbody radiation from an authoritative source which explains it in the context of Max Planck's original work. Instead they are convinced that characteristics that only apply to a theoretical blackbody in equilibrium that is a perfect absorber and emitter of EM (not found in nature) applies to 'everything, all the time'

From wrong assumptions, they leap to the wrong conclusions that the temperature of the atmosphere (which is NOT a perfect blackbody and NOT a perfect absorber and emitter of EM radiation) has nothing to do with it's composition. Because they believe they are right, they are incapable of seeing it when you show them that graph which shows they are wrong.

They just go straight back to their baseless assertions and pseudoscience waffle and tell you you're wrong without really being able to explain it coherently. And of course, they can never provide any support from authoritative sources, but will completely dismiss yours. Over and over and over and over again ad nauseum until they wear you down with the same nonsense they have been repeating for years, and you give up in exasperation. Then of course they claim 'victory' because you couldn't be bothered wasting your time any more


That's why I've found it's a complete waste of time trying to explain anything to people who reject science like the 'greenhouse' effect, evolution, age of the earth etc especially if it's because of their deeply held ideological/religious beliefs.

Oh.... and they also didn't have a clue what the graphs I posted showed or signified. They would be self-explanatory to most people who have even fairly basic knowledge about this subject.



Edited on 12-01-2016 15:56
12-01-2016 15:53
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Surface Detail wrote:Sorry, but it's clear that you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Temperature is a collective property, so it doesn't really make sense to talk about the temperature of a single molecule, especially a small one like CO2 with just a few modes of vibration. Quantum mechanics dictates that an isolated molecule can only emit or absorb radiation at wavelengths corresponding to the transitions between its vibrational (IR) or rotational (radio) states. The emission spectrum of an isolated molecule (or sufficiently dilute gas) is therefore a series of peaks at these wavelengths, and most definitely not a Planckian distribution!


He's the Black Knight of Sky Dragon Slayers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4


12-01-2016 16:52
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Ceist wrote: They not only contradict themselves, they contradict each other (see below quotes).
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
Planck is talking about absorption, not radiation.


IBdaMann wrote:First, Planck's Radiation Law is about radiation, not about absorption.

You have a penchant for dishonesty. Planck has spoken of absorption and Planck's Radiation Law is about radiation.

This was a lengthy post you wrote about Into the Night and me. I won't speak for Into the Night but personally I'm flattered.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
12-01-2016 17:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote: Sorry, but it's clear that you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Right. It's clear. Not the faintest idea.

Surface Detail wrote: Temperature is a collective property, so it doesn't really make sense to talk about the temperature of a single molecule, especially a small one like CO2 with just a few modes of vibration.

So, to the best of your understanding, an individual molecule cannot have thermal energy, yes?

Surface Detail wrote: Quantum mechanics dictates that an isolated molecule can only emit or absorb radiation at wavelengths corresponding to the transitions between its vibrational (IR) or rotational (radio) states.

In other words, every substance has an absorption signature. Agreed.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
12-01-2016 21:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: You've explained nothing at all. Theory predicts and experiment shows that the Earth's atmosphere does not radiate according to Planck's Law.

That is not what it "shows,"...it is the erroneous conclusion to which you have jumped.

Of course that's what it shows. The satellite measurements of the Earth's IR emission spectrum do not correspond to the emission spectrum for a blackbody of any particular temperature. Hence the Earth's atmosphere doesn't radiate according to Planck's Law (and nobody would expect it to). It could hardly be any simpler!

Let me ask you, do you think Planck's Radiation Law applies to anything in nature? Does it apply to a molecule?

As I've stated many times already, Planck's Law applies to ideal blackbodies. Most solids, liquids and dense gases are approximate blackbodies; dilute gases such as the Earth's atmosphere are not. A single, isolated molecule cannot radiate or absorb in accordance with Planck's Law because of the limited set of quantum vibrational states available to it. It can only absorb or radiate at discrete wavelengths.

That is the same as saying that all light is cold generated (i.e. resonance light), such as bioluminescence, LEDs, and lasers and that the light from fire cannot exist, or that a gas lantern is not possible.

Maybe you'll want to rethink this.

What? Now you're contradicting yourself. You're the one claiming that radiation is emitted strictly in accordance with Planck's Law at all times. The examples that you've just given contradict your claim, not mine!


No contradiction. Planck's law applies at all times in all places. It is not, however, the only way to produce light.


The Parrot Killer
12-01-2016 21:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Hence the Earth's atmosphere doesn't radiate in accordnace with Planck's Law.

You're having a small problem following your own logic.

Your conclusion is only valid under the assumption that Planck's Radiation Law only applies to ideal black bodies. Your conclusion is only valid under the assumption that Planck's Law applies to nothing in nature because there exist no ideal black bodies in nature.

Ergo, you will say the same thing about all such graphs and all such measurements in nature because all will deviate from that of an ideal black body.

The example you have provided of the earth is just one example of the universal set of all radiation measurements to which you claim Planck's Law does not apply.

Once you have denied Planck's Law, the ground is set for you to believe "greenhouse effect."

QED.

I, on the other hand, do not deny Planck's Law. I perceive it as applying to all electromagnetic radiation of matter.

I cannot accept your "greenhouse effect" on those grounds.

Surface Detail wrote: Indeed. Planck's Law holds only for blackbody radiators. The derivation of Planck's Law assumes a body that is a perfect radiator and absorber at all wavelengths.

Right here lies your confusion, i.e. you equate the derivation of the relationship with the applicability of the relationship. Laplace transforms are similarly based on a theoretical concept that does not exist, but Laplace transforms can nonetheless be used in real world engineering to build things.

Surface Detail wrote: It's about both. Planck showed that all materials must emit and absorb radiation of a particular wavelength to the same degree in order to comply with the laws of thermodynamics.

It is a common understanding that differing substances have differing absorption signatures. Nonetheless Planck's Radiation Law applies to radiation, not absorption.

Substances absorb per their absorption signature and emit per Planck's Law.

Surface Detail wrote: That is simply wrong.

I am well aware that you believe so, and thus you believe in "greenhouse effect."

Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law applies to macroscopic objjects, not individual particles.

Planck's Law applies to "bodies" (matter), be they molecules, planets, etc..

Surface Detail wrote: It arises as a consequence of the interactions of the particles rather than being a property of the particles themselves.

No. Planck's Law is simply the relationship in nature of how matter radiates.

A single molecule will radiate as long as it is not at absolute zero. As the temperature of that molecule increases, the rate of emission will increase as will the frequency. Would you care to make a wager on the equation one can use to predict how the rate of emission and frequency will change per an increase in temperature?

Sorry, but it's clear that you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Temperature is a collective property, so it doesn't really make sense to talk about the temperature of a single molecule, especially a small one like CO2 with just a few modes of vibration. Quantum mechanics dictates that an isolated molecule can only emit or absorb radiation at wavelengths corresponding to the transitions between its vibrational (IR) or rotational (radio) states. The emission spectrum of an isolated molecule (or sufficiently dilute gas) is therefore a series of peaks at these wavelengths, and most definitely not a Planckian distribution!

Temperature can apply to a collection of molecules or a single molecule. Temperature is the kinetic energy in molecules.

The emission of a single molecule or a collection of molecules is dependent on Planck's law, which is temperature dependent. It does not matter the substance, it's state, it's density, it's opacity, or any other property of matter.

You are saying the sun is green because you are viewing it through a filter of green glass.


The Parrot Killer
12-01-2016 21:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
Ceist wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:

What? Now you're contradicting yourself. You're the one claiming that radiation is emitted strictly in accordance with Planck's Law at all times. The examples that you've just given contradict your claim, not mine!


They not only contradict themselves, they contradict each other (see below quotes).
Into the Night wrote:
Planck is talking about absorption, not radiation.


IBdaMann wrote:First, Planck's Radiation Law is about radiation, not about absorption.



What they don't appear to comprehend, (despite you trying to explain several times to them) is that they are both contradicting Max Planck:

http://www.gutenberg.us/articles/blackbody_radiation
http://www.gutenberg.us/articles/Planck%27s_law

When IB didn't even recognise what the blackbody temperature curves in the graph you posted were, and told you to 'remove them', it was hilarious. As was ITN asserting that "Spectra has nothing to do with black body radiation".


Typical of autodidacts who pick up bits of information here and there but never study a subject fully in an environment where their mistakes and misunderstandings would get picked up, and the huge gaps in their knowledge would get filled. They never seem to realise just how incompetent they are because there was no-one to correct them when they go wrong. Combine that with ideological/religiously induced stupidity, extreme confirmation bias, and sheer arrogance and you get people like IB and ITN who seriously believe they are 'experts' and will not listen to anyone trying to show them where they are going wrong.

They'll never go read that source from ACS you provided (which would clearly show them where they are going wrong), because they already believe they 'know it all!'

All they would need to do would be to search for Planck's Law and blackbody radiation from an authoritative source which explains it in the context of Max Planck's original work. Instead they are convinced that characteristics that only apply to a theoretical blackbody in equilibrium that is a perfect absorber and emitter of EM (not found in nature) applies to 'everything, all the time'

From wrong assumptions, they leap to the wrong conclusions that the temperature of the atmosphere (which is NOT a perfect blackbody and NOT a perfect absorber and emitter of EM radiation) has nothing to do with it's composition. Because they believe they are right, they are incapable of seeing it when you show them that graph which shows they are wrong.

They just go straight back to their baseless assertions and pseudoscience waffle and tell you you're wrong without really being able to explain it coherently. And of course, they can never provide any support from authoritative sources, but will completely dismiss yours. Over and over and over and over again ad nauseum until they wear you down with the same nonsense they have been repeating for years, and you give up in exasperation. Then of course they claim 'victory' because you couldn't be bothered wasting your time any more


That's why I've found it's a complete waste of time trying to explain anything to people who reject science like the 'greenhouse' effect, evolution, age of the earth etc especially if it's because of their deeply held ideological/religious beliefs.

Oh.... and they also didn't have a clue what the graphs I posted showed or signified. They would be self-explanatory to most people who have even fairly basic knowledge about this subject.

Read the stuff you quoted. You are dead wrong about what's written in there.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 12-01-2016 21:20
12-01-2016 21:23
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Ceist wrote: Oh.... and they also didn't have a clue what the graphs I posted showed or signified. They would be self-explanatory to most people who have even fairly basic knowledge about this subject.

I never claimed to not understand what you posted. I just wanted to extend to you the opportunity to show that you have no clue about your graphs, what they showed or signified.

So, demonstrate for us again: What is it they say?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
12-01-2016 21:27
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Surface Detail wrote:Opacity is one of the conditions for a blackbody specified by the man himself:

The theory of heat radiation, Dr. Max Planck, page 10.

Second, the black body must have a certain minimum thickness depending on its absorbing power, in order to insure that the rays after passing into the body shall not be able to leave it again at a different point of the surface. The more absorbing a body is, the smaller the value of this minimum thickness, while in the case of bodies with vanishingly small absorbing power only a layer of infinite thickness may be regarded as black.
You provide a link to what Max Planck himself wrote that shows they are wrong, and they just dismiss it as irrelevant. Apparently they believe they 'understand' Planck's Law better than Planck himself. Unfreakinbelievable


See how pointless this is trying to discuss science with ideologically driven autodidact nutters who get it all wrong but delusionally believe they are 'experts'?



Edited on 12-01-2016 21:37
12-01-2016 22:11
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Planck's Law is a mathematical equation which describes a theoretical black-body - a body that is perfect absorber and emitter of EM radiation at thermal equilibrium. That's why the EM frequency spectrum for a theoretical black-body only depends on the black-body's temperature and not on it's substance. For a theoretical black-body only! Not for any other body.

It's just a reference point (the smooth black-body temperature curves on those graphs that IB thinks are irrelevant and should be 'removed'
). It makes no sense at all to say it's a law that 'applies to everything all the time'. Black-body radiation does not physically exist in nature.

Like 0 Kelvin is used as a reference point, but there is nothing in nature that is 0 K.



Edited on 12-01-2016 22:25
Page 2 of 9<1234>>>





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Michael Mann The Madhouse Effect: Climate Change Denial in the Age of Trump016-11-2017 18:59
Greenhouse Gases8004-10-2017 22:29
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law12928-09-2017 22:25
Greenhouse Gases Are Real15417-09-2017 19:05
What is the Greenhouse Effect?16614-09-2017 22:18
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact