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

Ceist wrote:

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'?

Ceist wrote:
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.

Into the Night wrote:
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.

Ceist wrote:

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'?

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
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.

I don't think you've thought that through properly. You say temperature is the kinetic energy in molecules and also that temperature can apply to a single molecule. Presumably this means that you are saying that the temperature of a single molecule is a measure of its kinetic energy.

You then say that the emission of a single molecule is dependent on Planck's Law, which is temperature dependent.

Put these together, and you are saying that the emission of single molecule is dependent on its kinetic energy. This implies that any single molecule, moving in a straight line, would have to emit radiation and continue doing so until it came to a halt. This is obviously not correct (since, for one thing, the velocity and, hence, kinetic energy of the molecule depends on the frame of reference of the observer).

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, a molecule's temperature is the kinetic energy of the molecule's electrons. It has nothing to do with the molecule's own speed. It's complicated stuff.

Ceist wrote: 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.

Into the Night wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, a molecule's temperature is the kinetic energy of the molecule's electrons. It has nothing to do with the molecule's own speed. It's complicated stuff.

Wrong. A molecule's temperature is the oscillatory kinetic energy of the whole molecule, not any electrons in it.

Some people here apparently think it means any kinetic energy, which is wrong.

IBdaMann wrote:
Planck's Law therefore applies to all substances, not no substances.

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Planck's Law therefore applies to all substances, not no substances.

That is trivially false. The white monitor screen you're looking at now is not white hot (which it would need to be in order to emit white light according to Planck's law).

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, a molecule's temperature is the kinetic energy of the molecule's electrons. It has nothing to do with the molecule's own speed. It's complicated stuff.

Wrong. A molecule's temperature is the oscillatory kinetic energy of the whole molecule, not any electrons in it.

Some people here apparently think it means any kinetic energy, which is wrong.

What do you mean by the "oscillatory kinetic energy" of the molecule? Are you referring to the vibrational modes of the molecule? If so, I'm sure you realise that these are quantised and can therefore only take on discrete values. Transitions between vibrational energy states give rise to a line spectrum, not a Planck spectrum, which is why it's debatable whether it makes sense to talk of the "temperature" of a molecule.

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Planck's Law therefore applies to all substances, not no substances.

That is trivially false. The white monitor screen you're looking at now is not white hot (which it would need to be in order to emit white light according to Planck's law).

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, a molecule's temperature is the kinetic energy of the molecule's electrons. It has nothing to do with the molecule's own speed. It's complicated stuff.

Wrong. A molecule's temperature is the oscillatory kinetic energy of the whole molecule, not any electrons in it.

Some people here apparently think it means any kinetic energy, which is wrong.

What do you mean by the "oscillatory kinetic energy" of the molecule? Are you referring to the vibrational modes of the molecule? If so, I'm sure you realise that these are quantised and can therefore only take on discrete values. Transitions between vibrational energy states give rise to a line spectrum, not a Planck spectrum, which is why it's debatable whether it makes sense to talk of the "temperature" of a molecule.

No, I am not talking about the modes of vibration. I'm not even talking about an individual molecule.

The emission of a single molecule or a collection of molecules is dependent on Planck's law, which is temperature dependent.

Into the Night wrote:

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.

Into the Night wrote:

Ceist wrote:

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'?

Read your own link, stupid.

Ceist wrote:
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.

Give me a moment to take it all in.

OK, the reason Temperature is the only independent variable is because all others were factored out for the derivation.

Planck's Law therefore applies to all substances, not no substances.

Ceist wrote: Backwards in the right direction but still the right direction.... the clues are there. There is hope!

Ceist wrote: Perhaps reading more applied information from a company that makes equipment to measure what IbDaMann insists cannot exist, might help him?

IBdaMann wrote:
Thermal radiation is not the only form of emission.

Into the Night wrote:
There is more than one way to emit light.

Surface Detail wrote: Excellent! So now we're all agreed the emission of electromagnetic radiation from a material may indeed depend on factors other than its temperature, i.e. factors that lie outside the scope of Planck's Law.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Excellent! So now we're all agreed the emission of electromagnetic radiation from a material may indeed depend on factors other than its temperature, i.e. factors that lie outside the scope of Planck's Law.

Excellent! So we're all agreed that all matter above absolute zero emits thermal radiation that is governed by Planck's Law, yes?

I presume we're also in unanimous agreement that a single molecule is matter?

Surface Detail wrote: A single molecule is indeed matter, but ...

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: A single molecule is indeed matter, but ...

Let's not get lost on tangents.

Does all matter above absolute zero emit thermal radiation?

Surface Detail wrote: All matter above absolute zero emits radiation.

Whether you call this thermal radiation or not depends on your definition of the term.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: All matter above absolute zero emits radiation.

Whether you call this thermal radiation or not depends on your definition of the term.

Fair enough. What term would you prefer I use for the radiation of which I speak, that is emitted by all matter above absolute zero, that is determined by temperature, such that higher temperatures produce higher rates of emission and higher frequencies?

Because it is based on temperature I (and others) use the term "thermal radiation" but if you have a preferred term then I'm open to suggestions.

Surface Detail wrote: For the sake of argument, we'll define thermal radiation as any radiation emitted by a material by virtue of its temperature.

Ceist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

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.

No, You're dead wrong.

How did you miss this?

"Real objects never behave as full-ideal black bodies, and instead the emitted radiation at a given frequency is a fraction of what the ideal emission would be. The emissivity of a material specifies how well a real body radiates energy as compared with a black body. This emissivity depends on factors such as temperature, emission angle, and wavelength. However, it is typical in engineering to assume that a surface's spectral emissivity and absorptivity do not depend on wavelength, so that the emissivity is a constant. This is known as the gray body assumption.

With non-black surfaces, the deviations from ideal black-body behavior are determined by both the surface structure, such as roughness or granularity, and the chemical composition"

Ceist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Ceist wrote:

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'?

Read your own link, stupid.

.
How about you stop squawking at the little round mirror with the bell on it in your cage and read the sources provided or a goddamn textbook on the subject for a change?

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Thermal radiation is not the only form of emission.

Into the Night wrote:
There is more than one way to emit light.

Excellent! So now we're all agreed the emission of electromagnetic radiation from a material may indeed depend on factors other than its temperature, i.e. factors that lie outside the scope of Planck's Law.

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Excellent! So now we're all agreed the emission of electromagnetic radiation from a material may indeed depend on factors other than its temperature, i.e. factors that lie outside the scope of Planck's Law.

Excellent! So we're all agreed that all matter above absolute zero emits thermal radiation that is governed by Planck's Law, yes?

I presume we're also in unanimous agreement that a single molecule is matter?

A single molecule is indeed matter, but it is not a blackbody, and Planck's Law applies to blackbodies. Why is it not a blackbody? Because it can only absorb and emit radiation with discrete wavelengths corresponding to transitions between its quantised energy states. Planck's Law applies to materials that are able to absorb and emit radiation of any wavelength.

Hence a single molecule (or a sufficiently dilute gas) emits radiation only of specific wavelengths (a line spectrum) rather than a continuous blackbody spectrum as per Planck's Law.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: For the sake of argument, we'll define thermal radiation as any radiation emitted by a material by virtue of its temperature.

I agree with your statement above that thermal radiation is emitted by a material (any matter) per its temperature. What is at issue is what laws of nature govern such emissions. You and I seem to agree up to the point of asserting that Planck's Law governs that emission. I say "yea" and you say "nay."

I believe we agree on the following:

1. All matter above absolute zero emits electromagnetic radiation (EM) per its temperature. We'll call this emission "thermal radiation."
1a. Thermal radiation increases in both frequency and rate of emission as temperature increases
1b. We agree that we disagree over whether the relation for 1a. is Planck's Radiation Law

2. There are certainly other ways for matter to emit EM beyond thermal radiation.

3. Temperature drives thermal radiation, not the other way around.

Is this an accurate assessment of where we stand?

Into the Night wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

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.

No, You're dead wrong.

How did you miss this?

"Real objects never behave as full-ideal black bodies, and instead the emitted radiation at a given frequency is a fraction of what the ideal emission would be. The emissivity of a material specifies how well a real body radiates energy as compared with a black body. This emissivity depends on factors such as temperature, emission angle, and wavelength. However, it is typical in engineering to assume that a surface's spectral emissivity and absorptivity do not depend on wavelength, so that the emissivity is a constant. This is known as the gray body assumption.

With non-black surfaces, the deviations from ideal black-body behavior are determined by both the surface structure, such as roughness or granularity, and the chemical composition"

You are again translating context, producing a false equivalence. Read it again.

Ceist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You are again translating context, producing a false equivalence. Read it again.

no. It's you who are ignoring context hence jumping to false conclusions.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Excellent! So now we're all agreed the emission of electromagnetic radiation from a material may indeed depend on factors other than its temperature, i.e. factors that lie outside the scope of Planck's Law.

Excellent! So we're all agreed that all matter above absolute zero emits thermal radiation that is governed by Planck's Law, yes?

I presume we're also in unanimous agreement that a single molecule is matter?

A single molecule is indeed matter, but it is not a blackbody, and Planck's Law applies to blackbodies. Why is it not a blackbody? Because it can only absorb and emit radiation with discrete wavelengths corresponding to transitions between its quantised energy states. Planck's Law applies to materials that are able to absorb and emit radiation of any wavelength.

Hence a single molecule (or a sufficiently dilute gas) emits radiation only of specific wavelengths (a line spectrum) rather than a continuous blackbody spectrum as per Planck's Law.

Planck's law applies to all bodies, not just black bodies. It cannot work with a totally black body since there is no light emitted. The only such theoretical body is one at absolute zero.

Surface Detail wrote: As regards 1a+1b, that's reasonable description of what happens when a blackbody - a body than can emit or absorb any wavelength - is heated. More accurately: as the temperature increases, the radiance increases across all frequencies and the frequency of maximum emission increases.

IBdaMann wrote:
We know that all bodies in nature (in fact all matter) have absorption signatures and that all bodies in nature have emission signatures that are independent of their respective absorption signatures. Let's take a hydrogen atom as an example.



Without mentioning either the particular temperature of this hydrogen atom or the emission rate at each frequency, one can nonetheless see that the absorption signature looks nothing like the emission signature.

So, the question(s) become(s): If the temperature of this particular hydrogen atom were to, say, increase, could we predict that the emission at 656nm would shift downwards in wavelength (upwards in frequency) and up in radiance? Would the radiance at the new wavelength increase? Would these changes follow:

[img]https://onwardtotheedge.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/plancks-law4.png?w=640
[/img]?

Surface Detail wrote: The emission at 656nm will stay exactly where it is regardless of the temperature of the hydrogen. As will the other lines. Their wavelengths are dictated by the difference in the energy states of a hydrogen atom, not its temperature. Just the intensity of the lines changes with temperature.