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

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The greenhouse effect is energy neutral. This is because the greenhouse effect affects the Earth as well as the space. It warms the Earth a little bit at the expense of cooling the space a little bit. Of course, the space is so big the effect on the space is not measurable. The effect on Earth is also very small, at most a few C.

IBdaMann wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The greenhouse effect is energy neutral. This is because the greenhouse effect affects the Earth as well as the space. It warms the Earth a little bit at the expense of cooling the space a little bit. Of course, the space is so big the effect on the space is not measurable. The effect on Earth is also very small, at most a few C.

So you believe "greenhouse effect" can, and does, violate Planck's Law?

No substance can affect thermal radiation. Temperature is the only determinant.

Surface Detail wrote: Why do you keep repeating this crap?

Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law describes the emission spectrum of an ideal blackbody.

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The greenhouse effect is energy neutral. This is because the greenhouse effect affects the Earth as well as the space. It warms the Earth a little bit at the expense of cooling the space a little bit. Of course, the space is so big the effect on the space is not measurable. The effect on Earth is also very small, at most a few C.

So you believe "greenhouse effect" can, and does, violate Planck's Law?

No substance can affect thermal radiation. Temperature is the only determinant.

Why do you keep repeating this crap?

Planck's Law describes the emission spectrum of an ideal blackbody. Real objects are not ideal blackbodies, and gases at atmospheric pressure are not blackbodies at all. Look at this video, for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exfJ8VPQDTY

The methane looks completely black at this IR wavelength, even though it's at about the same temperature as the surrounding gases. That's because it's methane!

IBdaMann wrote: Planck's Law is very easy to understand: Temperature determines thermal radiation.

Ceist wrote: Ask IB to explain what he thinks Planck's Law actually means

Ceist wrote:
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means.

Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and asserting that the greenhouse effect violates it.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Why do you keep repeating this crap?

Like I said, I realize you think actual science is crap. I happen to disagree.

I repeat it as often as I do in response to the repeated violations of Planck's Law that people assert. You might catch on to the pattern.

1. Someone expresses a violation of Planck's Law in the name of "greenhouse effect."
2. I mention that it violates Planck's Law
3. You complain that my response hasn't changed to the assertion that hasn't changed.

Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law describes the emission spectrum of an ideal blackbody.

...and to the best of your understanding, since there is no such thing as an ideal blackbody in nature, you believe that Planck's Law just simply doesn't apply to anything, yes?

That's a rookie mistake. It's like the people who get desperate in defending Global Warming and try to claim that the laws of thermodynamics somehow don't apply because the earth "isn't a closed system." The error is in not understanding applicability.

The laws of physics apply always, everywhere. If you remember that golden rule you'll make great strides in avoiding silly pitfalls. The reason for Planck's Law being about an ideal blackbody is to generalize the equation, nothing more. Naturally all bodies have differing emissivity, for example, but the relationship of Planck's Law holds in all those individual cases.

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Why do you keep repeating this crap?

Like I said, I realize you think actual science is crap. I happen to disagree.

I repeat it as often as I do in response to the repeated violations of Planck's Law that people assert. You might catch on to the pattern.

1. Someone expresses a violation of Planck's Law in the name of "greenhouse effect."
2. I mention that it violates Planck's Law
3. You complain that my response hasn't changed to the assertion that hasn't changed.

Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law describes the emission spectrum of an ideal blackbody.

...and to the best of your understanding, since there is no such thing as an ideal blackbody in nature, you believe that Planck's Law just simply doesn't apply to anything, yes?

That's a rookie mistake. It's like the people who get desperate in defending Global Warming and try to claim that the laws of thermodynamics somehow don't apply because the earth "isn't a closed system." The error is in not understanding applicability.

The laws of physics apply always, everywhere. If you remember that golden rule you'll make great strides in avoiding silly pitfalls. The reason for Planck's Law being about an ideal blackbody is to generalize the equation, nothing more. Naturally all bodies have differing emissivity, for example, but the relationship of Planck's Law holds in all those individual cases.

You really don't get it, do you?

While solid objects are usually approximate blackbodies, gas at atmospheric pressure is nothing like a blackbody! Its ability to absorb and emit infrared radiation is strongly dependent on molecular resonances and hence the composition of the gas. Why do you think the methane leak in the video I linked to shows up black?

What you are doing is the equivalent of insisting that a rock and a feather will always fall at the same rate under any circumstances because of Newton's laws, while refusing to acknowledge that this is only true in a vacuum.

IBdaMann wrote: Atmospheric composition has no role in atmospheric temperature.

Ceist wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Why do you keep repeating this crap?

Like I said, I realize you think actual science is crap. I happen to disagree.

I repeat it as often as I do in response to the repeated violations of Planck's Law that people assert. You might catch on to the pattern.

1. Someone expresses a violation of Planck's Law in the name of "greenhouse effect."
2. I mention that it violates Planck's Law
3. You complain that my response hasn't changed to the assertion that hasn't changed.

Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law describes the emission spectrum of an ideal blackbody.

...and to the best of your understanding, since there is no such thing as an ideal blackbody in nature, you believe that Planck's Law just simply doesn't apply to anything, yes?

That's a rookie mistake. It's like the people who get desperate in defending Global Warming and try to claim that the laws of thermodynamics somehow don't apply because the earth "isn't a closed system." The error is in not understanding applicability.

The laws of physics apply always, everywhere. If you remember that golden rule you'll make great strides in avoiding silly pitfalls. The reason for Planck's Law being about an ideal blackbody is to generalize the equation, nothing more. Naturally all bodies have differing emissivity, for example, but the relationship of Planck's Law holds in all those individual cases.

You really don't get it, do you?

While solid objects are usually approximate blackbodies, gas at atmospheric pressure is nothing like a blackbody! Its ability to absorb and emit infrared radiation is strongly dependent on molecular resonances and hence the composition of the gas. Why do you think the methane leak in the video I linked to shows up black?

What you are doing is the equivalent of insisting that a rock and a feather will always fall at the same rate under any circumstances because of Newton's laws, while refusing to acknowledge that this is only true in a vacuum.

What's ironic is that he is accusing you of "not understanding applicability" when it's him who has no idea.

Surface Detail wrote: You really don't get it, do you?

Surface Detail wrote: While solid objects are usually approximate blackbodies, gas at atmospheric pressure is nothing like a blackbody!

Surface Detail wrote: Its ability to absorb and emit infrared radiation is strongly dependent on molecular resonances and hence the composition of the gas.

Surface Detail wrote: What you are doing is the equivalent of insisting that a rock and a feather will always fall at the same rate under any circumstances because of Newton's laws, while refusing to acknowledge that this is only true in a vacuum.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: You really don't get it, do you?

Here we go again.

Yes, I get it. What part do you need explained to you?

Surface Detail wrote: While solid objects are usually approximate blackbodies, gas at atmospheric pressure is nothing like a blackbody!

The body in question is earth.

Is there anything else you need explained to you?

Surface Detail wrote: Its ability to absorb and emit infrared radiation is strongly dependent on molecular resonances and hence the composition of the gas.

The atmosphere's temperature is not dependent upon the ability to absorb and emit infrared radiation of one of its components.

Shall we walk through the thought experiment?

Surface Detail wrote: What you are doing is the equivalent of insisting that a rock and a feather will always fall at the same rate under any circumstances because of Newton's laws, while refusing to acknowledge that this is only true in a vacuum.

No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

Surface Detail wrote: Yes, we're perfectly aware that the Earth's surface is an approximate blackbody.

Surface Detail wrote: What we're concerned with though is the transmission or otherwise of radiation through the atmosphere.

Surface Detail wrote: The emission spectrum of the Earth as viewed from outer space deviates substantially from that of a blackbody due to selective absorption of radiation by the gases in the atmosphere.

Surface Detail wrote: By the way, I notice you keep EVADING my question about the methane leak. Why do you think it shows up black in the IR video?

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Yes, we're perfectly aware that the Earth's surface is an approximate blackbody.

This leads me to think you don't understand, or you don't accept, that the earth is a body.

Naturally we need to get you over this hump before we can proceed.

Surface Detail wrote: What we're concerned with though is the transmission or otherwise of radiation through the atmosphere.

What concerns us is accounting for additional energy. The 1st LoT is very clear; energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This rule applies always, all throughout the universe.

If someone claims that "greenhouse gas" increases temperature then we need to account for this additional energy that "greenhouse gas" provides.

It's all about the accounting.

Surface Detail wrote: The emission spectrum of the Earth as viewed from outer space deviates substantially from that of a blackbody due to selective absorption of radiation by the gases in the atmosphere.

Earth, as a body, radiates per its temperature. Earth's atmosphere radiates per its temperature. Check Planck's Radiation Law. All things radiate per their temperature per Planck's Radiation Law.

So when someone like you implies that earth's atmosphere somehow radiates differently because of a change in material composition, you are implying that earth's atmospheric radiation is determined by something other than just temperature, which implies that earth's atmosphere does not radiate per Planck's Law.

Surface Detail wrote: By the way, I notice you keep EVADING my question about the methane leak. Why do you think it shows up black in the IR video?

I'm not EVADING it as much as I am simply not bothering with it. It is completely irrelevant. It does not help you account for the additional energy you claim "greenhouse gas" provides.

Surface Detail wrote: As I've explained on multiple occasions, the Earth's atmosphere does indeed not radiate per Planck's Law.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: As I've explained on multiple occasions, the Earth's atmosphere does indeed not radiate per Planck's Law.

Then we're done. That's all you need to say.

You assert that "greenhouse effect" increases earth's temperature by leveraging the fact that the earth's atmosphere does not radiate according to Planck's Law, and can thus increase the atmosphere's temperature by regulating the atmosphere's thermal radiation.

I simply disagree. I claim that all of nature adheres to Planck's Law and that what you are asserting is a violation of physics.

Is there anything else that needs to be discussed?

Surface Detail wrote: Your claim is complete nonsense.

You assert that "greenhouse effect" increases earth's temperature by leveraging the fact that the earth's atmosphere does not radiate according to Planck's Law, and can thus increase the atmosphere's temperature by regulating the atmosphere's thermal radiation.

I simply disagree. I claim that all of nature adheres to Planck's Law and that what you are asserting is a violation of physics.

Surface Detail wrote: Planck himself specified that ...

Surface Detail wrote: his law applied specifically to the emission of radiation from blackbodies, and atmospheric gases are nothing like blackbodies.

Surface Detail wrote: Your flat denial of experimental evidence is the antithesis of science; it is pure dogma.

IBdaMann wrote:
Could I get you to go on record as stating that my belief that "earth's atmosphere radiates according to Planck's Law" is pure dogma?

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Let's suppose the atmosphere has no IR active gases whatsoever. Let's suppose every CO2 and H2O and CH4 and N2O and O3 air molecule turns into an O2 air molecule. What would be the temperatures at day and at night at the equator?

IBdaMann wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Let's suppose the atmosphere has no IR active gases whatsoever. Let's suppose every CO2 and H2O and CH4 and N2O and O3 air molecule turns into an O2 air molecule. What would be the temperatures at day and at night at the equator?

What temperature is it now at the equator?


.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Let's suppose the atmosphere has no IR active gases whatsoever. Let's suppose every CO2 and H2O and CH4 and N2O and O3 air molecule turns into an O2 air molecule. What would be the temperatures at day and at night at the equator?

Tai Hai Chen wrote: About 30 C at day. About 25 C at night. All year round.

Surface Detail wrote: It's hard to say. On average, the Earth would be about 33 C colder than now, but the difference would be greater at the poles and less so at the equator.

Surface Detail wrote: That's speaking off the top of my head.

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Could I get you to go on record as stating that my belief that "earth's atmosphere radiates according to Planck's Law" is pure dogma?

Absolutely, given that I've just shown you this graph:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Could I get you to go on record as stating that my belief that "earth's atmosphere radiates according to Planck's Law" is pure dogma?

Absolutely, given that I've just shown you this graph:



illustrating the fact that the emissions from the Earth's atmosphere don't follow the blackbody curve corresponding to Planck's Law. Not that anyone would expect them to, given that the atmosphere is not a blackbody!

Flat denial of experimental evidence is dogma.

Ceist wrote:
Surface Detail, you should already know that trying to discuss science with Sky Dragon Slayers will do your head in. Especially the psychopathic ones off their meds.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Could I get you to go on record as stating that my belief that "earth's atmosphere radiates according to Planck's Law" is pure dogma?

Absolutely, given that I've just shown you this graph:



illustrating the fact that the emissions from the Earth's atmosphere don't follow the blackbody curve corresponding to Planck's Law. Not that anyone would expect them to, given that the atmosphere is not a blackbody!

Flat denial of experimental evidence is dogma

Flat conclusion of experimental evidence is dogma.
Flat denial of experimental evidence without showing the reasoning is just an argument of the Stone.

This graph does not disprove Planck's law at all. Nothing says that the atmosphere can't filter out certain wavelengths. Any energy absorbed by such a filter is simply converted to the overall emission (another wavelength).

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Could I get you to go on record as stating that my belief that "earth's atmosphere radiates according to Planck's Law" is pure dogma?

Absolutely, given that I've just shown you this graph:



illustrating the fact that the emissions from the Earth's atmosphere don't follow the blackbody curve corresponding to Planck's Law. Not that anyone would expect them to, given that the atmosphere is not a blackbody!

Flat denial of experimental evidence is dogma

Flat conclusion of experimental evidence is dogma.
Flat denial of experimental evidence without showing the reasoning is just an argument of the Stone.

Could you repeat that in English, please?

This graph does not disprove Planck's law at all. Nothing says that the atmosphere can't filter out certain wavelengths. Any energy absorbed by such a filter is simply converted to the overall emission (another wavelength).

IBdaMann claimed that the Earth's atmosphere emits radiation in accordance with Planck's Law. Satellite measurements show that it doesn't. This is exactly what you'd expect, because the Earth's atmosphere is not a blackbody, and Planck's Law only applies to blackbodies. Clear now?

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Yes, we're perfectly aware that the Earth's surface is an approximate blackbody.

This leads me to think you don't understand, or you don't accept, that the earth is a body.

Naturally we need to get you over this hump before we can proceed.

Surface Detail wrote: What we're concerned with though is the transmission or otherwise of radiation through the atmosphere.

What concerns us is accounting for additional energy. The 1st LoT is very clear; energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This rule applies always, all throughout the universe.

If someone claims that "greenhouse gas" increases temperature then we need to account for this additional energy that "greenhouse gas" provides.

It's all about the accounting.

Surface Detail wrote: The emission spectrum of the Earth as viewed from outer space deviates substantially from that of a blackbody due to selective absorption of radiation by the gases in the atmosphere.

Earth, as a body, radiates per its temperature. Earth's atmosphere radiates per its temperature. Check Planck's Radiation Law. All things radiate per their temperature per Planck's Radiation Law.

So when someone like you implies that earth's atmosphere somehow radiates differently because of a change in material composition, you are implying that earth's atmospheric radiation is determined by something other than just temperature, which implies that earth's atmosphere does not radiate per Planck's Law.

Surface Detail wrote: By the way, I notice you keep EVADING my question about the methane leak. Why do you think it shows up black in the IR video?

I'm not EVADING it as much as I am simply not bothering with it. It is completely irrelevant. It does not help you account for the additional energy you claim "greenhouse gas" provides.

As I've explained on multiple occasions, the Earth's atmosphere does indeed not radiate per Planck's Law. The Earth's IR emission spectrum as measured from outside the atmosphere looks like this:



Edit: Source - http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html

See the big chunks missing from the Planck distribution? That's where greenhouse gases have absorbed the outgoing radiation.

The methane leak is relevant because if what you said were true, the methane plume would appear the same as the atmosphere around it, i.e. transparent.

Ceist wrote:

You've easily demonstrated that IBDaMann is as thick as two short Plancks.

Into the Night wrote:

Ceist wrote:

You've easily demonstrated that IBDaMann is as thick as two short Plancks.

You've easily demonstrated yet again that you have nothing to contribute to the conversation.

Ceist wrote: What conversation? You and IBdaMann kill any rational conversation by trashing every thread with your delusional Sky Dragon Slayer pseudoscience drivel.

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.

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.