XKCD earth temperarture;

Into the Night wrote:
You do not know the definition of a temperature. A single molecule can have a temperature.

Whether you believe it or not. Stop evading the question. I have given you the question in terms of multiple molecules since you want to make a meal of stupid about this issue.

Is oxygen a radically different temperature than carbon dioxide in the same parcel of air?

This is the only question you have to answer. Stop evading and answer the question.

jwoodward48 wrote:
He says that molecules act as black bodies. He evidently does not understand the underlying mechanics of radiation, which I learned a bit about just by searching Wikipedia. If you're a worse source than Wikipedia, I'd start learning things.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You do not know the definition of a temperature. A single molecule can have a temperature.

Whether you believe it or not. Stop evading the question. I have given you the question in terms of multiple molecules since you want to make a meal of stupid about this issue.

Is oxygen a radically different temperature than carbon dioxide in the same parcel of air?

This is the only question you have to answer. Stop evading and answer the question.

As I've already written, but you seem unable to grasp, it makes no sense to talk about the temperature of a single molecule of gas. The molecules of a gas that is at a particular temperature have a distribution of energies. But we'll let that go if you like.

I think the question that you're trying to ask is: Do the oxygen and carbon dioxide molecules in a parcel of air that is at a uniform temperature have the same distribution of energies? The answer to this is: Yes. Assuming that the air is sufficiently dense for the molecules to frequently exchange energy though collisions, the molecules within it (both CO2 and O2) will have the same Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of energies.

Now what does this have to do with your assertion that, in denial of quantum physics, oxygen can absorb and emit IR radiation as CO2 does?

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You do not know the definition of a temperature. A single molecule can have a temperature.

Whether you believe it or not. Stop evading the question. I have given you the question in terms of multiple molecules since you want to make a meal of stupid about this issue.

Is oxygen a radically different temperature than carbon dioxide in the same parcel of air?

This is the only question you have to answer. Stop evading and answer the question.

As I've already written, but you seem unable to grasp, it makes no sense to talk about the temperature of a single molecule of gas. The molecules of a gas that is at a particular temperature have a distribution of energies. But we'll let that go if you like.

I think the question that you're trying to ask is: Do the oxygen and carbon dioxide molecules in a parcel of air that is at a uniform temperature have the same distribution of energies? The answer to this is: Yes. Assuming that the air is sufficiently dense for the molecules to frequently exchange energy though collisions, the molecules within it (both CO2 and O2) will have the same Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of energies.

Now what does this have to do with your assertion that, in denial of quantum physics, oxygen can absorb and emit IR radiation as CO2 does?

So you also are faced with the same problem. If neither oxygen nor nitrogen can emit IR radiation, how does the planet cool? How does the surface, which is not CO2, emit in the first place?

For a second finish, how many molecules are required to call it a temperature?

jwoodward48 wrote:
Let's review

Ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem

This is a good example of a post by IB, sadly.

jwoodward48 wrote:

1. Sure, yeah, I'm "scientifically illiterate." Let's test that. Are scientifically illiterate people likely to get 36 on the science portion of the ACT, to take STEM college classes in middle school, or to achieve a 20somethingth score in Astronomy at National Science Olympiad? I'd say that that is conclusive evidence of a far-beyond-basic understanding of science. Can we get back to talking about how molecules apparently do not have emission spectra?

jwoodward48 wrote:
2. My arguments are scientific. We have actual data for GW,, but you dismiss it with conspiracy theories and hand waves.

jwoodward48 wrote:
3. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, but it's a decent starting point for research. My point is that even Wikipedia has been more reliable than you two. Also, that you incorrectly identify basic laws and definitions that a quick Google search can easily show to be false.

jwoodward48 wrote:
4. I don't need to search very hard to disprove you! I used to give better sources, but now I'm using Wikipedia because there's no point in throwing pearls before swine - you just ignore it anyway. Or try to destroy the argument inexpertly.

jwoodward48 wrote:
5. Hypocrite says what?

Into has been missing knowledgel like "individual molecules do not and cannot have a temperature" and "not every gas can absorb or emit at all wavelengths." Googling those questions shows him wrong, no matter which site you go to. A physics textbook would also (probably) prove him wrong.

jwoodward48 wrote:
6. You blame and hate the victim of capitalism, the lower classes, for their own poverty.

jwoodward48 wrote:
7. You think that complete anarchy is optimal.

Most sane people would dismiss your global nonwarming claims. Also, my political leanings have nothing to do with my scientific arguments.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You do not know the definition of a temperature. A single molecule can have a temperature.

Whether you believe it or not. Stop evading the question. I have given you the question in terms of multiple molecules since you want to make a meal of stupid about this issue.

Is oxygen a radically different temperature than carbon dioxide in the same parcel of air?

This is the only question you have to answer. Stop evading and answer the question.

As I've already written, but you seem unable to grasp, it makes no sense to talk about the temperature of a single molecule of gas. The molecules of a gas that is at a particular temperature have a distribution of energies. But we'll let that go if you like.

I think the question that you're trying to ask is: Do the oxygen and carbon dioxide molecules in a parcel of air that is at a uniform temperature have the same distribution of energies? The answer to this is: Yes. Assuming that the air is sufficiently dense for the molecules to frequently exchange energy though collisions, the molecules within it (both CO2 and O2) will have the same Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of energies.

Now what does this have to do with your assertion that, in denial of quantum physics, oxygen can absorb and emit IR radiation as CO2 does?

So you also are faced with the same problem. If neither oxygen nor nitrogen can emit IR radiation, how does the planet cool? How does the surface, which is not CO2, emit in the first place?

For a second finish, how many molecules are required to call it a temperature?

What problem? The surface of the planet, being solid, emits radiation in a similar fashion to a blackbody. For a body of the Earth's temperature, this radiation is mostly IR.

If the Earth had no atmosphere, or if its atmosphere consisted solely of oxygen and nitrogen, this IR would pass unimpeded into space, thus cooling the planet.

However, the presence of greenhouse gases like CO2 and O2 mean that some of the IR emitted from the Earth's surface does not pass though the atmosphere but is instead absorbed and re-emitted, so that some of it returns to the surface. The effect of this is prevent the planet from cooling itself quite so effectively; its temperature therefore increases.

Hence the greenhouse effect is a direct consequence of the laws of quantum physics that dictate the radiative properties of molecules.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You do not know the definition of a temperature. A single molecule can have a temperature.

Whether you believe it or not. Stop evading the question. I have given you the question in terms of multiple molecules since you want to make a meal of stupid about this issue.

Is oxygen a radically different temperature than carbon dioxide in the same parcel of air?

This is the only question you have to answer. Stop evading and answer the question.

As I've already written, but you seem unable to grasp, it makes no sense to talk about the temperature of a single molecule of gas. The molecules of a gas that is at a particular temperature have a distribution of energies. But we'll let that go if you like.

I think the question that you're trying to ask is: Do the oxygen and carbon dioxide molecules in a parcel of air that is at a uniform temperature have the same distribution of energies? The answer to this is: Yes. Assuming that the air is sufficiently dense for the molecules to frequently exchange energy though collisions, the molecules within it (both CO2 and O2) will have the same Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of energies.

Now what does this have to do with your assertion that, in denial of quantum physics, oxygen can absorb and emit IR radiation as CO2 does?

So you also are faced with the same problem. If neither oxygen nor nitrogen can emit IR radiation, how does the planet cool? How does the surface, which is not CO2, emit in the first place?

For a second finish, how many molecules are required to call it a temperature?

What problem? The surface of the planet, being solid, emits radiation in a similar fashion to a blackbody. For a body of the Earth's temperature, this radiation is mostly IR.

If the Earth had no atmosphere, or if its atmosphere consisted solely of oxygen and nitrogen, this IR would pass unimpeded into space, thus cooling the planet.

However, the presence of greenhouse gases like CO2 and O2 mean that some of the IR emitted from the Earth's surface does not pass though the atmosphere but is instead absorbed and re-emitted, so that some of it returns to the surface. The effect of this is prevent the planet from cooling itself quite so effectively; its temperature therefore increases.

Hence the greenhouse effect is a direct consequence of the laws of quantum physics that dictate the radiative properties of molecules.

So...O2 is a 'greenhouse' gas now, eh? How about N2?

Doesn't your claim of O2 passing IR deny your statement that O2 is a 'greenhouse' gas?

CO2 is colder than the surface. You cannot use S-B to override the 2nd LoT. Something is wrong with the way you are using S-B. Go figure out what it is.

Both laws operate all the time. Both laws are currently accepted theory. They do not conflict with each other. You have to make them BOTH work.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You do not know the definition of a temperature. A single molecule can have a temperature.

Whether you believe it or not. Stop evading the question. I have given you the question in terms of multiple molecules since you want to make a meal of stupid about this issue.

Is oxygen a radically different temperature than carbon dioxide in the same parcel of air?

This is the only question you have to answer. Stop evading and answer the question.

As I've already written, but you seem unable to grasp, it makes no sense to talk about the temperature of a single molecule of gas. The molecules of a gas that is at a particular temperature have a distribution of energies. But we'll let that go if you like.

I think the question that you're trying to ask is: Do the oxygen and carbon dioxide molecules in a parcel of air that is at a uniform temperature have the same distribution of energies? The answer to this is: Yes. Assuming that the air is sufficiently dense for the molecules to frequently exchange energy though collisions, the molecules within it (both CO2 and O2) will have the same Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of energies.

Now what does this have to do with your assertion that, in denial of quantum physics, oxygen can absorb and emit IR radiation as CO2 does?

So you also are faced with the same problem. If neither oxygen nor nitrogen can emit IR radiation, how does the planet cool? How does the surface, which is not CO2, emit in the first place?

For a second finish, how many molecules are required to call it a temperature?

What problem? The surface of the planet, being solid, emits radiation in a similar fashion to a blackbody. For a body of the Earth's temperature, this radiation is mostly IR.

If the Earth had no atmosphere, or if its atmosphere consisted solely of oxygen and nitrogen, this IR would pass unimpeded into space, thus cooling the planet.

However, the presence of greenhouse gases like CO2 and O2 mean that some of the IR emitted from the Earth's surface does not pass though the atmosphere but is instead absorbed and re-emitted, so that some of it returns to the surface. The effect of this is prevent the planet from cooling itself quite so effectively; its temperature therefore increases.

Hence the greenhouse effect is a direct consequence of the laws of quantum physics that dictate the radiative properties of molecules.

So...O2 is a 'greenhouse' gas now, eh? How about N2?

Doesn't your claim of O2 passing IR deny your statement that O2 is a 'greenhouse' gas?

CO2 is colder than the surface. You cannot use S-B to override the 2nd LoT. Something is wrong with the way you are using S-B. Go figure out what it is.

Both laws operate all the time. Both laws are currently accepted theory. They do not conflict with each other. You have to make them BOTH work.

Sorry, that was a typo. I meant H2O, not O2, of course

There is no conflict of laws here. The net direction of heat flow is still upwards. Where, exactly, do you see a problem?

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Sorry, that was a typo. I meant H2O, not O2, of course

There is no conflict of laws here. The net direction of heat flow is still upwards. Where, exactly, do you see a problem?

Your model. Your claim that O2 and N2 does not emit radiation. Your claim that you must have N molecules to have a temperature (where N>X). Your claim that CO2 (and water) both reflect energy back down to the surface AND allow the surface to cool at the same time. Your extremely poor mathematics skills that allow this.

jwoodward48 wrote:
O2 does not emit infrared radiation. It can absorb and emit other wavelengths.

Individual molecules do not have a temperature. The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of a body determines its temperature. Individual molecules do not have M-B distributions.

CO2 is not a mirror. It does not reflect anything. It radiates some, not all, absorbed energy back to Earth. Less energy thus escapes the Earth system than enters it.

The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution does not define temperature. It itself is DEPENDENT on temperature. How the hell did you ever get the idea that it defines temperature???

You have now managed to deny S-B, the definition of temperature, deny the 2nd LoT, deny thermal energy, and shut off just about any avenue of escape of heat for Earth at all. Any thermal camera that doesn't filter out the infrared of the air will show how wrong you are.

According to you, fans shouldn't be able to help move heat like they do. Radiator fans are pointless.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Sorry, that was a typo. I meant H2O, not O2, of course

There is no conflict of laws here. The net direction of heat flow is still upwards. Where, exactly, do you see a problem?

Your model. Your claim that O2 and N2 does not emit radiation. Your claim that you must have N molecules to have a temperature (where N>X). Your claim that CO2 (and water) both reflect energy back down to the surface AND allow the surface to cool at the same time. Your extremely poor mathematics skills that allow this.

Your words make no sense at all.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Sorry, that was a typo. I meant H2O, not O2, of course

There is no conflict of laws here. The net direction of heat flow is still upwards. Where, exactly, do you see a problem?

Your model. Your claim that O2 and N2 does not emit radiation. Your claim that you must have N molecules to have a temperature (where N>X). Your claim that CO2 (and water) both reflect energy back down to the surface AND allow the surface to cool at the same time. Your extremely poor mathematics skills that allow this.

Your words make no sense at all.

Really? How many molecules does it take to have a temperature, then?

You do realize, don't you, that quantum physics STARTED with investigation into the photoelectric effect and blackbody radiation? NOTHING in quantum physics says that O2 and N2 do not emit IR or any other color of radiation.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Hey, Surface, could you explain why the concept temperature doesn't apply to individual molecules? I know that it doesn't, but is that important or is it just a scientific "tradition"? I mean, the average of one data point is that data point.

Into, yes, this is admitting that I'm not the expert on everything ever. **** you if you try to use this as more ammunition for your "scientific illiterate" smear campaign.

jwoodward48 wrote:
The MB distribution of a body is dependent on temperature. It is one way of theoretically determining temperature, although obvious measurement issues exist.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Sorry, that was a typo. I meant H2O, not O2, of course

There is no conflict of laws here. The net direction of heat flow is still upwards. Where, exactly, do you see a problem?

Your model. Your claim that O2 and N2 does not emit radiation. Your claim that you must have N molecules to have a temperature (where N>X). Your claim that CO2 (and water) both reflect energy back down to the surface AND allow the surface to cool at the same time. Your extremely poor mathematics skills that allow this.

Your words make no sense at all.

Really? How many molecules does it take to have a temperature, then?

You do realize, don't you, that quantum physics STARTED with investigation into the photoelectric effect and blackbody radiation? NOTHING in quantum physics says that O2 and N2 do not emit IR or any other color of radiation.

You need to do some homework.

Quantum physics states that the energy levels of atoms and molecules can have only certain values. Photons of EM radiation are emitted when atoms or molecules undergo energy transitions from a higher to a lower level. In O2 and N2 there are no possible transitions corresponding to the emission of IR photons. This is why O2 and N2 do not emit IR radiation.

For heaven's sake, ITN, educate yourself a little and stop embarrassing yourself.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Hey, Surface, could you explain why the concept temperature doesn't apply to individual molecules? I know that it doesn't, but is that important or is it just a scientific "tradition"? I mean, the average of one data point is that data point.

Into, yes, this is admitting that I'm not the expert on everything ever. **** you if you try to use this as more ammunition for your "scientific illiterate" smear campaign.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Sorry, that was a typo. I meant H2O, not O2, of course

There is no conflict of laws here. The net direction of heat flow is still upwards. Where, exactly, do you see a problem?

Your model. Your claim that O2 and N2 does not emit radiation. Your claim that you must have N molecules to have a temperature (where N>X). Your claim that CO2 (and water) both reflect energy back down to the surface AND allow the surface to cool at the same time. Your extremely poor mathematics skills that allow this.

Your words make no sense at all.

Really? How many molecules does it take to have a temperature, then?

You do realize, don't you, that quantum physics STARTED with investigation into the photoelectric effect and blackbody radiation? NOTHING in quantum physics says that O2 and N2 do not emit IR or any other color of radiation.

You need to do some homework.

Quantum physics states that the energy levels of atoms and molecules can have only certain values. Photons of EM radiation are emitted when atoms or molecules undergo energy transitions from a higher to a lower level. In O2 and N2 there are no possible transitions corresponding to the emission of IR photons. This is why O2 and N2 do not emit IR radiation.

For heaven's sake, ITN, educate yourself a little and stop embarrassing yourself.

You are only describing only one way of making light. That is not the only one.

Go and educate yourself.

Surface Detail wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Hey, Surface, could you explain why the concept temperature doesn't apply to individual molecules? I know that it doesn't, but is that important or is it just a scientific "tradition"? I mean, the average of one data point is that data point.

Into, yes, this is admitting that I'm not the expert on everything ever. **** you if you try to use this as more ammunition for your "scientific illiterate" smear campaign.

To be honest, I struggle to explain this since thermodynamics was never my field of expertise, and it's a long time since I did my physics degree

It's important to note, though, that temperature isn't the average energy of the particles. It is defined as the rate of change of energy with respect to entropy, where entropy is a measure of the number of possible states that the material can take. As far as I can see, temperature only makes sense when you have a sufficiently large assembly of particles to make the number of possible states of the system essentially infinite.

Surface Detail wrote:
A single particle has energy by virtue of its translational, vibrational and rotational motion, but I don't think it can be meaningfully assigned a temperature, in the same way that it couldn't be assigned a pressure. Temperature, I think, requires interaction with other particles.

Surface Detail wrote:
Perhaps ITN can explain better

jwoodward48 wrote:
You invert the formula. If 250K and only 250K lead to a particular distribution, then any material with that distribution is at 250K. This is simple math for the science we're discussing. Next complaint?

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Perhaps ITN can explain better

A molecule is mass. It will behave like any other mass.

jwoodward48 wrote:
That isn't either the same complaint or a new complaint. How did I fail to explain the two-wayness of the distribution law?

Edit: sorry, weird posting-while-you-posted stuff. Ignore this post, I couldn't see your argument.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Perhaps ITN can explain better

A molecule is mass. It will behave like any other mass.

Then again, perhaps not

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Perhaps ITN can explain better

A molecule is mass. It will behave like any other mass.

Then again, perhaps not

So....you are now arguing that a molecule has no mass???

jwoodward48 wrote:
No, he'll just insist that all the laws considered together will disprove GW,

jwoodward48 wrote:
Stefan-Boltzmann does not apply to a heterogeneous system with different temperatures and emissivities. It also doesn't apply to molecules and diffuse gases.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Stefan-Boltzmann does not apply to a heterogeneous system with different temperatures and emissivities. It also doesn't apply to molecules and diffuse gases.

Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all bodies, including all their molecules and all their diffuse gases.