Remember me
▼ Content

2nd law



Page 3 of 3<123
23-02-2020 11:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7581)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:I gave you the correct answer.
To what? when? I never saw an answer for any thermodynamic problem from you. In, well, ever.


Great. Let's review:

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
So did I get the correct result for all three scenarios? Why is that so hard for you to answer?

You did not answer the problem. I needed to see the correct final answer which is your observation that thermal energy only flows in one direction. This problem did not involve showing your work for extra credit.

... so lets get some numbers on the table. Do you not know how to solve for your own scenario?

I see why you chose art over a technical field. Didn't I just give you the correct answer? (hint: yes)

Answer to what?

Refresh my memory. What were we talking about?

I don't know what you were talking about. I'll say again thermodynamics is an applied science.

Yes, I gave you the correct answer to that.

no clue what you are talking about.

Refresh my memory then. What were we talking about?

I don't know what you were talking about. I'll say again thermodynamics is an applied science. Real answers, in watts, can and should be calculated.

The correct answer is not in Watts. I gave you the correct answer.


This is the point where you prove that I'm handing you a bunch of BS by providing a repeatable example of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer.

I'm standing by.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-02-2020 11:30
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3512)
IBdaMann wrote:
I needed to see the correct final answer which is your observation that thermal energy only flows in one direction. This problem did not involve showing your work for extra credit.....
This is the point where you prove that I'm handing you a bunch of BS by providing a repeatable example of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer.

IBD you have invented this statement all your own:
"that thermal energy only flows in one direction"

I never said anything about "flowing". You have your own, unique and personal definition for the word "flow" and I'm still not sure what that is.

What I can tell you is that the answers to those setups are:
A: Room is 18C the ball loses thermal energy to the room at 0.1206 Watts
B: Room is 30C the ball loses thermal energy to the room at 0.0632 Watts
C: Room is 42C there is not change in the thermal energy of the ball or the room

And that you can't get those, correct, results without calculating the absorption of radiance by a warmer object, the ball, from a cooler object, the room.

I can also tell you that this:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
2) what the photons actually do is governed more by uncertainty than by any science that predicts what will happen. Like I said before, photons can deflect, do back-flips, take selfies and interact in any way other than being absorbed.
Is total crap, entirely false, and you're dead wrong.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
23-02-2020 19:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantras 2...29...25f...30...31...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
23-02-2020 23:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7581)
tmiddles wrote:Is total crap, entirely false, and you're dead wrong.

Still waiting for the repeatable example that shoves it in my face. I'm still standing by.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-02-2020 03:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3512)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Is total crap, entirely false, and you're dead wrong.

Still waiting for the repeatable example that shoves it in my face. I'm still standing by.

So first of all it's not your own made up standard with custom defintions for words.

This is PURE IBD and I have nothing to do with it. Your own truly unique definitions for words can have this statement I have no interest in it:
a repeatable example of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer.

Here are two examples that shove the following in you face, this is MY assertion:
"Radiance from a cooler object is absorbed by a warmer one":
From your own scenario (for which you have no solutions so far).
A: Room is 18C the ball loses thermal energy to the room at 0.1206 Watts
B: Room is 30C the ball loses thermal energy to the room at 0.0632 Watts
C: Room is 42C there is not change in the thermal energy of the ball or the room
If the ball were not absorbing radiance from the room then A and B would show the same loss.

And my favorite:
net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference Oh and how about this IBD. Take this example and we'll make it a murder mystery. We shoot the person dead in the room and then calculate the thermodynamics. Can you do that? I know you've said living things make it too complicated. Plus this is an actual part of detective work. The body temperature giving some indication how long a person has been dead. Hey some fun and exciting applied science!

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 24-02-2020 04:04
24-02-2020 20:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Is total crap, entirely false, and you're dead wrong.

Still waiting for the repeatable example that shoves it in my face. I'm still standing by.

...deleted Mantra 4b...22...25f...33...20a2...

No response argument. Evasion. No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
24-02-2020 22:37
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3512)
IBD has no response to my post I think?

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted
Mantra 4b:https://politiplex.freeforums.net/post/134 (I've added your comments from the other thread.)
22: Void Argument :
No clue what you mean when you say this ITN. Ironically it is a "void argument".

25f:Math Error,Contrivance as Proof :
Are you implying that it's not possible to do a problem on paper? If you are take it up with IBD it was his scenario I solved for.

33:Erroneously Declaring a Theory to be Science :
I defintely did not say anything was "science" at any point. Totally baseless

20a2:Science Denial, Violation of Thermodynamics :
Now see here is where you need to actually make an argument. Assuming you're correct without supporting your position is simply to dodge the debate.
No response argument. Evasion. No argument presented...Lie.
* You presented a contrived example as a proof.
So the first scenario is IBD's, not mine. And there is nothing wrong with a hypothetical example. Are you willing to debate the thermodynamics of dead bodies? You better bet I can get data on that from real crimes.
* You are also still ignoring the different between electromagnetic energy and thermal energy. They are different.
No I'm not. When EM is absorbed it's converted to thermal. How am I confusing things?
* You are also still assuming all photons are the same. They are not.
So what. A perfect black body absorbs everything and a known emissivity allows you to calculate the percentage absorbed. Right?
* You are also assuming that a photon must be absorbed. They do not.
See the answer above. Of course with emissivities <1 some photons are reflected.
* You are still ignoring the difference between temperature and thermal energy. They are different.
How am I? How does that apply here?
* You are still ignoring quantum physics. No atom or molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the atom or molecule already has.
See here you are assuming your position is correct without debating. I'm not sure what you mean by that exactly but are you saying my calculations are wrong? Did I get the wrong results in terms of the change in thermal energy?
* There is no such thing as 'net heat'.
How about you actually debate this issue with me? I never say "net heat" only you say that. You and IBD love to play that game.

ITN: Do you or do you not disagree with the following:
"Radiance from a cooler object is absorbed by a warmer one"

ITN: Are you willing to debate, with calculations, the thermal energy changes for a dead human body in a room?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 24-02-2020 22:41
24-02-2020 23:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
tmiddles wrote:
IBD has no response to my post I think?
...deleted Mantras 2...29...17...15...17...25f...lie...29...4b...When EM is absorbed it's converted to thermal.
...deleted Mantra 29...20b...2...25f...10 (calculation<->statement)...lie...29...20a2...29...25f...6...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
24-02-2020 23:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7581)
tmiddles wrote: IBD has no response to my post I think?

I'm just annoyed at your EVASION. It's not possible to hold a discussion with you.


tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote: You are also still ignoring the different between electromagnetic energy and thermal energy. They are different.
No I'm not.

Yes you are. You are locked in permanent conflation mode. You cannot discuss thermal energy for a minute without hijacking the discussion to one of electromagnetic energy.

tmiddles wrote: When EM is absorbed it's converted to thermal. How am I confusing things?

What happens when a photon is not absorbed?

tmiddles wrote:t. You and IBD love to play that game.

What game is that?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-02-2020 01:28
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3512)
Into the Night wrote:
...No argument presented...
tmiddles wrote:
ITN: Are you willing to debate, with calculations, the thermal energy changes for a dead human body in a room?
And you ignored my rebuttals.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: IBD has no response to my post I think?
I'm just annoyed at your EVASION.
I have responded to you directly. What is evasive about the 3 following responses to your query?:
tmiddles wrote:...this is MY assertion:
1:-My assertion is:
"Radiance from a cooler object is absorbed by a warmer one":
2:-From your own scenario ...If the ball were not absorbing radiance from the room then A and B would show the same loss.
3:-
net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference ...person dead in the room and then calculate the thermodynamics. Can you do that?

IBdaMann wrote:You are locked in permanent conflation mode.
Then let's leave the semantic world and do a real problem. Let's get the right result, check out answers, and then quibble about wording. This is applied knowledge we are discussing.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: When EM is absorbed it's converted to thermal. How am I confusing things?

What happens when a photon is not absorbed?
It's usually reflected, sometimes transmitted (passes right through). Those are the ONLY 3 options for EM when it encounters matter:
1- Absorbed
2- Reflected
3- Transmitted

There is not a 4th option. One of those 3 is happening.

IBdaMann wrote:?
tmiddles wrote:t. You and IBD love to play that game.
What game is that?
Misreprensting/Strawmanning. I say:
"Radiance from a cooler object is absorbed by a warmer one"
You change it to:
thermal energy "flowing"(IBD custom definition for the word) from cooler to warmer.
And ITN provides a rebuttal to a statement I never made:
There is no such thing as 'net heat'.
I did not say "there is net heat". He then says RQAA ever after even though he never resonded to anything I said.

So again IBD: Are you willing to debate, with calculations, the thermal energy changes for a dead human body in a room?

I'm going to guess not. Since you will be proven wrong.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 25-02-2020 01:30
25-02-2020 03:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
...No argument presented...
tmiddles wrote:
ITN: Are you willing to debate, with calculations, the thermal energy changes for a dead human body in a room?
And you ignored my rebuttals.

You didn't make any. Mantra 10 (contrived data<->rebuttal).
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: IBD has no response to my post I think?
I'm just annoyed at your EVASION.
I have responded to you directly. What is evasive about the 3 following responses to your query?

Lie. Evasion.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: When EM is absorbed it's converted to thermal. How am I confusing things?

What happens when a photon is not absorbed?
It's usually reflected, sometimes transmitted (passes right through). Those are the ONLY 3 options for EM when it encounters matter:
1- Absorbed
2- Reflected
3- Transmitted

There is not a 4th option. One of those 3 is happening.

Absorption does not necessarily result in thermal energy. If a photon is not absorbed, it is usually reflected away again.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:?
tmiddles wrote:t. You and IBD love to play that game.
What game is that?
Misreprensting/Strawmanning. I say:
"Radiance from a cooler object is absorbed by a warmer one"
You change it to:
thermal energy "flowing"(IBD custom definition for the word) from cooler to warmer.
And ITN provides a rebuttal to a statement I never made:
There is no such thing as 'net heat'.
I did not say "there is net heat". He then says RQAA ever after even though he never responded to anything I said.

RQAA. There is no such thing as 'net heat'. You cannot reduce entropy in any system.
tmiddles wrote:
So again IBD: Are you willing to debate, with calculations, the thermal energy changes for a dead human body in a room?

I'm going to guess not. Since you will be proven wrong.


Mantra 6...25f...7


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
25-02-2020 03:27
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3512)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...you ignored my rebuttals.

You didn't make any...
Here, again:
25f:Math Error,Contrivance as Proof :
Are you implying that it's not possible to do a problem on paper? If you are take it up with IBD it was his scenario I solved for.
33:Erroneously Declaring a Theory to be Science :
I defintely did not say anything was "science" at any point. Totally baseless
* You are also still ignoring the different between electromagnetic energy and thermal energy. They are different.
No I'm not. When EM is absorbed it's converted to thermal. How am I confusing things?
* You are also still assuming all photons are the same. They are not.
So what. A perfect black body absorbs everything and a known emissivity allows you to calculate the percentage absorbed. Right?
* You are still ignoring the difference between temperature and thermal energy. They are different.
How am I? How does that apply here?
* You are still ignoring quantum physics. No atom or molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the atom or molecule already has.
See here you are assuming your position is correct without debating. I'm not sure what you mean by that exactly but are you saying my calculations are wrong? Did I get the wrong results in terms of the change in thermal energy?

Into the Night wrote:Absorption does not necessarily result in thermal energy.
What other option is there? You talking about photosynthesis?

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
And ITN provides a rebuttal to a statement I never made:
There is no such thing as 'net heat'.
I did not say "there is net heat". He then says RQAA ever after even though he never responded to anything I said.

RQAA. There is no such thing as 'net heat'.
So you just did it again. Who are you responding to? Because it's not me.

Still, no questions answered and no rebuttals responded to.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
25-02-2020 04:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantras 15...25f...15...25f...25k...
Into the Night wrote:Absorption does not necessarily result in thermal energy.
What other option is there? You talking about photosynthesis?
...deleted Mantras 2...lie...29...30...TMSa7...


Absorption of visible light generally causes chemical reactions (such as photosynthesis). Absorption of UV light causes chemical reactions (such as the oxygen<->ozone reactions).
Absorption of X-rays causes direct ionization or chemical reactions.
Absorption of infrared light results in conversion to thermal energy.
Absorption of lower frequencies result in displacement of electrostatic charges.

* no molecule or atom will absorb a photon of less energy than the atom or molecule already has.

You have already asked this question. I am answering it yet again for you.

Stop evading IBdaMann. He asked you to provide an example of heat flowing from cold to hot. Answer his question or admit that you have no such example.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
25-02-2020 10:46
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3512)
Into the Night wrote:
Absorption of visible light ...photosynthesis...UV ... chemical reactions ...infrared ... thermal energy.
interesting. Good point.

You've still ignored my rebuttals above.

Into the Night wrote:
... IBdaMann. He asked you to provide an example of heat flowing from cold to hot. Answer his question or admit that you have no such example.
That statement has nothing to do with me. IBD made it up, not me.

I have provide examples of my claim that:
"Radiance from a cooler object is absorbed by a warmer one" which you continue to ignore.

Into the Night wrote:
* no molecule or atom will absorb a photon of less energy than the atom or molecule already has..
OK, maybe. But you aren't confused into thinking that makes my claim false are you?
That's a question to you ITN.

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
...There is no such thing as 'net heat'.
So you just did it again. Who are you responding to? Because it's not me.
So why do you keep talking about "net heat" when I never do?

So are you willing to test your concept of how thermodynamics works against my own ITN? The cooling of a recently deceased human in a room that is cooler than the body. Yes or No?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
25-02-2020 19:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Absorption of visible light ...photosynthesis...UV ... chemical reactions ...infrared ... thermal energy.
interesting. Good point.
...deleted Mantras 22...25f...20a2...2...20a2...29...


At least you finally accept this.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
25-02-2020 23:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7581)
tmiddles wrote: That statement has nothing to do with me. IBD made it up, not me.

You most certainly ARE claiming that SOME thermal energy in a cooler object flows to a warmer object, and you further elaborate that the vehicle for this flow is electromagnetic energy which you guarantee is absorbed. Your definition of "absorbed" is "converts to thermal energy" as the final step in the flow of thermal energy from cooler to warmer, i.e.

tmiddles wrote:I have provide examples of my claim that:
"Radiance from a cooler object is absorbed by a warmer one"


So, are you backpedaling from your argument?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-02-2020 00:03
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3512)
Into the Night wrote:
At least you finally accept this.
I was well aware of photosynthesis and the general idea that not all absorption was thermal, you presented a nice break down.

Too bad you've ignored everything else I wrote.

...you aren't confused into thinking that makes my claim false are you?
That's a question to you ITN.

So are you willing to test your concept of how thermodynamics works against my own ITN? The cooling of a recently deceased human in a room that is cooler than the body. Yes or No?

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: That statement has nothing to do with me. IBD made it up, not me.
You most certainly ARE claiming that SOME thermal energy...
tmiddles wrote:I have provide examples of my claim that:
"Radiance from a cooler object is absorbed by a warmer one"
So, are you backpedaling from your argument?
Your attempt to inject your own wording, with custom definitions unique to you, and present it as my statement is a joke.

My statement in green above is what I claim. YES I am claiming that warmer objects "Gain" thermal energy from the radiance absorbed from cooler objects. NO this does not mean their total quantity of thermal energy necessarily increases as a result as losses may be greater than gains, or equal.

I have presented several examples and you refuse to debate them. Why is that? Why not take on the challenge of applying this to a scenario?

Why not do the murdered body in a room calculation and see if we get the same answers? See if the method of solving the problem makes sense. Thermodynamics is an applied science. So let's apply it!


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 26-02-2020 00:05
26-02-2020 03:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
At least you finally accept this.
I was well aware of photosynthesis and the general idea that not all absorption was thermal, you presented a nice break down.

Too bad you've ignored everything else I wrote.
...deleted repetitious post...


No argument presented. RQAA


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
26-02-2020 03:26
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3512)
Into the Night wrote: RQAA
So are you willing to test your concept of how thermodynamics works against my own ITN? The cooling of a recently deceased human in a room that is cooler than the body. Yes or No?


Edited on 26-02-2020 03:28
26-02-2020 03:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantras 6...20a2...20b...29...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
26-02-2020 03:53
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3512)
Into the Night wrote:
No...
No backbone presented.
26-02-2020 04:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7581)
tmiddles wrote: YES I am claiming that warmer objects "Gain" thermal energy from the radiance absorbed from cooler objects.

Then you are flat out lying when you say that you somehow do NOT claim that SOME thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer.

Let me know when something changes, like you deciding to be honest.

tmiddles wrote: NO this does not mean their total quantity of thermal energy necessarily increases as a result as losses may be greater than gains, or equal.

An immaterial distraction. You are claiming that SOME thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer; it's the component of your "net flow" argument that violates the 2nd LoT.

It sounds like you want to duck out of this argument. Feel free.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-02-2020 04:55
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3512)
IBdaMann wrote:...thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer...
Whatever IBD. You have your own personal definition for words like "flow", I don't know, and don't care. I have given you my claim.

How about this! Let's APPLY this applied science and see who's right?

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: NO this does not mean their total quantity of thermal energy necessarily increases as a result as losses may be greater than gains, or equal.

An immaterial distraction. You are claiming that SOME thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer; it's the component of your "net flow" argument that violates the 2nd LoT.
OK great we have a clarified disagreement in your head at least (I honestly am not sure what you're saying). But we can clear all of this up by doing a problem and leaving the world of semantic quibling. I say "NET THERMAL RADIATION" but who cares what words we choose to use. You either get it or you don't and the answers aren't in English they are in watts/joules/time.

Why won't you do a real calculation against empirical data and we will see who is right? Maybe we both are and it really is semantics.

Why won't you agree to that? What's the issue?

I propose we calculate the temperature change of human body that had just died and compare it to the raw data obtained from such a scenario. We can use real measurements to check our math. If one or both of us is wrong in our approach it will not match.

I will freely admit I was wrong when my approach fails.

I do believe it was very well said:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman

How about it IBD? Up to the challenge?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
26-02-2020 05:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7581)
tmiddles wrote: Why won't you do a real calculation against empirical data and we will see who is right?

... because you refuse to provide a repeatable example by which we can gather empirical data.

Still waiting.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-02-2020 05:42
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3512)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Why won't you do a real calculation against empirical data and we will see who is right?
... because you refuse to provide a repeatable example by which we can gather empirical data.
Still waiting.
Ah the famously never defined IBD fake standard. People dying isn't repeatable?

And wait "we can gather empirical data." Let me guess you're adding new rules. You have to measure and gather the data personally?

Why is it that doing the thermodynamics on a dead body as a test isn't worthwhile? Other than that it will prove you wrong that is.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 26-02-2020 05:43
26-02-2020 20:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Why won't you do a real calculation against empirical data and we will see who is right?
... because you refuse to provide a repeatable example by which we can gather empirical data.
Still waiting.
...deleted evasion...Mantras 16...15...


Answer the question, or admit you can't.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
26-02-2020 22:07
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3512)
Into the Night wrote:Answer the question, or admit you can't.
I have why do you pretend I said nothing? People die all the time. Criminal forensics has detailed measurements on the temperature change of the body relative to the room. This happens all the time.

How is people dying not a repeatable example of cooling?

Neither of you ever explained how people being alive in a room is not a repeatable example of thermodynamics. IBD making an unsupported claim that it's impossible to calculate the thermodynamics when a living thing is involved (total BS).

ANY EXAMPLE AT ALL WILL PROVE YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT NET RADIANCE

Actually neither of you have ever even explained what you mean when you say "repeatable example". It's a fake made up standard designed to give you, what you view as an exit from the debate.

You're just running away, both of you. It's pathetic.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 26-02-2020 22:09
26-02-2020 22:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Answer the question, or admit you can't.
...deleted lie...evasion...16...15...31...20b...29...7...22...8...24...26...29...7...17...

No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 26-02-2020 22:21
26-02-2020 22:23
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3512)
Into the Night wrote: RQAA.
Why don't you answer my question ITN? And no Mr. RQAA, you never have.
26-02-2020 23:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 29...30...

No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-02-2020 05:50
One Punch ManProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(134)
A few interesting quotes reegarding the 2nd law and the climate change debate that I thought some here might appreciate:

I am becoming alarmed though to see that the idea of the greenhouse theory being fundamentally flawed in principle has been creeping into some of the comments here as an assertion that has not been questioned – or at least, not very hard – up to now. This is not consistent with scientific rigour in my view. We should be sceptical towards all novel scientific propositions, not just to the ones that we already disagree with for whatever reasons.

To the best of my knowledge the basic principle of the greenhouse effect is well-founded in conventional physics. As most readers will already know, the idea is that so-called 'greenhouse gases' in the atmosphere absorb radiant energy emanating from the earth's surface and then some of this absorbed energy is returned to the surface whereby the surface is warmed. However, the processes whereby this recycling of absorbed energy is supposed to occur have not been specified completely and so there is plenty of room for discussion and debate about them.

The fact that some such recycling processes must exist is demanded by the well-tested observation that the earth is only receiving enough energy from the sun (the only appreciable heat-source in the earth's spatial environment) to maintain its surface-temperature at about –18°C, whereas its observed actual temperature is about +15°C. So where has the heat needed to warm the surface by 33°C come from? The greenhouse theory proposes that it can only come from the surface itself originally in the form of recycled energy. This seems logical when you consider that we have already ruled out the possibility of the sun being the energy-source and that the earth's surface is the only other radiant body that could serve as one.

Having accepted this basic principle of the greenhouse effect, climate science then has the job of identifying and quantifying the various processes that are involved. This task is still incomplete because the earth's climate system is extremely complex and climate science is still in its infancy and unable to measure and test many of the possible variables and factors that could be involved. However, there is no obvious reason why any of these greenhouse processes should violate basic laws of physics such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Energy-recycling happens naturally in many different circumstances and situations and it never breaks the 2nd law. Also most internal combustion engines are now designed to utilise energy-recycling as a means of enhancing efficiency and no violations of the 2nd law are known to take place in them either. So why should we believe that any such violations are needed to explain the recycling of energy in the earth's climate system? I can see no reason for that.

The suggestion has been made in the Comments here that greenhouse gases actually have a cooling effect on the earth's surface instead of a warming one. If that was so then, in the absence of an alternative heat-source to the sun and the earth's surface, I imagine that the earth's surface would be colder than its mean black body temperature of -18°C instead of warmer than that as we actually find it to be. The idea that such an alternative heat-source is provided by the atmospheric adiabatic lapse is false in my view because that is not an energy-source. It is only a mechanism for distributing energy in alignment with the earth's gravitational field.

The adiabatic lapse is undoubtedly one of the main, or perhaps the main method by which energy that has been absorbed by greenhouse gases is recycled back to the surface. But it can only recycle energy that has first been absorbed in this way and without the greenhouse gases being present to absorb the radiation no such energy-redistribution could occur. The absorption of surface radiance by the greenhouse gases causes warming of the local atmosphere, which increases the local atmospheric pressure, which the adiabatic lapse then transfers back to the surface by purely mechanical action to produce warming at the surface in accordance with Boyle's law. And no violations of the 2nd law of thermodynamics would seem to occur in this process either.

To summarise then, I can see no logical reason to doubt the basic theory of the greenhouse effect that is consistent with the accepted laws and principles of modern physics. At that fundamental level of principle, the theory appears scientifically sound to me. It is only over the detailed ramifications of the fundamental theory that I find reasons to take issue with the alarmists.


To answer your question though, yes, I am saying that according to the long-accepted laws of physics back-radiation can re-warm the surface. The principle at work here is the same as that used in a metal-foil survival-blanket when applied to a striken mountaineer or some other accident-victim. Such a blanket is especially efficient at warming a person's body precisely because it reflects the IR-radiation being emitted by the body back to it as well as having the normal blanket-effect of trapping the air surrounding the body that it has already warmed up, so resisting heat-loss.

As far as I can see the basic concept of the greenhouse-effect is sound and is well-supported by the accepted laws of physics. However, the warmists appear to have built an edifice of irrational thought upon that secure conceptual foundation that is in conflict with the accepted laws of physics and it is that illusory superstructure of half-baked, 'the sky is falling'-hysteria that I think we need to demolish. It is not necessary to destroy the foundation on which this false edifice has been erected. We just need to destroy the edifice and that is what we have been doing so far.


I am grateful for all your information and instruction about lapse rates and heat transfers across boundary layers in the atmosphere, but I still don't see how what I said in my post is wrong. The back-radiation from CO2 may be too slight to be detectable in practice, but surely it must still exist in theory, perhaps in the same way that the shifting of the Earth's centre of gravity whenever I lift a cup of tea to my lips may be too slight to be detected but is still demanded by the theoretical laws of mechanics.

The absorption of radiation by a medium through which it passes is governed by the Beer-Lambert law and that is an inverse-exponential law, which implies that the weakest radiance in the universe cannot be absorbed totally and absolutely and that some will always be left over to continue its never-ending journey to infinity. So in theory there is no question of all of the back-radiation from CO2 being re-absorbed by the atmosphere within a few metres or within any finite distance in fact. If there is just one molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere the theoretical laws of physics demand that it be an absorber of radiant energy emanating from the Earth's surface on certain specific wavelengths and that it be a re-emitter of that absorbed energy in all directions too, downwards as well as upwards. I have seen no arguments against this principle from anyone to date. Miskolczi's lapse rates may explain the distribution of energies within the atmosphere but I do not see how they refute the fundamental theoretical principles of absorption and emission of radiation by CO2 and that is what they would have to do to refute the greenhouse principle.

As far as I can see the greenhouse effect is also perfectly concordant with the 2nd law of thermodynamics in principle and I can see no grounds for anyone's claiming that it is not.


I am grateful for all your information and instruction about lapse rates and heat transfers across boundary layers in the atmosphere, but I still don't see how what I said in my post is wrong. The back-radiation from CO2 may be too slight to be detectable in practice, but surely it must still exist in theory, perhaps in the same way that the shifting of the Earth's centre of gravity whenever I lift a cup of tea to my lips may be too slight to be detected but is still demanded by the theoretical laws of mechanics.

The absorption of radiation by a medium through which it passes is governed by the Beer-Lambert law and that is an inverse-exponential law, which implies that the weakest radiance in the universe cannot be absorbed totally and absolutely and that some will always be left over to continue its never-ending journey to infinity. So in theory there is no question of all of the back-radiation from CO2 being re-absorbed by the atmosphere within a few metres or within any finite distance in fact. If there is just one molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere the theoretical laws of physics demand that it be an absorber of radiant energy emanating from the Earth's surface on certain specific wavelengths and that it be a re-emitter of that absorbed energy in all directions too, downwards as well as upwards. I have seen no arguments against this principle from anyone to date. Miskolczi's lapse rates may explain the distribution of energies within the atmosphere but I do not see how they refute the fundamental theoretical principles of absorption and emission of radiation by CO2 and that is what they would have to do to refute the greenhouse principle.

As far as I can see the greenhouse effect is also perfectly concordant with the 2nd law of thermodynamics in principle and I can see no grounds for anyone's claiming that it is not.

I was interested by your mention of your association with Edwin Land. A remarkable man to be sure! Did you do any work with him on his experiments with colour-vision? I was amazed at his discovery of a holographic laser-technique for obtaining the full spectrum of colours from two closely adjacent wavelengths in the spectrum of visible light.


Surely it does both. The blanket acts as a barrier to prevent warm air surrounding the person's body from being lost and by its recycling the body's radiation back to it the energy of that radiation warms the body. Where does the energy of that returning radiation go if not into warming the body?

Your picture of the chicken being roasted by its own reflected heat-radiation is perhaps a more uselful analogy, albeit an absurd one that I admit is funny. I think the reason why it is absurd is because the dead chicken is not a constant source of radiant energy. The chicken and the oven constitute a closed system so when the chicken transmits radiant energy to the oven-walls it loses that amount of energy from its carcass and its temperature drops accordingly. When the radiation bounces back to it off the oven-walls it regains that same energy that it had lost and its temperature is restored to what it was originally. So the chicken undergoes no overall change of temperature at the end of the cycle. Ergo it doesn't get any hotter and cannot cook itself.

However, the situation would be quite different if the chicken inside the oven was alive because there the chemical energy released by its metabolism would constitute a continuous source of fresh heat to its body and as its body radiated that heat away and out to the oven-walls, the initial temperature-drop that would otherwise have occurred in the case of the dead chicken does not occur now because the live chicken's store of internal heat is replenished by its metabolism. The live chicken has got a problem because the radiation that it gives off gets reflected off of the oven-walls and comes back to it, thereby warming it up. So its temperature is increased at the end of each cycle and it will keep on going up and up so long as it stays alive and keeps generating new heat.

Likewise an IR-reflective survival blanket will warm up a live person but not a dead one for the same reason that a live person's metabolism is a constant source of orginal, new heat-energy.


Whoever gave that statement of the law as applying to open systems as well as closed ones has not understood the laws of thermodynamics. The difference between the two types is fundamental. A thermodynamically open system either receives energy from its environment or it discharges energy to its environment or it does both. On the other hand, a thermodynamically closed system does none of those things and the total amount of energy contained inside it remains constant. Hence the law has different implications for the two types of system.

The 'solid' Earth and its atmosphere constitute together an open system receiving radiant energy from the Sun and discharging radiant energy to space continuously to maintain a state of dynamic equilibrium. Therefore the statement of the law that you have quoted does not apply to it. Let me illustrate what happens mathematically.

Suppose the Earth was a barren, coal-black planet without any atmosphere at all and the Sun was delivering radiation to its surface at the constant global mean rate of i W/m2. Under the action of the Sun's warming rays, the planet would warm up to a certain temperature, at which point it would be discharging radiation to space at the same rate as it was receiving it from the Sun, ie. i W/m2.

Now, suppose the Vogon Destructor Fleet passes by and decides to dump all of its collosal stores of CO2-waste onto poor, unsuspecting planet Earth, thereby giving it a substantial CO2 atmosphere, which immediately starts absorbing some of the radiation being emitted from the surface and thereby preventing it from passing out to space.

As the Earth's new CO2 atmosphere warms up due to the radiation it has received from the surface it starts to radiate its acquired heat in all directions, some going out into space and some going back down to the planet's surface. As it continues to warm, the amount of radiation that it is emitting in all directions increases and so the amount that it is radiating back to the surface increases accordingly. The situation stabilises when the total amount of radiation emitted from the top of the atmosphere equals the total incoming radiation from the Sun again, ie. when they are both i W/m2.

But that is the balance of energy-flows at the top of the atmosphere. Down on the surface a different balance has been struck because now the surface is receiving a steady stream of back-radiation from the CO2-atmosphere above it in addition to the i W/m2 that it has been receiving from the Sun from the beginning. Let us call the intensity of this back-radiation j (in W/m2 as with i). Now the surface is receiving (i + j) and, because it is completely black at all wavelengths, it is absorbing it too. This new input of back-radiation to the earth's surface will have caused the temperature of the surface to rise until it is emitting radiation at the same rate as it is receiving it, ie. (i + j) W/m2. Hence global warming at the surface will have occurred.

So the inputs and outputs at the surface are in perfect balance, where the inputs consist of i from the Sun and j from the atmosphere, while the output consists of (i + j) to the atmosphere. And if we examine the inputs and outputs in the atmosphere we find that they are in perfect balance too. There the inputs consist of (i + j) from the surface and the outputs consist of i to space and j back down to the surface.

So all is in balance and the greenhouse effect makes the surface warmer than it otherwise would be by recycling some of the energy emanating from the surface. (The picture is over-simplified in fact because it takes no account of the absorption of incoming solar radiation by the CO2 atmosphere, but we can treat that as negligible here since we are just considering the basic principle of the greenhouse effect at the moment.) No thermodynamic laws have been contravened and the physical laws of radiation have been obeyed to the letter. So it works – in principle.

However, when we try to apply this simple theoretical principle to the real Earth we immediately encounter intractable complications and problems because the Earth's real surface and its real atmosphere are both highly complex sub-systems of the complete climate system. The Earth's atmosphere consists of a number of gases besides CO2, as well as particulates and aerosols, all of which interfere with, and reduce the atmospheric CO2's ability to absorb and back-radiate the surface radiance. And the surface is also complex, consisting of land, water and ice which all have different absorptive and radiative properties. In general though, we may see that the land is the most immediately responsive temperature-wise to changes in the intensity of downwelling radiation and water is the least responsive because of its enormous latent heat of vaporization and because of the oceans' sheer depth which enables them to absorb virtually any amount of radiation falling upon them without warming appreciably. And then there is convection and conduction to consider.

If we examine these complications in the atmosphere and at the surface one by one, we find that most of them act in such a way as to reduce the greenhouse effect from CO2 that would otherwise be produced from a pure CO2 atmosphere acting on a desert-planet with a pure-black surface. This is another way of saying that most of the feedbacks to the greenhouse effect appear to be negative and the few positive ones are overwhelmed by the negative ones, especially by that from water. So although the CO2 greenhouse effect does work in principle in the real Earth's climate system, in actuality it appears to be overwhelmed by the negative feedbacks so that its actual effect in terms of warming the surface is utterly negligible.



Nathan-D
Edited on 27-02-2020 06:01
27-02-2020 06:37
Bode
☆☆☆☆☆
(21)
Please use the correct math to satisfy your own model
(i-j) not (j+i)....where i/2=i-i/2

For n layer model where n=1 power out j is reduced by
j=i/(n+1)
j=i/2
27-02-2020 06:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3512)
One Punch Man wrote:
A few interesting quotes
This is good stuff I'd be interested to know where you got it.
...the well-tested observation that the earth is only receiving ... –18 degC, whereas its observed actual temperature is about +15 degC. So where has the heat needed to warm the surface by 33 degC come from?
A frequent quibble is the claim that the temperature of the Earth can't be known with enough precision to make the 33 degree difference reliable. While this is absurd many other objections rest on the impossibility of additional thermal energy overall, or that "it can't do much". All of this makes Venus an excellent example to refer to in settling some of these scores: venus-is-hotter

Estimated at 462C at ground level while the equilibirum temperature is estimated at -46C, the ground level of Venus is a full 508 degrees hotter than it would be without an atmosphere. This makes Venus a great example to anyone who wants to stop a debate on margin of error grounds.

Whoever gave that statement of the law as applying to open systems as well as closed ones has not understood the laws of thermodynamics.
Keepit made this excellent point here: open-vs-closed-2nd-law

The situation stabilises when the total amount of radiation emitted from the top of the atmosphere equals the total incoming radiation from the Sun again, ie. when they are both i W/m2.
Well described. I don't like using "surface" for "Ground level" because the point well made here is that the emitting surface of the planet, the last hand to touch the ball before it heads off into space, is often not the ground level.

Down on the surface a different balance has been struck
Again the truth of this is well shown on Venus.

If we examine these complications in the atmosphere and at the surface one by one, we find...
And this is where the debate belongs: Sorting out, as best we can, what is really going on in Earth's atmosphere.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 27-02-2020 06:42
27-02-2020 16:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7581)
One Punch Man quoted: I am becoming alarmed though to see that the idea of the greenhouse theory being fundamentally flawed in principle has been creeping into some of the comments here as an assertion that has not been questioned – or at least, not very hard – up to now.

Too funny. No falsifiable model of Greenhouse Effect here either. He might as well have written that he was becoming alarmed to see that the idea of the existence of God being fundamentally flawed in principle. We're in for some religious dogma and nothing more.

One Punch Man quoted: This is not consistent with scientific rigour in my view.

Too funny! He says that it is not consistent with objective science ... IN HIS OPINION!

One Punch Man quoted: We should be sceptical towards all [opposing religions], not just to the ones that we already disagree with for whatever reasons.


One Punch Man quoted: To the best of my knowledge the basic principle of the greenhouse effect is well-founded in conventional physics.

... and the best of his knowledge lacks any understanding of what Greenhouse Effect is, in any formal sense. It's just a religious dogma that he believes [hopes] has some science attached to it, but won't actually look into for fear of discovering that there is no science supporting his religious belief.

One Punch Man quoted:As most readers will already know, the idea is that so-called 'greenhouse gases' in the atmosphere absorb radiant energy emanating from the earth's surface and then some of this absorbed energy is returned to the surface whereby the surface is warmed. However, the processes whereby this recycling of absorbed energy is supposed to occur have not been specified completely and so there is plenty of room for discussion and debate about them.

Except that there is never room for discussing how the average temperature supposedly increases. The religious dogma specifies a temperature increase of 33°C which requires additional energy to be created, an obvious violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics ... so discussion is not allowed to "go there."

One Punch Man quoted: The fact that some such recycling processes must exist is demanded by the well-tested observation that the earth is only receiving enough energy from the sun (the only appreciable heat-source in the earth's spatial environment) to maintain its surface-temperature at about –18°C, ...

This number is completely fabricated. No warmizombie is going to care.

One Punch Man quoted: ... whereas its observed actual temperature is about +15°C.

This number is completely fabricated, to make a certain religious dogma appear "real" and "active in our lives."

One Punch Man quoted: So where has the heat needed to warm the surface by 33°C come from?

Bogus data and an inappropriate argument by subjunctive.

One Punch Man quoted: The greenhouse theory proposes that it can only come from the surface itself originally in the form of recycled energy.

If energy is merely recycled then "cooling" exactly equals "warming" and average temperature cannot increase. But the religious dogma insists that average temperature increases, by 33°C requiring additional energy. Ergo, the word "recycled" is incorrect. The correct word is "created," i.e. in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

One Punch Man quoted: This seems logical when you consider that we have already ruled out the possibility of the sun being the energy-source and that the earth's surface is the only other radiant body that could serve as one.

Here you go. The root science denial is right here. Greenhouse Effect, whatever that might be, is considered an energy source that is creating energy. You read it right here. The sun and the earth's surface have been "ruled out" as the energy sources for the energy that increases the temperature by 33°C.

We're done.

Oh wait! There's more?

One Punch Man quoted: Having accepted this basic [violation] of the greenhouse effect, [religious consensus] then has the job of identifying and quantifying the various processes that are involved. This task is still incomplete because the earth's [undefined] climate system is extremely complex and [our religious consensus] is still in its [storming stage] and unable to measure and test many of the possible variables and factors that could be involved.

Obviously not talking about science since the author is taking great pains to explain how much exploratory research is yet to be done just to understand the potential domain. They are nowhere near the point of trying to develop science. They are in a state of religious awe and wonder.

One Punch Man quoted: However, there is no obvious reason why any of these greenhouse processes should violate basic laws of physics such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Well certainly not when they are busy violating the 1st law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

One Punch Man quoted: Energy-recycling happens naturally in many different circumstances and situations and it never breaks the 2nd law.

It also cannot increase average temperature which is insisted to occur.

One Punch Man quoted: So why should we believe that any such violations are needed to explain the recycling of energy in the earth's climate system?

Because you seem unable to unambiguously define the earth's Climate System in any way that doesn't violate physics.

One Punch Man quoted:I can see no reason for that.

These kinds of assertions are meaningless when coming from science deniers and from those who are otherwise scientifically illiterate.

One Punch Man quoted:The suggestion has been made in the Comments here that greenhouse gases actually have a cooling effect on the earth's surface instead of a warming one.

It isn't a mere suggestion that the earth's oceans do not boil away during the daytime like they would if there were no atmosphere to keep them cool/cold. Just look to the moon. Just ask tmiddles ... he is locked in full-fledged denial of this. DENIAL. He will tell you that the daytime surface of the earth is warmer than the daytime surface of the moon because the earth has an atmosphere which specifically warms the earth's surface. The moon's daytime temperatures exceed 240F (116C) with NO atmosphere.

One Punch Man quoted: If that was so then, in the absence of an alternative heat-source to the sun and the earth's surface, I imagine that the earth's surface would be colder than its mean black body temperature of -18°C instead of warmer than that as we actually find it to be.

Except that these "colder" temperatures only exist in your imagination whereby you are simply declaring what they "should" be. There is no subjunctive in science. The earth's temperatures are exactly as they "should" be.

One Punch Man quoted: It is only a mechanism for distributing energy in alignment with the earth's gravitational field.

You actually saw fit to post this as though it is science? You didn't even read this, did you?

One Punch Man quoted:The absorption of surface radiance by the greenhouse gases causes warming of the local atmosphere, which increases the local atmospheric pressure, which the adiabatic lapse then transfers back to the surface by purely mechanical action to produce warming at the surface in accordance with Boyle's law.

Nope. Boyle's law cannot create additional eneregy. You still have not explained the mechanism for obtaining the additional energy needed for the average temperature to actually increase.

One Punch Man quoted: And no violations of the 2nd law of thermodynamics would seem to occur in this process either.

Correct. Only the 1st law is still being violated.

One Punch Man quoted: To answer your question though, yes, I am saying that according to the long-accepted laws of physics back-radiation can re-warm the surface.

You need to explain how average temperature is increased. This requires additional energy.

One Punch Man quoted: The principle at work here is the same as that used in a metal-foil survival-blanket when applied to a striken mountaineer or some other accident-victim. Such a blanket is especially efficient at warming a person's body precisely because it reflects the IR-radiation being emitted by the body back to it as well as having the normal blanket-effect of trapping the air surrounding the body that it has already warmed up, so resisting heat-loss.

In this example, the heat source is INSIDE the bag, not outside the bag.

Let's alter this scenario. Let's say that you place the survival blanket over a rock that is sitting in the sun. When does the rock's temperature increase?

One Punch Man quoted: As far as I can see the basic concept of the greenhouse-effect is sound and is well-supported by the accepted laws of physics.

These kinds of assertions are meaningless when coming from science deniers and from those who are otherwise scientifically illiterate.

One Punch Man quoted:The back-radiation from CO2 may be too slight to be detectable in practice,

There is no "back radiation."

One Punch Man quoted: So in theory there is no question of all of the back-radiation from CO2 being re-absorbed by the atmosphere within a few metres or within any finite distance in fact.

There is no "back radiation."

One Punch Man quoted: As far as I can see the greenhouse effect is also perfectly concordant with the 2nd law of thermodynamics in principle and I can see no grounds for anyone's claiming that it is not.

Correct. Only the 1st law is still being violated.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-02-2020 20:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantras 4b...25f...31...25c...31...31...25f...25c..20a2...37c...11...29...


No arguments presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-02-2020 23:44
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3512)
IBdaMann wrote: No falsifiable model
Sure it is. In fact your arguments the greenhouse effect is impossible are falsified by what we've learned about Venus, which simply confirms what we are fairly certain of about Earth. All you got now is random doubt.

IBdaMann wrote:... and the best of his knowledge lacks any understanding of what Greenhouse Effect is, in any formal sense.
You keep skipping past the part where we KNOW, we KNOW!!! it's there. Venus leaves no boubt about it. Now you can talk about WHY it's happening but to pretend it's not is simply insane.

IBdaMann wrote: The religious dogma specifies a temperature increase of 33°C which requires additional energy to be created, an obvious violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics ... so discussion is not allowed to "go there."
You mean the discussion you're currently dodging? You've been debunked here and have no rebuttal. Because you're dead wrong. No magical nuclear reactor on Venus creating an additional 500 degrees!

IBdaMann wrote:
One Punch Man quoted: ... its surface-temperature at about –18°C, ...

This number is completely fabricated.
No that is a temperature based on the radiance we receive from the Sun. Pretend we can't measure that too. No one can stop you.

IBdaMann wrote:
One Punch Man quoted: ... whereas its observed actual temperature is about +15°C.

This number is completely fabricated,...
No it's an estimate and accurate enough to prove a greenhouse effect exists. Maybe not accurate enough to show a 1/4 degree shift. Oh and then there's Venus you've been dodging. 500 extra degrees IBD. But keep pretending.

IBdaMann wrote:If energy is merely recycled then "cooling" exactly equals "warming".....Greenhouse Effect, ...is considered an energy source that is creating energy....1st law is still being violated
You're still pretending Earth is an isolated system, it is not. You have been debunked here

IBdaMann wrote:
One Punch Man quoted: The principle at work here is the same as that used in a metal-foil survival-blanket when applied to a striken mountaineer ...

In this example, the heat source is INSIDE the bag, not outside the bag.
Let's alter this scenario. Let's say that you place the survival blanket over a rock that is sitting in the sun. When does the rock's temperature increase?
Hey I got a great example for you IBD. A GREENHOUSE!

IBdaMann wrote:
One Punch Man quoted:The back-radiation from CO2 may be too slight to be detectable in practice,
There is no "back radiation."
Did you say that as you waved your commemorative Harry Potter wand? Because you didn't make an argument. Radiance is back, forward and side to side. You see it goes in all directions.

IBdaMann wrote:Only the 1st law is still being violated.
And you are still debunked without a rebuttal: here

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
28-02-2020 00:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantras 31...20a2...25f...25c...25k...7...25f...25c...25k...32...25c...25k...25g...25k...25f...30...37c...25a...20a2...20a1...20b...20i...7...20a1...20a2...20b...33b...25k...20b...7...


Evasion. No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 28-02-2020 00:10
Page 3 of 3<123





Join the debate 2nd law:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
2nd Amendment102-10-2020 04:18
Brandolini's Law- Applicable to Climate Change Hoax028-06-2020 15:26
1st law, 2nd law, stefan boltzman, plank1711-06-2020 16:22
BREAKING NEWS! April 2020 - 2nd Warmest April on record.9705-06-2020 19:21
Open vs closed/ 2nd law5424-02-2020 22:09
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact