A "challenge" for you, IB and Into

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:"I don't have to actually support any of my assertions, because you're a close-minded religious warmizombie." Yeah, that'd really convince most people.

He's not the one who needs to convince anyone of anything. He's not the one trying to sell a WACKY religion as "thettled thience."

You keep trying to shift your burden of proof.


.

The point of a debate is that you support your position. A good way of doing this is to derive your point from laws, rules, facts, etc. A bad way of doing this is to insult your opponent and insist that they are idiots, and can't make a good argument, and that you are definitely right.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
The Sun isn't assumed to be unchanging, but it simplifies the equations and whatnot to make the input constant. Space is most definitely not unchanging. If I stuck another star next to the Sun, you'd have twice the radiation flowing through space. The result of the GHE is that there is less radiation in space.

You stuck another star next to the sun??? Where did you get the mass for THAT? Oh...wait...there IS NO STAR NEXT TO THE SUN!

jwoodward48 wrote:
Kirchhoff's only works on equal frequencies; if a body absorbs one wavelength of radiation and emits another, these need not be the same absorbance/emissivity.

An atom that absorbs a frequency will emit on the same frequency, if it emits at all (or on a lower frequency, if something sucks the energy out of the atom before it emits, if it does).

jwoodward48 wrote:
Besides, here's Kirchhoff's: "For a body of any arbitrary material emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature. That universal function describes the perfect black-body emissive power."

Note the two disclaimers. The second is the most important, as far as I can see; you are committing the fallacy of circular logic. To apply Kirchhoff's, you must assume or demonstrate that the body is in thermodynamic equilibrium; if you use Kirchhoff's to prove that the body must be in thermodynamic equilibrium, then no shit, Sherlock! You started with that assumption!

The Earth IS in thermal equilibrium. There is no other source of energy, and space does not change.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:"I don't have to actually support any of my assertions, because you're a close-minded religious warmizombie." Yeah, that'd really convince most people.

He's not the one who needs to convince anyone of anything. He's not the one trying to sell a WACKY religion as "thettled thience."

You keep trying to shift your burden of proof.


.

The point of a debate is that you support your position. A good way of doing this is to derive your point from laws, rules, facts, etc. A bad way of doing this is to insult your opponent and insist that they are idiots, and can't make a good argument, and that you are definitely right.

Both ways work in a debate.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
The Sun isn't assumed to be unchanging, but it simplifies the equations and whatnot to make the input constant. Space is most definitely not unchanging. If I stuck another star next to the Sun, you'd have twice the radiation flowing through space. The result of the GHE is that there is less radiation in space.

You stuck another star next to the sun??? Where did you get the mass for THAT? Oh...wait...there IS NO STAR NEXT TO THE SUN!

*facepalm*

I am demonstrating how the amount of energy in space is definitely not unchanging. You evade by saying "another star? HOW RIDICULOUS AHAHA!"

Why do I even try?

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Kirchhoff's only works on equal frequencies; if a body absorbs one wavelength of radiation and emits another, these need not be the same absorbance/emissivity.

An atom that absorbs a frequency will emit on the same frequency, if it emits at all (or on a lower frequency, if something sucks the energy out of the atom before it emits, if it does).

That would be conduction that sucks the energy away.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Besides, here's Kirchhoff's: "For a body of any arbitrary material emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature. That universal function describes the perfect black-body emissive power."

Note the two disclaimers. The second is the most important, as far as I can see; you are committing the fallacy of circular logic. To apply Kirchhoff's, you must assume or demonstrate that the body is in thermodynamic equilibrium; if you use Kirchhoff's to prove that the body must be in thermodynamic equilibrium, then no shit, Sherlock! You started with that assumption!

The Earth IS in thermal equilibrium. There is no other source of energy, and space does not change.

Then the whole Planck interlude was just a distraction (albeit one that I encouraged) - here is the root of the argument.

If I have a cup, and the cup is heated on one side by a heat lamp, and cooled on one side by a refrigerant system - will increasing the temperature of the cool refrigerant increase the temperature of the coffee? I think so. It's cooling down slower, and the inflow isn't affected

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
The Sun isn't assumed to be unchanging, but it simplifies the equations and whatnot to make the input constant. Space is most definitely not unchanging. If I stuck another star next to the Sun, you'd have twice the radiation flowing through space. The result of the GHE is that there is less radiation in space.

You stuck another star next to the sun??? Where did you get the mass for THAT? Oh...wait...there IS NO STAR NEXT TO THE SUN!

*facepalm*

I am demonstrating how the amount of energy in space is definitely not unchanging. You evade by saying "another star? HOW RIDICULOUS AHAHA!"

Why do I even try?

Hey...you made the bit up about the star.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Kirchhoff's only works on equal frequencies; if a body absorbs one wavelength of radiation and emits another, these need not be the same absorbance/emissivity.

An atom that absorbs a frequency will emit on the same frequency, if it emits at all (or on a lower frequency, if something sucks the energy out of the atom before it emits, if it does).

That would be conduction that sucks the energy away.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Besides, here's Kirchhoff's: "For a body of any arbitrary material emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature. That universal function describes the perfect black-body emissive power."

Note the two disclaimers. The second is the most important, as far as I can see; you are committing the fallacy of circular logic. To apply Kirchhoff's, you must assume or demonstrate that the body is in thermodynamic equilibrium; if you use Kirchhoff's to prove that the body must be in thermodynamic equilibrium, then no shit, Sherlock! You started with that assumption!

The Earth IS in thermal equilibrium. There is no other source of energy, and space does not change.

Then the whole Planck interlude was just a distraction (albeit one that I encouraged) - here is the root of the argument.

If I have a cup, and the cup is heated on one side by a heat lamp, and cooled on one side by a refrigerant system - will increasing the temperature of the cool refrigerant increase the temperature of the coffee? I think so. It's cooling down slower, and the inflow isn't affected

Why do you continue to construct these bizarre contrivances?

jwoodward48 wrote:Then the whole Planck interlude was just a distraction (albeit one that I encouraged) - here is the root of the argument.

If I have a cup, and the cup is heated on one side by a heat lamp, and cooled on one side by a refrigerant system - will increasing the temperature of the cool refrigerant increase the temperature of the coffee? I think so. It's cooling down slower, and the inflow isn't affected

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
The Sun isn't assumed to be unchanging, but it simplifies the equations and whatnot to make the input constant. Space is most definitely not unchanging. If I stuck another star next to the Sun, you'd have twice the radiation flowing through space. The result of the GHE is that there is less radiation in space.

You stuck another star next to the sun??? Where did you get the mass for THAT? Oh...wait...there IS NO STAR NEXT TO THE SUN!

*facepalm*

I am demonstrating how the amount of energy in space is definitely not unchanging. You evade by saying "another star? HOW RIDICULOUS AHAHA!"

Why do I even try?

Hey...you made the bit up about the star.

Indeed, I did. It was an example that demonstrated that the radiation in space is not unchanging. It thus refuted your statement.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Kirchhoff's only works on equal frequencies; if a body absorbs one wavelength of radiation and emits another, these need not be the same absorbance/emissivity.

An atom that absorbs a frequency will emit on the same frequency, if it emits at all (or on a lower frequency, if something sucks the energy out of the atom before it emits, if it does).

That would be conduction that sucks the energy away.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Besides, here's Kirchhoff's: "For a body of any arbitrary material emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature. That universal function describes the perfect black-body emissive power."

Note the two disclaimers. The second is the most important, as far as I can see; you are committing the fallacy of circular logic. To apply Kirchhoff's, you must assume or demonstrate that the body is in thermodynamic equilibrium; if you use Kirchhoff's to prove that the body must be in thermodynamic equilibrium, then no shit, Sherlock! You started with that assumption!

The Earth IS in thermal equilibrium. There is no other source of energy, and space does not change.

Then the whole Planck interlude was just a distraction (albeit one that I encouraged) - here is the root of the argument.

If I have a cup, and the cup is heated on one side by a heat lamp, and cooled on one side by a refrigerant system - will increasing the temperature of the cool refrigerant increase the temperature of the coffee? I think so. It's cooling down slower, and the inflow isn't affected

Why do you continue to construct these bizarre contrivances?

Because simpler analogies fail to represent Earth. Mine is better, though still inaccurate to some extent.

jwoodward48 wrote:
But the amount of energy that is leaving is decreased!

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
The Sun isn't assumed to be unchanging, but it simplifies the equations and whatnot to make the input constant. Space is most definitely not unchanging. If I stuck another star next to the Sun, you'd have twice the radiation flowing through space. The result of the GHE is that there is less radiation in space.

You stuck another star next to the sun??? Where did you get the mass for THAT? Oh...wait...there IS NO STAR NEXT TO THE SUN!

*facepalm*

I am demonstrating how the amount of energy in space is definitely not unchanging. You evade by saying "another star? HOW RIDICULOUS AHAHA!"

Why do I even try?

Hey...you made the bit up about the star.

Indeed, I did. It was an example that demonstrated that the radiation in space is not unchanging. It thus refuted your statement.

So now you're saying there IS another sun! Methinks you are might confused.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Kirchhoff's only works on equal frequencies; if a body absorbs one wavelength of radiation and emits another, these need not be the same absorbance/emissivity.

An atom that absorbs a frequency will emit on the same frequency, if it emits at all (or on a lower frequency, if something sucks the energy out of the atom before it emits, if it does).

That would be conduction that sucks the energy away.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Besides, here's Kirchhoff's: "For a body of any arbitrary material emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature. That universal function describes the perfect black-body emissive power."

Note the two disclaimers. The second is the most important, as far as I can see; you are committing the fallacy of circular logic. To apply Kirchhoff's, you must assume or demonstrate that the body is in thermodynamic equilibrium; if you use Kirchhoff's to prove that the body must be in thermodynamic equilibrium, then no shit, Sherlock! You started with that assumption!

The Earth IS in thermal equilibrium. There is no other source of energy, and space does not change.

Then the whole Planck interlude was just a distraction (albeit one that I encouraged) - here is the root of the argument.

If I have a cup, and the cup is heated on one side by a heat lamp, and cooled on one side by a refrigerant system - will increasing the temperature of the cool refrigerant increase the temperature of the coffee? I think so. It's cooling down slower, and the inflow isn't affected

Why do you continue to construct these bizarre contrivances?

Because simpler analogies fail to represent Earth. Mine is better, though still inaccurate to some extent.

You are failing to represent Earth. Therefore I can summarily dismiss these contrivances.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
But the amount of energy that is leaving is decreased!

No.

You have built an energy trap. This violates both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

The result of an energy trap is that energy will continue to build in the trap unendingly. It is a perpetual motion machine of the first type. The end result is the trap must catastrophically destruct, taking the Earth with it.

The amount of energy leaving CANNOT decrease to anything less than the energy arriving.

Waiting for the Magick Blanket argument again in 5...4...3...2...

jwoodward48 wrote:But the amount of energy that is leaving is decreased!

jwoodward48 wrote: Is the distribution of energy that leaves the Earth system different in any way from the distribution of energy that leaves the Earth's surface?

jwoodward48 wrote: I realize that you answering "yes" to that question doesn't make me right. This isn't a loaded question. Please just answer yes or no, so I can know where we disagree.

jwoodward48 wrote: Does the atmosphere alter the distribution of radiation?

jwoodward48 wrote:
Into, what is your definition of spectral radiance, and why do you say that Planck's outputs energy, not spectral radiance?

IB, I have a 1L spherical, perfectly clear flask. It is filled with pure H2 at 2 atm, 300K. I am standing 1 m away, observing the radiation at the 700nm wavelength. How much should I measure? Show your work, and do not take the answer from previous observation; that'd be cheating.

This really shouldn't be that hard, IB; after all, you expected me, a "mathematically illiterate idiot", to do it.

Have fun!

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: Does the atmosphere alter the distribution of radiation?

Yes. The atmosphere is outstanding at redistributing the energy wealth, despite a constant incoming amount and the same amount going out.

Hey, can I offer an analogy?

Imagine a guy named "Thesun" who keeps throwing rolls of quarters at a guy in a crowd who then turns around and throws that same roll of quarters off into the distance, and then turns back around to catch the next roll of quarters from Thesun.

Then another guy named "Theatmosphere" walks in front of the dude catching the rolls of quarters from Thesun and he intercepts the rolls of quarters. Theatmosphere then breaks open each roll and throws the quarters to everyone in the crowd. Each person in the crowd then chucks his quarter off into the distance.

It's like that.


.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
The Sun isn't assumed to be unchanging, but it simplifies the equations and whatnot to make the input constant. Space is most definitely not unchanging. If I stuck another star next to the Sun, you'd have twice the radiation flowing through space. The result of the GHE is that there is less radiation in space.

You stuck another star next to the sun??? Where did you get the mass for THAT? Oh...wait...there IS NO STAR NEXT TO THE SUN!

*facepalm*

I am demonstrating how the amount of energy in space is definitely not unchanging. You evade by saying "another star? HOW RIDICULOUS AHAHA!"

Why do I even try?

Hey...you made the bit up about the star.

Indeed, I did. It was an example that demonstrated that the radiation in space is not unchanging. It thus refuted your statement.

So now you're saying there IS another sun! Methinks you are might confused.

It was a hypothetical situation!

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Kirchhoff's only works on equal frequencies; if a body absorbs one wavelength of radiation and emits another, these need not be the same absorbance/emissivity.

An atom that absorbs a frequency will emit on the same frequency, if it emits at all (or on a lower frequency, if something sucks the energy out of the atom before it emits, if it does).

That would be conduction that sucks the energy away.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Besides, here's Kirchhoff's: "For a body of any arbitrary material emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature. That universal function describes the perfect black-body emissive power."

Note the two disclaimers. The second is the most important, as far as I can see; you are committing the fallacy of circular logic. To apply Kirchhoff's, you must assume or demonstrate that the body is in thermodynamic equilibrium; if you use Kirchhoff's to prove that the body must be in thermodynamic equilibrium, then no shit, Sherlock! You started with that assumption!

The Earth IS in thermal equilibrium. There is no other source of energy, and space does not change.

Then the whole Planck interlude was just a distraction (albeit one that I encouraged) - here is the root of the argument.

If I have a cup, and the cup is heated on one side by a heat lamp, and cooled on one side by a refrigerant system - will increasing the temperature of the cool refrigerant increase the temperature of the coffee? I think so. It's cooling down slower, and the inflow isn't affected

Why do you continue to construct these bizarre contrivances?

Because simpler analogies fail to represent Earth. Mine is better, though still inaccurate to some extent.

You are failing to represent Earth. Therefore I can summarily dismiss these contrivances.

You are failing to represent Earth. Therefore I can summarily dismiss the coffee cup.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
But the amount of energy that is leaving is decreased!

No.

You have built an energy trap. This violates both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Not decreased to 0. Decreased.

jwoodward48 wrote:

The result of an energy trap is that energy will continue to build in the trap unendingly. It is a perpetual motion machine of the first type. The end result is the trap must catastrophically destruct, taking the Earth with it.

No, it won't. Remember Stefan-Boltzmann? It still holds somewhat - increasing temperature increases emissions. This means that eventually, the emissions will increase to the intake again.

The amount of energy leaving CANNOT decrease to anything less than the energy arriving.

Waiting for the Magick Blanket argument again in 5...4...3...2...

Yes, it can. Emissivity at one wavelength can differ from absorbance at another.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: Does the atmosphere alter the distribution of radiation?

Yes. The atmosphere is outstanding at redistributing the energy wealth, despite a constant incoming amount and the same amount going out.

Hey, can I offer an analogy?

Imagine a guy named "Thesun" who keeps throwing rolls of quarters at a guy in a crowd who then turns around and throws that same roll of quarters off into the distance, and then turns back around to catch the next roll of quarters from Thesun.

Then another guy named "Theatmosphere" walks in front of the dude catching the rolls of quarters from Thesun and he intercepts the rolls of quarters. Theatmosphere then breaks open each roll and throws the quarters to everyone in the crowd. Each person in the crowd then chucks his quarter off into the distance.

It's like that.


.

Into the Night wrote:
Whatever is absorbed is emitted at the same frequency, if it emitted at all.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Whatever is absorbed is emitted at the same frequency, if it emitted at all.

If that were so, the Earth would be visibly glowing like a faint sun as it emitted all the solar radiation that it had absorbed. So it obviously isn't so.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
But the amount of energy that is leaving is decreased!

No.

You have built an energy trap. This violates both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Not decreased to 0. Decreased.

Any amount of decrease is the trap, even if you don't decrease it to zero.

No, it won't. Remember Stefan-Boltzmann? It still holds somewhat - increasing temperature increases emissions. This means that eventually, the emissions will increase to the intake again.

The amount of energy leaving CANNOT decrease to anything less than the energy arriving.

Waiting for the Magick Blanket argument again in 5...4...3...2...

Yes, it can. Emissivity at one wavelength can differ from absorbance at another.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Whatever is absorbed is emitted at the same frequency, if it emitted at all.

If that were so, the Earth would be visibly glowing like a faint sun as it emitted all the solar radiation that it had absorbed. So it obviously isn't so.

Why would it?

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
But the amount of energy that is leaving is decreased!

No.

You have built an energy trap. This violates both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Not decreased to 0. Decreased.

Any amount of decrease is the trap, even if you don't decrease it to zero.

No, it won't. Remember Stefan-Boltzmann? It still holds somewhat - increasing temperature increases emissions. This means that eventually, the emissions will increase to the intake again.

The amount of energy leaving CANNOT decrease to anything less than the energy arriving.

Waiting for the Magick Blanket argument again in 5...4...3...2...

Yes, it can. Emissivity at one wavelength can differ from absorbance at another.

Whatever is absorbed is emitted at the same frequency, if it emitted at all.

Not so. Remember, there are many collisions per second, even in a gas - an oxygen molecule at STP will have 5.8 x10^9 collisions with other molecules per second! That's over 5 billion! The energy from an absorbed photon will quite possibly be absorbed by other molecules, or turned into simple vibrational energy - or the energy of heat.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Whatever is absorbed is emitted at the same frequency, if it emitted at all.

If that were so, the Earth would be visibly glowing like a faint sun as it emitted all the solar radiation that it had absorbed. So it obviously isn't so.

Why would it?

The Earth absorbs solar radiation. It emits... not solar radiation. The Earthly radiation is incredibly different from solar radiation.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
But the amount of energy that is leaving is decreased!

No.

You have built an energy trap. This violates both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Not decreased to 0. Decreased.

Any amount of decrease is the trap, even if you don't decrease it to zero.

No, it won't. Remember Stefan-Boltzmann? It still holds somewhat - increasing temperature increases emissions. This means that eventually, the emissions will increase to the intake again.

The amount of energy leaving CANNOT decrease to anything less than the energy arriving.

Waiting for the Magick Blanket argument again in 5...4...3...2...

Yes, it can. Emissivity at one wavelength can differ from absorbance at another.

Whatever is absorbed is emitted at the same frequency, if it emitted at all.

Not so. Remember, there are many collisions per second, even in a gas - an oxygen molecule at STP will have 5.8 x10^9 collisions with other molecules per second! That's over 5 billion! The energy from an absorbed photon will quite possibly be absorbed by other molecules, or turned into simple vibrational energy - or the energy of heat.

In that case, the photon is never emitted. The molecule lost the energy before it could do so.
I have already described this.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
But the amount of energy that is leaving is decreased!

No.

You have built an energy trap. This violates both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Not decreased to 0. Decreased.

Any amount of decrease is the trap, even if you don't decrease it to zero.

No, it won't. Remember Stefan-Boltzmann? It still holds somewhat - increasing temperature increases emissions. This means that eventually, the emissions will increase to the intake again.

The amount of energy leaving CANNOT decrease to anything less than the energy arriving.

Waiting for the Magick Blanket argument again in 5...4...3...2...

Yes, it can. Emissivity at one wavelength can differ from absorbance at another.

Whatever is absorbed is emitted at the same frequency, if it emitted at all.

Not so. Remember, there are many collisions per second, even in a gas - an oxygen molecule at STP will have 5.8 x10^9 collisions with other molecules per second! That's over 5 billion! The energy from an absorbed photon will quite possibly be absorbed by other molecules, or turned into simple vibrational energy - or the energy of heat.

In that case, the photon is never emitted. The molecule lost the energy before it could do so.
I have already described this.

But that energy then goes into other forms, and is radiated through other means - hot gases produce radiation, even when not stimulated with light.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
But the amount of energy that is leaving is decreased!

No.

You have built an energy trap. This violates both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Not decreased to 0. Decreased.

Any amount of decrease is the trap, even if you don't decrease it to zero.

No, it won't. Remember Stefan-Boltzmann? It still holds somewhat - increasing temperature increases emissions. This means that eventually, the emissions will increase to the intake again.

The amount of energy leaving CANNOT decrease to anything less than the energy arriving.

Waiting for the Magick Blanket argument again in 5...4...3...2...

Yes, it can. Emissivity at one wavelength can differ from absorbance at another.

Whatever is absorbed is emitted at the same frequency, if it emitted at all.

Not so. Remember, there are many collisions per second, even in a gas - an oxygen molecule at STP will have 5.8 x10^9 collisions with other molecules per second! That's over 5 billion! The energy from an absorbed photon will quite possibly be absorbed by other molecules, or turned into simple vibrational energy - or the energy of heat.

In that case, the photon is never emitted. The molecule lost the energy before it could do so.
I have already described this.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Whatever is absorbed is emitted at the same frequency, if it emitted at all.

If that were so, the Earth would be visibly glowing like a faint sun as it emitted all the solar radiation that it had absorbed. So it obviously isn't so.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Whatever is absorbed is emitted at the same frequency, if it emitted at all.

If that were so, the Earth would be visibly glowing like a faint sun as it emitted all the solar radiation that it had absorbed. So it obviously isn't so.

You mean like Venus, clearly visible from earth? You mean like that?

It's like that.


.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Whatever is absorbed is emitted at the same frequency, if it emitted at all.

If that were so, the Earth would be visibly glowing like a faint sun as it emitted all the solar radiation that it had absorbed. So it obviously isn't so.

Why would it?

The Earth absorbs solar radiation. It emits... not solar radiation. The Earthly radiation is incredibly different from solar radiation.

Each atom

that makes up the Earth absorbs it's favorite frequency of light.

When (and if) the photon is emitted again, that will be emitted at the same frequency.

Remember the photon need not be emitted at all. The energy of that emission follows Planck's law. It will be dependent on the temperature of the material.

The combined effect of all the atoms of the Earth (or even a smaller chunk of it) doing this is to produce the so-called 'black body' type curve.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Yes, I was referring to the visible glow. All gases radiate, even if no light is hitting them. Absorbed radiation can go toward heating the object, right?

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
But the amount of energy that is leaving is decreased!

No.

You have built an energy trap. This violates both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Not decreased to 0. Decreased.

Any amount of decrease is the trap, even if you don't decrease it to zero.

No, it won't. Remember Stefan-Boltzmann? It still holds somewhat - increasing temperature increases emissions. This means that eventually, the emissions will increase to the intake again.

The amount of energy leaving CANNOT decrease to anything less than the energy arriving.

Waiting for the Magick Blanket argument again in 5...4...3...2...

Yes, it can. Emissivity at one wavelength can differ from absorbance at another.

Whatever is absorbed is emitted at the same frequency, if it emitted at all.

Not so. Remember, there are many collisions per second, even in a gas - an oxygen molecule at STP will have 5.8 x10^9 collisions with other molecules per second! That's over 5 billion! The energy from an absorbed photon will quite possibly be absorbed by other molecules, or turned into simple vibrational energy - or the energy of heat.

In that case, the photon is never emitted. The molecule lost the energy before it could do so.
I have already described this.

And what does that energy go toward? Heating up the gas, right? And that means it can sustain the emitted radiation. Radiation not necessarily at the wavelength of the absorbed radiation.

But even without this, the way that some energy returns to the surface if GHG exist, whereas without them it would not, suggests that the temperature would increase.

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Whatever is absorbed is emitted at the same frequency, if it emitted at all.

If that were so, the Earth would be visibly glowing like a faint sun as it emitted all the solar radiation that it had absorbed. So it obviously isn't so.

You mean like Venus, clearly visible from earth? You mean like that?

It's like that.


.

Why isn't Earth like that, then? Why is Earth radiating pretty much only long-wave radiation, when it (obviously) receives more than long-wave radiation?