But the Climate is Always Changing!

DRKTS wrote:
You put a pot on the stove on a very low heat to simmer and bring the contents to a nice stable temperature. Now put the lid on (without changing the gas/electric settings - so no more energy is going in). Does the temperature go up, stay the same, or go down?

It goes up because less heat is escaping. Does that violate the laws of thermodynamics? If you don't believe me go put on a saucepan of milk and do the experiment. Get some paper towels you'll need to clear up when it boils over after you put the lid on.

Surface Detail wrote: You're on dodgy ground using analogies with IBdaMann. He just doesn't get them.

DRKTS wrote: You put a pot on the stove on a very low heat to simmer and bring the contents to a nice stable temperature. Now put the lid on (without changing the gas/electric settings - so no more energy is going in). Does the temperature go up, stay the same, or go down?

It goes up because less heat is escaping. Does that violate the laws of thermodynamics? If you don't believe me go put on a saucepan of milk and do the experiment. Get some paper towels you'll need to clear up when it boils over after you put the lid on.

Surface Detail wrote:His next comment will be asking where the lid is, making fun of you for thinking that the sea is made of milk, or some such idiocy.

DRKTS wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

DRKTS wrote:Try giving us a single checkable fact (with a reference) to support any of your "scientific" points... cue the crickets.

I'll give you the two facts that destroy your "greenhouse effect" dogma and that you can't seem to overcome:

1. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed (1st LoT), and

2. Temperature driives thermal radiation (Planck's Law)

These items come from science so you don't get a citation. You're supposed to be a big boy who can verify science on your own or, as you seem want to do, deny the science.

I look forward to your upcoming presentation which, I am guessing, will DODGE the issue of how the above two points are violated while merely stating that they aren't violated.


.

You need to explain how energy being transformed from one form to another is in any way is against the 1st law.

Planck's Law merely says spectral irradiance is related to wavelength and temperature, again how does the greenhouse effect violate that?

IBdaMann wrote:

I understand Planck's Law very well
...

First, Planck's Radiation Law is about radiation, not about absorption.
Second, this is another point of disagreement between us. I think all matter, even a single molecule, radiates per Planck's Law.
...

If so, do you think Global Warming will falsify Planck's law and require it to be discarded? (that's the one that says the planet's radiation is based solely on temperature and not on any substance's ability to prevent/restrict/modify/block/trap/hinder/reduce thermal radiation)
...

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

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

Nope. Planck's Law is more general. A body's radiation is dependent upon it's temperature. You should focus on "temperature" being the independent variable and the "radiation" being the dependent variable
...

Yes, because according to Planck's Law, temperature is the independent variable controlling radiation, so naturally the earth is radiating more energy into space now than when it was cooler, and it is now radiating less energy into space than it did when it was warmer.

You should focus on "temperature" being the independent variable, and atmospheric composition (e.g. amount of CO2, amount of water vapor, amount of methane, et. al.) is not even a factor.
...

In our discussions I believe I indicated that earth's thermal radiation adheres to Planck's Law which renders it independent of atmospheric composition (assuming the atmosphere remains equivalently transparent to visible light).
...

No substance can "trap" thermal radiation. Insulation, clothing, etc.. all work in conduction/convection. Planck's Law applies here. Temperature is the sole determinant of thermal radiation; particular substance or atmospheric composition plays no role and has no effect.

Yes, Planck's Law applies right here. It blows a gaping hole in most "greenhouse effect" versions.
Temperature is the sole determinant of thermal radiation, both strength and frequency. As you heat metal, the frequency of the thermal radiation will increase until it rises above the infrared and rises into red, thus glowing red.
...

Every substance has its own unique EM absorption signature, along with its own unique EM reflection signature.
All EM energy that is absorbed, regardless of frequency, is converted to thermal energy.
All EM energy that is reflected, regardless of frequency, ceases to be a factor.
...

it does not matter the frequency of the electromagnetic energy that is absorbed.
...

I forgot to mention that you need to review thermal convection and thermal radiation. You are conflating the two. The blanket imagery applies to convection and conduction but thermal radiation is governed by temperature according to Planck's Law. No substance has any magical superpower to regulate thermal radiation outside of Planck's Law. Nothing can act like a thermal radiation "blanket."
...

...but no, the warmer lower atmosphere vs. the cooler upper atmosphere is simply a result of Ideal Gas Law, with the weight of the upper atmosphere weighing down the lower atmopshere and thus compressing it to a higher atmopsheric pressure, thus rendering more atmospheric mass per volume, and thus more thermal energy per volume in the lower atmosphere than in the upper atmosphere.

Gases at the very top of the atmopshere, although potentially as hot as the daytime surface of the moon, would nonetheless "feel" cold because there is "so little of it" (being under virtually zero atmospheric pressure), thus having so very little thermal energy per unit volume.
...

False. I don't know what you consider to be "greenhouse gas" but if you were to swap out the earth's atmosphere for one of equivalent mass that is strictly 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, the earth's surface would not be like the moon's. In fact, nothing would change temperature-wise if all the "greenhouse gas" were removed.
...

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

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

earth's atmosphere radiates according to Planck's Law
...

As I explained to you, what CO2, or any substance for that matter, absorbs is a function of its absorption signature, and what is emitted is a function of its temperature, specifically Planck's Law.

Surface Detail wrote:

DRKTS wrote:
You put a pot on the stove on a very low heat to simmer and bring the contents to a nice stable temperature. Now put the lid on (without changing the gas/electric settings - so no more energy is going in). Does the temperature go up, stay the same, or go down?

It goes up because less heat is escaping. Does that violate the laws of thermodynamics? If you don't believe me go put on a saucepan of milk and do the experiment. Get some paper towels you'll need to clear up when it boils over after you put the lid on.

You're on dodgy ground using analogies with IBdaMann. He just doesn't get them. His next comment will be asking where the lid is, making fun of you for thinking that the sea is made of milk, or some such idiocy.

Ceist wrote: DRKTS, for laughs, here's some of the hilariously funny things IB has written about Planck's Law