Remember me
▼ Content

Consensus of Scientists and Proof



Page 7 of 8<<<5678>
22-04-2017 00:11
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf


http://cedegesrv7.epfl.ch/2013-2014/pluginfile.php/1054751/mod_resource/content/0/paper_correcting_Gerlich_arguments.pdf


On the very face of it that second paper is rediculous - the entire basis for the greenhouse gas theory is radiative heating. In fact if you are using conductive heating CO2 is a coolant that is not effected by it's measure in the atmosphere at these extremely low levels.

Every model from NOAA or NASA shows that conduction is the major source of the troposphere losing heat by a substantial percentage. Over 2:1 on radiative cooling.

Later in the paper they mention "dead air is a pretty good insulator". Firstly it is not. Conduction and convection occur for any temperature difference. And since the higher in the atmosphere you rise the cooler it becomes that is a rediculous statement. And exactly where has there ever been "dead air"?

Despite the claim that there is little conduction there is an approximate 80 degree difference between the ground levels at mid-latitudes to the tropopause.

This means that there is ALWAYS heavy conduction and convection going on all the time.

2.1 is a bit strange - indeed according to the second law of thermodynamics a colder body can transfer heat to a hotter one. But only if work is done - in other words only if both bodies lose energy. That's cooling.

Consider - if you move into the stratosphere it heats almost up to the stratopause. However, this is a physical peculiarity - the atmosphere is thick enough to absorb heat but too thin for it to mean anything. Stick you arm outside and see how warm it is. The base of the stratosphere or the top of the tropopause if you like is where real atmospheric radiation begins. This is because at this point the atmosphere becomes too thin to conduct heat. But this level is also so high that most of the radiation is away from the Earth by simple trigonometry.

Again - while the Sun is indeed a blackbody emitter the filtering of the atmosphere do not allow the Earth to be a blackbody emitter. The vast majority of energy of all wavelengths is reflected off the tops of the clouds and the Rayleigh scattering acts very like radiation or partial reflections in the entire depth of the atmosphere.

So the Earth is absorbing only a partial portion of the emissions bands of the Sun. Does this make a difference? Certainly - the end result is a VERY sharp drop in the wavelengths of the Sun striking the Earth and the IR that is being generated from this energy and is being returned to space. That makes the specific absorption bands and the emission bands of any gases under discussion important. And CO2 is almost between the two and absorbs and emits very little of the available IR. Remember that the absorption bands are one frequency and the emission bands are different - the CO2 releases radiation in bands that are absorbed by H2O.

So what do we have? CO2 that only receives limited energy and releases most of it through conduction - of the energy that happens to grow in the CO2 to the point it radiates it is picked up by H2O which is 1,000 greater but which weighs only half as much and so reacts to conduction at more than twice the speed. Also remember that H2O is less heavy than N2 which makes up the majority of the atmosphere. So warmer water vapor naturally rises while the only reason that CO2 has to rise is the conduction/convection cycle of the atmosphere that is in continuous activity. (look ma - a reason for clouds)

H20 will rise more rapidly into the upper troposphere where it can radiate more heat away. Meanwhile CO2 is heavily dragging along with all of the other molecules slamming into it and removing it's captured heat via conduction. N2 and O2 are super heat conductors and hence pick most of the energy away fro CO2. CO2 remains ----- a coolant.

It would be interesting to see a more detailed look at CO2 movements in the atmosphere though this might yield nothing of interest because of the conduction/convection generated wind.

By the way - we have our paper authors treating heat energy as a whole and not as a molecular function. Because there is a hot day doesn't mean that radiation is a capital source of heat removal in the lower denser atmosphere. If the conditions are correct as they mostly are this heat is moved into the upper atmosphere via conduction/convection.
Edited on 22-04-2017 00:15
22-04-2017 00:12
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:

http://cedegesrv7.epfl.ch/2013-2014/pluginfile.php/1054751/mod_resource/content/0/paper_correcting_Gerlich_arguments.pdf


There are quite a few errors in this paper. Probably the most egregious is the attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics in an effort to make the Magick Bouncing Photon argument again.

Perhaps you could quote a paragraph that you disagree with and explain why you disagree with it.
22-04-2017 01:05
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:

http://cedegesrv7.epfl.ch/2013-2014/pluginfile.php/1054751/mod_resource/content/0/paper_correcting_Gerlich_arguments.pdf


There are quite a few errors in this paper. Probably the most egregious is the attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics in an effort to make the Magick Bouncing Photon argument again.

Perhaps you could quote a paragraph that you disagree with and explain why you disagree with it.


Perhaps you could explain to us what you think that paper is saying in detail?
22-04-2017 01:13
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:

http://cedegesrv7.epfl.ch/2013-2014/pluginfile.php/1054751/mod_resource/content/0/paper_correcting_Gerlich_arguments.pdf


There are quite a few errors in this paper. Probably the most egregious is the attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics in an effort to make the Magick Bouncing Photon argument again.

Perhaps you could quote a paragraph that you disagree with and explain why you disagree with it.


Perhaps you could explain to us what you think that paper is saying in detail?

I'm not the one who's disagreeing with the paper.

If someone says they disagree with an explanation, it's reasonable to expect them to explain what, exactly, it is that they disagree with. Just shouting, "Ha, magick bouncing photons!" is not a particularly constructive criticism. The more rational approach would be to cite a section or paragraph and explain why they consider it to be wrong or misleading.
22-04-2017 01:24
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:

http://cedegesrv7.epfl.ch/2013-2014/pluginfile.php/1054751/mod_resource/content/0/paper_correcting_Gerlich_arguments.pdf


There are quite a few errors in this paper. Probably the most egregious is the attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics in an effort to make the Magick Bouncing Photon argument again.

Perhaps you could quote a paragraph that you disagree with and explain why you disagree with it.


Perhaps you could explain to us what you think that paper is saying in detail?

I'm not the one who's disagreeing with the paper.

If someone says they disagree with an explanation, it's reasonable to expect them to explain what, exactly, it is that they disagree with. Just shouting, "Ha, magick bouncing photons!" is not a particularly constructive criticism. The more rational approach would be to cite a section or paragraph and explain why they consider it to be wrong or misleading.


You aren't the one that even has a clue what that paper says. You only agree with it because you think that it can counter the paper by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner. But you can't understand that one either.

Throw us some more ignorance. That one was a grounder.
22-04-2017 01:25
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:

http://cedegesrv7.epfl.ch/2013-2014/pluginfile.php/1054751/mod_resource/content/0/paper_correcting_Gerlich_arguments.pdf


There are quite a few errors in this paper. Probably the most egregious is the attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics in an effort to make the Magick Bouncing Photon argument again.

Perhaps you could quote a paragraph that you disagree with and explain why you disagree with it.


Perhaps you could explain to us what you think that paper is saying in detail?

I'm not the one who's disagreeing with the paper.

If someone says they disagree with an explanation, it's reasonable to expect them to explain what, exactly, it is that they disagree with. Just shouting, "Ha, magick bouncing photons!" is not a particularly constructive criticism. The more rational approach would be to cite a section or paragraph and explain why they consider it to be wrong or misleading.


You aren't the one that even has a clue what that paper says. You only agree with it because you think that it can counter the paper by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner. But you can't understand that one either.

Throw us some more ignorance. That one was a grounder.
22-04-2017 01:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:

http://cedegesrv7.epfl.ch/2013-2014/pluginfile.php/1054751/mod_resource/content/0/paper_correcting_Gerlich_arguments.pdf


There are quite a few errors in this paper. Probably the most egregious is the attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics in an effort to make the Magick Bouncing Photon argument again.

Perhaps you could quote a paragraph that you disagree with and explain why you disagree with it.


Perhaps you could explain to us what you think that paper is saying in detail?

I'm not the one who's disagreeing with the paper.

If someone says they disagree with an explanation, it's reasonable to expect them to explain what, exactly, it is that they disagree with. Just shouting, "Ha, magick bouncing photons!" is not a particularly constructive criticism. The more rational approach would be to cite a section or paragraph and explain why they consider it to be wrong or misleading.

I described why I disagree with it. You know what the Magick Bouncing Photon argument is. You keep using it, along with the Magick Blanket argument.

I am not going to repeat the paper here in detail and pick it apart word for word.


The Parrot Killer
22-04-2017 03:53
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:

http://cedegesrv7.epfl.ch/2013-2014/pluginfile.php/1054751/mod_resource/content/0/paper_correcting_Gerlich_arguments.pdf


There are quite a few errors in this paper. Probably the most egregious is the attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics in an effort to make the Magick Bouncing Photon argument again.


Perhaps you could quote a paragraph that you disagree with and explain why you disagree with it.


Perhaps you could explain to us what you think that paper is saying in detail?

I'm not the one who's disagreeing with the paper.

If someone says they disagree with an explanation, it's reasonable to expect them to explain what, exactly, it is that they disagree with. Just shouting, "Ha, magick bouncing photons!" is not a particularly constructive criticism. The more rational approach would be to cite a section or paragraph and explain why they consider it to be wrong or misleading.

I described why I disagree with it. You know what the Magick Bouncing Photon argument is. You keep using it, along with the Magick Blanket argument.

I am not going to repeat the paper here in detail and pick it apart word for word.


It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
22-04-2017 09:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:

http://cedegesrv7.epfl.ch/2013-2014/pluginfile.php/1054751/mod_resource/content/0/paper_correcting_Gerlich_arguments.pdf


There are quite a few errors in this paper. Probably the most egregious is the attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics in an effort to make the Magick Bouncing Photon argument again.


Perhaps you could quote a paragraph that you disagree with and explain why you disagree with it.


Perhaps you could explain to us what you think that paper is saying in detail?

I'm not the one who's disagreeing with the paper.

If someone says they disagree with an explanation, it's reasonable to expect them to explain what, exactly, it is that they disagree with. Just shouting, "Ha, magick bouncing photons!" is not a particularly constructive criticism. The more rational approach would be to cite a section or paragraph and explain why they consider it to be wrong or misleading.

I described why I disagree with it. You know what the Magick Bouncing Photon argument is. You keep using it, along with the Magick Blanket argument.

I am not going to repeat the paper here in detail and pick it apart word for word.


It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Don't need to. Science isn't a community.


The Parrot Killer
22-04-2017 09:57
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:

http://cedegesrv7.epfl.ch/2013-2014/pluginfile.php/1054751/mod_resource/content/0/paper_correcting_Gerlich_arguments.pdf


There are quite a few errors in this paper. Probably the most egregious is the attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics in an effort to make the Magick Bouncing Photon argument again.


Perhaps you could quote a paragraph that you disagree with and explain why you disagree with it.


Perhaps you could explain to us what you think that paper is saying in detail?

I'm not the one who's disagreeing with the paper.

If someone says they disagree with an explanation, it's reasonable to expect them to explain what, exactly, it is that they disagree with. Just shouting, "Ha, magick bouncing photons!" is not a particularly constructive criticism. The more rational approach would be to cite a section or paragraph and explain why they consider it to be wrong or misleading.

I described why I disagree with it. You know what the Magick Bouncing Photon argument is. You keep using it, along with the Magick Blanket argument.

I am not going to repeat the paper here in detail and pick it apart word for word.


It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Don't need to. Science isn't a community.


Merriam-Webster: "a body of persons of common and especially professional interests scattered through a larger society"
22-04-2017 22:28
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Regardless of whether there is a scientific community or not, Into the Night often cites violations of the S-B law and the second law of thermodynamics, but rarely says, in any detail, how these laws are being violated. I like to think that most people are capable of changing their minds if presented with a detailed rebuttal.
22-04-2017 23:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:

http://cedegesrv7.epfl.ch/2013-2014/pluginfile.php/1054751/mod_resource/content/0/paper_correcting_Gerlich_arguments.pdf


There are quite a few errors in this paper. Probably the most egregious is the attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics in an effort to make the Magick Bouncing Photon argument again.


Perhaps you could quote a paragraph that you disagree with and explain why you disagree with it.


Perhaps you could explain to us what you think that paper is saying in detail?

I'm not the one who's disagreeing with the paper.

If someone says they disagree with an explanation, it's reasonable to expect them to explain what, exactly, it is that they disagree with. Just shouting, "Ha, magick bouncing photons!" is not a particularly constructive criticism. The more rational approach would be to cite a section or paragraph and explain why they consider it to be wrong or misleading.

I described why I disagree with it. You know what the Magick Bouncing Photon argument is. You keep using it, along with the Magick Blanket argument.

I am not going to repeat the paper here in detail and pick it apart word for word.


It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Don't need to. Science isn't a community.


Merriam-Webster: "a body of persons of common and especially professional interests scattered through a larger society"

That's fine for a definition of 'community'. Science isn't a community. It isn't even people.


The Parrot Killer
22-04-2017 23:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
Frescomexico wrote:
Regardless of whether there is a scientific community or not, Into the Night often cites violations of the S-B law and the second law of thermodynamics, but rarely says, in any detail, how these laws are being violated. I like to think that most people are capable of changing their minds if presented with a detailed rebuttal.


What more detail do you need about trying to use a cold gas to heat a hotter surface? Do you like to make hot coffee with an ice cube?

The S-B law states:

radiance = S-B constant * emissivity (a constant) * temp ^ 4

In other words, radiance is always proportional to temperature. It is never inversely proportional to the temperature.

The Magick Bouncing Photon argument restricts the emission of IR light (reducing radiance overall) while temperature is increasing. That means you are trying to make temperature increase by reducing radiance, making them inversely proportional.

Now if you need more dumbing down than that, I'm afraid the concept is beyond you.


The Parrot Killer
22-04-2017 23:27
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.
23-04-2017 07:10
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.


Every complete definition of the second law of thermodynamics deals with isolated systems and states that the entropy can only increase over time. It cannot decrease. However, the earth and its atmosphere is not an isolated system. Energy from the sun is arriving all of the time. So the second law should not be applied.

CO2, and other infrared absorbing/emitting gases in the atmosphere act more like an insulator of radiant energy as it leaves the earth toward outer space. The same amount of energy leaves the earth as it received from the sun, but the temperature gradient becomes altered causing the earth's surface temperature to rise slightly.
23-04-2017 12:32
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Regardless of whether there is a scientific community or not, Into the Night often cites violations of the S-B law and the second law of thermodynamics, but rarely says, in any detail, how these laws are being violated. I like to think that most people are capable of changing their minds if presented with a detailed rebuttal.


What more detail do you need about trying to use a cold gas to heat a hotter surface? Do you like to make hot coffee with an ice cube?

The S-B law states:

radiance = S-B constant * emissivity (a constant) * temp ^ 4

In other words, radiance is always proportional to temperature. It is never inversely proportional to the temperature.

The Magick Bouncing Photon argument restricts the emission of IR light (reducing radiance overall) while temperature is increasing. That means you are trying to make temperature increase by reducing radiance, making them inversely proportional.

Now if you need more dumbing down than that, I'm afraid the concept is beyond you.


I think you overdid the "dumbing down" process with your statement of the S-B law. You left out that the law is referring to a black body. A perfect blackbody is one that absorbs all incoming light and does not reflect any. If you held pure CO2 up to light, it would appear clear, not black. Therefore it is not a black body. And, therefore, the Stefan-Boltzmann law doesn't apply to "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere.

Also the scientific community, not as you say the science community, is a well-defined term. In Wikipedia: "The scientific community is a diverse network of interacting scientists. It includes many "sub-communities" working on particular scientific fields, and within particular institutions; interdisciplinary and cross-institutional activities are also significant."
23-04-2017 18:29
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.


Every complete definition of the second law of thermodynamics deals with isolated systems and states that the entropy can only increase over time. It cannot decrease. However, the earth and its atmosphere is not an isolated system. Energy from the sun is arriving all of the time. So the second law should not be applied.

CO2, and other infrared absorbing/emitting gases in the atmosphere act more like an insulator of radiant energy as it leaves the earth toward outer space. The same amount of energy leaves the earth as it received from the sun, but the temperature gradient becomes altered causing the earth's surface temperature to rise slightly.


The laws of thermodynamics are NOT something that only operate in a closed system. The fact that energy is being inserted from outside has absolutely no bearing on these laws.

CO2 is so rare even at 5 times what it presently is that it can have no effect whatsoever because the absorption bands for the energy it receives are too narrow for it to have any effect.

CO2 is simply NOT a radiator - if loses energy in the lower atmosphere through conductance. In the upper atmosphere ALL gases radiate since that is the only method of losing energy. The other gases also are higher conductors and simply drag all of this heat out of the troposphere. In the March 10th Science they report that soil releases 34-37% more CO2 than previously estimated under the natural warming. Oceans are losing CO2 and not absorbing it. Man's additions are only a small percentage of the growth.

Tell me, are you supporting the deaths of billions of people which would occur under the plans of the IPCC?
23-04-2017 20:01
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.


Every complete definition of the second law of thermodynamics deals with isolated systems and states that the entropy can only increase over time. It cannot decrease. However, the earth and its atmosphere is not an isolated system. Energy from the sun is arriving all of the time. So the second law should not be applied.

CO2, and other infrared absorbing/emitting gases in the atmosphere act more like an insulator of radiant energy as it leaves the earth toward outer space. The same amount of energy leaves the earth as it received from the sun, but the temperature gradient becomes altered causing the earth's surface temperature to rise slightly.


The laws of thermodynamics are NOT something that only operate in a closed system. The fact that energy is being inserted from outside has absolutely no bearing on these laws.

CO2 is so rare even at 5 times what it presently is that it can have no effect whatsoever because the absorption bands for the energy it receives are too narrow for it to have any effect.

CO2 is simply NOT a radiator - if loses energy in the lower atmosphere through conductance. In the upper atmosphere ALL gases radiate since that is the only method of losing energy. The other gases also are higher conductors and simply drag all of this heat out of the troposphere. In the March 10th Science they report that soil releases 34-37% more CO2 than previously estimated under the natural warming. Oceans are losing CO2 and not absorbing it. Man's additions are only a small percentage of the growth.

Tell me, are you supporting the deaths of billions of people which would occur under the plans of the IPCC?


I suggest that you contact Wikipedia and get them to change their definition which states "The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can only increase over time. It can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state (equilibrium) or undergoing a reversible process. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past."

The isolated system is defined as follows: "a thermodynamic system enclosed by rigid immovable walls through which neither matter nor energy can pass."

First you say that "CO2 is simply NOT a radiator". Later, you say "In the upper atmosphere ALL gases radiate since that is the only method of losing energy." I think you will find that CO2 gas will radiate at any pressure from a vacuum on up. At some pressures, convection and conduction predominate, but radiation can always occur.

I am in no way supporting the plans of the IPCC. In fact I think the organization should be disbanded immediately. But that does not mean that every precept of science that they endorse is in error.
23-04-2017 20:15
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.


Every complete definition of the second law of thermodynamics deals with isolated systems and states that the entropy can only increase over time. It cannot decrease. However, the earth and its atmosphere is not an isolated system. Energy from the sun is arriving all of the time. So the second law should not be applied.

CO2, and other infrared absorbing/emitting gases in the atmosphere act more like an insulator of radiant energy as it leaves the earth toward outer space. The same amount of energy leaves the earth as it received from the sun, but the temperature gradient becomes altered causing the earth's surface temperature to rise slightly.


The laws of thermodynamics are NOT something that only operate in a closed system. The fact that energy is being inserted from outside has absolutely no bearing on these laws.

CO2 is so rare even at 5 times what it presently is that it can have no effect whatsoever because the absorption bands for the energy it receives are too narrow for it to have any effect.

CO2 is simply NOT a radiator - if loses energy in the lower atmosphere through conductance. In the upper atmosphere ALL gases radiate since that is the only method of losing energy. The other gases also are higher conductors and simply drag all of this heat out of the troposphere. In the March 10th Science they report that soil releases 34-37% more CO2 than previously estimated under the natural warming. Oceans are losing CO2 and not absorbing it. Man's additions are only a small percentage of the growth.

Tell me, are you supporting the deaths of billions of people which would occur under the plans of the IPCC?


I suggest that you contact Wikipedia and get them to change their definition which states "The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can only increase over time. It can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state (equilibrium) or undergoing a reversible process. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past."

The isolated system is defined as follows: "a thermodynamic system enclosed by rigid immovable walls through which neither matter nor energy can pass."

First you say that "CO2 is simply NOT a radiator". Later, you say "In the upper atmosphere ALL gases radiate since that is the only method of losing energy." I think you will find that CO2 gas will radiate at any pressure from a vacuum on up. At some pressures, convection and conduction predominate, but radiation can always occur.

I am in no way supporting the plans of the IPCC. In fact I think the organization should be disbanded immediately. But that does not mean that every precept of science that they endorse is in error.


I'm smelling something rotten in Denmark. You are making arguments we've heard here by another person. Have you simply changed you name to make the same arguments again?

"The isolated system is defined as follows: "a thermodynamic system enclosed by rigid immovable walls through which neither matter nor energy can pass.""

Does this in any way sound like an open atmosphere receiving external energy and radiating the same amount into outer space?

When did you decide that that definition of wikipedia which is the strict definition for use by a heat engine had any connection with the manner in which the atmosphere works? The laws of thermodynamics work under ALL cases and not just in a supposedly closed system unless you consider the universe a closed system.
23-04-2017 20:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

No. You cannot do work that way. Not even a refrigerator can do work that way.

It is not possible to have a colder gas heat a hotter surface. You can't do it by conduction. You can't do it by convection. You can't do it by radiance. Not even in a refrigerator.

Wake wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

I see you are one of those idiots that believe the Stefan-Boltzmann law does not have an emissivity constant. Very well, if you want to lock the emissivity constant to 1, then you cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann to predict what the temperature of a planet 'should' be (as if you could anyway).

Wake wrote:
More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.

WRONG. IR reaches the ground. Quite a lot of it. The atmosphere is far too thin to absorb much of it at all.


The Parrot Killer
23-04-2017 20:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.


Every complete definition of the second law of thermodynamics deals with isolated systems and states that the entropy can only increase over time. It cannot decrease. However, the earth and its atmosphere is not an isolated system. Energy from the sun is arriving all of the time. So the second law should not be applied.

WRONG. The 2nd LoT applies all the time, everywhere, whether the system is open or closed. The Sun-Earth-space system is a closed system as far as the 2nd LoT is concerned. You need not concern yourself with the entire universe. Just the space around Earth.

Frescomexico wrote:
CO2, and other infrared absorbing/emitting gases in the atmosphere act more like an insulator of radiant energy as it leaves the earth toward outer space.

CO2 has no insulative properties. Absorption of infrared is not an insulative property. It is simply another way for the surface to heat the atmosphere.
Frescomexico wrote:
The same amount of energy leaves the earth as it received from the sun, but the temperature gradient becomes altered causing the earth's surface temperature to rise slightly.

You don't seem to be familiar with the temperature profile of the atmosphere.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 23-04-2017 20:44
23-04-2017 20:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Regardless of whether there is a scientific community or not, Into the Night often cites violations of the S-B law and the second law of thermodynamics, but rarely says, in any detail, how these laws are being violated. I like to think that most people are capable of changing their minds if presented with a detailed rebuttal.


What more detail do you need about trying to use a cold gas to heat a hotter surface? Do you like to make hot coffee with an ice cube?

The S-B law states:

radiance = S-B constant * emissivity (a constant) * temp ^ 4

In other words, radiance is always proportional to temperature. It is never inversely proportional to the temperature.

The Magick Bouncing Photon argument restricts the emission of IR light (reducing radiance overall) while temperature is increasing. That means you are trying to make temperature increase by reducing radiance, making them inversely proportional.

Now if you need more dumbing down than that, I'm afraid the concept is beyond you.


I think you overdid the "dumbing down" process with your statement of the S-B law. You left out that the law is referring to a black body. A perfect blackbody is one that absorbs all incoming light and does not reflect any. If you held pure CO2 up to light, it would appear clear, not black. Therefore it is not a black body. And, therefore, the Stefan-Boltzmann law doesn't apply to "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere.

Look at the equation again. It has an emissivity constant. It applies to ALL bodies, including the Earth, even if you don't know what the emissivity of Earth actually is.
Frescomexico wrote:
Also the scientific community, not as you say the science community, is a well-defined term. In Wikipedia: "The scientific community is a diverse network of interacting scientists. It includes many "sub-communities" working on particular scientific fields, and within particular institutions; interdisciplinary and cross-institutional activities are also significant."
Science is not a community. It is not scientists. It is not peer review. It is not consensus. It is not credentials. It is not observations. It is not data. It is not even people at all.

Science is just a collection of falsifiable theories that describe nature.


The Parrot Killer
23-04-2017 21:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.


Every complete definition of the second law of thermodynamics deals with isolated systems and states that the entropy can only increase over time. It cannot decrease. However, the earth and its atmosphere is not an isolated system. Energy from the sun is arriving all of the time. So the second law should not be applied.

CO2, and other infrared absorbing/emitting gases in the atmosphere act more like an insulator of radiant energy as it leaves the earth toward outer space. The same amount of energy leaves the earth as it received from the sun, but the temperature gradient becomes altered causing the earth's surface temperature to rise slightly.


The laws of thermodynamics are NOT something that only operate in a closed system. The fact that energy is being inserted from outside has absolutely no bearing on these laws.

CO2 is so rare even at 5 times what it presently is that it can have no effect whatsoever because the absorption bands for the energy it receives are too narrow for it to have any effect.

CO2 is simply NOT a radiator - if loses energy in the lower atmosphere through conductance. In the upper atmosphere ALL gases radiate since that is the only method of losing energy. The other gases also are higher conductors and simply drag all of this heat out of the troposphere. In the March 10th Science they report that soil releases 34-37% more CO2 than previously estimated under the natural warming. Oceans are losing CO2 and not absorbing it. Man's additions are only a small percentage of the growth.

Tell me, are you supporting the deaths of billions of people which would occur under the plans of the IPCC?


I suggest that you contact Wikipedia and get them to change their definition which states "The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can only increase over time.

Wikipedia is not a source. They are frequently in error and they are heavily biased. Wikipedia cannot override the 2nd LoT.
Frescomexico wrote:
It can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state (equilibrium) or undergoing a reversible process.
In this case there is no heat. There is also no work that can be done.
Frescomexico wrote:
The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past."
Entropy does not define time. It can be used to describe the direction of time, but that is all. It doesn't apply to all cases.
Frescomexico wrote:
The isolated system is defined as follows: "a thermodynamic system enclosed by rigid immovable walls through which neither matter nor energy can pass."
...and your point?

The 2nd LoT does not require an isolated system.

Frescomexico wrote:
First you say that "CO2 is simply NOT a radiator". Later, you say "In the upper atmosphere ALL gases radiate since that is the only method of losing energy." I think you will find that CO2 gas will radiate at any pressure from a vacuum on up. At some pressures, convection and conduction predominate, but radiation can always occur.
All gases radiate, just as the surface does. It is not possible for any colder gas to heat the hotter surface. Heat ONLY flows from hot to cold. It never flows in reverse.
Frescomexico wrote:
I am in no way supporting the plans of the IPCC. In fact I think the organization should be disbanded immediately.
Here we agree, but you can't just ban them. All you can do is get government to cut off their funding. They will keep pushing their view though. It is not possible to stop that.
Frescomexico wrote:
But that does not mean that every precept of science that they endorse is in error.

Well...that turns out to be a vacuous argument. They don't use any science.


The Parrot Killer
23-04-2017 23:31
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.


Every complete definition of the second law of thermodynamics deals with isolated systems and states that the entropy can only increase over time. It cannot decrease. However, the earth and its atmosphere is not an isolated system. Energy from the sun is arriving all of the time. So the second law should not be applied.

CO2, and other infrared absorbing/emitting gases in the atmosphere act more like an insulator of radiant energy as it leaves the earth toward outer space. The same amount of energy leaves the earth as it received from the sun, but the temperature gradient becomes altered causing the earth's surface temperature to rise slightly.


The laws of thermodynamics are NOT something that only operate in a closed system. The fact that energy is being inserted from outside has absolutely no bearing on these laws.

CO2 is so rare even at 5 times what it presently is that it can have no effect whatsoever because the absorption bands for the energy it receives are too narrow for it to have any effect.

CO2 is simply NOT a radiator - if loses energy in the lower atmosphere through conductance. In the upper atmosphere ALL gases radiate since that is the only method of losing energy. The other gases also are higher conductors and simply drag all of this heat out of the troposphere. In the March 10th Science they report that soil releases 34-37% more CO2 than previously estimated under the natural warming. Oceans are losing CO2 and not absorbing it. Man's additions are only a small percentage of the growth.

Tell me, are you supporting the deaths of billions of people which would occur under the plans of the IPCC?


I suggest that you contact Wikipedia and get them to change their definition which states "The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can only increase over time.

Wikipedia is not a source. They are frequently in error and they are heavily biased. Wikipedia cannot override the 2nd LoT.
Frescomexico wrote:
It can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state (equilibrium) or undergoing a reversible process.
In this case there is no heat. There is also no work that can be done.
Frescomexico wrote:
The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past."
Entropy does not define time. It can be used to describe the direction of time, but that is all. It doesn't apply to all cases.
Frescomexico wrote:
The isolated system is defined as follows: "a thermodynamic system enclosed by rigid immovable walls through which neither matter nor energy can pass."
...and your point?

The 2nd LoT does not require an isolated system.

Frescomexico wrote:
First you say that "CO2 is simply NOT a radiator". Later, you say "In the upper atmosphere ALL gases radiate since that is the only method of losing energy." I think you will find that CO2 gas will radiate at any pressure from a vacuum on up. At some pressures, convection and conduction predominate, but radiation can always occur.
All gases radiate, just as the surface does. It is not possible for any colder gas to heat the hotter surface. Heat ONLY flows from hot to cold. It never flows in reverse.
Frescomexico wrote:
I am in no way supporting the plans of the IPCC. In fact I think the organization should be disbanded immediately.
Here we agree, but you can't just ban them. All you can do is get government to cut off their funding. They will keep pushing their view though. It is not possible to stop that.
Frescomexico wrote:
But that does not mean that every precept of science that they endorse is in error.

Well...that turns out to be a vacuous argument. They don't use any science.


Parrot Killer, I hope that is not your avocation, because we love parrots down here, although their call is hard to take, kind of like yours.

You have said that the second law does not require a closed system. I would like to believe you but your profile does not list you as an expert on thermodynamics. In fact it doesn't list you as anything. I guess, when asked for a source, I could say this guy/gal who kills parrots told me.

I don't recall saying that heat flowed from cold to hot, but thanks for the info.
23-04-2017 23:50
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

No. You cannot do work that way. Not even a refrigerator can do work that way.

It is not possible to have a colder gas heat a hotter surface. You can't do it by conduction. You can't do it by convection. You can't do it by radiance. Not even in a refrigerator.

Wake wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

I see you are one of those idiots that believe the Stefan-Boltzmann law does not have an emissivity constant. Very well, if you want to lock the emissivity constant to 1, then you cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann to predict what the temperature of a planet 'should' be (as if you could anyway).

Wake wrote:
More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.

WRONG. IR reaches the ground. Quite a lot of it. The atmosphere is far too thin to absorb much of it at all.


You aren't thinking this through - the photon of radiation that can leave a cold gas is the same amplitude as that from a hot gas. You just get more of them from the hotter gas. This means that if it is the proper wavelength it can be absorbed by a hotter gas.

The TOTAL transfer of energy from a warmer gas is more than that from a cooler one. And indeed entropy is ONLY one way in that regard.

And again you are thinking of IR as a thing. It is an entire bandwidth that stretches from just below the red visible spectrum to that just above the microwave bands. The IR emitted from the Sun is the high IR. This indeed makes it to the Earth. But this is not what the discussion encompasses.

We are discussing the specific wave lengths that come from the Earth upon being heated almost entirely by the visible spectrum from the Sun. These are very much lower than the spectrum from the Sun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg
This shows that the overwhelming majority of sunlight is in the UV, visible, and high IR areas. The extremely small contribution in the rather mislabeled section of CO2 to atmospheric energy is almost unmeasurable.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.randombio.com/spectra.png&imgrefurl=http://www.randombio.com/co2.html&h=401&w=490&tbnid=ONXsfk0BGcGBaM:&tbnh=160&tbnw=195&usg=__lJ1SSbPK71sKCGGUF-nznIkV-bk=&vet=10ahUKEwi5rNy3uLvTAhWk8YMKHYEbBmoQ9QEIKjAA..i&docid=Yiq_q30JSMDpSM&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5rNy3uLvTAhWk8YMKHYEbBmoQ9QEIKjAA

This is a better chart of CO2 absorption.

Also these charts are extremely wrong by being scaled in such a manner to ignore the actual percentages in the atmosphere.

The Stephan-Boltzman law has a set of constants that ONLY work for a blackbody radiator and the Earth is more like a bluebody radiator meaning that the constants are quite different. The frequencies of IR that are radiating from this are limited in scope. A pure blackbody radiator radiates in ALL frequencies that is regulated by the amount of energy present.
Edited on 23-04-2017 23:54
24-04-2017 03:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

No. You cannot do work that way. Not even a refrigerator can do work that way.

It is not possible to have a colder gas heat a hotter surface. You can't do it by conduction. You can't do it by convection. You can't do it by radiance. Not even in a refrigerator.

Wake wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

I see you are one of those idiots that believe the Stefan-Boltzmann law does not have an emissivity constant. Very well, if you want to lock the emissivity constant to 1, then you cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann to predict what the temperature of a planet 'should' be (as if you could anyway).

Wake wrote:
More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.

WRONG. IR reaches the ground. Quite a lot of it. The atmosphere is far too thin to absorb much of it at all.


You aren't thinking this through - the photon of radiation that can leave a cold gas is the same amplitude as that from a hot gas. You just get more of them from the hotter gas. This means that if it is the proper wavelength it can be absorbed by a hotter gas.

The TOTAL transfer of energy from a warmer gas is more than that from a cooler one. And indeed entropy is ONLY one way in that regard.

You cannot heat a hotter surface with a colder gas. You can't do it by conduction, convection, or radiance.
Wake wrote:
And again you are thinking of IR as a thing.

It is.
Wake wrote:
It is an entire bandwidth that stretches from just below the red visible spectrum to that just above the microwave bands.

That's a thing.
Wake wrote:
The IR emitted from the Sun is the high IR.

The Sun emits all the down into the radio bands.
Wake wrote:
This indeed makes it to the Earth. But this is not what the discussion encompasses.

It is. The claim that one color makes it to Earth but another color doesn't leave is nonsense.
Wake wrote:
We are discussing the specific wave lengths that come from the Earth upon being heated almost entirely by the visible spectrum from the Sun. These are very much lower than the spectrum from the Sun.

The Sun does put out these frequencies.
Wake wrote:
This shows that the overwhelming majority of sunlight is in the UV, visible, and high IR areas. The extremely small contribution in the rather mislabeled section of CO2 to atmospheric energy is almost unmeasurable.

The largest amount of energy from the Sun is in the infrared band. The PEAK of the energy from the Sun is in the visible bands.
Wake wrote:

This is a better chart of CO2 absorption.

Also these charts are extremely wrong by being scaled in such a manner to ignore the actual percentages in the atmosphere.

In the end it doesn't matter. Primary heating on the Earth is by infrared light, not visible. That certain frequencies in the infrared band get masked makes no difference.
Wake wrote:
The Stephan-Boltzman law has a set of constants that ONLY work for a blackbody radiator and the Earth is more like a bluebody radiator meaning that the constants are quite different.

There is no such thing as a bluebody radiator in Stefan-Boltzmann.
Wake wrote:
The frequencies of IR that are radiating from this are limited in scope. A pure blackbody radiator radiates in ALL frequencies that is regulated by the amount of energy present.

Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't care what color frequencies are radiated or absorbed. It is specifically color-blind, due to the nature of integrating Planck's law over all frequencies.


The Parrot Killer
RE: Closed or Open System24-04-2017 05:12
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
A number of postors to this thread have lined up on one side or the other of whether the second law of thermodynamics requires a closed system in order to be in effect. Just to add more information to the debate, I direct your attention to the paper below.

In this paper, the writers introduced the entropy of the universe which, of course, is an isolated system. They then put it equal to the entropy of a smaller system plus the entropy of the surroundings of that smaller system. Inasmuch as the smaller system has its own entropy, it might be considered a non-isolated system that can be acted upon by its surroundings. However it is restricted somewhat by the fact that its entropy is always the difference between that of the universe and that of the surroundings.

The examples given, however, lead one to believe that any non-isolated system is governed by the second law of thermodynamics.

https://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/Laws_of_Thermodynamics/Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics
24-04-2017 11:59
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Neither the earth nor CO2 are black bodies so why does Stefan-Boltzmann keep coming up in these discussions?
24-04-2017 17:26
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

No. You cannot do work that way. Not even a refrigerator can do work that way.

It is not possible to have a colder gas heat a hotter surface. You can't do it by conduction. You can't do it by convection. You can't do it by radiance. Not even in a refrigerator.

Wake wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

I see you are one of those idiots that believe the Stefan-Boltzmann law does not have an emissivity constant. Very well, if you want to lock the emissivity constant to 1, then you cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann to predict what the temperature of a planet 'should' be (as if you could anyway).

Wake wrote:
More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.

WRONG. IR reaches the ground. Quite a lot of it. The atmosphere is far too thin to absorb much of it at all.


You aren't thinking this through - the photon of radiation that can leave a cold gas is the same amplitude as that from a hot gas. You just get more of them from the hotter gas. This means that if it is the proper wavelength it can be absorbed by a hotter gas.

The TOTAL transfer of energy from a warmer gas is more than that from a cooler one. And indeed entropy is ONLY one way in that regard.

You cannot heat a hotter surface with a colder gas. You can't do it by conduction, convection, or radiance.
Wake wrote:
And again you are thinking of IR as a thing.

It is.
Wake wrote:
It is an entire bandwidth that stretches from just below the red visible spectrum to that just above the microwave bands.

That's a thing.
Wake wrote:
The IR emitted from the Sun is the high IR.

The Sun emits all the down into the radio bands.
Wake wrote:
This indeed makes it to the Earth. But this is not what the discussion encompasses.

It is. The claim that one color makes it to Earth but another color doesn't leave is nonsense.
Wake wrote:
We are discussing the specific wave lengths that come from the Earth upon being heated almost entirely by the visible spectrum from the Sun. These are very much lower than the spectrum from the Sun.

The Sun does put out these frequencies.
Wake wrote:
This shows that the overwhelming majority of sunlight is in the UV, visible, and high IR areas. The extremely small contribution in the rather mislabeled section of CO2 to atmospheric energy is almost unmeasurable.

The largest amount of energy from the Sun is in the infrared band. The PEAK of the energy from the Sun is in the visible bands.
Wake wrote:

This is a better chart of CO2 absorption.

Also these charts are extremely wrong by being scaled in such a manner to ignore the actual percentages in the atmosphere.

In the end it doesn't matter. Primary heating on the Earth is by infrared light, not visible. That certain frequencies in the infrared band get masked makes no difference.
Wake wrote:
The Stephan-Boltzman law has a set of constants that ONLY work for a blackbody radiator and the Earth is more like a bluebody radiator meaning that the constants are quite different.

There is no such thing as a bluebody radiator in Stefan-Boltzmann.
Wake wrote:
The frequencies of IR that are radiating from this are limited in scope. A pure blackbody radiator radiates in ALL frequencies that is regulated by the amount of energy present.

Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't care what color frequencies are radiated or absorbed. It is specifically color-blind, due to the nature of integrating Planck's law over all frequencies.


Let's start this from the beginning:

You do not understand that the laws of thermodynamics and the Stephan-Boltzmann Law are idealized reductions of reality.

As an example - the closest approximation to a black body radiator we have is the Sun. From a surface temperature of some 5800 degrees K into the absolute zero of space by using the Stephan-Boltzmann law you would expect a bell curve. https://www.easycalculation.com/maths-dictionary/bell_curve.html

But what we get is entirely different. We get, what, a Pearson's Curve?
http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter2/plank_sun_closer_look.html

What this means is that because of the reflection and absorption of the different components of the Earth that we do not get a smooth Bell Curve but one full of humps and flats.

As for the Second Law of Thermodynamics you are making pretty much the same sort of error. Thermodynamics isn't a unidirectional flow EXCEPT IN GROSS COMPOSITION. On a quantum level energy radiated goes in all directions but if there is more energy on one side it will tend to go equilibrate to the point that energy again going in all directions ends up with slight heat changes oscillating one way and the other but in whole remaining pretty much in equilibrium.

What you have to be careful of, is using textbook answers and descriptions of the real universe and the actual reality.
24-04-2017 19:35
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.


Every complete definition of the second law of thermodynamics deals with isolated systems and states that the entropy can only increase over time. It cannot decrease. However, the earth and its atmosphere is not an isolated system. Energy from the sun is arriving all of the time. So the second law should not be applied.

CO2, and other infrared absorbing/emitting gases in the atmosphere act more like an insulator of radiant energy as it leaves the earth toward outer space. The same amount of energy leaves the earth as it received from the sun, but the temperature gradient becomes altered causing the earth's surface temperature to rise slightly.


The laws of thermodynamics are NOT something that only operate in a closed system. The fact that energy is being inserted from outside has absolutely no bearing on these laws.

CO2 is so rare even at 5 times what it presently is that it can have no effect whatsoever because the absorption bands for the energy it receives are too narrow for it to have any effect.

CO2 is simply NOT a radiator - if loses energy in the lower atmosphere through conductance. In the upper atmosphere ALL gases radiate since that is the only method of losing energy. The other gases also are higher conductors and simply drag all of this heat out of the troposphere. In the March 10th Science they report that soil releases 34-37% more CO2 than previously estimated under the natural warming. Oceans are losing CO2 and not absorbing it. Man's additions are only a small percentage of the growth.

Tell me, are you supporting the deaths of billions of people which would occur under the plans of the IPCC?


I suggest that you contact Wikipedia and get them to change their definition which states "The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can only increase over time. It can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state (equilibrium) or undergoing a reversible process. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past."

The isolated system is defined as follows: "a thermodynamic system enclosed by rigid immovable walls through which neither matter nor energy can pass."

First you say that "CO2 is simply NOT a radiator". Later, you say "In the upper atmosphere ALL gases radiate since that is the only method of losing energy." I think you will find that CO2 gas will radiate at any pressure from a vacuum on up. At some pressures, convection and conduction predominate, but radiation can always occur.

I am in no way supporting the plans of the IPCC. In fact I think the organization should be disbanded immediately. But that does not mean that every precept of science that they endorse is in error.


By the way Fresco - be EXTREMELY careful of wikipedia. If you look up George Soros they have a large article telling you what a wonderful man he is - they talk about how he "escaped the Nazi's" in WW II. In fact he worked with the Nazi's at an age of 13. He helped round up Jews including his own family and he knew they were being sent to the death camps. Goebbels introduced him to other Nazi's as his "god-son". When he was questioned about whether he regretted being used by the Nazi's he replied that 1944 was the greatest time of his life. That the feeling of power was overwhelming.

He bought his way into American citizenship. He has made his fortune that makes Trump look like small change by wrecking the economies of other countries and shorting their money. He was the cause of the crash of the British lb. and the failure of the Greek economy.

Today he funds virtually every single troublemaking organization on this planet. He is the Chief anti-Semite despite the Wikipedia paragraph to the contrary.

So be extremely careful of what you believe from Wikipedia. It's pretty obvious that if you have enough money you can write your own ticket.
24-04-2017 19:47
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
He was the cause of the crash of the British lb. ...

So that's why it's only worth 0.454 kg!
24-04-2017 21:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

No. You cannot do work that way. Not even a refrigerator can do work that way.

It is not possible to have a colder gas heat a hotter surface. You can't do it by conduction. You can't do it by convection. You can't do it by radiance. Not even in a refrigerator.

Wake wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

I see you are one of those idiots that believe the Stefan-Boltzmann law does not have an emissivity constant. Very well, if you want to lock the emissivity constant to 1, then you cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann to predict what the temperature of a planet 'should' be (as if you could anyway).

Wake wrote:
More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.

WRONG. IR reaches the ground. Quite a lot of it. The atmosphere is far too thin to absorb much of it at all.


You aren't thinking this through - the photon of radiation that can leave a cold gas is the same amplitude as that from a hot gas. You just get more of them from the hotter gas. This means that if it is the proper wavelength it can be absorbed by a hotter gas.

The TOTAL transfer of energy from a warmer gas is more than that from a cooler one. And indeed entropy is ONLY one way in that regard.

You cannot heat a hotter surface with a colder gas. You can't do it by conduction, convection, or radiance.
Wake wrote:
And again you are thinking of IR as a thing.

It is.
Wake wrote:
It is an entire bandwidth that stretches from just below the red visible spectrum to that just above the microwave bands.

That's a thing.
Wake wrote:
The IR emitted from the Sun is the high IR.

The Sun emits all the down into the radio bands.
Wake wrote:
This indeed makes it to the Earth. But this is not what the discussion encompasses.

It is. The claim that one color makes it to Earth but another color doesn't leave is nonsense.
Wake wrote:
We are discussing the specific wave lengths that come from the Earth upon being heated almost entirely by the visible spectrum from the Sun. These are very much lower than the spectrum from the Sun.

The Sun does put out these frequencies.
Wake wrote:
This shows that the overwhelming majority of sunlight is in the UV, visible, and high IR areas. The extremely small contribution in the rather mislabeled section of CO2 to atmospheric energy is almost unmeasurable.

The largest amount of energy from the Sun is in the infrared band. The PEAK of the energy from the Sun is in the visible bands.
Wake wrote:

This is a better chart of CO2 absorption.

Also these charts are extremely wrong by being scaled in such a manner to ignore the actual percentages in the atmosphere.

In the end it doesn't matter. Primary heating on the Earth is by infrared light, not visible. That certain frequencies in the infrared band get masked makes no difference.
Wake wrote:
The Stephan-Boltzman law has a set of constants that ONLY work for a blackbody radiator and the Earth is more like a bluebody radiator meaning that the constants are quite different.

There is no such thing as a bluebody radiator in Stefan-Boltzmann.
Wake wrote:
The frequencies of IR that are radiating from this are limited in scope. A pure blackbody radiator radiates in ALL frequencies that is regulated by the amount of energy present.

Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't care what color frequencies are radiated or absorbed. It is specifically color-blind, due to the nature of integrating Planck's law over all frequencies.


Let's start this from the beginning:

You do not understand that the laws of thermodynamics and the Stephan-Boltzmann Law are idealized reductions of reality.

Not true. They apply everywhere in the real world. They both have reference points that are idealized. A reference point is not the total theory.
Wake wrote:
As an example - the closest approximation to a black body radiator we have is the Sun. From a surface temperature of some 5800 degrees K into the absolute zero of space by using the Stephan-Boltzmann law you would expect a bell curve. https://www.easycalculation.com/maths-dictionary/bell_curve.html
The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not calculate a bell curve. It calculates no curve of any kind. Are you referring to the correct law?
Wake wrote:
But what we get is entirely different. We get, what, a Pearson's Curve?
http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter2/plank_sun_closer_look.html
Don't get a Pearson's Curve either. You don't get a curve.
Wake wrote:
What this means is that because of the reflection and absorption of the different components of the Earth that we do not get a smooth Bell Curve but one full of humps and flats.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law is specifically colorblind. It does not care at all about color. I think you are confusing the Stefan-Boltzmann law with something like Wien's law.
Wake wrote:
As for the Second Law of Thermodynamics you are making pretty much the same sort of error. Thermodynamics isn't a unidirectional flow EXCEPT IN GROSS COMPOSITION. On a quantum level energy radiated goes in all directions but if there is more energy on one side it will tend to go equilibrate to the point that energy again going in all directions ends up with slight heat changes oscillating one way and the other but in whole remaining pretty much in equilibrium.

This is the 'how do you calculate the center of gravity' issue.

The center of gravity does not have to count every particle. The average of them is perfectly substitutable mathematically.

You don't have to count every particle, sub-particle, or any quantum theory stuff at all. It is just a strawman, since we are talking about thermal energy (average kinetic energy of molecules) and heat (flow of thermal energy). It is the same as using a center of gravity.

Wake wrote:
What you have to be careful of, is using textbook answers and descriptions of the real universe and the actual reality.


It IS actual reality. If you are discussing a particle or whole groups of particles, it is the same.

It is not possible for a colder gas to heat a hotter surface. You can't do it by conduction, convection, or radiance. Heat flows from hot to cold.

There is nothing idealized here. There applies to the real world just as much as quantum mechanics does.


The Parrot Killer
24-04-2017 21:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.


Every complete definition of the second law of thermodynamics deals with isolated systems and states that the entropy can only increase over time. It cannot decrease. However, the earth and its atmosphere is not an isolated system. Energy from the sun is arriving all of the time. So the second law should not be applied.

CO2, and other infrared absorbing/emitting gases in the atmosphere act more like an insulator of radiant energy as it leaves the earth toward outer space. The same amount of energy leaves the earth as it received from the sun, but the temperature gradient becomes altered causing the earth's surface temperature to rise slightly.


The laws of thermodynamics are NOT something that only operate in a closed system. The fact that energy is being inserted from outside has absolutely no bearing on these laws.

CO2 is so rare even at 5 times what it presently is that it can have no effect whatsoever because the absorption bands for the energy it receives are too narrow for it to have any effect.

CO2 is simply NOT a radiator - if loses energy in the lower atmosphere through conductance. In the upper atmosphere ALL gases radiate since that is the only method of losing energy. The other gases also are higher conductors and simply drag all of this heat out of the troposphere. In the March 10th Science they report that soil releases 34-37% more CO2 than previously estimated under the natural warming. Oceans are losing CO2 and not absorbing it. Man's additions are only a small percentage of the growth.

Tell me, are you supporting the deaths of billions of people which would occur under the plans of the IPCC?


I suggest that you contact Wikipedia and get them to change their definition which states "The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can only increase over time. It can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state (equilibrium) or undergoing a reversible process. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past."

The isolated system is defined as follows: "a thermodynamic system enclosed by rigid immovable walls through which neither matter nor energy can pass."

First you say that "CO2 is simply NOT a radiator". Later, you say "In the upper atmosphere ALL gases radiate since that is the only method of losing energy." I think you will find that CO2 gas will radiate at any pressure from a vacuum on up. At some pressures, convection and conduction predominate, but radiation can always occur.

I am in no way supporting the plans of the IPCC. In fact I think the organization should be disbanded immediately. But that does not mean that every precept of science that they endorse is in error.


By the way Fresco - be EXTREMELY careful of wikipedia. If you look up George Soros they have a large article telling you what a wonderful man he is - they talk about how he "escaped the Nazi's" in WW II. In fact he worked with the Nazi's at an age of 13. He helped round up Jews including his own family and he knew they were being sent to the death camps. Goebbels introduced him to other Nazi's as his "god-son". When he was questioned about whether he regretted being used by the Nazi's he replied that 1944 was the greatest time of his life. That the feeling of power was overwhelming.

He bought his way into American citizenship. He has made his fortune that makes Trump look like small change by wrecking the economies of other countries and shorting their money. He was the cause of the crash of the British lb. and the failure of the Greek economy.

Today he funds virtually every single troublemaking organization on this planet. He is the Chief anti-Semite despite the Wikipedia paragraph to the contrary.

So be extremely careful of what you believe from Wikipedia. It's pretty obvious that if you have enough money you can write your own ticket.

Considering it's badly written articles and bias problems, I dismiss anyone attempting to use Wkipedia as a source.

I discourage sources in general. Their use indicates someone that is not thinking for themselves, but it depending on the arguments of others to think for them. They lose the ability to discern what may be wrong with the arguments of others. Those others are not here to discuss it.


The Parrot Killer
24-04-2017 22:42
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

No. You cannot do work that way. Not even a refrigerator can do work that way.

It is not possible to have a colder gas heat a hotter surface. You can't do it by conduction. You can't do it by convection. You can't do it by radiance. Not even in a refrigerator.

Wake wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

I see you are one of those idiots that believe the Stefan-Boltzmann law does not have an emissivity constant. Very well, if you want to lock the emissivity constant to 1, then you cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann to predict what the temperature of a planet 'should' be (as if you could anyway).

Wake wrote:
More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.

WRONG. IR reaches the ground. Quite a lot of it. The atmosphere is far too thin to absorb much of it at all.


You aren't thinking this through - the photon of radiation that can leave a cold gas is the same amplitude as that from a hot gas. You just get more of them from the hotter gas. This means that if it is the proper wavelength it can be absorbed by a hotter gas.

The TOTAL transfer of energy from a warmer gas is more than that from a cooler one. And indeed entropy is ONLY one way in that regard.

You cannot heat a hotter surface with a colder gas. You can't do it by conduction, convection, or radiance.
Wake wrote:
And again you are thinking of IR as a thing.

It is.
Wake wrote:
It is an entire bandwidth that stretches from just below the red visible spectrum to that just above the microwave bands.

That's a thing.
Wake wrote:
The IR emitted from the Sun is the high IR.

The Sun emits all the down into the radio bands.
Wake wrote:
This indeed makes it to the Earth. But this is not what the discussion encompasses.

It is. The claim that one color makes it to Earth but another color doesn't leave is nonsense.
Wake wrote:
We are discussing the specific wave lengths that come from the Earth upon being heated almost entirely by the visible spectrum from the Sun. These are very much lower than the spectrum from the Sun.

The Sun does put out these frequencies.
Wake wrote:
This shows that the overwhelming majority of sunlight is in the UV, visible, and high IR areas. The extremely small contribution in the rather mislabeled section of CO2 to atmospheric energy is almost unmeasurable.

The largest amount of energy from the Sun is in the infrared band. The PEAK of the energy from the Sun is in the visible bands.
Wake wrote:

This is a better chart of CO2 absorption.

Also these charts are extremely wrong by being scaled in such a manner to ignore the actual percentages in the atmosphere.

In the end it doesn't matter. Primary heating on the Earth is by infrared light, not visible. That certain frequencies in the infrared band get masked makes no difference.
Wake wrote:
The Stephan-Boltzman law has a set of constants that ONLY work for a blackbody radiator and the Earth is more like a bluebody radiator meaning that the constants are quite different.

There is no such thing as a bluebody radiator in Stefan-Boltzmann.
Wake wrote:
The frequencies of IR that are radiating from this are limited in scope. A pure blackbody radiator radiates in ALL frequencies that is regulated by the amount of energy present.

Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't care what color frequencies are radiated or absorbed. It is specifically color-blind, due to the nature of integrating Planck's law over all frequencies.


Let's start this from the beginning:

You do not understand that the laws of thermodynamics and the Stephan-Boltzmann Law are idealized reductions of reality.

Not true. They apply everywhere in the real world. They both have reference points that are idealized. A reference point is not the total theory.
Wake wrote:
As an example - the closest approximation to a black body radiator we have is the Sun. From a surface temperature of some 5800 degrees K into the absolute zero of space by using the Stephan-Boltzmann law you would expect a bell curve. https://www.easycalculation.com/maths-dictionary/bell_curve.html
The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not calculate a bell curve. It calculates no curve of any kind. Are you referring to the correct law?
Wake wrote:
But what we get is entirely different. We get, what, a Pearson's Curve?
http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter2/plank_sun_closer_look.html
Don't get a Pearson's Curve either. You don't get a curve.
Wake wrote:
What this means is that because of the reflection and absorption of the different components of the Earth that we do not get a smooth Bell Curve but one full of humps and flats.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law is specifically colorblind. It does not care at all about color. I think you are confusing the Stefan-Boltzmann law with something like Wien's law.
Wake wrote:
As for the Second Law of Thermodynamics you are making pretty much the same sort of error. Thermodynamics isn't a unidirectional flow EXCEPT IN GROSS COMPOSITION. On a quantum level energy radiated goes in all directions but if there is more energy on one side it will tend to go equilibrate to the point that energy again going in all directions ends up with slight heat changes oscillating one way and the other but in whole remaining pretty much in equilibrium.

This is the 'how do you calculate the center of gravity' issue.

The center of gravity does not have to count every particle. The average of them is perfectly substitutable mathematically.

You don't have to count every particle, sub-particle, or any quantum theory stuff at all. It is just a strawman, since we are talking about thermal energy (average kinetic energy of molecules) and heat (flow of thermal energy). It is the same as using a center of gravity.

Wake wrote:
What you have to be careful of, is using textbook answers and descriptions of the real universe and the actual reality.


It IS actual reality. If you are discussing a particle or whole groups of particles, it is the same.

It is not possible for a colder gas to heat a hotter surface. You can't do it by conduction, convection, or radiance. Heat flows from hot to cold.

There is nothing idealized here. There applies to the real world just as much as quantum mechanics does.


Pardon me, rather than Stephan-Boltzmann I was thinking of Planck's Law. However, in actuality, energy is NOT from any point source meaning that the source is a central point bleeding off in both directions and causing a bell curve property.

Again, where are you coming from when you are thinking of energy as a single entity? We are in agreement that heat flows from a source to a sink until equilibrium is reached. But you think that it is like pouring water out of a pitcher and down a drain. Think of this - if you get the pitcher close enough to the sink you will have splash back that doesn't fill the pitcher but does occur.

On the quantum level it is energy being RADIATED in all directions and that means also back to the source. The end result is that the source and sink will reach an equilibrium.

You appear to be insisting that this can only happen without any interference of any sort. The energy of the source CANNOT increase from these interactions but they do occur. Since the majority of energy flow is from the source to the sink they do reach equilibrium at which point any energy they have is transmitted back and forth in any material above absolute zero.
24-04-2017 23:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
It is a comfort to know that someone is policing the scientific community to be sure that nobody is breaking the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The second law of thermodynamics is very clear - can a colder gas radiate heat to a warmer one? Yes, but ONLY by doing work. That means that BOTH gases are losing energy - in any normal world that is cooling.

No. You cannot do work that way. Not even a refrigerator can do work that way.

It is not possible to have a colder gas heat a hotter surface. You can't do it by conduction. You can't do it by convection. You can't do it by radiance. Not even in a refrigerator.

Wake wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply because the Earth is NOT a black body radiator. It has a limited emission band and most of the IR is lifted above the tropopause by conduction/convection. The radiation in the lower atmosphere is only 1/3rd of the energy that the lower atmosphere and Earth absorbed.

I see you are one of those idiots that believe the Stefan-Boltzmann law does not have an emissivity constant. Very well, if you want to lock the emissivity constant to 1, then you cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann to predict what the temperature of a planet 'should' be (as if you could anyway).

Wake wrote:
More importantly almost the entire band of IR in the CO2 absorption band that the Sun emits is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 before it ever gets to ground level.

WRONG. IR reaches the ground. Quite a lot of it. The atmosphere is far too thin to absorb much of it at all.


You aren't thinking this through - the photon of radiation that can leave a cold gas is the same amplitude as that from a hot gas. You just get more of them from the hotter gas. This means that if it is the proper wavelength it can be absorbed by a hotter gas.

The TOTAL transfer of energy from a warmer gas is more than that from a cooler one. And indeed entropy is ONLY one way in that regard.

You cannot heat a hotter surface with a colder gas. You can't do it by conduction, convection, or radiance.
Wake wrote:
And again you are thinking of IR as a thing.

It is.
Wake wrote:
It is an entire bandwidth that stretches from just below the red visible spectrum to that just above the microwave bands.

That's a thing.
Wake wrote:
The IR emitted from the Sun is the high IR.

The Sun emits all the down into the radio bands.
Wake wrote:
This indeed makes it to the Earth. But this is not what the discussion encompasses.

It is. The claim that one color makes it to Earth but another color doesn't leave is nonsense.
Wake wrote:
We are discussing the specific wave lengths that come from the Earth upon being heated almost entirely by the visible spectrum from the Sun. These are very much lower than the spectrum from the Sun.

The Sun does put out these frequencies.
Wake wrote:
This shows that the overwhelming majority of sunlight is in the UV, visible, and high IR areas. The extremely small contribution in the rather mislabeled section of CO2 to atmospheric energy is almost unmeasurable.

The largest amount of energy from the Sun is in the infrared band. The PEAK of the energy from the Sun is in the visible bands.
Wake wrote:

This is a better chart of CO2 absorption.

Also these charts are extremely wrong by being scaled in such a manner to ignore the actual percentages in the atmosphere.

In the end it doesn't matter. Primary heating on the Earth is by infrared light, not visible. That certain frequencies in the infrared band get masked makes no difference.
Wake wrote:
The Stephan-Boltzman law has a set of constants that ONLY work for a blackbody radiator and the Earth is more like a bluebody radiator meaning that the constants are quite different.

There is no such thing as a bluebody radiator in Stefan-Boltzmann.
Wake wrote:
The frequencies of IR that are radiating from this are limited in scope. A pure blackbody radiator radiates in ALL frequencies that is regulated by the amount of energy present.

Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't care what color frequencies are radiated or absorbed. It is specifically color-blind, due to the nature of integrating Planck's law over all frequencies.


Let's start this from the beginning:

You do not understand that the laws of thermodynamics and the Stephan-Boltzmann Law are idealized reductions of reality.

Not true. They apply everywhere in the real world. They both have reference points that are idealized. A reference point is not the total theory.
Wake wrote:
As an example - the closest approximation to a black body radiator we have is the Sun. From a surface temperature of some 5800 degrees K into the absolute zero of space by using the Stephan-Boltzmann law you would expect a bell curve. https://www.easycalculation.com/maths-dictionary/bell_curve.html
The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not calculate a bell curve. It calculates no curve of any kind. Are you referring to the correct law?
Wake wrote:
But what we get is entirely different. We get, what, a Pearson's Curve?
http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter2/plank_sun_closer_look.html
Don't get a Pearson's Curve either. You don't get a curve.
Wake wrote:
What this means is that because of the reflection and absorption of the different components of the Earth that we do not get a smooth Bell Curve but one full of humps and flats.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law is specifically colorblind. It does not care at all about color. I think you are confusing the Stefan-Boltzmann law with something like Wien's law.
Wake wrote:
As for the Second Law of Thermodynamics you are making pretty much the same sort of error. Thermodynamics isn't a unidirectional flow EXCEPT IN GROSS COMPOSITION. On a quantum level energy radiated goes in all directions but if there is more energy on one side it will tend to go equilibrate to the point that energy again going in all directions ends up with slight heat changes oscillating one way and the other but in whole remaining pretty much in equilibrium.

This is the 'how do you calculate the center of gravity' issue.

The center of gravity does not have to count every particle. The average of them is perfectly substitutable mathematically.

You don't have to count every particle, sub-particle, or any quantum theory stuff at all. It is just a strawman, since we are talking about thermal energy (average kinetic energy of molecules) and heat (flow of thermal energy). It is the same as using a center of gravity.

Wake wrote:
What you have to be careful of, is using textbook answers and descriptions of the real universe and the actual reality.


It IS actual reality. If you are discussing a particle or whole groups of particles, it is the same.

It is not possible for a colder gas to heat a hotter surface. You can't do it by conduction, convection, or radiance. Heat flows from hot to cold.

There is nothing idealized here. There applies to the real world just as much as quantum mechanics does.


Pardon me, rather than Stephan-Boltzmann I was thinking of Planck's Law. However, in actuality, energy is NOT from any point source meaning that the source is a central point bleeding off in both directions and causing a bell curve property.

What is this? No energy comes from a point source, since a point is infinitely small. For practical purposes sources such as the Sun (as large as it is) is considered a point source. Why are you fixated on bell and Preason's curves?
Wake wrote:
Again, where are you coming from when you are thinking of energy as a single entity? We are in agreement that heat flows from a source to a sink until equilibrium is reached. But you think that it is like pouring water out of a pitcher and down a drain. Think of this - if you get the pitcher close enough to the sink you will have splash back that doesn't fill the pitcher but does occur.

A little problem. A molecule (or an atom) once having absorbed a photon will not absorb another photon of that frequency until it has lost the energy somehow.
Wake wrote:
On the quantum level it is energy being RADIATED in all directions and that means also back to the source. The end result is that the source and sink will reach an equilibrium.

You appear to be insisting that this can only happen without any interference of any sort. The energy of the source CANNOT increase from these interactions but they do occur. Since the majority of energy flow is from the source to the sink they do reach equilibrium at which point any energy they have is transmitted back and forth in any material above absolute zero.

You are counting grains of sand instead of looking at the beach.

The laws of thermodynamics concern the 'beach', not the 'grains of sand'. So does the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Both the grains of sand and the beach exist. They are real.


The Parrot Killer
25-04-2017 05:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6618)
spot wrote:How exactly has it helped the environment and is there evidence to support such an assertion. Because I fail to see how it has.

What does "Climate" have to do with the environment?


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
25-04-2017 05:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6618)
spot posted: Ice is melting worldwide, especially at the Earth's poles. This includes mountain glaciers, ice sheets covering West Antarctica and Greenland, and Arctic sea ice.

I love the warmizombie fear-mongering propaganda for the gullible.

Ice is forming worldwide, especially at the poles.This includes mountain glaciers, ice sheets covering West Antarctica and Greenland, and Arctic sea ice.

spot posted: Many species have been impacted by rising temperatures.

Many species have been impacted by lowering temperatures.


spot posted: The sea level has been rising more quickly over the last century.

There has been no discernible sea-level rise or fall since at least the early 1950s. We have the Maldives to drive this point home.


spot posted:Some butterflies, foxes, and alpine plants have moved farther north or to higher, cooler areas.

Their food has moved/shifted for unrelated reasons and they like to eat, so they shift/move to where the food is.


spot posted:Precipitation (rain and snowfall) has increased across the globe, on average.

Nobody tracks average global precipitation to any usable accuracy.

spot posted: Some invasive species are thriving. For example, spruce bark beetles have boomed in Alaska thanks to 20 years of warm summers. The insects have chewed up 4 million acres of spruce trees.

The spruce bark beetle is thriving in Alaska because there is a virtually unlimited supply of spruce trees, among other things, but Global Warming is not one of them.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
25-04-2017 05:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6618)
spot wrote:I think you will find most people regard The National Geographic magazine as credible.

Correction: most warmizombies regard National Geographic as credible, but they aren't really people ... more like mindless undead.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
25-04-2017 05:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6618)
Surface Detail wrote: Well, that's disappointing. For some reason, I was thinking that, although deeply cynical, you were arguing with some degree of intellectual honesty. Apparently not, though, given your posting of that graph:

Give it a rest. You have never been able to discuss Global Warming honestly. You can only deny science.

You can't even formally define "Climate" in any way that makes sense. You don't even know what a domain is in math.

Let's keep throwing stones, shall we?


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
30-04-2017 01:49
LifeIsThermal
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
Wake wrote:
What you have to be careful of, is using textbook answers and descriptions of the real universe and the actual reality.


I would say that you have to be careful to not make shit up, and keep to the textbooks. Why, why, why, do you think that the most proven, studied and applied theories that exist, should be disregarded? And we should accept that you make shit up instead?

The theory of thermal physics and radiating bodies, is THE consensus of all consensuses there is. 100%. First place. You are in last place.
Page 7 of 8<<<5678>





Join the debate Consensus of Scientists and Proof:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
A Post On Quora Explaining What is Wrong With The 97% Consensus Studies208-03-2020 18:17
Ocean currents are speeding up faster than scientists predicted417-02-2020 14:55
SCIENTISTS: 30 Years Of Data Show The 'Godfather' Global Warming Was Wrong1711-02-2020 17:42
I don't believe CO2 makes air hotter because I don't see any experimental proof509-10-2019 03:15
The most honest climate scientist among the most dishonest climate scientists203-09-2019 04:38
▲ 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