Energy and resource crisis in the future

Xadoman wrote: But I can not still understand what is wrong in his calculations.

Xadoman wrote:
tmiddles, I saw your thread about body in room and I must say I am truly puzzled now how the body does not freeze in the room. I do not belive in the climate hysteria anymore though.

IBdaMann wrote:
Xadoman, this is how religions work....

tmiddles wrote:

Xadoman wrote:
tmiddles, I saw your thread about body in room and I must say I am truly puzzled now how the body does not freeze in the room. I do not belive in the climate hysteria anymore though.

There is nothing to be puzzled about. Of course there is no reason radiance from a cooler object can't be absorbed by a warmer one.

tmiddles wrote:
Note the post later in that topic with 12 references to back that up (to go along with personal experience and common sense):

tmiddles wrote:
This DOES NOT mean that the world is ending or that the doom and gloom theories on global warming are right.

tmiddles wrote:
It just means that ITN/IBD are totally full of it.

tmiddles wrote:
There are 3 groups:
Consensus: Accept the IPCC gospel on dire Global Warming

tmiddles wrote:
Skeptics: Question that gospel with everything from proof it's not founded to proof it's wrong

tmiddles wrote:
Deniers: Throw out wacked out, unsupported and dead wrong arguments (like saying that every textbook on thermodynamics is wrong)

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Xadoman, this is how religions work....

So just to clarify. The "Religeous" text I copy and pasted the person in a room problem from was a college physics text book. (see about for that and 11 more).

tmiddles wrote:
Note that ITN/IBD have nothing to say on how you don't freeze to death.
Should be simple right?

tmiddles wrote:
And it is! As the text book shows.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Xadoman, this is how religions work....

So just to clarify. The "Religeous" text I copy and pasted the person in a room problem from was a college physics text book.

On 28 August 2019, IBdaMann wrote: So, you and I are in and endless loop. Every time you bring up this example, I will simply copy-paste the following:

"And your repeatable instance of any thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body is _______________________________?"

... and I encourage everyone else to do the same until you meet your burden to support your claim, per the scientific method.

On 2 September 2019: GasGuzzler wrote: Still waiting for that repeatable example of cooler flowing backwards to warmer.

On 4 September 2019, IBdaMann wrote: If you are saying that "some" heat flows from cold to hot, just less than that which is flowing from hot to cold, then you are acknowledging that some heat flows from cold to hot, i.e. exactly what Into the Night said. Your response should have been "Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, and here's the simple repeatable experiment that so demonstrates this principle."

So, devise a repeatable demonstration that focuses on heat flowing from cold to hot and I'll do it.

On 4 September 2019, Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:I happen to be waiting for a repeatable example

But you've never said what that is.

He doesn't have to. YOU have to. He is claiming nothing. YOU are claiming to have falsified the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The burden of proof is on YOU.

On 5 September 2019, IBdaMann wrote:Hello! We are all still waiting for that repeatable example.

On 20 September 2019, IBdaMann wrote [to tmiddles]:
* In what repeatable test can we isolate some thermal energy flowing from a cooler object to a warmer object ... even though more thermal energy is flowing the other way?

Let's establish that you are correct so we can move forward. Is that fair or is that asking too much?

On 21 September 2019, IBdaMann wrote [to tmiddles]: Should I publicly apologize to you for any inconvenience the ball may have caused you by being in your court for months?

I see you are still assigning positions to me that are not mine and still pretending to speak for every text book.

If only you would devote a flake of that effort to providing a repeatable example of what you are discussing then we could continue.

On 23 September 2019, IBdaMann wrote [to tmiddles]: My question: what repeatable experiment can you and I perform that doesn't involve living things in which we can isolate the thermal energy flowing from colder to warmer and confirm that you are absolutely correct so that we can resume the discussion so I can get to the part of the discussion into which I want to delve and answer your question above as well?

I'm thinking E-Z-Peezy-Lemon-Squeezy .

On 23 September 2019, Into the Night wrote [to tmiddles]:BTW, when are you going to answer IBdaMann's question he put to you?

On 26 September 2019, GasGuzzler wrote:I have also learned that science is falsifiable. It can't be proven right. It can only be proven wrong. Therefore, anyone with opposite views must be heard. There is that chance they have falsified a theory of science. However, in order to do so, they must have a repeatable example.

You would gain some credibility back if you could do this....you know, the heat flowing backwards thing.

On 7 October 2019, IBdaMann wrote [to tmiddles]:Yes, you used a non-repeatable illustration to draw false larger conclusions ... and then you quickly shut down the discussion when scrutiny was applied.

I was so hoping to tell you that what happens is exactly what your repeatable example shows ... which presumably was going to support your point ... but then you quickly shut down the discussion before providing me that repeatable example.

Are you saying that you now have one that you are going to share and that we should re-engage the conversation?

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: That's because "warming" and "heat" refer to an increase in the grand total of thermal energy. ...[snip] ... "WARMING" and "HEAT" refer to the NET effect.

Sure. Of course. Let's take a look at a simple repeatable example of thermal energy flowing from a cooler body a warmer body ... as a starting point.

Any repeatable example you want.

[prediction: I sense a non-repeatable example forthcoming]

IBdaMann wrote:
your "NET FLOW" argument.
.

tmiddles wrote: It's not "my" net flow argument.

IBdaMann wrote:
If you don't know what "repeatable" means...

Yes there is. The 2nd law of thermodynamics.

tmiddles wrote: Guess what IBD. I don't care about your games anymore. Play with yourself.

MarcusR wrote: That is a common misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

MarcusR wrote: Consider the following example

MarcusR wrote:Well, they are besides temperature the same, so that photon will be absorbed by the 320K body, thus ~0.082 eV of energy is transfered from the 300K body go the 320K body.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
your "NET FLOW" argument.

It's not "my" net flow argument.

tmiddles wrote:
A person in a room IS a repeatable example.

tmiddles wrote:
It's perfect in my opinion as it could not be more relatable to all of us.

tmiddles wrote:
You are just playing games.

tmiddles wrote:
You have never presented an example of what you call a repeatable example.

tmiddles wrote:
You have never found any data to be valid.

tmiddles wrote:
You are not an authority, judge or standard setter of any kind.

tmiddles wrote:
You and ITN have been thoroughly and completely debunked and have had no response to it. Other than to lie and claim you responded without a quote or link.

tmiddles wrote:
You can't explain how a person in a room maintains body temperature. You're a fraud.

tmiddles wrote:
Good luck getting a game going, I will never play hide the ball with you again.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
If you don't know what "repeatable" means...

Oh!! IBD is hiding the ball again! Oh what oh what might he mean? Maybe I can try to look for this easter egg of hidden IBD knowledge in past posts. But IBD never says anything of consequence? Oh what a riddle.

Guess what IBD. I don't care about your games anymore. Play with yourself.

MarcusR wrote:

Yes there is. The 2nd law of thermodynamics.

That is a common misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Consider the following example
1. You have a isolated system (in equlibirum) with 3 bodies, one at 320K, one at 300K and one at 280K. The bodies are besides that physically equal.
2. Now, lets say a photon of i.e 15um is emitted from the body at 300K. It travels in direction towards the 280K body and is absorbed by the latter. Thus ~0,082 eV of energy is transfered from the body with 300K to the body of 280K
3. Assume that another 15 um photon is emitted from the 300K body but it travels towards the 320K body. What will happen to that photon the it reaches the body at 320K ? Well, they are besides temperature the same, so that photon will be absorbed by the 320K body, thus ~0.082 eV of energy is transfered from the 300K body go the 320K body.

Ultimately the net flow of energy weil, mean that all three bodies will be at 300K. But that does NOT mean that any body can choose NOT to absorb a i.e 15 um photon depending upon the temperature of the body of origin. So radiative heat transfer within the earth/atmosphere system does not violate the 2nd law.

There are several good books on thermodynamics out there. I can recomend Fundamentals of Thermodynamics by Borgnakke / Sonntag.

MarcusR wrote:What will happen to that photon the it reaches the body at 320K ? ...absorbed...

IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
2) what the photons actually do is governed more by uncertainty than by any science that predicts what will happen. Like I said before, photons can deflect, do back-flips, take selfies and interact in any way other than being absorbed.

tmiddles wrote:

MarcusR wrote:What will happen to that photon the it reaches the body at 320K ? ...absorbed...

Very nice example MarcusR. I hope you'll stick around to discuss more than what every Physics text book affirms. You write well.

I don't think it's a misunderstanding at all. It's a deliberately manufactured "poison pill" some dishonest deniers try to inject into the debate.

It's been well exposed on this forum before. See below:

IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
2) what the photons actually do is governed more by uncertainty than by any science that predicts what will happen. Like I said before, photons can deflect, do back-flips, take selfies and interact in any way other than being absorbed.

No matter what they will never address the question of what happens when two objects are at equilibrium as it's there that such a wacky concept really gets funny. Of course this denial of net radiative transfer is not supported anywhere. YET you will see this strange angle bandied about online so I do think it's worth clearly exposing it for the BS it is.

tmiddles wrote:
Not to mention this weird concept makes a "black body" an impossibility since it would cease to absorb any radiance from lower temperature object, thereby ceasing to be a black body.

tmiddles wrote:
Of course NET thermal transfer being what HEAT is has been understood, demonstrated and accepted since Pierre Provost established it over 239 years ago. (see in my sig). Anyway, it's sad to debate elementary physics and the dictionary with dishonest posters.

tmiddles wrote:
I have also present 12 references that show how universally consistent the concept is presented: TWELVE REFERENCES ON NET RADIANCE

tmiddles wrote:
These jokers have had no response to any of this other than to claim they had a response which they won't quote or link to. I know this is probably depressing news about the forum but I hope you'll stay.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
I have also present 12 references that show how universally consistent the concept is presented: TWELVE REFERENCES ON NET RADIANCE

And you continue to misquote these references.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
I have also present 12 references that show how universally consistent the concept is presented: TWELVE REFERENCES ON NET RADIANCE

And you continue to misquote these references.

Note that ITN makes no attempt to point out the error.

tmiddles wrote:
Just random hand waving that "something went wrong".

tmiddles wrote:
He will also lie and claim he did point it out. But nope. Never did. It's total BS.

tmiddles wrote:
Those 12 references are primarily college level text books.

There is no such thing as 'net heat'. Heat only flows from hot to cold. You don't get to just discard the 2nd law of thermodynamics either.

MarcusR wrote: Here is the story of the poor photon leaving the Moon;

IBdaMann wrote:

MarcusR wrote: Here is the story of the poor photon leaving the Moon;

Nope. I'm not interested in photons if what is being discussed is the flow of thermal energy. Let's just look at the thermal energy between the earth and the dark side of the moon, without any irrelevant distractions.

Oh, look. Thermal energy only flows from the warmer to the cooler.

Gee, that was easy.


.

Xadoman wrote:
Who else agrees with me that maybe all this climate hysteria is a convinient cover up story for the depletion problem.

Xadoman wrote:
It is easier to say to people that lets save the planet( green energy etc) otherwise it is going to overheat than to say to people that we are going to be in deep "..." soon because we have consumed all our resources and industrial civilization is soon no longer possible.

Xadoman wrote:
I myself am not scared of global warming anymore but I am sure as hell scared of depletion oil and other precious resources.

Xadoman wrote:
The future seems doomish.

MarcusR wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

MarcusR wrote: Here is the story of the poor photon leaving the Moon;

Nope. I'm not interested in photons if what is being discussed is the flow of thermal energy. Let's just look at the thermal energy between the earth and the dark side of the moon, without any irrelevant distractions.

Oh, look. Thermal energy only flows from the warmer to the cooler.

Gee, that was easy.


.

And by what means do the energy flow ??

tmiddles wrote:He will also lie and claim he did point it out.

Into the Night wrote:
Already did. RQAA.

Xadoman wrote:...climate hysteria is a convinient cover up story for ...soon because we have consumed all our resources ...

MarcusR wrote:
Here is the story of the poor photon leaving the Moon;

IBdaMann wrote:
Nope. I'm not interested in photons

Into the Night wrote:

MarcusR wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

MarcusR wrote: Here is the story of the poor photon leaving the Moon;

Nope. I'm not interested in photons ....

And by what means do the energy flow ??

Conduction, convection, and radiance.

MarcusR wrote: And by what means do the energy flow ??

Into the Night wrote:

MarcusR wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

MarcusR wrote: Here is the story of the poor photon leaving the Moon;

Nope. I'm not interested in photons if what is being discussed is the flow of thermal energy. Let's just look at the thermal energy between the earth and the dark side of the moon, without any irrelevant distractions.

Oh, look. Thermal energy only flows from the warmer to the cooler.

Gee, that was easy.


.

And by what means do the energy flow ??

Conduction, convection, and radiance.

Like I said, I'm not interested in distractions. The means is unimportant when you and I both are fully acknowledging that it happens.

Ergo, looking only at the flow of the thermal energy, because the thermal energy is all that concerns us, I see only a monotone decrease in thermal energy of the warmer and only a monotone increase of thermal energy in the cooler. I never see any increases in thermal energy in the warmer or any decreases in thermal energy in the cooler.
.

IBdaMann wrote:

MarcusR wrote: Here is the story of the poor photon leaving the Moon;

Nope. I'm not interested in photons if what is being discussed is the flow of thermal energy. Let's just look at the thermal energy between the earth and the dark side of the moon, without any irrelevant distractions.

Oh, look. Thermal energy only flows from the warmer to the cooler.

Gee, that was easy.


.

IBdaMann wrote:

MarcusR wrote: And by what means do the energy flow ??

...looking only at the flow of the thermal energy, ...

IBdaMann wrote:

MarcusR wrote:Well, they are besides temperature the same, so that photon will be absorbed by the 320K body, thus ~0.082 eV of energy is transfered from the 300K body go the 320K body.

Nope. To understand exactly what goes on you have to take a quantum view. The photon is destroyed, yes. The energy that was the photon is no longer a photon. Any thermal energy is indistinguishable from any other thermal energy. In fact, you can take the photons out of the picture and simply look at levels of thermal energy in each body. At the moment you say the photon strikes the body, there is no ~0.082 eV surge in the body's amount of thermal energy. There will always remain a steady flow of thermal energy from warmer to cooler. As such, you do not get to use the phrase "energy is transfered from the 300K body go the 320K body."

Ultimately there is no "net" in the flow. There are several good books on thermodynamics out there. Maybe you've seen a few yourself.

.

MarcusR wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:....you do not get to use the phrase "energy is transfered from the 300K body go the 320K body."

Ultimately there is no "net" in the flow. There are several good books on thermodynamics out there. Maybe you've seen a few yourself.

So in your opinion, what happens to the energy that the photon has, in this case ~0.082 eV ??

IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
2) what the photons actually do is governed more by uncertainty than by any science that predicts what will happen. Like I said before, photons can deflect, do back-flips, take selfies and interact in any way other than being absorbed.

photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.

MarcusR wrote:...a body at 299K and 301K you will find they both emit at i.e 10 um.

tmiddles wrote:I've never been able to pin the "theorists" here, ITN/IBD, on "photon rejection" down on what DOES happen to the photon.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:I've never been able to pin the "theorists" here, ITN/IBD, on "photon rejection" down on what DOES happen to the photon.

Yes you have. Both Into the Night and I have explained to you exhaustively and repeatedly. I'm sure you remember ignoring every instance thereof and instead assigning bogus positions to us instead.

Have you given any thought to a repeatable example of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer? Once again, since the issue is thermal energy, I'm not interested in getting bogged down in unneccessary distractions about other things, i.e. let's just focus on thermal energy. It has been five months now and I'm not the only one who is eager to take you up on your demonstration of a quantity of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer (even if there might be more thermal energy flowing from warmer to cooler). You have really piqued some interest and I hope you can find some time to share your repeatable example with us.

.

IBdaMann wrote:Both Into the Night and I have explained to you exhaustively and repeatedly.

MarcusR wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

MarcusR wrote:Well, they are besides temperature the same, so that photon will be absorbed by the 320K body, thus ~0.082 eV of energy is transfered from the 300K body go the 320K body.

Nope. To understand exactly what goes on you have to take a quantum view. The photon is destroyed, yes. The energy that was the photon is no longer a photon. Any thermal energy is indistinguishable from any other thermal energy. In fact, you can take the photons out of the picture and simply look at levels of thermal energy in each body. At the moment you say the photon strikes the body, there is no ~0.082 eV surge in the body's amount of thermal energy. There will always remain a steady flow of thermal energy from warmer to cooler. As such, you do not get to use the phrase "energy is transfered from the 300K body go the 320K body."

Ultimately there is no "net" in the flow. There are several good books on thermodynamics out there. Maybe you've seen a few yourself.
.

So in your opinion, what happens to the energy that the photon has, in this case ~0.082 eV ??

I got Borgnakke in my bookshelf btw. Not the latest since I took my M.Sc in 1995. Mail Claus and ask..

MarcusR wrote:Well, we were discussing EMR, so your point is ???

IBdaMann wrote:The energy in the photon changes form from electromagnetic energy to indistinguishable thermal energy ...