Remember me
▼ Content

Greenhouse effect theory violates the second law of thermodynamics


Greenhouse effect theory violates the second law of thermodynamics07-01-2016 22:06
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
A cooler thing, such as CO2 in the air, does not heat a hotter thing, such as the ground. If this were possible, you would be able to increase the temperature of a hot light bulb by standing next to it and emitting IR radiation at it.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2015/08/plancks-law-proves-why-radiation-from.html
07-01-2016 22:13
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
A blog full of Sky Dragon Slayers and other nutters. How wonderful.
Edited on 07-01-2016 22:14
07-01-2016 22:20
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Ceist wrote:
A blog full of Sky Dragon Slayers and other nutters. How wonderful.


A hotter objects emits more IR radiation than a cooler object does. If a hotter object and a cooler object are placed near each other, then by IR radiation, the hotter object will increase the temperature of the cooler object, but the cooler object will not increase the temperature of the hotter object. CO2 in the air is always cooler than the ground, so how does CO2 in the air increase temperature of the ground? It does not, or else it violates the second law of thermodynamics.
07-01-2016 22:24
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
%sigh%
07-01-2016 23:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
Ceist wrote:
A blog full of Sky Dragon Slayers and other nutters. How wonderful.


Are you saying a cooler thing DOES heat a hotter thing? Interesting.


The Parrot Killer
07-01-2016 23:44
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
A blog full of Sky Dragon Slayers and other nutters. How wonderful.


Are you saying a cooler thing DOES heat a hotter thing? Interesting.


%sigh%
08-01-2016 02:54
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
A cooler thing, such as CO2 in the air, does not heat a hotter thing, such as the ground. If this were possible, you would be able to increase the temperature of a hot light bulb by standing next to it and emitting IR radiation at it.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2015/08/plancks-law-proves-why-radiation-from.html

Actually, that's true. If you were to go and stand next to a hot light bulb, it would become very slightly hotter due to the additional radiation from your body.

As a thought experiment, imagine surrounding the hot bulb with equally hot bulbs. Its temperature would increase, yes? Now imagine that the temperature of the surrounding bulbs were 0.1 C lower than the central bulb. Do you think that they would no longer be able to increase the temperature of the central bulb?
08-01-2016 03:28
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Surface Detail wrote:
Actually, that's true. If you were to go and stand next to a hot light bulb, it would become very slightly hotter due to the additional radiation from your body.

As a thought experiment, imagine surrounding the hot bulb with equally hot bulbs. Its temperature would increase, yes? Now imagine that the temperature of the surrounding bulbs were 0.1 C lower than the central bulb. Do you think that they would no longer be able to increase the temperature of the central bulb?


The hot light bulb can't be heated by a cooler thing like your body, because it emits more IR than it can receive from your body.

A hotter thing can only be heated by something hotter than it, when the IR it emits is less than the IR it receives.

This is, the second law of thermodynamics, which disproves the greenhouse effect theory, which says the cooler air can increase the temperature of the hotter ground and by extension, cooler air at higher altitudes can increase the temperature of hotter air at lower altitudes.
Edited on 08-01-2016 03:33
08-01-2016 03:37
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Actually, that's true. If you were to go and stand next to a hot light bulb, it would become very slightly hotter due to the additional radiation from your body.

As a thought experiment, imagine surrounding the hot bulb with equally hot bulbs. Its temperature would increase, yes? Now imagine that the temperature of the surrounding bulbs were 0.1 C lower than the central bulb. Do you think that they would no longer be able to increase the temperature of the central bulb?


The hot light bulb can't be heated by a cooler thing like your body, because it emits IR faster than you can send IR to it. The hotter thing can only become cooler, not hotter. The hotter thing can only be heated by something hotter than it, not by something cooler than it.

The hot light bulb will emit slightly more IR if you are standing next to it. This is because a small portion of the small amount of IR that you emit will reach the light bulb, very slightly raising its temperature above what it would have been if you weren't there (assuming you are warmer than the rest of the surroundings).
08-01-2016 03:39
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Suppose we have a cup of hot water and a cup of cold water. We mix them together, well, the cold water is heated by the hot water, the hot water is not heated by the cold water. Hot things heat cold things. Cold things don't heat hot things.
Edited on 08-01-2016 03:40
08-01-2016 03:54
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Suppose we have a cup of hot water and a cup of cold water. We mix them together, well, the cold water is heated by the hot water, the hot water is not heated by the cold water.

That's quite correct, but entirely irrelevant. Nobody is suggesting that the atmosphere mixes with the Earth's surface.

Hot things heat cold things. Cold things don't heat hot things.

Under certain circumstances, cold things can heat hot things. A thick, insulating, pullover will cause a human body to become warmer; a layer of IR absorbing greenhouse gases will cause the Earth to become warmer.
08-01-2016 05:16
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Let's suppose we have a universe where there are only two oxygen atoms, one hot, one cold, a trillion miles apart. The hot atom can only transfer heat to the cold atom by IR radiation. The hot atom becomes cooler. The cold atom becomes hotter. Until the two atoms have the same temperature.

If the cold atom heats the hot atom by IR radiation, then by golly, we would have created free energy out of vacuum as both atoms heat up.
Edited on 08-01-2016 05:39
08-01-2016 05:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
Surface Detail wrote:
Nobody is suggesting that the atmosphere mixes with the Earth's surface.

Ever stand next to a tornado?

Surface Detail wrote:
Under certain circumstances, cold things can heat hot things.

Never. That is a clear violation of the 2nd LOT.
Surface Detail wrote:
A thick, insulating, pullover will cause a human body to become warmer;

Because the hot thing inside the sweater is providing heat. A sweater cannot provide heat by itself. It works by restricting conductive and convective heat flow.
Surface Detail wrote:
a layer of IR absorbing greenhouse gases will cause the Earth to become warmer.

No gas is an insulator. The atmosphere is completely open to conductive and convective heat flow. You are creating energy out of nothing by again using the energy trap method. This is in violation of the 1st LOT. Energy traps are not possible.

Outside energy will also have a difficult time getting through the sweater, but once it does, the combined effect of that energy with the energy source inside will make the user feel too hot. He removes the sweater. If he can't, he may die. The trap is again catastrophically broken. The source of energy within is no more.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 08-01-2016 05:31
08-01-2016 05:41
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
The hot ground transfers heat to the cooler air above it. The atmosphere cools the ground by becomes warmer.

If someone can prove the cooler air heats the warmer ground, then give that person a Nobel prize for discovering how to make free energy out of nothing.

In fact, only God can make free energy out of nothing. Space is empty, yet space constantly emits heat at 2.7 K. This is why the universe expands.
Edited on 08-01-2016 05:45
08-01-2016 14:23
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:If someone can prove the cooler air heats the warmer ground, then give that person a Nobel prize for discovering how to make free energy out of nothing.


Tai Hai Chen, you started off well. Heat does flow from warmer temperatures to cooler temperatures and for the reverse to happen it would certainly be a violation of the 2nd LoT, as you mention. However, you switched to claiming "make free energy out of nothing" with is a violation of the 1st LoT, i.e. the law of conservation of energy.

1st LoT: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. All additional energy must be forthwith accounted.

2nd LoT: Heat flows from higher temperatures to lower temperatures. Establishes direction of time.

When someone claims that "greenhouse effect" is a substance (e.g. a gas) creating energy which warms the earth, that is a violation of the 1st LoT.

When someone claims that the cooler upper atmosphere warms the warmer lower atmosphere, that is a violation of the 2nd LoT.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

Edited on 08-01-2016 14:39
08-01-2016 14:41
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Tai Hai Chen wrote: Space is empty, yet space constantly emits heat at 2.7 K. This is why the universe expands.

Matter radiates. Vacuum's do not.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
08-01-2016 16:59
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Violation of the second law automatically violates the stronger first law. Because, if a cooler thing can increase the temperature of a warmer thing, then viola, energy would have been created out of nothing.
08-01-2016 17:00
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
A cooler thing, such as CO2 in the air, does not heat a hotter thing, such as the ground. If this were possible, you would be able to increase the temperature of a hot light bulb by standing next to it and emitting IR radiation at it.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2015/08/plancks-law-proves-why-radiation-from.html

Actually, that's true. If you were to go and stand next to a hot light bulb, it would become very slightly hotter due to the additional radiation from your body.

As a thought experiment, imagine surrounding the hot bulb with equally hot bulbs. Its temperature would increase, yes? Now imagine that the temperature of the surrounding bulbs were 0.1 C lower than the central bulb. Do you think that they would no longer be able to increase the temperature of the central bulb?


If two or more objects have the same temperature, then they do not heat each other. Otherwise, you would be creating energy out of nothing, and you would win a Nobel prize.
Edited on 08-01-2016 17:30
08-01-2016 17:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Violation of the second law automatically violates the stronger first law. Because, if a cooler thing can increase the temperature of a warmer thing, then viola, energy would have been created out of nothing.

This is incorrect.

If I were to pour cold creamer into hot coffee, the 2nd LoT tells me that heat will flow from the hot coffee to the cold creamer, cooling the coffee and warming the creamer. The 1st LoT will guarantee that the same amount of energy is involved.

If I then realize that I poured the wrong creamer, so I pull out my trusty magic wand to completely "undo" the process, thereby returning the cold creamer to its original container at its original temperature, and returning the coffee to its original temperature, I will have violated the 2nd LoT while complying with the 1st LoT.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
08-01-2016 17:31
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Surface Detail wrote: a layer of IR absorbing greenhouse gases will cause the Earth to become warmer.

A layer?

How does "greenhouse gas" add energy?

Oh, that's right, it does if you mistake thermal convection for thermal radiation and presume that Planck's Law stops applying.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
08-01-2016 20:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote: Space is empty, yet space constantly emits heat at 2.7 K. This is why the universe expands.

Matter radiates. Vacuum's do not.


Unless it's a nuclear powered vacuum. I hear it gets the dirt out of the carpets amazingly well. It makes your carpets simply glow.



The Parrot Killer
08-01-2016 21:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote: Space is empty, yet space constantly emits heat at 2.7 K. This is why the universe expands.

Matter radiates. Vacuum's do not.


Unless it's a nuclear powered vacuum. I hear it gets the dirt out of the carpets amazingly well. It makes your carpets simply glow.


Yeah, but you should see the fallout when the bag bursts.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
08-01-2016 23:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote: Space is empty, yet space constantly emits heat at 2.7 K. This is why the universe expands.

Matter radiates. Vacuum's do not.


Unless it's a nuclear powered vacuum. I hear it gets the dirt out of the carpets amazingly well. It makes your carpets simply glow.


Yeah, but you should see the fallout when the bag bursts.


.

LOL! That's what you call an 'uncontrolled release'.



The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Greenhouse effect theory violates the second law of thermodynamics:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law32020-08-2019 04:43
There is no greenhouse effect1513-08-2019 23:33
Greenhouse effect of CO22713-08-2019 17:11
Theory coming to fruition?1418-05-2019 22:43
Antarctica's Effect on Sea Level Rise in Coming Centuries2613-05-2019 07:51
Articles
Theory
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact