Remember me
▼ Content

Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law



Page 2 of 17<1234>>>
15-09-2017 00:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: You mean like from the tropopause at -74° to the troposphere where today (where I live) it is currently 69° for a net increase of 143° F. I am glad you cleared that up for me Wake


Do you have even a clue what you're talking about? You find it peculiar that the closer to the surface of the Earth where 48% of the Sun's energy is absorbed that it is warmer?

You really have to expand on this. Your experiment must be a real doozy if you find it odd that the closer to a warm surface you get the warmer the atmosphere becomes.


Not quite true. The closer you get the more energy there is, but not necessarily the higher temperature there is.

The stratosphere, for example, is a temperature inversion. Temperature climbs as you go up in altitude. Energy is still dropping though.


The Parrot Killer
15-09-2017 05:58
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: More garbage


There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.


If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.


Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.


I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4


The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I already have. You observe the whole Earth from space.

Absorption does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. YOUR version does, because you try to make emission of light from CO2 go back down and warm the surface again. You have also tried to warm the surface using a colder gas by conduction.


I am sure that my "version" does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law, because even if my "version" was what you just said, it has nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which simply gives us an equation for determining what the radiance should be, at a given temperature, with a known emissivity. Here it is again, as you stated it:
"radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4"

We will get back to my "version" of Global Warming, and how Greenhouse Gases heat the earth, but for now, can you answer just this question?

Why do you think that earth radiation has to be observed [whether from space or wherever], to comply with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law? Why does it have to be observed, period?


It really doesn't. Wake is under the impression that observing the radiance from Earth can give him the temperature of the Earth. It can't, because no one knows the emissivity of the Earth.


Ok, so we are in agreement that the radiation does not have to be observed, to comply with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which predicts how much radiation a black [or gray body, with a known emissivity] will produce at a given temperature.

Could you explain why you think that if gases absorb radiation and generate thermal energy, that it violated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
15-09-2017 06:15
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:

There is. Light is energy. Certain frequencies of light are absorbed by CO2. It is just like any other gas (or any other substance for that matter).

CO2 does heat the atmosphere, ever so slightly. That is no different than other forms of heating the atmosphere by the surface, including conduction. It is just another way for the surface to cool itself.

Absorption by CO2 does not make it a 'greenhouse' gas. The critical failure is the attempt to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas, either by radiance or by conduction.



It is the rate of surface cooling that is changing, due to an increase in gas temperature. The higher the gas temperature, the less it can cool the surface. So it is not really a cool gas heating a warmer surface. It's a cool gas not cooling the surface as fast, which causes the surface to gain thermal energy, which raises the temperature of the earth itself.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Edited on 15-09-2017 06:16
15-09-2017 17:39
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake is under the impression that observing the radiance from Earth can give him the temperature of the Earth. It can't, because no one knows the emissivity of the Earth.


Ok, so we are in agreement that the radiation does not have to be observed, to comply with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which predicts how much radiation a black [or gray body, with a known emissivity] will produce at a given temperature.

Could you explain why you think that if gases absorb radiation and generate thermal energy, that it violated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?


Since neither of you know much if anything about how this works perhaps you shouldn't discuss it but rather go find the papers that explain how it is done?

In fact the accuracy of the temperatures of the surface can be measured regardless of humidity to within 0.1 degree C. This is the energy that must escape through the atmosphere and eventually into space. So this has NOTHING to do with the temperature of the atmospheric gases and everything to do with the surface temperature of the Earth from the polar regions to the equator.
15-09-2017 20:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: More garbage


There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.


If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.


Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.


I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4


The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I already have. You observe the whole Earth from space.

Absorption does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. YOUR version does, because you try to make emission of light from CO2 go back down and warm the surface again. You have also tried to warm the surface using a colder gas by conduction.


I am sure that my "version" does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law, because even if my "version" was what you just said, it has nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which simply gives us an equation for determining what the radiance should be, at a given temperature, with a known emissivity. Here it is again, as you stated it:
"radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4"

We will get back to my "version" of Global Warming, and how Greenhouse Gases heat the earth, but for now, can you answer just this question?

Why do you think that earth radiation has to be observed [whether from space or wherever], to comply with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law? Why does it have to be observed, period?


It really doesn't. Wake is under the impression that observing the radiance from Earth can give him the temperature of the Earth. It can't, because no one knows the emissivity of the Earth.


Ok, so we are in agreement that the radiation does not have to be observed, to comply with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which predicts how much radiation a black [or gray body, with a known emissivity] will produce at a given temperature.
No, we are not. If you observe the Earth's radiance, you can see the Stefan-Boltzmann law in play for the Earth.

You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.

GreenMan wrote:
Could you explain why you think that if gases absorb radiation and generate thermal energy, that it violated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?


Gases don't generate thermal energy.

ALL materials, including gases, can convert elecromagnetic energy to thermal energy and back again. That is not generating any energy at all. It is simply changing it's form. As energy moves outward from the Earth's surface, it is dissipated.

You cannot heat a warmer anything using a colder anything. It doesn't matter if you try to heat it using conduction or radiance. You can't make hot coffee with ice.

Entropy always increases in any system. It never decreases.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics agree with each other.


The Parrot Killer
15-09-2017 20:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

There is. Light is energy. Certain frequencies of light are absorbed by CO2. It is just like any other gas (or any other substance for that matter).

CO2 does heat the atmosphere, ever so slightly. That is no different than other forms of heating the atmosphere by the surface, including conduction. It is just another way for the surface to cool itself.

Absorption by CO2 does not make it a 'greenhouse' gas. The critical failure is the attempt to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas, either by radiance or by conduction.



It is the rate of surface cooling that is changing, due to an increase in gas temperature.

You are trying to separate the atmosphere from the Earth. You can't.
GreenMan wrote:
The higher the gas temperature, the less it can cool the surface.

The faster the gas cools too. You have changed nothing.
GreenMan wrote:
So it is not really a cool gas heating a warmer surface.

You are about to try!
GreenMan wrote:
It's a cool gas not cooling the surface as fast, which causes the surface to gain thermal energy, which raises the temperature of the earth itself.

You just tried to heat a warmer object with a colder one again!

You also violated not just the 2nd law, but also the 1st law of thermodynamics doing it!

You also effectively reduced radiance (by keeping energy in the atmosphere) and used that to increase the temperature. You violated the Stefan-Boltzmann law as well.


The Parrot Killer
15-09-2017 21:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake is under the impression that observing the radiance from Earth can give him the temperature of the Earth. It can't, because no one knows the emissivity of the Earth.


Ok, so we are in agreement that the radiation does not have to be observed, to comply with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which predicts how much radiation a black [or gray body, with a known emissivity] will produce at a given temperature.

Could you explain why you think that if gases absorb radiation and generate thermal energy, that it violated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?


Since neither of you know much if anything about how this works perhaps you shouldn't discuss it but rather go find the papers that explain how it is done?

The Stefan-Boltzmann law has one and only one authoritative reference: the authors of the law. That is the reference I use.
Wake wrote:
In fact the accuracy of the temperatures of the surface can be measured regardless of humidity to within 0.1 degree C. This is the energy that must escape through the atmosphere and eventually into space. So this has NOTHING to do with the temperature of the atmospheric gases and everything to do with the surface temperature of the Earth from the polar regions to the equator.

Satellites cannot measure the temperature of the Earth. They are not in contact with it, and the emissivity of Earth is unknown.


The Parrot Killer
16-09-2017 00:22
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake is under the impression that observing the radiance from Earth can give him the temperature of the Earth. It can't, because no one knows the emissivity of the Earth.


Ok, so we are in agreement that the radiation does not have to be observed, to comply with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which predicts how much radiation a black [or gray body, with a known emissivity] will produce at a given temperature.

Could you explain why you think that if gases absorb radiation and generate thermal energy, that it violated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?


Since neither of you know much if anything about how this works perhaps you shouldn't discuss it but rather go find the papers that explain how it is done?

The Stefan-Boltzmann law has one and only one authoritative reference: the authors of the law. That is the reference I use.
Wake wrote:
In fact the accuracy of the temperatures of the surface can be measured regardless of humidity to within 0.1 degree C. This is the energy that must escape through the atmosphere and eventually into space. So this has NOTHING to do with the temperature of the atmospheric gases and everything to do with the surface temperature of the Earth from the polar regions to the equator.

Satellites cannot measure the temperature of the Earth. They are not in contact with it, and the emissivity of Earth is unknown.


Now if you bothered to actually read the studies and the papers you'd know just how full of vrap you are. But you won't because you know everything already. There's even a calculator out on the net that can calculate the emissivity or the radiance. But to you "Hey man, it CAN'T be."
16-09-2017 03:10
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: More garbage


There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.


If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.


Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.


I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4


The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I already have. You observe the whole Earth from space.

Absorption does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. YOUR version does, because you try to make emission of light from CO2 go back down and warm the surface again. You have also tried to warm the surface using a colder gas by conduction.


I am sure that my "version" does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law, because even if my "version" was what you just said, it has nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which simply gives us an equation for determining what the radiance should be, at a given temperature, with a known emissivity. Here it is again, as you stated it:
"radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4"

We will get back to my "version" of Global Warming, and how Greenhouse Gases heat the earth, but for now, can you answer just this question?

Why do you think that earth radiation has to be observed [whether from space or wherever], to comply with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law? Why does it have to be observed, period?


It really doesn't. Wake is under the impression that observing the radiance from Earth can give him the temperature of the Earth. It can't, because no one knows the emissivity of the Earth.


Ok, so we are in agreement that the radiation does not have to be observed, to comply with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which predicts how much radiation a black [or gray body, with a known emissivity] will produce at a given temperature.


No, we are not. If you observe the Earth's radiance, you can see the Stefan-Boltzmann law in play for the Earth.


You have already said that, "It really doesn't," in response to this question. "Why do you think that earth radiation has to be observed [whether from space or wherever], to comply with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law? Why does it have to be observed, period?," earlier in this thread. Now you appear to be stepping back and saying that earth's radiation does have to be observed. Which is it?

Into the Night wrote:

You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.


Greenhouse Gases do NOT reduce the radiance of Earth, at all. Greenhouse Gases merely absorb some of the radiation AFTER it LEAVES Earth. You said so yourself, that absorbing energy after it leaves Earth is ok. "As energy moves outward from the Earth's surface, it is dissipated." Absorption by Greenhouse Gases and other objects is what causes the energy to dissipate. If they encounter no matter, they hit outer space wide open and keep going until they do strike some matter.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Could you explain why you think that if gases absorb radiation and generate thermal energy, that it violated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?


Gases don't generate thermal energy.

ALL materials, including gases, can convert elecromagnetic energy to thermal energy and back again. That is not generating any energy at all. It is simply changing it's form. As energy moves outward from the Earth's surface, it is dissipated.


I'm not sure if you are saying that gases do not warm up, or if you are just saying that I used the wrong word when I said "gases absorb radiation and generate thermal energy."

Is "generate" the problem? You said gases can convert electromagnetic energy to thermal energy, so I am guessing that you are just trying to introduce doubt on someone's mind if that thermal energy is always converted back again, or if it heats the surrounding air.

When we put a dam on a river, we can convert the kinetic energy of the water into electrical energy with a device we commonly refer to as a generator. We say we are generating electricity when we do that.


Into the Night wrote:
You cannot heat a warmer anything using a colder anything. It doesn't matter if you try to heat it using conduction or radiance. You can't make hot coffee with ice.

We are not trying to heat the surface of the earth with the atmosphere. We are trying to cool the surface of the earth with the atmosphere. We are just trying to cool it a little slower than before. That causes the surface to warm up a little, because the sun is still trying to heat it just as fast as it was before we put all that Greenhouse Gas into the atmosphere. Got it?

Into the Night wrote:

Entropy always increases in any system. It never decreases.

No one is saying otherwise, that I am aware of.

Into the Night wrote:

The Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics agree with each other.


And they both agree with the Global Warming Theory.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
16-09-2017 03:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake is under the impression that observing the radiance from Earth can give him the temperature of the Earth. It can't, because no one knows the emissivity of the Earth.


Ok, so we are in agreement that the radiation does not have to be observed, to comply with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which predicts how much radiation a black [or gray body, with a known emissivity] will produce at a given temperature.

Could you explain why you think that if gases absorb radiation and generate thermal energy, that it violated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?


Since neither of you know much if anything about how this works perhaps you shouldn't discuss it but rather go find the papers that explain how it is done?

The Stefan-Boltzmann law has one and only one authoritative reference: the authors of the law. That is the reference I use.
Wake wrote:
In fact the accuracy of the temperatures of the surface can be measured regardless of humidity to within 0.1 degree C. This is the energy that must escape through the atmosphere and eventually into space. So this has NOTHING to do with the temperature of the atmospheric gases and everything to do with the surface temperature of the Earth from the polar regions to the equator.

Satellites cannot measure the temperature of the Earth. They are not in contact with it, and the emissivity of Earth is unknown.


Now if you bothered to actually read the studies and the papers you'd know just how full of crap you are.

Science is not studies or paper. If you want to deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law, you're gonna have to come up with something better than that!
[/quote]
But you won't because you know everything already.[/quote]
I know what I know. I don't know everything, but I DO know the Stefan-Boltzmann law and how it relates to Earth (or any other body).
Wake wrote:
There's even a calculator out on the net that can calculate the emissivity or the radiance.

Emissivity is not calculable. It is a measured value. It varies radically in the space of a few inches on the Earth's surface. You don't know the emissivity of Earth. The internet is not the Oracle of Truth.

The radiance of Earth is not calculable. We don't know the emissivity or the average temperature of the Earth. We have to try to measure it. Satellites can do this, but because we don't know the emissivity, they can't calculate the temperature of the Earth either.

To measure emissivity (or albedo), you must accurately know the temperature of the body. We don't know the temperature of the Earth.

You are trying to use the magick words 'studies' and 'papers' to justify a circular argument which you are failing to recognize, and is therefore a fallacy. The use of words in this way is a buzzword fallacy.

Wake wrote:
But to you "Hey man, it CAN'T be."


That's right. It can't be.

Trying to determine a temperature of the Earth using an emissivity that can only be determined by knowing the temperature of the Earth from a radiance determined from an unknown temperature and an unknown emissivity is a circular argument.

No satellite can measure the temperature of the Earth. It does not matter what any paper or study says to the contrary. It does not matter the credential of whoever is conducting the study or writing the paper.

You would not believe the crap that appears in 'scientific' journals that was written by some idiot with a science degree.

Let's just take one:

The study by Jean-Pierre Royet, using an MRI machine, to try to determine why and by how much people are disgusted by cheese.

Yeah...there's a lot of crap in 'scientific' papers (or at least a lot of cheese!).

Oh...that's a European study too! They're FAR more enlightened than we are!



The Parrot Killer
16-09-2017 03:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.


Greenhouse Gases do NOT reduce the radiance of Earth, at all. Greenhouse Gases merely absorb some of the radiation AFTER it LEAVES Earth.

AFTER it leaves Earth??? Did you know there is no CO2 to speak of in space???

GreenMan wrote:
You said so yourself, that absorbing energy after it leaves Earth is ok.

Never did.

GreenMan wrote:
As energy moves outward from the Earth's surface, it is dissipated." Absorption by Greenhouse Gases and other objects is what causes the energy to dissipate.

Here you are correct. CO2 acts to help cool the Earth's surface.
*
GreenMan wrote:
If they encounter no matter, they hit outer space wide open and keep going until they do strike some matter.

Even if it encounters CO2 and is converted to thermal energy, it is not stopped. Energy continues to move to space. The radiance from the warmer gas is just part of it.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Could you explain why you think that if gases absorb radiation and generate thermal energy, that it violated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?


Gases don't generate thermal energy.

ALL materials, including gases, can convert elecromagnetic energy to thermal energy and back again. That is not generating any energy at all. It is simply changing it's form. As energy moves outward from the Earth's surface, it is dissipated.


I'm not sure if you are saying that gases do not warm up, or if you are just saying that I used the wrong word when I said "gases absorb radiation and generate thermal energy."

Is "generate" the problem?

Yes.

GreenMan wrote:
You said gases can convert electromagnetic energy to thermal energy, so I am guessing that you are just trying to introduce doubt on someone's mind if that thermal energy is always converted back again, or if it heats the surrounding air.

It can do either and even both at the same time.

GreenMan wrote:
When we put a dam on a river, we can convert the kinetic energy of the water into electrical energy with a device we commonly refer to as a generator. We say we are generating electricity when we do that.

But we are not. This is a colloquial term. All we are doing with a hydroelectric power station is to convert kinetic energy into electrical energy. A hydroelectric power stations is essentially solar powered.

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You cannot heat a warmer anything using a colder anything. It doesn't matter if you try to heat it using conduction or radiance. You can't make hot coffee with ice.

We are not trying to heat the surface of the earth with the atmosphere.

Yes you are, liar. You are about to make the same paradox again.
GreenMan wrote:
We are trying to cool the surface of the earth with the atmosphere.
We are just trying to cool it a little slower than before.

You can't. Warm air rises.The energy is dissipated faster BECAUSE warm air rises. A warmer region of the surface will lose MORE energy than a colder one.
GreenMan wrote:
That causes the surface to warm up a little, because the sun is still trying to heat it just as fast as it was before we put all that Greenhouse Gas into the atmosphere. Got it?

Violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the 1st law of thermodynamics. You can't create additional energy to heat the surface from the same energy source using a non-energy source. You are trying to heat the surface using a colder gas. You are trying to reduce entropy by ignoring heat.

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Entropy always increases in any system. It never decreases.

No one is saying otherwise, that I am aware of.

You are.

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

The Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics agree with each other.


And they both agree with the Global Warming Theory.

WRONG.

First, there is no 'global warming' theory. You can't even define the term 'global warming'. It is not even a non-scientific theory, much less a scientific one. No theory may exist based on a void argument.

Second, you are trying to increase the surface temperature from upper air temperature by using a magick gas. That is reducing entropy, in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You are trying to add energy by doing so from a constant source. That is a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. You are trying to reduce the effective radiance by preventing energy from leaving Earth and using that to warm the Earth. That is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

The atmosphere is part of the Earth. You cannot separate it from Earth in terms of thermodynamics. Not even with a thermo-nuclear bomb.


The Parrot Killer
16-09-2017 12:08
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.


Greenhouse Gases do NOT reduce the radiance of Earth, at all. Greenhouse Gases merely absorb some of the radiation AFTER it LEAVES Earth.

AFTER it leaves Earth??? Did you know there is no CO2 to speak of in space???


Yes, I am aware that there are no gases in outer space.

You are including the atmosphere in with the word earth. Earth is this thing we walk on. Atmosphere is that stuff we fly through, when we are in a hurry and someone else is paying for our travel.

But if you want to include the atmosphere's radiance in with the earth's radiance, and call it the earth's radiance, then we can do that. But it will get difficult to discuss either of them as separate entities. So on second thought, let's not do that. Instead, when I say earth, please understand I mean that thing we walk on. When I say atmosphere, I mean that stuff we fly through.

So now that I understand your reason for saying that Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, I can easily debunk you. Simple, really. The overall earth/atmosphere radiation is dependent its temperature, as per the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. The atmosphere's radiation will increase at its temperature increases due to warmth received from Greenhouse Gases.

That in no way violates the Law, and I'm not aware that anyone is claiming otherwise. No one is saying that warming the atmosphere with gas is somehow lowering the atmosphere's radiation.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You said so yourself, that absorbing energy after it leaves Earth is ok.

Never did.

GreenMan wrote:
"As energy moves outward from the Earth's surface, it is dissipated." Absorption by Greenhouse Gases and other objects is what causes the energy to dissipate.

Here you are correct. CO2 acts to help cool the Earth's surface.
*

But, but, but, I didn't say that CO2 acts to help cool the Earth's surface. I said it absorbs some of the earth's radiation, which is part of what dissipates earth's radiation. But I know for sure that the dissipation of earth's radiation does not cool the earth, at all. What cools the earth is emitting the radiation [and conduction to the air], and it doesn't matter what happens afterwards to that radiation.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
If they encounter no matter, they hit outer space wide open and keep going until they do strike some matter.

Even if it encounters CO2 and is converted to thermal energy, it is not stopped. Energy continues to move to space. The radiance from the warmer gas is just part of it.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Could you explain why you think that if gases absorb radiation and generate thermal energy, that it violated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?


Gases don't generate thermal energy.

ALL materials, including gases, can convert elecromagnetic energy to thermal energy and back again. That is not generating any energy at all. It is simply changing it's form. As energy moves outward from the Earth's surface, it is dissipated.


I'm not sure if you are saying that gases do not warm up, or if you are just saying that I used the wrong word when I said "gases absorb radiation and generate thermal energy."

Is "generate" the problem?

Yes.

GreenMan wrote:
You said gases can convert electromagnetic energy to thermal energy, so I am guessing that you are just trying to introduce doubt on someone's mind if that thermal energy is always converted back again, or if it heats the surrounding air.

It can do either and even both at the same time.

GreenMan wrote:
When we put a dam on a river, we can convert the kinetic energy of the water into electrical energy with a device we commonly refer to as a generator. We say we are generating electricity when we do that.

But we are not. This is a colloquial term. All we are doing with a hydroelectric power station is to convert kinetic energy into electrical energy. A hydroelectric power stations is essentially solar powered.


Ok, so I used a word you don't like. Here's the question again, with the proper phrasing.

Could you explain why you think that if gases absorb radiation and convert that electro-magnetic energy into thermal energy, that it violated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You cannot heat a warmer anything using a colder anything. It doesn't matter if you try to heat it using conduction or radiance. You can't make hot coffee with ice.

We are not trying to heat the surface of the earth with the atmosphere.

Yes you are, liar. You are about to make the same paradox again.
GreenMan wrote:
We are trying to cool the surface of the earth with the atmosphere.
We are just trying to cool it a little slower than before.

You can't. Warm air rises.The energy is dissipated faster BECAUSE warm air rises. A warmer region of the surface will lose MORE energy than a colder one.


I'm thinking that your argument about warm air rising is for another thread entitled "Does Warm Air Rising Keep Greenhouse Gases from Warming the Air," and address that part of it later.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
That causes the surface to warm up a little, because the sun is still trying to heat it just as fast as it was before we put all that Greenhouse Gas into the atmosphere. Got it?

Violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the 1st law of thermodynamics. You can't create additional energy to heat the surface from the same energy source using a non-energy source. You are trying to heat the surface using a colder gas. You are trying to reduce entropy by ignoring heat.


No additional energy is required. The earth stores thermal energy in its crust. We know that for sure, because we can read the temperature of it. We also know that the temperature of the crust changes, because we can read the temperature of it during different seasons. The warmer it is, the more thermal energy it is storing.

The thermal energy comes from the Sun's Radiation. The Sun's Radiation is trying very hard to cook the earth, but the earth won't let it. It has three ways to get rid of the Sun's Radiation. It can reflect it. It can absorb it producing thermal energy and then give that energy back to the air through conduction. The air then gives that energy back through radiation. And the earth also radiates electro-magnetic radiation, which also gets rid of the Sun's Radiation.

Once the earth's surface emits radiation, the cooling affect it receives from it is over, regardless of what happens to that radiation. That radiation is an energy source. It originated in the Sun, and was converted by the Earth's surface, and is still capable of being converted back to thermal energy. And that is what Greenhouse Gases do.

So there is your energy source. The earth is the energy source, by conversion of the Sun's Radiation into Earth Radiation into Thermal Energy. It works kinda like a turbo charger on that old Chrysler I had. It took some of the exhaust flow and used it to compress air going into the intake, so it could hold more gas vapor. I used to floor it, and hold it till the turbo kicked in, then try to shift fast so the turbo would stay in between geers. That was a fun car, lol. Are you saying that it was a perpetual motion machine, because it used exhaust flow to increase the horse power?

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Entropy always increases in any system. It never decreases.

No one is saying otherwise, that I am aware of.

You are.

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

The Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics agree with each other.


And they both agree with the Global Warming Theory.

WRONG.

First, there is no 'global warming' theory. You can't even define the term 'global warming'. It is not even a non-scientific theory, much less a scientific one. No theory may exist based on a void argument.

Second, you are trying to increase the surface temperature from upper air temperature by using a magick gas. That is reducing entropy, in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You are trying to add energy by doing so from a constant source. That is a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. You are trying to reduce the effective radiance by preventing energy from leaving Earth and using that to warm the Earth. That is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

The atmosphere is part of the Earth. You cannot separate it from Earth in terms of thermodynamics. Not even with a thermo-nuclear bomb.


Your last statement makes it clear where the disconnect was. Sorry, but we have to separate the earth from its atmosphere for the purpose of discussing this. But I hear you. It makes it a lot more confusing if we just roll it all together and try to figure it out.

The radiance of earth and its atmosphere is determined by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. If some surface radiation is gobbled up by hungry CO2 molecules, they heat up, increasing the atmosphere's radiation. That is not a violation.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
16-09-2017 17:03
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
GreenMan wrote:

Yes, I am aware that there are no gases in outer space.

You are including the atmosphere in with the word earth. Earth is this thing we walk on. Atmosphere is that stuff we fly through, when we are in a hurry and someone else is paying for our travel.

But if you want to include the atmosphere's radiance in with the earth's radiance, and call it the earth's radiance, then we can do that.


Wasn't it you that posted the experiment that was done in Chicago ? If so, go back and look at the data. It does suggest that the earth is absorbing and not radiating heat.
As far as the earth's emissivity goes, how would that be measured ? Would we consider if the tropopause is warming or not ? That is the part of the atmosphere directly above the troposphere. Has it been shown that the tropopause is either warming or cooling ?
You guys might find this interesting; Second, a warming trend of +0.114°C/decade is roughly what scientists would expect in a low-sensitivity climate where feedbacks do not strongly amplify the direct warming effect of rising carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations
http://www.globalwarming.org/2015/05/05/independent-satellite-records-agree-little-to-no-global-warming-over-past-18-years/

I think the question then becomes is natural warming less than +0.114° C./decade ? In 100 years that would be +1.14° C. or about 3° F. And from the discussions I've seen in this forum I haven't seen anyone actually discussing the amount of warming, ie., a specific amount of increase.
I think with me I am more concerned about the ozone layer because that is an immediate concern. With warming, reducing the amount of waste heat might slow, stop or even reverse global warming. It is well known that the Greenland Sea abyss and the Arctic are the 2 areas on our planet that are warming the most and the Greenland Sea is in the Arctic. The Greenland Sea abyss might be the area where the greatest amount of warming is occurring. The heat it is releasing could warm the atmosphere over Europe by 4° C. or about 7° F.
https://goo.gl/images/gA6voB

I think with how atmospheric gases interact with each other the Boltzman constant is what should be considered. That's how the kinetic energy of gases are calculated. I think this is what you actually want to be discussing because it is one of the main items being discussed in why CO2 is considered to be warming our atmosphere. it's because the absorption spectrum of CO2.
This article might help everyone to understand some of what is being discussed about CO2 because of statements like this; This experiment explored the absorptivity of four peaks, 1437, 1955, 2013, and
2060 nanometers, in the near-IR (NIR) absorption spectrum of CO2. The NIR absorption
bands in CO2 can contribute up to 30% of the total solar heating in the mesosphere.
Between the heights of 60-85 km the heating can exceed 1 K/day.
varekamp.web.wesleyan.edu/CO2/FP-1.pdf
Attached image:


Edited on 16-09-2017 17:15
16-09-2017 17:12
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:

The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
I already have. You observe the whole Earth from space.

Absorption does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. YOUR version does, because you try to make emission of light from CO2 go back down and warm the surface again. You have also tried to warm the surface using a colder gas by conduction.


Nightmare doesn't know anything about mathematics. And you don't know anything about the problem.

The law said that if you change the emisivity you CHANGE THE TEMPERATURE.

The theory of global warming states that adding CO2 changes the emissivity.

However, to do that you have to have energy in the exact absorption bands of CO2 to absorb and there isn't any. Moreover, the small amount of energy in that single band for CO2 that isn't blanked out by H2O only serves to increase the energy levels of CO2 to the point where they are nothing more than another conductor of heat and not a storage.

CO2 is a TRACE GAS. And although Nightmare is all screwed up he is correct that you cannot EVER have an unstable system that is stable under specific circumstances in a system with so much variation.

Do you understand what is being said? That a change in the atmosphere's ability to absorb energy by one half of one percent will cause uncontrollable heating in a system that has temperatures normally varying from 270K to 330K on a normal basis.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/17/climate-change-alarmists-appear-immunized-against-reality/#disqus_thread
Edited on 16-09-2017 17:35
16-09-2017 17:25
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:

However, to do that you have to have energy in the exact absorption bands of CO2 to absorb and there isn't any. Moreover, the small amount of energy in that single band for CO2 that isn't blanked out by H2O only serves to increase the energy levels of CO2 to the point where they are nothing more than another conductor of heat and not a storage.



This is funny because you've posted before the angstrom of absorption of a co2 molecule and in solar radiation.
https://goo.gl/images/1j9iSM

In case you miss it Wake, this graph suggests a feedback system in which CO2 lowers the amount of heat lost to black body radiation. I don't think they've figured out exactly what CO2's role is in climate change. In my previous post the information was supposted to suggest little feedback.
Attached image:


Edited on 16-09-2017 17:31
16-09-2017 20:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
GreenMan wrote:
You are including the atmosphere in with the word earth. Earth is this thing we walk on. Atmosphere is that stuff we fly through, when we are in a hurry and someone else is paying for our travel.
...deleted redundant portion...


Yes. I am including the atmosphere as part of Earth. It is part of the body of Earth. You cannot separate it from the surface of the Earth.

Surface heats atmosphere. Atmosphere is just part of the radiance of Earth.

When you use the Stefan-Boltzmann law, you consider ALL of the body, not just part of it.

You are STILL trying to use the radiance in the atmosphere to heat the surface again. Sorry, you can't do that without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Earth is NOT an energy source. The sun and ONLY the sun is. You cannot cook the Earth with it unless you increase the output of the Sun. Earth is NOT capable of storing energy from the Sun.

You cannot store thermal energy. You cannot store light. As soon as you take the energy source away, thermal energy continues to dissipate and the body cools. That dissipation is through conduction, possibly convection, and radiance. The only way to stop that is to enclose the body in an ideal insulator, which doesn't exist, and which doesn't allow energy in to warm it either.

Specific heat is NOT storing thermal energy. It is showing how much energy it takes to warm or cool something per second. If there is a place for heat to flow to, it WILL flow.

Your confusion here is due to the same reasons you have confusion about entropy in general. You are using the same kind of false equivalence as someone trying to use the concept of 'local' entropy. You are comparing two dissimilar systems (in this case, the atmosphere and the entire Earth including its atmosphere).

The Sun heats BOTH the surface and the atmosphere.

BOTH the surface and the atmosphere radiate to space.

BOTH are used in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

If you want to separate out the atmosphere from the surface, you can't allow any energy in from anywhere but the Sun, including the surface, and you can't allow the energy to go anywhere except space. You cannot conveniently include the surface and one point and then ignore it at another point.

Entropy always increases in any system. by saying the surface warms the atmosphere and then doesn't go anywhere except to slow heating of the atmosphere as it gets warmer and warmer is actually an attempt to decrease entropy within the Sun-Earth-space system. It is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It also effectively reduces the radiance of the Earth (by not letting energy out) and violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You cannot warm the Earth without additional energy. The only source of that energy is the Sun. Neither the Earth nor the atmosphere of the Earth is a source of energy.


The Parrot Killer
16-09-2017 21:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
James_ wrote:
Wasn't it you that posted the experiment that was done in Chicago ? If so, go back and look at the data. It does suggest that the earth is absorbing and not radiating heat.

Not possible.
James_ wrote:
As far as the earth's emissivity goes, how would that be measured ?

The same way it is measured anywhere. You accurately measure the temperature of the object, measure its radiance, and compare that to the radiance of an ideal references of a perfect emitter and a perfect non-emitter at the same temperature (one calculated from Planck's law, the other being a zero. The result is a percentage, from 0 to 100%.

In other words, to measure emissivity, you must first accurately know the temperature of the object. You can then use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to calculate the radiance of that object at any temperature, and the temperature from the radiance.

We do not know the temperature of the Earth. We do not know the emissivity of Earth. To find it, we first have to accurately know the temperature of the Earth.

You can measure radiance by measuring light. Radiance is light.

The problem is, you also are measuring things like incident light (light from other sources besides the object itself). There is no way to separate the two. Even starlight is an incident source. Since you don't know the emissivity of Earth, you don't know how much of that is from the Earth itself due to Planck radiance (that is, due to the temperature of the Earth).

If you try to measure the radiance from the night side only in an attempt to eliminate the effects of the Sun, you wind up ignoring the temperature of the daytime as part of the average temperature of the Earth.

This is why you cannot determine the temperature of the Earth by measuring light (I'm looking at you, Wake), and why a satellite is not capable of measuring absolute temperature of the Earth or any part of Earth.

Things like infrared imaging guns, satellites, infrared thermometers, etc. all use an assumed emissivity of a piece of cardboard that is 50% gray (ask your local printshop about that) at a known temperature. This assumed emissivity is good enough to see relative temperatures of things in a useful way, although none of them are accurate. You can use one to determine where leaks in a house insulation might exist., whether an engine cylinder is working as hard as the others, or to look for the heat of a man on a cold desert from space.

NONE of them can tell you what the actual temperature of the house, engine cylinder, the man, or the desert is. It just tells you one is warmer or colder than the other and a rough idea of how much. Since you don't know the emissivity of the two objects being compared in this way, and they are different, you don't know accurately by how much.


The Parrot Killer
16-09-2017 21:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
Wake wrote:
Nightmare doesn't know anything about mathematics. And you don't know anything about the problem.

I know a hell of a lot more than you do. You do not understand the mathematics of random numbers, the mathematics of probability, or the mathematics of statistics. I do.

I have tried to explain a small portion of it to you, but you just discard it for some reason (argument of the Stone, usually through Bulverism).

I guess you're just going to have to pick up a math book on these subjects and study it yourself.

[/quote]
Wake wrote:
The law said that if you change the emisivity you CHANGE THE TEMPERATURE.

Changing the emissivity does not change the temperature.
Wake wrote:
The theory of global warming states that adding CO2 changes the emissivity.

A convenient cop-out. No one ever describes how it changes emissivity, other than to try to separate out different colors of light. Emissivity, like the Stefan-Boltzmann law itself, is color blind.
Wake wrote:
However, to do that you have to have energy in the exact absorption bands of CO2 to absorb and there isn't any. Moreover, the small amount of energy in that single band for CO2 that isn't blanked out by H2O only serves to increase the energy levels of CO2 to the point where they are nothing more than another conductor of heat and not a storage.

Neither water nor carbon dioxide have the ability to warm the planet.
Wake wrote:
CO2 is a TRACE GAS.

True. Currently it is about 0.04% of the atmosphere (at least at the Mauna Loa station, according to the Mauna Loa data).
Wake wrote:
And although Nightmare is all screwed up he is correct that you cannot EVER have an unstable system that is stable under specific circumstances in a system with so much variation.

Do you understand what is being said? That a change in the atmosphere's ability to absorb energy by one half of one percent will cause uncontrollable heating in a system that has temperatures normally varying from 270K to 330K on a normal basis.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/17/climate-change-alarmists-appear-immunized-against-reality/#disqus_thread


Heh. Not nearly as screwed up as you think I am. Go learn the math.


The Parrot Killer
16-09-2017 21:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
James_ wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:

https://goo.gl/images/1j9iSM

In case you miss it Wake, this graph suggests a feedback system in which CO2 lowers the amount of heat lost to black body radiation. I don't think they've figured out exactly what CO2's role is in climate change. In my previous post the information was supposted to suggest little feedback.


Nope. This graph does not show that. It only shows which frequencies are absorbed by a selection of gases.

Absorption of light by any substance does NOT stop energy. It just moves right along, but in a different form for awhile.

It cannot heat the hotter surface that it came from. It doesn't just stay in one place. It keeps on truckin' (and dissipatin').


The Parrot Killer
16-09-2017 22:34
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Nightmare doesn't know anything about mathematics. And you don't know anything about the problem.

I know a hell of a lot more than you do. You do not understand the mathematics of random numbers, the mathematics of probability, or the mathematics of statistics. I do.

I have tried to explain a small portion of it to you, but you just discard it for some reason (argument of the Stone, usually through Bulverism).

I guess you're just going to have to pick up a math book on these subjects and study it yourself.


Wake wrote:
The law said that if you change the emisivity you CHANGE THE TEMPERATURE.

Changing the emissivity does not change the temperature.
Wake wrote:
The theory of global warming states that adding CO2 changes the emissivity.

A convenient cop-out. No one ever describes how it changes emissivity, other than to try to separate out different colors of light. Emissivity, like the Stefan-Boltzmann law itself, is color blind.
Wake wrote:
However, to do that you have to have energy in the exact absorption bands of CO2 to absorb and there isn't any. Moreover, the small amount of energy in that single band for CO2 that isn't blanked out by H2O only serves to increase the energy levels of CO2 to the point where they are nothing more than another conductor of heat and not a storage.

Neither water nor carbon dioxide have the ability to warm the planet.
Wake wrote:
CO2 is a TRACE GAS.

True. Currently it is about 0.04% of the atmosphere (at least at the Mauna Loa station, according to the Mauna Loa data).
Wake wrote:
And although Nightmare is all screwed up he is correct that you cannot EVER have an unstable system that is stable under specific circumstances in a system with so much variation.

Do you understand what is being said? That a change in the atmosphere's ability to absorb energy by one half of one percent will cause uncontrollable heating in a system that has temperatures normally varying from 270K to 330K on a normal basis.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/17/climate-change-alarmists-appear-immunized-against-reality/#disqus_thread


Heh. Not nearly as screwed up as you think I am. Go learn the math.[/quote]

Waving your hands about again and saying that you understand mathematics and then crying RandU proves that you do not.

What in hell do you mean that no one ever explained how CO2 changed emissivity. This was FIRST promulgated in the 1800's. If you don't know what the hell they are saying how do you expect to counter it? By repeating "RandU" as if you had a clue what that means?

You have so many times shown you don't know mathematics by being incapable of transposing terms in an equation. You don't even appear to know what that actually means. You said that emissivity doesn't change temperature despite screaming that the entire world is encompassed by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law which is E = σT^4.

As far as I can see you don't even have a passing acquaintance with algebra, Trig of Calculus.
16-09-2017 23:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
Wake wrote:
...deleted misquoted section...
Waving your hands about again and saying that you understand mathematics and then crying RandU proves that you do not.

All you showing is that you don't know where the term randU comes from. You don't know the mathematics of random numbers.
Wake wrote:
What in hell do you mean that no one ever explained how CO2 changed emissivity.
No one here, generally.
Wake wrote:
This was FIRST promulgated in the 1800's. If you don't know what the hell they are saying how do you expect to counter it?
They are not here. That argument is the same as the one used by those who are here, and it is still wrong.
Wake wrote:
By repeating "RandU" as if you had a clue what that means?
Demonstrating your illiteracy yet again, eh?
Wake wrote:
You have so many times shown you don't know mathematics by being incapable of transposing terms in an equation.
You are changing the equation, you are not transposing terms.
Wake wrote:
You don't even appear to know what that actually means.
But I do.

It means if you know the emissivity, you can calculate the radiance coming from Earth due to it's temperature. It also means you can calculate the temperature of the Earth knowing the Planck radiance coming from it.

You don't know the emissivity of Earth. You don't know the temperature of the Earth. You don't know how much of the light you are measuring is from Planck radiation or from some other source such as reflection.
Wake wrote:
You said that emissivity doesn't change temperature

It doesn't. Emissivity is a constant.
Wake wrote:
despite screaming that the entire world is encompassed by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law which is E = σT^4.

This is not the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You have eliminated emissivity from the equation.
Wake wrote:
As far as I can see you don't even have a passing acquaintance with algebra, Trig of Calculus.

'Trig of Calculus'???

No, it is YOU that not understanding the algebra. You can't eliminate terms using algebra. You can't add terms using algebra. You have attempted both.

Triangles and circles have nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Calculus does, but only how the law is derived.


The Parrot Killer
16-09-2017 23:57
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
...deleted misquoted section...
Waving your hands about again and saying that you understand mathematics and then crying RandU proves that you do not.

All you showing is that you don't know where the term randU comes from. You don't know the mathematics of random numbers.
Wake wrote:
What in hell do you mean that no one ever explained how CO2 changed emissivity.
No one here, generally.
Wake wrote:
This was FIRST promulgated in the 1800's. If you don't know what the hell they are saying how do you expect to counter it?
They are not here. That argument is the same as the one used by those who are here, and it is still wrong.
Wake wrote:
By repeating "RandU" as if you had a clue what that means?
Demonstrating your illiteracy yet again, eh?
Wake wrote:
You have so many times shown you don't know mathematics by being incapable of transposing terms in an equation.
You are changing the equation, you are not transposing terms.
Wake wrote:
You don't even appear to know what that actually means.
But I do.

It means if you know the emissivity, you can calculate the radiance coming from Earth due to it's temperature. It also means you can calculate the temperature of the Earth knowing the Planck radiance coming from it.

You don't know the emissivity of Earth. You don't know the temperature of the Earth. You don't know how much of the light you are measuring is from Planck radiation or from some other source such as reflection.
Wake wrote:
You said that emissivity doesn't change temperature

It doesn't. Emissivity is a constant.
Wake wrote:
despite screaming that the entire world is encompassed by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law which is E = σT^4.

This is not the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You have eliminated emissivity from the equation.
Wake wrote:
As far as I can see you don't even have a passing acquaintance with algebra, Trig of Calculus.

'Trig of Calculus'???

No, it is YOU that not understanding the algebra. You can't eliminate terms using algebra. You can't add terms using algebra. You have attempted both.

Triangles and circles have nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Calculus does, but only how the law is derived.


It seems to upset you that anyone can see through your false claims. Even better you have to stoop to pretending that a typo "of" for "or" is something shocking.

Again and again you are showing yourself for knowing nothing and having little to no education. Transposing terms is "changing the calculation" huh?
17-09-2017 19:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
...deleted misquoted section...
Waving your hands about again and saying that you understand mathematics and then crying RandU proves that you do not.

All you showing is that you don't know where the term randU comes from. You don't know the mathematics of random numbers.
Wake wrote:
What in hell do you mean that no one ever explained how CO2 changed emissivity.
No one here, generally.
Wake wrote:
This was FIRST promulgated in the 1800's. If you don't know what the hell they are saying how do you expect to counter it?
They are not here. That argument is the same as the one used by those who are here, and it is still wrong.
Wake wrote:
By repeating "RandU" as if you had a clue what that means?
Demonstrating your illiteracy yet again, eh?
Wake wrote:
You have so many times shown you don't know mathematics by being incapable of transposing terms in an equation.
You are changing the equation, you are not transposing terms.
Wake wrote:
You don't even appear to know what that actually means.
But I do.

It means if you know the emissivity, you can calculate the radiance coming from Earth due to it's temperature. It also means you can calculate the temperature of the Earth knowing the Planck radiance coming from it.

You don't know the emissivity of Earth. You don't know the temperature of the Earth. You don't know how much of the light you are measuring is from Planck radiation or from some other source such as reflection.
Wake wrote:
You said that emissivity doesn't change temperature

It doesn't. Emissivity is a constant.
Wake wrote:
despite screaming that the entire world is encompassed by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law which is E = σT^4.

This is not the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You have eliminated emissivity from the equation.
Wake wrote:
As far as I can see you don't even have a passing acquaintance with algebra, Trig of Calculus.

'Trig of Calculus'???

No, it is YOU that not understanding the algebra. You can't eliminate terms using algebra. You can't add terms using algebra. You have attempted both.

Triangles and circles have nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Calculus does, but only how the law is derived.


It seems to upset you that anyone can see through your false claims. Even better you have to stoop to pretending that a typo "of" for "or" is something shocking.

Again and again you are showing yourself for knowing nothing and having little to no education. Transposing terms is "changing the calculation" huh?


Heh. Not shocking. Just funny.

Transposing terms is not changing the calculation. But what you are doing to 'transpose' terms IS.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2017 06:45
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You are including the atmosphere in with the word earth. Earth is this thing we walk on. Atmosphere is that stuff we fly through, when we are in a hurry and someone else is paying for our travel.
...deleted redundant portion...


Yes. I am including the atmosphere as part of Earth. It is part of the body of Earth. You cannot separate it from the surface of the Earth.

Surface heats atmosphere. Atmosphere is just part of the radiance of Earth.

When you use the Stefan-Boltzmann law, you consider ALL of the body, not just part of it.

You are STILL trying to use the radiance in the atmosphere to heat the surface again. Sorry, you can't do that without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Earth is NOT an energy source. The sun and ONLY the sun is. You cannot cook the Earth with it unless you increase the output of the Sun. Earth is NOT capable of storing energy from the Sun.

You cannot store thermal energy. You cannot store light. As soon as you take the energy source away, thermal energy continues to dissipate and the body cools. That dissipation is through conduction, possibly convection, and radiance. The only way to stop that is to enclose the body in an ideal insulator, which doesn't exist, and which doesn't allow energy in to warm it either.

Specific heat is NOT storing thermal energy. It is showing how much energy it takes to warm or cool something per second. If there is a place for heat to flow to, it WILL flow.

Your confusion here is due to the same reasons you have confusion about entropy in general. You are using the same kind of false equivalence as someone trying to use the concept of 'local' entropy. You are comparing two dissimilar systems (in this case, the atmosphere and the entire Earth including its atmosphere).

The Sun heats BOTH the surface and the atmosphere.

BOTH the surface and the atmosphere radiate to space.

BOTH are used in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

If you want to separate out the atmosphere from the surface, you can't allow any energy in from anywhere but the Sun, including the surface, and you can't allow the energy to go anywhere except space. You cannot conveniently include the surface and one point and then ignore it at another point.

Entropy always increases in any system. by saying the surface warms the atmosphere and then doesn't go anywhere except to slow heating of the atmosphere as it gets warmer and warmer is actually an attempt to decrease entropy within the Sun-Earth-space system. It is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It also effectively reduces the radiance of the Earth (by not letting energy out) and violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You cannot warm the Earth without additional energy. The only source of that energy is the Sun. Neither the Earth nor the atmosphere of the Earth is a source of energy.


Sorry for the delayed response. I actually had to do some work, while at work.

Considering the earth and atmosphere as the "earth" makes it even easier to debunk you claim that Greenhouse Gases or Global Warming violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. The earth simply puts out radiation according to its temperature. If it gets warmer, it radiates more. If it gets cooler, it radiates less. If greenhouse gases trap heat, causing the planet to warm, it simply emits more radiation from the atmosphere, even if none gets out from the surface. That does not violate the Law.

The problem you are having a hard time understanding is that the earth can and does store thermal energy. We know for sure that it does, because we can read the temperature of the soil below out feet, and see it change slowly as the sun comes up and goes down. The temperature doesn't drop to nothing immediately when the sun goes down, and it doesn't go to peak immediately when the sun comes up. There is a delay in both, because even though the earth isn't storing thermal energy permanently, it is still storing it for a little while.

The sun is ultimately the source of energy for warming the planet. But the earth becomes an energy source due to its radiation being absorbed by gases. The surface heats the atmosphere in two ways. Conduction to the air just off the surface, and absorption of its radiation by gases both warm the atmosphere. As the atmosphere become warmer, cooling of the surface takes longer. So the surface begins to build up heat. That is not a violation of any law of Physics. Understanding that is the application of the laws of physics.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
20-09-2017 07:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You are including the atmosphere in with the word earth. Earth is this thing we walk on. Atmosphere is that stuff we fly through, when we are in a hurry and someone else is paying for our travel.
...deleted redundant portion...


Yes. I am including the atmosphere as part of Earth. It is part of the body of Earth. You cannot separate it from the surface of the Earth.

Surface heats atmosphere. Atmosphere is just part of the radiance of Earth.

When you use the Stefan-Boltzmann law, you consider ALL of the body, not just part of it.

You are STILL trying to use the radiance in the atmosphere to heat the surface again. Sorry, you can't do that without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Earth is NOT an energy source. The sun and ONLY the sun is. You cannot cook the Earth with it unless you increase the output of the Sun. Earth is NOT capable of storing energy from the Sun.

You cannot store thermal energy. You cannot store light. As soon as you take the energy source away, thermal energy continues to dissipate and the body cools. That dissipation is through conduction, possibly convection, and radiance. The only way to stop that is to enclose the body in an ideal insulator, which doesn't exist, and which doesn't allow energy in to warm it either.

Specific heat is NOT storing thermal energy. It is showing how much energy it takes to warm or cool something per second. If there is a place for heat to flow to, it WILL flow.

Your confusion here is due to the same reasons you have confusion about entropy in general. You are using the same kind of false equivalence as someone trying to use the concept of 'local' entropy. You are comparing two dissimilar systems (in this case, the atmosphere and the entire Earth including its atmosphere).

The Sun heats BOTH the surface and the atmosphere.

BOTH the surface and the atmosphere radiate to space.

BOTH are used in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

If you want to separate out the atmosphere from the surface, you can't allow any energy in from anywhere but the Sun, including the surface, and you can't allow the energy to go anywhere except space. You cannot conveniently include the surface and one point and then ignore it at another point.

Entropy always increases in any system. by saying the surface warms the atmosphere and then doesn't go anywhere except to slow heating of the atmosphere as it gets warmer and warmer is actually an attempt to decrease entropy within the Sun-Earth-space system. It is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It also effectively reduces the radiance of the Earth (by not letting energy out) and violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You cannot warm the Earth without additional energy. The only source of that energy is the Sun. Neither the Earth nor the atmosphere of the Earth is a source of energy.


Sorry for the delayed response. I actually had to do some work, while at work.

Considering the earth and atmosphere as the "earth" makes it even easier to debunk you claim that Greenhouse Gases or Global Warming violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. The earth simply puts out radiation according to its temperature. If it gets warmer, it radiates more. If it gets cooler, it radiates less.

So far so good.
GreenMan wrote:
If greenhouse gases trap heat,

You cannot trap heat.
GreenMan wrote:
causing the planet to warm,

You cannot warm the Earth from a non-energy source. The Sun's output is constant. Changing it is the ONLY way to warm the Earth. You are violating the 1st law of thermodynamics.
GreenMan wrote:
it simply emits more radiation from the atmosphere,

There is no sequence.
GreenMan wrote:
even if none gets out from the surface.

Violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The surface is not at absolute zero.
GreenMan wrote:
That does not violate the Law.

Yes it does. You are saying a material that above absolute zero does not radiate.
GreenMan wrote:
The problem you are having a hard time understanding is that the earth can and does store thermal energy.

Nope. Energy is always on the move. The land cools...the land warms...the air cools...the air warms.. You are confusing specific heat with storage. It is not. It is a resistance to change.
GreenMan wrote:
We know for sure that it does, because we can read the temperature of the soil below out feet, and see it change slowly as the sun comes up and goes down.

Same confusion. Temperature is not storage either. Temperature is a measurement.
GreenMan wrote:
The temperature doesn't drop to nothing immediately when the sun goes down, and it doesn't go to peak immediately when the sun comes up. There is a delay in both, because even though the earth isn't storing thermal energy permanently, it is still storing it for a little while.

But it still is changing. It is not stored. The only way to store thermal energy is to completely decouple it from anything. That means putting it inside a box made of a perfect insulator. No such insulator exists in nature.
GreenMan wrote:
The sun is ultimately the source of energy for warming the planet.

Other than the fission deep within the Earth, this is true.
GreenMan wrote:
But the earth becomes an energy source due to its radiation being absorbed by gases.

WRONG. Gasses are nor an energy source. Neither is the surface. You are making a false equivalence by comparing two dissimilar systems. This is a common problem for people who don't understand the law of entropy, also known as the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
GreenMan wrote:
The surface heats the atmosphere in two ways. Conduction to the air just off the surface, and absorption of its radiation by gases both warm the atmosphere.

This part is correct.
GreenMan wrote:
As the atmosphere become warmer, cooling of the surface takes longer.

This part is false. Air is a fluid. It is also a material. Heat continues on into space. Nothing is slowing down. You are also ignoring radiance from all substances (both surface and atmosphere) that are occurring.
GreenMan wrote:
So the surface begins to build up heat.

Nope. You are decreasing entropy that way. Entropy always increases in any system. It never decreases.
GreenMan wrote:
That is not a violation of any law of Physics.

You have so far violated the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
GreenMan wrote:
Understanding that is the application of the laws of physics.

You might try studying it.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2017 08:41
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You are including the atmosphere in with the word earth. Earth is this thing we walk on. Atmosphere is that stuff we fly through, when we are in a hurry and someone else is paying for our travel.
...deleted redundant portion...


Yes. I am including the atmosphere as part of Earth. It is part of the body of Earth. You cannot separate it from the surface of the Earth.

Surface heats atmosphere. Atmosphere is just part of the radiance of Earth.

When you use the Stefan-Boltzmann law, you consider ALL of the body, not just part of it.

You are STILL trying to use the radiance in the atmosphere to heat the surface again. Sorry, you can't do that without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Earth is NOT an energy source. The sun and ONLY the sun is. You cannot cook the Earth with it unless you increase the output of the Sun. Earth is NOT capable of storing energy from the Sun.

You cannot store thermal energy. You cannot store light. As soon as you take the energy source away, thermal energy continues to dissipate and the body cools. That dissipation is through conduction, possibly convection, and radiance. The only way to stop that is to enclose the body in an ideal insulator, which doesn't exist, and which doesn't allow energy in to warm it either.

Specific heat is NOT storing thermal energy. It is showing how much energy it takes to warm or cool something per second. If there is a place for heat to flow to, it WILL flow.

Your confusion here is due to the same reasons you have confusion about entropy in general. You are using the same kind of false equivalence as someone trying to use the concept of 'local' entropy. You are comparing two dissimilar systems (in this case, the atmosphere and the entire Earth including its atmosphere).

The Sun heats BOTH the surface and the atmosphere.

BOTH the surface and the atmosphere radiate to space.

BOTH are used in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

If you want to separate out the atmosphere from the surface, you can't allow any energy in from anywhere but the Sun, including the surface, and you can't allow the energy to go anywhere except space. You cannot conveniently include the surface and one point and then ignore it at another point.

Entropy always increases in any system. by saying the surface warms the atmosphere and then doesn't go anywhere except to slow heating of the atmosphere as it gets warmer and warmer is actually an attempt to decrease entropy within the Sun-Earth-space system. It is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It also effectively reduces the radiance of the Earth (by not letting energy out) and violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You cannot warm the Earth without additional energy. The only source of that energy is the Sun. Neither the Earth nor the atmosphere of the Earth is a source of energy.


Sorry for the delayed response. I actually had to do some work, while at work.

Considering the earth and atmosphere as the "earth" makes it even easier to debunk you claim that Greenhouse Gases or Global Warming violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. The earth simply puts out radiation according to its temperature. If it gets warmer, it radiates more. If it gets cooler, it radiates less.

So far so good.
GreenMan wrote:
If greenhouse gases trap heat,

You cannot trap heat.


Sorry, I keep using that term. What I meant to say was greenhouse gases slow down the surfaces' ability to release heat [cool], by warming the air slightly, which slows down thermal energy transfer from the surface to the air through conduction.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
causing the planet to warm,

You cannot warm the Earth from a non-energy source. The Sun's output is constant. Changing it is the ONLY way to warm the Earth. You are violating the 1st law of thermodynamics.
GreenMan wrote:
it simply emits more radiation from the atmosphere,

There is no sequence.


Yes, there is a sequence.
Energy is received from the Sun.
That energy lights and warms one half of the planet, causing the planet to reflect light, and absorb energy.
The planet begins to emit its own energy [radiation] and also warm the air through conduction.
Some of the radiation that is emitted is absorbed by gases, further elevating the air temperature, which slows down the energy exchange going on between the air and surface through conduction.
As surface cooling slows down, surface temperature begins to rise.

That sequence is continuous, though a reset by nature occurs sometimes when it goes out of control and gets too damn hot. [See earth's climate history]

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
even if none gets out from the surface.

Violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The surface is not at absolute zero.

It's not a violation for the Stefan-Boltzmann Law for something to absorb the radiation of the surface of the earth. The surface is not at absolute zero, so it is emitting radiation, as the law says it should. The law does not care in any way about what happens to that radiation.

The earth and its atmosphere's total radiation is also doing what it should, by emitting radiation based on its temperature as a whole. So the law is not violated in that way either.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
That does not violate the Law.

Yes it does. You are saying a material that above absolute zero does not radiate.


Nope, I am simply saying that something is absorbing the radiation that is being emitted.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
The problem you are having a hard time understanding is that the earth can and does store thermal energy.

Nope. Energy is always on the move. The land cools...the land warms...the air cools...the air warms.. You are confusing specific heat with storage. It is not. It is a resistance to change.


Its resistance to change comes from its ability to hold, or store thermal energy. It it couldn't store any energy, then it would not even heat up.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
We know for sure that it does, because we can read the temperature of the soil below out feet, and see it change slowly as the sun comes up and goes down.

Same confusion. Temperature is not storage either. Temperature is a measurement.

Definitely a lot of confusion, but it is on your end. You apparently don't understand commonly used words, or phrases, like "we can read the temperature of the soil below our feet." Three words in that sentence, "read the temperature" implies that you are measuring the temperature. The reason I said that was because what we are discussing something that is common sense, and you are trying to confuse, just so you can maintain your invalid point.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
The temperature doesn't drop to nothing immediately when the sun goes down, and it doesn't go to peak immediately when the sun comes up. There is a delay in both, because even though the earth isn't storing thermal energy permanently, it is still storing it for a little while.

But it still is changing. It is not stored. The only way to store thermal energy is to completely decouple it from anything. That means putting it inside a box made of a perfect insulator. No such insulator exists in nature.

Nope, it's not a perfect insulator, thank God, but the atmosphere is an insulator none the less, with a variable amount of insulation which it can provide. And apparently, we have been cranking that control knob up by generating so much greenhouse gas.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
The sun is ultimately the source of energy for warming the planet.

Other than the fission deep within the Earth, this is true.
GreenMan wrote:
But the earth becomes an energy source due to its radiation being absorbed by gases.

WRONG. Gasses are nor an energy source. Neither is the surface. You are making a false equivalence by comparing two dissimilar systems. This is a common problem for people who don't understand the law of entropy, also known as the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

And your response is a common problem for people who don't understand the written word.
I didn't say that gases are the source of energy for anything. I said the surface of the earth does, after receiving energy from the sun. Yes, the sun is the original source of energy, just like the wall outlet in your home when you charge a recyclable battery. That battery then becomes the energy source for your wife's toy. You do understand how that works, don't you? Or are you going to stand your ground that the Sun is the source of energy for your wife's toy? Nobody is really arguing that though. Yes, the sun is the original energy source for everything on earth. The Sun is the Father, and the Earth is the Mother.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
The surface heats the atmosphere in two ways. Conduction to the air just off the surface, and absorption of its radiation by gases both warm the atmosphere.

This part is correct.
GreenMan wrote:
As the atmosphere become warmer, cooling of the surface takes longer.

This part is false. Air is a fluid. It is also a material. Heat continues on into space. Nothing is slowing down. You are also ignoring radiance from all substances (both surface and atmosphere) that are occurring.

No, I'm not ignoring radiance, because that is the only way for the atmosphere to cool itself. And yes, hot air rises, and cool air falls, to replace the hot air. That little cycle keeps repeating and repeating, and is where we get our weather from.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
So the surface begins to build up heat.

Nope. You are decreasing entropy that way. Entropy always increases in any system. It never decreases.

According to your understanding, then we couldn't possibly heat our homes then, because walls violate the laws of thermodynamics. Nothing can contain heat, so it all has to go right through the walls unmolested.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
That is not a violation of any law of Physics.

You have so far violated the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Some judge is going to probably want to through the book at me. But I'm going to sue, for gross misinterpretation of the law, due to negligence and willful misunderstanding.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Understanding that is the application of the laws of physics.

You might try studying it.


That's what you should do, and do it with a better attitude this time. Start with a fresh mind, one that doesn't care whether it is or it is not, but simply wants to know the truth.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Edited on 20-09-2017 08:44
20-09-2017 21:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You are including the atmosphere in with the word earth. Earth is this thing we walk on. Atmosphere is that stuff we fly through, when we are in a hurry and someone else is paying for our travel.
...deleted redundant portion...


Yes. I am including the atmosphere as part of Earth. It is part of the body of Earth. You cannot separate it from the surface of the Earth.

Surface heats atmosphere. Atmosphere is just part of the radiance of Earth.

When you use the Stefan-Boltzmann law, you consider ALL of the body, not just part of it.

You are STILL trying to use the radiance in the atmosphere to heat the surface again. Sorry, you can't do that without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Earth is NOT an energy source. The sun and ONLY the sun is. You cannot cook the Earth with it unless you increase the output of the Sun. Earth is NOT capable of storing energy from the Sun.

You cannot store thermal energy. You cannot store light. As soon as you take the energy source away, thermal energy continues to dissipate and the body cools. That dissipation is through conduction, possibly convection, and radiance. The only way to stop that is to enclose the body in an ideal insulator, which doesn't exist, and which doesn't allow energy in to warm it either.

Specific heat is NOT storing thermal energy. It is showing how much energy it takes to warm or cool something per second. If there is a place for heat to flow to, it WILL flow.

Your confusion here is due to the same reasons you have confusion about entropy in general. You are using the same kind of false equivalence as someone trying to use the concept of 'local' entropy. You are comparing two dissimilar systems (in this case, the atmosphere and the entire Earth including its atmosphere).

The Sun heats BOTH the surface and the atmosphere.

BOTH the surface and the atmosphere radiate to space.

BOTH are used in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

If you want to separate out the atmosphere from the surface, you can't allow any energy in from anywhere but the Sun, including the surface, and you can't allow the energy to go anywhere except space. You cannot conveniently include the surface and one point and then ignore it at another point.

Entropy always increases in any system. by saying the surface warms the atmosphere and then doesn't go anywhere except to slow heating of the atmosphere as it gets warmer and warmer is actually an attempt to decrease entropy within the Sun-Earth-space system. It is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It also effectively reduces the radiance of the Earth (by not letting energy out) and violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You cannot warm the Earth without additional energy. The only source of that energy is the Sun. Neither the Earth nor the atmosphere of the Earth is a source of energy.


Sorry for the delayed response. I actually had to do some work, while at work.

Considering the earth and atmosphere as the "earth" makes it even easier to debunk you claim that Greenhouse Gases or Global Warming violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. The earth simply puts out radiation according to its temperature. If it gets warmer, it radiates more. If it gets cooler, it radiates less.

So far so good.
GreenMan wrote:
If greenhouse gases trap heat,

You cannot trap heat.


Sorry, I keep using that term. What I meant to say was greenhouse gases slow down the surfaces' ability to release heat [cool], by warming the air slightly, which slows down thermal energy transfer from the surface to the air through conduction.

You are violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics that way, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Air is a fluid. That energy continues on outward, as a faster rate now that the air is warmer. You are STILL ignoring conduction, convection, and radiance.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
causing the planet to warm,

You cannot warm the Earth from a non-energy source. The Sun's output is constant. Changing it is the ONLY way to warm the Earth. You are violating the 1st law of thermodynamics.
GreenMan wrote:
it simply emits more radiation from the atmosphere,

There is no sequence.


Yes, there is a sequence.
Energy is received from the Sun.
That energy lights and warms one half of the planet, causing the planet to reflect light, and absorb energy.
The planet begins to emit its own energy [radiation]

There is no 'begin'. The planet is ALWAYS emitting light. There is no sequence. You can't suspend the Stefan-Boltzmann law for even a moment.
*
GreenMan wrote:
and also warm the air through conduction.

Conduction of heat is continuous. There is no 'begin'. There is no sequence. You can't suspend the 2nd law of thermodynamics for even a moment either.
GreenMan wrote:
Some of the radiation that is emitted is absorbed by gases, further elevating the air temperature,

Radiance from the surface cools the surface, heating the air. So does conduction. The air in turn continues to move energy outward. The warmer the air, the faster energy moves. You can't ignore that, though you desperately want to try.
GreenMan wrote:
which slows down the energy exchange going on between the air and surface through conduction.
No. It INCREASES heat. Energy flow increases, not decreases. You cannot heat the lower air and ignore the upper air or space.
GreenMan wrote:
As surface cooling slows down, surface temperature begins to rise.

Nope. Warmer surface or warmer air above the surface simply means heat increases to space, it does not decrease.
GreenMan wrote:
That sequence is continuous,

There is no sequence. You cannot suspend either the S-B law of the 2nd LoT for even a moment.
GreenMan wrote:
though a reset by nature occurs sometimes when it goes out of control and gets too damn hot.

There is no 'reset'.
GreenMan wrote:
[See earth's climate history]

There is no such thing as a 'global' climate. There is no such thing as a 'global' weather.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
even if none gets out from the surface.

Violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The surface is not at absolute zero.

It's not a violation for the Stefan-Boltzmann Law for something to absorb the radiation of the surface of the earth.

It IS if none gets out from the surface!
GreenMan wrote:
The surface is not at absolute zero, so it is emitting radiation, as the law says it should.

*
GreenMan wrote:
The law does not care in any way about what happens to that radiation.

The earth and its atmosphere's total radiation is also doing what it should, by emitting radiation based on its temperature as a whole. So the law is not violated in that way either.

YOU just SAID that the surface is not emitting. Paradox noted.

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]GreenMan wrote:
That does not violate the Law.


Yes it does. You are saying a material that above absolute zero does not radiate.


Nope, I am simply saying that something is absorbing the radiation that is being emitted.

WRONG. You are attempting to prevent radiance from leaving by said absorption and trying to 'trap' it. That DOES violate the S-B law. It also violates the 2nd LoT law.

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
The problem you are having a hard time understanding is that the earth can and does store thermal energy.

Nope. Energy is always on the move. The land cools...the land warms...the air cools...the air warms.. You are confusing specific heat with storage. It is not. It is a resistance to change.


Its resistance to change comes from its ability to hold, or store thermal energy. It it couldn't store any energy, then it would not even heat up.

Welcome to your new paradox. Noted.

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
We know for sure that it does, because we can read the temperature of the soil below out feet, and see it change slowly as the sun comes up and goes down.

Same confusion. Temperature is not storage either. Temperature is a measurement.

Definitely a lot of confusion, but it is on your end. You apparently don't understand commonly used words, or phrases, like "we can read the temperature of the soil below our feet." Three words in that sentence, "read the temperature" implies that you are measuring the temperature. The reason I said that was because what we are discussing something that is common sense, and you are trying to confuse, just so you can maintain your invalid point.

Reading the temperature is not a demonstration of specific heat. It is simply reading the temperature. Thermal inertia is not 'storage'.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
The temperature doesn't drop to nothing immediately when the sun goes down, and it doesn't go to peak immediately when the sun comes up. There is a delay in both, because even though the earth isn't storing thermal energy permanently, it is still storing it for a little while.

But it still is changing. It is not stored. The only way to store thermal energy is to completely decouple it from anything. That means putting it inside a box made of a perfect insulator. No such insulator exists in nature.

Nope, it's not a perfect insulator, thank God, but the atmosphere is an insulator none the less, with a variable amount of insulation which it can provide. And apparently, we have been cranking that control knob up by generating so much greenhouse gas.

CO2 conducts heat pretty much the same as any other gas. Water and water vapor conducts heat BETTER than any other gas. You are full of shit. Go look up the heat conductivity of common materials before you try THAT tactic again.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
The sun is ultimately the source of energy for warming the planet.

Other than the fission deep within the Earth, this is true.
GreenMan wrote:
But the earth becomes an energy source due to its radiation being absorbed by gases.

WRONG. Gasses are nor an energy source. Neither is the surface. You are making a false equivalence by comparing two dissimilar systems. This is a common problem for people who don't understand the law of entropy, also known as the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

And your response is a common problem for people who don't understand the written word.

I understand the written word (which is just a medium) and your argument that you are trying to make quite well. It is just another version of the Magick Bouncing Photon argument (and the Magick Blanket argument).
GreenMan wrote:
I didn't say that gases are the source of energy for anything.

Yes you did. You are STILL trying to heat the Earth using a gas.
GreenMan wrote:
I said the surface of the earth does, after receiving energy from the sun.

You are changing the system in mid-argument. You are making a false equivalence by doing so.
GreenMan wrote:
Yes, the sun is the original source of energy, just like the wall outlet in your home when you charge a recyclable battery.

An outlet is not a source of energy. It is a connector designed to handle up to 15-20 amps of current (depending on the style). All new installations require 20 amp capacity.

The power plant can be considered a source of energy, by ignoring the Sun and removing it from the system and treating the power plant as a black box. Entropy still increases in that system as you use power. If you want to discuss what powers the power plant, you no longer can do that. At that point the power plant is no longer an energy source.

You can't just change systems in the middle of an argument and assume the same conditions. There is no such thing as 'local' entropy. There is no such thing as 'local' energy sources.

ALL the thermal energy on the surface, and in the air above it, comes from the Sun. The warmer it is, the faster energy is lost. You can't ignore or suspend the 2nd LoT, even for a moment. The only way you can treat the surface as an energy source is to treat it like the power plant. You MUST ignore the Sun and treat the surface as a black box that is somehow providing energy to heat an atmosphere. Space is still the same. A warmer surface means MORE heat flows, not less.

GreenMan wrote:
That battery then becomes the energy source for your wife's toy.

Again, you are changing the system. A battery is basically just a bucket for electrons. A bucket is not an energy source unless you completely isolate the toy from everything else except the room's temperature and friction.

Entropy always increases in any system. It never decreases...ever.

You are trying to decrease entropy in the atmosphere by heating the lower portion and not allowing heat to flow to space.

GreenMan wrote:
You do understand how that works, don't you?

I understand you are still trying to make the Magick Bouncing Photon argument.

GreenMan wrote:
Or are you going to stand your ground that the Sun is the source of energy for your wife's toy?

It is.
GreenMan wrote:
Nobody is really arguing that though.

We are arguing that right now! Paradox noted.
GreenMan wrote:
Yes, the sun is the original energy source for everything on earth. The Sun is the Father, and the Earth is the Mother.

I already know that you worship the Great Goddess Gaia. You want to add Sun worship as well?
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
The surface heats the atmosphere in two ways. Conduction to the air just off the surface, and absorption of its radiation by gases both warm the atmosphere.

This part is correct.
GreenMan wrote:
As the atmosphere become warmer, cooling of the surface takes longer.

This part is false. Air is a fluid. It is also a material. Heat continues on into space. Nothing is slowing down. You are also ignoring radiance from all substances (both surface and atmosphere) that are occurring.

No, I'm not ignoring radiance, because that is the only way for the atmosphere to cool itself. And yes, hot air rises, and cool air falls, to replace the hot air. That little cycle keeps repeating and repeating, and is where we get our weather from.

You JUST ARGUED that the lower atmosphere just becomes warmer and nothing more is heated! That's the ONLY way to slow down heat lost from the surface you know. Paradox noted.

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
So the surface begins to build up heat.

Nope. You are decreasing entropy that way. Entropy always increases in any system. It never decreases.

According to your understanding, then we couldn't possibly heat our homes then, because walls violate the laws of thermodynamics. Nothing can contain heat, so it all has to go right through the walls unmolested.

You already made this paradox. You are becoming increasingly irrational in your arguments.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
That is not a violation of any law of Physics.

You have so far violated the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Some judge is going to probably want to through the book at me. But I'm going to sue, for gross misinterpretation of the law, due to negligence and willful misunderstanding.

There is no judge. Violating laws of physics simply means your argument doesn't work. These theories have been tested and are part of the body of science. They have been formalized into mathematics. Now you are just trying to make light of the fact that you are denying science.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Understanding that is the application of the laws of physics.

You might try studying it.


That's what you should do, and do it with a better attitude this time. Start with a fresh mind, one that doesn't care whether it is or it is not, but simply wants to know the truth.

Inversion fallacy. I HAVE studied it. I also have studied formal logic and mathematics, which is another reason I know you are full of BS.

You deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You deny the energy conservation laws, and with it, the 1st law of thermodynamics. You deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and with it, the ability to even warm the planet in the first place. You treat thermal resistance as a way to change thermal energy in an object.


The Parrot Killer
23-09-2017 07:27
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
[a bunch of stuff that doesn't pertain to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, so it was snipped. We'll talk about the thermodynamic laws on another thread.]


GreenMan wrote:
It's not a violation for the Stefan-Boltzmann Law for something to absorb the radiation of the surface of the earth.

Into the Night wrote:
It IS if none gets out from the surface!


Why does it have to get anywhere? All it has to do is be emitted to satisfy the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. No one is claiming that radiation is not being emitted. In fact, the ones who understand what's going on say that the radiation being emitted is what actually heats the gases. So it's just your gross misinterpretation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law that is causing the confusion.

And you know what else, it doesn't have to add up with other black body radiation to equal a particular amount either, especially of that other black body is munching on the radiation it is producing. If it is surrounded by that other black body, as the atmosphere surrounds the earth, then the total radiation is determined [again with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law] by its emissivity and temperature.

See, everyone is happy, including Stefan-Boltzmann [and I heard that he ain't easily pleased].

GreenMan wrote:
The law does not care in any way about what happens to that radiation.

The earth and its atmosphere's total radiation is also doing what it should, by emitting radiation based on its temperature as a whole. So the law is not violated in that way either.

Into the Night wrote:
YOU just SAID that the surface is not emitting. Paradox noted.

No, I didn't say the surface is not emitting. I said it is emitting, as it should, and that greenhouse gases are absorbing part of what is being emitted. That is in now way a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.


Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
That does not violate the Law.


Into the Night wrote:
Yes it does. You are saying a material that above absolute zero does not radiate.


Nope, I am simply saying that something is absorbing the radiation that is being emitted.


Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. You are attempting to prevent radiance from leaving by said absorption and trying to 'trap' it. That DOES violate the S-B law. It also violates the 2nd LoT law.


Let's try to separate the two laws for the moment, if that is possible, and focus on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Please explain why you think that absorbing radiation is trapping it, when it is really just converting it to heat. Also, please explain why absorption of radiation by atmospheric gases violates a law that simply states how much radiation a black body should emit.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
23-09-2017 18:42
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
GreenMan,
I don't think ITN understands the 2nd LoT. An equilibrium is supposed to be sought and is. The graph I posted of refracted radiation shows that CO2 limits the amount of radiation that is moving towards the upper atmosphere.
CO2 changes the radiance by converting it into work. I think that's being overlooked as converting energy into work doesn't violate any law of physics.
23-09-2017 22:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[a bunch of stuff that doesn't pertain to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, so it was snipped. We'll talk about the thermodynamic laws on another thread.]


GreenMan wrote:
It's not a violation for the Stefan-Boltzmann Law for something to absorb the radiation of the surface of the earth.

Into the Night wrote:
It IS if none gets out from the surface!


Why does it have to get anywhere?

Because space is an ultimate heat sink. Earth tries to heat space, but can't. That means heat MUST flow to space.

GreenMan wrote:
All it has to do is be emitted to satisfy the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

The mechanism by which Earth tries to heat space.

GreenMan wrote:
No one is claiming that radiation is not being emitted.

YOU are.

GreenMan wrote:
In fact, the ones who understand what's going on say that the radiation being emitted is what actually heats the gases. So it's just your gross misinterpretation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law that is causing the confusion.

It does heat gases, the gases heat space. Everything on Earth tries to heat space.

GreenMan wrote:
And you know what else, it doesn't have to add up with other black body radiation to equal a particular amount either, especially of that other black body is munching on the radiation it is producing.

Now you are preventing emission by Magick Holy Gas. This paradox has already been noted.

GreenMan wrote:
If it is surrounded by that other black body, as the atmosphere surrounds the earth, then the total radiation is determined [again with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law] by its emissivity and temperature.

Now you allowing emission by Magick Holy Gas. Which is it, dude?

GreenMan wrote:
See, everyone is happy, including Stefan-Boltzmann [and I heard that he ain't easily pleased].

Logic ain't happy. You are being irrational.

GreenMan wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
The law does not care in any way about what happens to that radiation.

The earth and its atmosphere's total radiation is also doing what it should, by emitting radiation based on its temperature as a whole. So the law is not violated in that way either.

Into the Night wrote:
YOU just SAID that the surface is not emitting. Paradox noted.

No, I didn't say the surface is not emitting.

Yes you did. You JUST DID IT AGAIN, liar.

GreenMan wrote:
I said it is emitting, as it should, and that greenhouse gases are absorbing part of what is being emitted.

Now you are saying Magick Holy Gas is NOT emitting again.

GreenMan wrote:
That is in now way a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

Yes, it is.

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
That does not violate the Law.


Into the Night wrote:
Yes it does. You are saying a material that above absolute zero does not radiate.


Nope, I am simply saying that something is absorbing the radiation that is being emitted.


Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. You are attempting to prevent radiance from leaving by said absorption and trying to 'trap' it. That DOES violate the S-B law. It also violates the 2nd LoT law.


Let's try to separate the two laws for the moment, if that is possible, and focus on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

The two are linked together. You can't just ignore one. BOTH laws are acting on the Earth...all the time.

GreenMan wrote:
Please explain why you think that absorbing radiation is trapping it,

Because you aren't allowing for emission again, in one side of your paradox.

GreenMan wrote:
when it is really just converting it to heat.

Radiance IS heat.

GreenMan wrote:
Also, please explain why absorption of radiation by atmospheric gases violates a law that simply states how much radiation a black body should emit.

Because you are not allowing for emission by that gas.

EVERYTHING emits light on Earth. EVERYTHING on Earth is above absolute zero.
You cannot just absorb radiation and then ignore it.


The Parrot Killer
23-09-2017 22:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
James_ wrote:
GreenMan,
I don't think ITN understands the 2nd LoT. An equilibrium is supposed to be sought and is. The graph I posted of refracted radiation shows that CO2 limits the amount of radiation that is moving towards the upper atmosphere.

That violates the 2nd LoT. You can't trap heat.
James_ wrote:
CO2 changes the radiance by converting it into work.

Radiance IS heat. Heat and work are interchangeable. Thermal energy is not work. You are attempting to rewrite the 1st LoT by referring to energy as work.
James_ wrote:
I think that's being overlooked as converting energy into work doesn't violate any law of physics.

No, but converting electromagnetic energy into thermal energy is not work. Neither is converting thermal energy into electromagnetic energy.


The Parrot Killer
24-09-2017 03:03
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
GreenMan,
I don't think ITN understands the 2nd LoT. An equilibrium is supposed to be sought and is. The graph I posted of refracted radiation shows that CO2 limits the amount of radiation that is moving towards the upper atmosphere.

That violates the 2nd LoT. You can't trap heat.
James_ wrote:
CO2 changes the radiance by converting it into work.

Radiance IS heat. Heat and work are interchangeable. Thermal energy is not work. You are attempting to rewrite the 1st LoT by referring to energy as work.
James_ wrote:
I think that's being overlooked as converting energy into work doesn't violate any law of physics.

No, but converting electromagnetic energy into thermal energy is not work. Neither is converting thermal energy into electromagnetic energy.


ITN,
I guess you have nothing better to do than waste someone else's time. It's a shame the world couldn't stop for your people. It is what you're upset about, right ?
24-09-2017 09:51
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[a bunch of stuff that doesn't pertain to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, so it was snipped. We'll talk about the thermodynamic laws on another thread.]


GreenMan wrote:
It's not a violation for the Stefan-Boltzmann Law for something to absorb the radiation of the surface of the earth.

Into the Night wrote:
It IS if none gets out from the surface!


Why does it have to get anywhere?

Because space is an ultimate heat sink. Earth tries to heat space, but can't. That means heat MUST flow to space.

GreenMan wrote:
All it has to do is be emitted to satisfy the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

The mechanism by which Earth tries to heat space.

GreenMan wrote:
No one is claiming that radiation is not being emitted.

YOU are.

GreenMan wrote:
In fact, the ones who understand what's going on say that the radiation being emitted is what actually heats the gases. So it's just your gross misinterpretation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law that is causing the confusion.

It does heat gases, the gases heat space. Everything on Earth tries to heat space.

Nothing on Earth can possibly "heat space," because there is no matter in space for thermal energy to transfer to.
It's more correct to say that everything on earth is trying to illuminate space, because that's what's really going on, though it's not visible light, so it's not really illuminating anything. It just warms whatever it strikes eventually, the further away the less warmth whatever it is gets though.

Into Night Flight wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
And you know what else, it doesn't have to add up with other black body radiation to equal a particular amount either, especially of that other black body is munching on the radiation it is producing.

Now you are preventing emission by Magick Holy Gas. This paradox has already been noted.

Absorption of radiation AFTER it has been emitted by the surface of earth is not preventing emission. The radiation is obviously being emitted, or the "Magick Holy Gas" would have nothing to absorb. And what about airplanes? Aren't they breaking the law, according to your interpretation of it? Do they not block radiation, before it gets to space also?

Into Night Flight wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
If it is surrounded by that other black body, as the atmosphere surrounds the earth, then the total radiation is determined [again with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law] by its emissivity and temperature.

Now you allowing emission by Magick Holy Gas. Which is it, dude?

Of course "Magick Holy Gases" and the other ones too, emit radiation. Everything emits radiation based on its temperature. I thought you knew that. As far as I can tell, the atmosphere emits most of the radiation required to satisfy Mr. Boltzmann, because it absorbs most of what the surface emits.

Into Night Flight wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
See, everyone is happy, including Stefan-Boltzmann [and I heard that he ain't easily pleased].

Logic ain't happy. You are being irrational.

Was just kidding. I know Mr. Boltzmann is long dead. In fact, didn't he die just after giving us his law, which many now consider his famous last words, which is why we all have to follow his law.

Into Night Flight wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
The law does not care in any way about what happens to that radiation.

The earth and its atmosphere's total radiation is also doing what it should, by emitting radiation based on its temperature as a whole. So the law is not violated in that way either.

Into the Night wrote:
YOU just SAID that the surface is not emitting. Paradox noted.

No, I didn't say the surface is not emitting.

Yes you did. You JUST DID IT AGAIN, liar.

Ok, once and for all.
1) The surface emits radiation based on it's temperature.
2) Greenhouse gases absorb most of that radiation and convert it to thermal energy, warming the surround air molecules.
3) The air emits radiation based on it's temperature.
4) The lower air warms the higher air through convection and radiation, because the higher air gets to absorb some of the lower air's radiation.
5) The air eventually gets so thin that most radiation is now allowed to escape.
6) That radiation must match what the Stefan-Boltzmann Law specifies.

Into Night Flight wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
I said it is emitting, as it should, and that greenhouse gases are absorbing part of what is being emitted.

Now you are saying Magick Holy Gas is NOT emitting again.

No I'm not, and stop trying to twist what I'm saying around, so you can act like you are right. Just because Greenhouse gases can absorb radiation, it doesn't mean they can't emit radiation. They have mass, so they should emit radiation based on their temperature.

Into Night Flight wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
That is in now way a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

Yes, it is.

No it isn't.

Into Night Flight wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
That does not violate the Law.


Into the Night wrote:
Yes it does. You are saying a material that above absolute zero does not radiate.


Nope, I am simply saying that something is absorbing the radiation that is being emitted.


Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. You are attempting to prevent radiance from leaving by said absorption and trying to 'trap' it. That DOES violate the S-B law. It also violates the 2nd LoT law.

The S-B Law does not care whether radiation gets to make it very far. It just says that it has to be emitted.

Into Night Flight wrote:




Let's try to separate the two laws for the moment, if that is possible, and focus on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

The two are linked together. You can't just ignore one. BOTH laws are acting on the Earth...all the time.


Wasn't trying to ignore anything. Was just trying to discuss one without you bringing the other into the discussion, to avoid confusion. And, yes, we can discuss either without the other, since they are talking about two completely different forms of energy.

Into Night Flight wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Please explain why you think that absorbing radiation is trapping it,

Because you aren't allowing for emission again, in one side of your paradox.

Absorption does not prevent emission. That's a stupid argument. If there were no emission, there would be no absorption. And if there is absorption, there had to be emission.

Into Night Flight wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
when it is really just converting it to heat.

Radiance IS heat.


Ok, now I think I see the root problem, and the source of your mindfuk.

Radiance is not heat. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy from a warmer object to a cooler one. It is all about THERMAL ENERGY, not ELECTRO-MAGNETIC ENERGY.

They are two different forms of energy, and don't share the same units, and they don't even talk to each other. Strange that, since they both appear to thrive in the same general areas.

Heat is what you feel when you walk across an asphalt parking lot barefoot in the summer time. You are feeling thermal energy being transferred from the parking lot to your feet. You are actually cooling the parking lot a little by walking across it. Thank you. But you know what, that parking lot is emitting radiation like crazy, because of the heat. Fortunately for you, it doesn't affect you at all.

Into Night Flight wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Also, please explain why absorption of radiation by atmospheric gases violates a law that simply states how much radiation a black body should emit.

Because you are not allowing for emission by that gas.

EVERYTHING emits light on Earth. EVERYTHING on Earth is above absolute zero.
You cannot just absorb radiation and then ignore it.


Yes, I am allowing for emission by that gas. In fact, I'm demanding it, because Mr. Boltzmann, whom I have the utmost regard for, said that it must emit, based on it's temperature.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
24-09-2017 18:38
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:

It's not a violation for the Stefan-Boltzmann Law for something to absorb the radiation of the surface of the earth.

All it has to do is be emitted to satisfy the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

No one is claiming that radiation is not being emitted.

In fact, the ones who understand what's going on say that the radiation being emitted is what actually heats the gases. So it's just your gross misinterpretation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law that is causing the confusion.

Ok, once and for all.
1) The surface emits radiation based on it's temperature.
2) Greenhouse gases absorb most of that radiation and convert it to thermal energy, warming the surround air molecules.
3) The air emits radiation based on it's temperature.
4) The lower air warms the higher air through convection and radiation, because the higher air gets to absorb some of the lower air's radiation.
5) The air eventually gets so thin that most radiation is now allowed to escape.
6) That radiation must match what the Stefan-Boltzmann Law specifies.



The surface almost entirely conducts heat into the troposphere. There is SOME radiation but it is very low and it is completely absorbed within feet of the surface whereupon it too become part of the heat being conducted up into the stratosphere.

If by "greenhouse gases" you mean H2O vapor yes. If you mean CO2 that has already been covered. The absorption bands of CO2 do not exist in sufficient levels to add energy to the atmosphere.

The "air" emits energy based on the amount of energy in the air's molecules which is generally reflective of the heat they contain.

Convection is cooler air falling and not an exchange of energy. Conduction is the exchange of energy. Throughout the atmosphere there is some low levels of radiation via energy levels but in the thicker atmosphere it is very low because each molecule can exchange energy via conduction faster than it can build to the levels which trigger radiation. This means that you have to add more energy to a molecule that it's specific heat index. This is unlikely for two reasons - heated air rises. In rising energy is expended. At the same time these heated molecules are bumping into their fellows and exchanging energy which can usually be described as warmer to cooler though that is not completely accurate.

While radiation does occur in the stratosphere and higher by this time the molecules have released (radiated) a great deal of their energy. The only way to radiate energy is in the electro-magnetic spectrum. This is different than the energy held at the surface of a heated object.

Nightmare doesn't believe that heat can be stored whereas the vibrations of a heated object ARE the storage of heat energy.

I suggest you not argue with nightmare since he has his own view of reality and it doesn't match reality with any accuracy.
24-09-2017 21:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
GreenMan,
I don't think ITN understands the 2nd LoT. An equilibrium is supposed to be sought and is. The graph I posted of refracted radiation shows that CO2 limits the amount of radiation that is moving towards the upper atmosphere.

That violates the 2nd LoT. You can't trap heat.
James_ wrote:
CO2 changes the radiance by converting it into work.

Radiance IS heat. Heat and work are interchangeable. Thermal energy is not work. You are attempting to rewrite the 1st LoT by referring to energy as work.
James_ wrote:
I think that's being overlooked as converting energy into work doesn't violate any law of physics.

No, but converting electromagnetic energy into thermal energy is not work. Neither is converting thermal energy into electromagnetic energy.


ITN,
I guess you have nothing better to do than waste someone else's time. It's a shame the world couldn't stop for your people. It is what you're upset about, right ?


Did the world stop? Did I miss something? Where's the 1000 mph wind? Where's the earthquakes?


The Parrot Killer
24-09-2017 21:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
GreenMan wrote:
Nothing on Earth can possibly "heat space," because there is no matter in space for thermal energy to transfer to.

There actually is. Space is not empty. But for now we can ignore that part.
GreenMan wrote:
It's more correct to say that everything on earth is trying to illuminate space, because that's what's really going on, though it's not visible light, so it's not really illuminating anything. It just warms whatever it strikes eventually, the further away the less warmth whatever it is gets though.

Fine. If you want to look at this way, I can work with that (of course that means you are observing from space again, aren't you?).
GreenMan wrote:
Absorption of radiation AFTER it has been emitted by the surface of earth is not preventing emission. The radiation is obviously being emitted, or the "Magick Holy Gas" would have nothing to absorb. And what about airplanes? Aren't they breaking the law, according to your interpretation of it? Do they not block radiation, before it gets to space also?

Of course "Magick Holy Gases" and the other ones too, emit radiation. Everything emits radiation based on its temperature. I thought you knew that. As far as I can tell, the atmosphere emits most of the radiation required to satisfy Mr. Boltzmann, because it absorbs most of what the surface emits.

Absorption isn't blocking energy. It is converting it. You can't trap heat.
GreenMan wrote:

Ok, once and for all.
1) The surface emits radiation based on it's temperature.
2) Greenhouse gases absorb most of that radiation and convert it to thermal energy, warming the surround air molecules.
3) The air emits radiation based on it's temperature.
4) The lower air warms the higher air through convection and radiation, because the higher air gets to absorb some of the lower air's radiation.
5) The air eventually gets so thin that most radiation is now allowed to escape.

The air does not have to get thin to allow light to escape. MOST of the light escaping the earth is reflected light (you can see the Earth from space! It's bright and shiny!). Planck radiance is also brightest from the surface. That radiance include infrared light. It also includes many other frequencies. Earth is not all the same temperature, and it is not emitting harmonic light, but a band of light with the peak centered in the infrared band (a very wide band). Some of that light happens to be a frequency that can be absorbed by CO2 or some other Holy Gas.

The surface is brightest. It is the densest material emitting light. It reaches space generally unimpeded by anything. What is absorbed is simply part of the radiance of the atmosphere instead of the surface.

GreenMan wrote:
6) That radiation must match what the Stefan-Boltzmann Law specifies.

Plus any reflected light, plus any light we generate such as city lights, heating systems, headlights, even an indicator LED. Planck radiance isn't the only source of light from the Earth.

GreenMan wrote:
Into Night Flight wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
I said it is emitting, as it should, and that greenhouse gases are absorbing part of what is being emitted.

Now you are saying Magick Holy Gas is NOT emitting again.

No I'm not, and stop trying to twist what I'm saying around, so you can act like you are right.

You are fixated on CO2 absorption of infrared light. What you are missing is that CO2 is NOT capable of warming the Earth. It's just another material being heated by the surface just like heating by conduction to the rest of the atmosphere is. It is how the surface COOLS.

Warm air rises, cooling it. Air also emits, cooling it. It cannot warm the already warmer surface. It can't do it by conduction, it can't do it by convection, it can't do it by radiance.

GreenMan wrote:
Just because Greenhouse gases can absorb radiation, it doesn't mean they can't emit radiation. They have mass, so they should emit radiation based on their temperature.

Absorption does not prevent emission. That's a stupid argument. If there were no emission, there would be no absorption. And if there is absorption, there had to be emission.

You ARE trying to use absorption without emission. You are trying to say that hotter air STAYS hotter in order to slow down heat loss from the surface.

GreenMan wrote:
Radiance is not heat.

Radiance is heat. Heat can occur due to conduction, convection, or RADIANCE.
GreenMan wrote:
Heat is the transfer of thermal energy from a warmer object to a cooler one. It is all about THERMAL ENERGY, not ELECTRO-MAGNETIC ENERGY.

This part is correct.
GreenMan wrote:
They are two different forms of energy, and don't share the same units, and they don't even talk to each other. Strange that, since they both appear to thrive in the same general areas.

Energy doesn't talk at all. You can easily convert from one to the other though. They DO interact. They also have the same units. Energy is measured in terms of work...in other words what it could do if were transferred to something else. That common unit of energy is the Joule. It covers all forms of energy. The Joule is also a direct unit of heat, since heat is talking about the transfer (in the case of thermal energy) itself.

So we measure thermal energy using a thermometer. We measure light using a photometer (for visible ranges, through the use of absorption like our eyeballs do), or by measuring the effect of absorption of other materials and the increased temperature they have, or the chemical change that occurs, or the ionization level reached in a material. This gives us the amount of light for a limited band of frequencies.

Another way to measure light is to integrate all tuned wire antenna measurements over all frequencies. Not a practical instrument.

Most people are interested, like Wake, in only a certain band of frequencies of light. That makes it easier to measure it. There actually is no practical way to measure all of the light.

GreenMan wrote:
Heat is what you feel when you walk across an asphalt parking lot barefoot in the summer time. You are feeling thermal energy being transferred from the parking lot to your feet. You are actually cooling the parking lot a little by walking across it. Thank you.

You are describing heat by conduction. No problem here.
GreenMan wrote:
But you know what, that parking lot is emitting radiation like crazy, because of the heat.

No, because of its temperature. Emission IS heat.
GreenMan wrote:
Fortunately for you, it doesn't affect you at all.

Actually it does. Each molecule in the outer areas of your body is affected by that radiance. They absorb it, and pass it on as part of the Planck radiance each molecule of your body is normally putting out, even on a cold day. You feel overall slightly warmer, since your nervous system is somewhat sensitive to this effect. You feel outright hot on such a day because of the air temperature, a function of heating by conduction and radiance from the surface. That is in addition to the radiance coming directly from the surface affecting you.

Surely you've seen the heat waves coming off such a parking lot? That is air being heated by the partking lot. The wavy effect is the effect of convection in the air as it rises, temporarily changing its density, and thus its ability to scatter light. That air is also emitting and losing energy, as well as losing energy by convection.

GreenMan wrote:
Yes, I am allowing for emission by that gas. In fact, I'm demanding it, because Mr. Boltzmann, whom I have the utmost regard for, said that it must emit, based on it's temperature.


You say you do, but then you don't. You keep changing your position on this. That is why you are in paradox. You are still continuing to justify that paradox. It is an irrational argument that you are making.

You keep couching how you don't in some way that tries to justify heating the Earth with a Holy Gas.

There is nothing holy about any gas. No gas has the ability to warm the Earth. ALL of them are simply part of the atmosphere, and a part of the overall radiance of Earth. ALL of them combined radiate less than the surface itself. A lot less.

The radiance of the Earth is the sum of the two.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 24-09-2017 21:59
24-09-2017 22:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:

It's not a violation for the Stefan-Boltzmann Law for something to absorb the radiation of the surface of the earth.

All it has to do is be emitted to satisfy the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

No one is claiming that radiation is not being emitted.

In fact, the ones who understand what's going on say that the radiation being emitted is what actually heats the gases. So it's just your gross misinterpretation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law that is causing the confusion.

Ok, once and for all.
1) The surface emits radiation based on it's temperature.
2) Greenhouse gases absorb most of that radiation and convert it to thermal energy, warming the surround air molecules.
3) The air emits radiation based on it's temperature.
4) The lower air warms the higher air through convection and radiation, because the higher air gets to absorb some of the lower air's radiation.
5) The air eventually gets so thin that most radiation is now allowed to escape.
6) That radiation must match what the Stefan-Boltzmann Law specifies.



The surface almost entirely conducts heat into the troposphere.

Nope. It also emits light due to its temperature. Why do you suspend the S-B law here?
Wake wrote:
There is SOME radiation but it is very low

Not according to the S-B law and the density of the surface compared to air.
Wake wrote:
and it is completely absorbed within feet of the surface whereupon it too become part of the heat being conducted up into the stratosphere.

Another violation of the S-B law. Air within feed of the surface has a temperature above absolute zero. It is emitting light, just as the surface does. It is dimmer light than the surface because of the lighter density of air compared to the surface.
Wake wrote:
If by "greenhouse gases" you mean H2O vapor yes.

Nope. Water in any form does not have the ability to heat the surface. It is colder than the surface.
Wake wrote:
If you mean CO2 that has already been covered.

It doesn't have the ability to heat the surface either. Same reason.
Wake wrote:
The absorption bands of CO2 do not exist in sufficient levels to add energy to the atmosphere.

CO2 cannot add energy to the atmosphere. No gas can add energy to the atmosphere. Energy in the atmosphere is the combined result of direct absorption from sunlight, and from the surface (which was warmed more effectively by the same sunlight).
Wake wrote:
The "air" emits energy based on the amount of energy in the air's molecules which is generally reflective of the heat they contain.

Heat is not 'contained' in anything. You can't trap or store heat. You can't trap thermal energy either. Heat is always flowing.
Wake wrote:
Convection is cooler air falling and not an exchange of energy.

WRONG. Convection is warmer air rising AND falling. It IS an exchange of energy, by moving the energetic material itself. Convection is a form of heat.
Wake wrote:
Conduction is the exchange of energy.

Conduction is ALSO a form of heat.
Wake wrote:
Throughout the atmosphere there is some low levels of radiation via energy levels but in the thicker atmosphere it is very low because each molecule can exchange energy via conduction faster than it can build to the levels which trigger radiation.

You can't suspend the S-B law for the lower atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
This means that you have to add more energy to a molecule that it's specific heat index.

??? Specific heat is NOT an energy level! Go look up what 'specific heat' is!
Wake wrote:
This is unlikely for two reasons

Just one, actually. You apparently have no idea what specific heat is!
Wake wrote:
- heated air rises. In rising energy is expended.

Dissipated, actually. You can't destroy energy. You can only convert it.
Wake wrote:
At the same time these heated molecules are bumping into their fellows and exchanging energy which can usually be described as warmer to cooler though that is not completely accurate.

No, that is completely accurate.
Wake wrote:
While radiation does occur in the stratosphere and higher

...as well as everywhere else...
Wake wrote:
by this time the molecules have released (radiated) a great deal of their energy.

True. All due to radiance while they were moving around due to convection.
Wake wrote:
The only way to radiate energy is in the electro-magnetic spectrum.

To space, true.
Wake wrote:
This is different than the energy held at the surface of a heated object.

Nope. You are forgetting that ole' S-B law again!
Wake wrote:
Nightmare doesn't believe that heat can be stored whereas the vibrations of a heated object ARE the storage of heat energy.

You still don't know the difference between heat and thermal energy, do you?

You can't store heat. That's like saying you can store convection, or that you can store light, or that you can store conduction.

You can't store thermal energy. Heat is always flowing. You can't store electromagnetic energy. Photons are always moving.

Wake wrote:
I suggest you not argue with nightmare since he has his own view of reality and it doesn't match reality with any accuracy.

Don't try philosophy, dumbass. You have enough trouble with science, logic, and math.


The Parrot Killer
25-09-2017 12:18
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Nothing on Earth can possibly "heat space," because there is no matter in space for thermal energy to transfer to.

There actually is. Space is not empty. But for now we can ignore that part.
GreenMan wrote:
It's more correct to say that everything on earth is trying to illuminate space, because that's what's really going on, though it's not visible light, so it's not really illuminating anything. It just warms whatever it strikes eventually, the further away the less warmth whatever it is gets though.

Fine. If you want to look at this way, I can work with that (of course that means you are observing from space again, aren't you?).

Nothing at all wrong with considering earth from space. As long as you understand that some of the surface ir radiation is being absorbed on its way up to space. And that radiation that is being absorbed increases the temperature of its surrounding air mass, and thus causing the surrounding air mass to emit a little more ir radiation.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Absorption of radiation AFTER it has been emitted by the surface of earth is not preventing emission. The radiation is obviously being emitted, or the "Magick Holy Gas" would have nothing to absorb. And what about airplanes? Aren't they breaking the law, according to your interpretation of it? Do they not block radiation, before it gets to space also?

Of course "Magick Holy Gases" and the other ones too, emit radiation. Everything emits radiation based on its temperature. I thought you knew that. As far as I can tell, the atmosphere emits most of the radiation required to satisfy Mr. Boltzmann, because it absorbs most of what the surface emits.

Absorption isn't blocking energy. It is converting it. You can't trap heat.
GreenMan wrote:

I didn't mean to imply that absorption was "blocking radiation." Whether or not you can "trap heat" is another thread regarding thermodynamics. This one is about trying to figure out why you think the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is violated by what you call Magick Gas, or Greenhouse Gases in the rest of the Universe.

Into the Night wrote:

Ok, once and for all.
1) The surface emits radiation based on it's temperature.
2) Greenhouse gases absorb most of that radiation and convert it to thermal energy, warming the surround air molecules.
3) The air emits radiation based on it's temperature.
4) The lower air warms the higher air through convection and radiation, because the higher air gets to absorb some of the lower air's radiation.
5) The air eventually gets so thin that most radiation is now allowed to escape.

The air does not have to get thin to allow light to escape. MOST of the light escaping the earth is reflected light (you can see the Earth from space! It's bright and shiny!). Planck radiance is also brightest from the surface. That radiance include infrared light. It also includes many other frequencies. Earth is not all the same temperature, and it is not emitting harmonic light, but a band of light with the peak centered in the infrared band (a very wide band). Some of that light happens to be a frequency that can be absorbed by CO2 or some other Holy Gas.

Wait a minute, did I read that sentence incorrectly, or did you just agree that some ir emissions are absorbed by CO2?

You see, that is what this thread is about. Your contention has been that absorption of radiation by CO2 or other Greenhouse Gases violated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. So are you standing down on that now?

Into the Night wrote:

The surface is brightest. It is the densest material emitting light. It reaches space generally unimpeded by anything. What is absorbed is simply part of the radiance of the atmosphere instead of the surface.

GreenMan wrote:
6) That radiation must match what the Stefan-Boltzmann Law specifies.

Plus any reflected light, plus any light we generate such as city lights, heating systems, headlights, even an indicator LED. Planck radiance isn't the only source of light from the Earth.

GreenMan wrote:
Into Night Flight wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
I said it is emitting, as it should, and that greenhouse gases are absorbing part of what is being emitted.

Now you are saying Magick Holy Gas is NOT emitting again.


They can emit and absorb simultaneously. In fact, they have to admit and absorb simultaneously, or the would blow up. We would see little flickers of light everywhere.

Into the Night wrote:

No I'm not, and stop trying to twist what I'm saying around, so you can act like you are right.

You are fixated on CO2 absorption of infrared light. What you are missing is that CO2 is NOT capable of warming the Earth. It's just another material being heated by the surface just like heating by conduction to the rest of the atmosphere is. It is how the surface COOLS.

Well yes, I am fixated on CO2 absorption, in this thread. I started this thread because you keep saying that Greenhouse Gases somehow violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. We will discuss the thermal energy laws next, because to be honest with you, I'm tired of hearing that the S-B Laws are broken, when they aren't. In fact, you admitted that you understand that CO2 does absorb ir emissions and convert those emissions to heat. So you know that it is not a violation of the S-B Laws. So now your only recourse is to change the focus to the Laws of Thermodynamics. But those laws are not relevant in this discussion, because we aren't discussing how Greenhouse Gases heat the earth. We are just discussing why you think they violate the S-B Laws. Now it is clear they don't. And that is what I was trying to accomplish. So thank you for your wisdom, which is slowly sinking in.

Into the Night wrote:

Warm air rises, cooling it. Air also emits, cooling it. It cannot warm the already warmer surface. It can't do it by conduction, it can't do it by convection, it can't do it by radiance.

GreenMan wrote:
Just because Greenhouse gases can absorb radiation, it doesn't mean they can't emit radiation. They have mass, so they should emit radiation based on their temperature.

Absorption does not prevent emission. That's a stupid argument. If there were no emission, there would be no absorption. And if there is absorption, there had to be emission.

You ARE trying to use absorption without emission. You are trying to say that hotter air STAYS hotter in order to slow down heat loss from the surface.

No, I am not saying that hot air stays hotter. I am saying that it gets a little hotter than it would without the presence of Greenhouse Gases. And that additional thermal energy is slowing down conduction from the surface to the air. And that happens even though the warmer air at the surface is constantly being replace by cooler air from above.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Radiance is not heat.

Radiance is heat. Heat can occur due to conduction, convection, or RADIANCE.

Yeah, ok, I looked it up, and radiance is heat. But that's no reason to consider thermal energy and radiance as the same thing. They aren't.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Heat is the transfer of thermal energy from a warmer object to a cooler one. It is all about THERMAL ENERGY, not ELECTRO-MAGNETIC ENERGY.

This part is correct.
GreenMan wrote:
They are two different forms of energy, and don't share the same units, and they don't even talk to each other. Strange that, since they both appear to thrive in the same general areas.

Energy doesn't talk at all. You can easily convert from one to the other though. They DO interact. They also have the same units. Energy is measured in terms of work...in other words what it could do if were transferred to something else. That common unit of energy is the Joule. It covers all forms of energy. The Joule is also a direct unit of heat, since heat is talking about the transfer (in the case of thermal energy) itself.

So we measure thermal energy using a thermometer. We measure light using a photometer (for visible ranges, through the use of absorption like our eyeballs do), or by measuring the effect of absorption of other materials and the increased temperature they have, or the chemical change that occurs, or the ionization level reached in a material. This gives us the amount of light for a limited band of frequencies.

Another way to measure light is to integrate all tuned wire antenna measurements over all frequencies. Not a practical instrument.

Most people are interested, like Wake, in only a certain band of frequencies of light. That makes it easier to measure it. There actually is no practical way to measure all of the light.

I'm not really interested in any of it, in this thread, unless it is in violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, and apparently, it isn't.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Heat is what you feel when you walk across an asphalt parking lot barefoot in the summer time. You are feeling thermal energy being transferred from the parking lot to your feet. You are actually cooling the parking lot a little by walking across it. Thank you.

You are describing heat by conduction. No problem here.
GreenMan wrote:
But you know what, that parking lot is emitting radiation like crazy, because of the heat.

No, because of its temperature. Emission IS heat.
GreenMan wrote:
Fortunately for you, it doesn't affect you at all.

Actually it does. Each molecule in the outer areas of your body is affected by that radiance. They absorb it, and pass it on as part of the Planck radiance each molecule of your body is normally putting out, even on a cold day. You feel overall slightly warmer, since your nervous system is somewhat sensitive to this effect. You feel outright hot on such a day because of the air temperature, a function of heating by conduction and radiance from the surface. That is in addition to the radiance coming directly from the surface affecting you.

Surely you've seen the heat waves coming off such a parking lot? That is air being heated by the partking lot. The wavy effect is the effect of convection in the air as it rises, temporarily changing its density, and thus its ability to scatter light. That air is also emitting and losing energy, as well as losing energy by convection.

GreenMan wrote:
Yes, I am allowing for emission by that gas. In fact, I'm demanding it, because Mr. Boltzmann, whom I have the utmost regard for, said that it must emit, based on it's temperature.


You say you do, but then you don't. You keep changing your position on this. That is why you are in paradox. You are still continuing to justify that paradox. It is an irrational argument that you are making.

You keep couching how you don't in some way that tries to justify heating the Earth with a Holy Gas.

There is nothing holy about any gas. No gas has the ability to warm the Earth. ALL of them are simply part of the atmosphere, and a part of the overall radiance of Earth. ALL of them combined radiate less than the surface itself. A lot less.

The radiance of the Earth is the sum of the two.


Your only argument for why Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is that they violate the Laws of Thermodynamics. As far as I am concerned, that means there is no violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, because the Laws of Thermodynamics have nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, even though they are both about heat. One is about heat from Thermal Energy, and the other is from heat from Electro-Magnetic Radiation.

We will see in a subsequent thread how Greenhouse Gases do not violate the Laws of Thermodynamics next, on another thread.

Thank you for your expertise.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
25-09-2017 19:30
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
Nothing at all wrong with considering earth from space. As long as you understand that some of the surface ir radiation is being absorbed on its way up to space. And that radiation that is being absorbed increases the temperature of its surrounding air mass, and thus causing the surrounding air mass to emit a little more ir radiation.

Wait a minute, did I read that sentence incorrectly, or did you just agree that some ir emissions are absorbed by CO2?

You see, that is what this thread is about. Your contention has been that absorption of radiation by CO2 or other Greenhouse Gases violated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. So are you standing down on that now?
Well yes, I am fixated on CO2 absorption, in this thread. I started this thread because you keep saying that Greenhouse Gases somehow violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. We will discuss the thermal energy laws next, because to be honest with you, I'm tired of hearing that the S-B Laws are broken, when they aren't. In fact, you admitted that you understand that CO2 does absorb ir emissions and convert those emissions to heat. So you know that it is not a violation of the S-B Laws. So now your only recourse is to change the focus to the Laws of Thermodynamics. But those laws are not relevant in this discussion, because we aren't discussing how Greenhouse Gases heat the earth. We are just discussing why you think they violate the S-B Laws. Now it is clear they don't. And that is what I was trying to accomplish. So thank you for your wisdom, which is slowly sinking in.


Why are you arguing with nightmare about this?

I note that one of your mistakes is that you think that CO2 absorbing energy on the way out is somehow permanent. It is not. All of the energy that falls on the Earth is radiated back out again. Otherwise two days after the Earth was formed it would be a ball of cinders.

All CO2 does is pick up heat via conduction the same as other atmospheric gases. This it passes on just like all the other gases.

As for absorbing radiated heat we've already gone through that. Though my estimate is that all of the Earth's radiation in the 5 um wavelength is absorbed within a meter I would be willing to settle for your reference of 10 meters to "near" complete absorption. It makes no difference since the end result is the same - heat is passed through the troposphere via conduction. It is conveyed into the stratosphere where it radiates entirely off of this planet though perhaps in a rather complicated way that we gain nothing by discussing.

Energy in = energy out. Increasing CO2 makes no difference whatsoever. And since it was in saturation from 220 ppm on it doesn't even warm the atmosphere.
25-09-2017 19:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
GreenMan wrote:
No, I am not saying that hot air stays hotter. I am saying that it gets a little hotter than it would without the presence of Greenhouse Gases.

This statement is a paradox. The remainder of the discussion is deleted for brevity because of the presence of this paradox. You must choose one or the other dude. The irrationality of continuing to claim both sides of the argument at the same time is your problem.

Once you choose which argument you want to use and discard the other, then we can talk about how well this fits with the S-B law or the laws of thermodynamics.

Until then, the rest of your discussion is useless, since it is based on this paradox.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 17<1234>>>





Join the debate Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Election Law3208-10-2019 13:02
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy2422-09-2019 22:20
Bill Nye greenhouse gas experiment fail.1616-09-2019 15:51
Is CO2 much of a Greenhouse gas at all?10813-09-2019 05:54
There is no greenhouse effect1513-08-2019 23:33
▲ 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