Remember me
▼ Content

I'm not quite so sure, though



Page 2 of 4<1234>
27-09-2016 18:17
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote: Planck's Law predicts that all wavelengths will be emitted.

...for ideal blackbodies, i.e. emissivity = 1.0.

How many ideal blackbodies exist in nature?

jwoodward48 wrote:If I plug a wavelength that O2 (or is that just O?) doesn't radiate, I get a nonzero expected emission energy

Yes. In mathematics, if you enter a value that is outside the domain of the function you get a bogus answer that does not apply.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-09-2016 18:19
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Emissivity - is it the same for all wavelengths, given an object?
27-09-2016 18:28
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
So I have a marble orbiting the Sun. It is heated up to 273K by the sunlight. I want to make it warmer.

Right now, it is a perfect black body. So I figure, why not wrap it in a reflective material? Now its emissivity is smaller, so it'll warm up, right?

Wait. No. Argh, dammit. Its absorptivity is decreased by the same amount. No temperature change.

But wait. What if I surround it with a shell of Woodmat? It's a material that is clear to the incoming light (low absorptivity), but opaque to the outgoing light (high absorptivity).

That sounds ridiculous. It's not.

The incoming light is shortwave. The outgoing light is longwave. It is possible for materials to be "selectively absorptive" for different wavelengths, is it not?
27-09-2016 18:54
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote: Emissivity - is it the same for all wavelengths, given an object?

That is a great question for several reasons.

On the one hand we normally speak of any given body as having one constant of emissivity across all wavelengths. On the other hand, if we're not talking about bodies, e.g. non-enclosed gases, then we speak in terms of spectral emissivity and I am not an authority on that particular subject.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-09-2016 19:20
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
... So is the atmosphere one of the things with varying emissivitiee? I can't decipher what the parenthetical statement means. (Are none closed gases bodies?)
27-09-2016 21:18
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote:
... So is the atmosphere one of the things with varying emissivitiee? I can't decipher what the parenthetical statement means. (Are none closed gases bodies?)

No. The earth is a body. The atmosphere is part of that body. It does not matter how the atmosphere ushers energy around the body or how the atmosphere changes the form of energy, the body's surface will absorb whatever energy is not otherwise absorbed by its atmosphere.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-09-2016 22:13
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But... The atmosphere is opaque to several wavelengths, no? And it is (clearly) not opaque to visible light?
27-09-2016 22:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
But... The atmosphere is opaque to several wavelengths, no? And it is (clearly) not opaque to visible light?


So?


The Parrot Killer
27-09-2016 22:25
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
So its absorptivity, transmitivity, and emittivity (I probably misspelled half those words) depend on wavelength!
27-09-2016 23:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
So its absorptivity, transmitivity, and emittivity (I probably misspelled half those words) depend on wavelength!


Yeah. So?


The Parrot Killer
27-09-2016 23:45
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
So since incoming radiation has different wavelengths from outgoing radiation, it can act differently on each, right?
28-09-2016 00:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote:Planck's Law predicts that all wavelengths will be emitted.

No it doesn't.

It predicts the energy output given a temperature and a wavelength. Of course you can only apply wavelengths in the domain in question.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-09-2016 00:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
So since incoming radiation has different wavelengths from outgoing radiation, it can act differently on each, right?


Okay. So?


The Parrot Killer
28-09-2016 00:54
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
So if a body has a high absorptivity and a low emittance, then incoming energy will exceed outgoing energy, right? (Assuming that it used to have identical emittance and absorptivity, with a temperature reflecting that.)
28-09-2016 01:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
So if a body has a high absorptivity and a low emittance, then incoming energy will exceed outgoing energy, right? (Assuming that it used to have identical emittance and absorptivity, with a temperature reflecting that.)


A body has the same emissivity as absorptivity.


The Parrot Killer
28-09-2016 02:34
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
For one wavelength, yes. But the atmosphere has shortwave going down through it and longwave coming up - it can have different emissivity for longwave than absorptivity for shortwave, right?
Edited on 28-09-2016 02:34
28-09-2016 03:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
For one wavelength, yes. But the atmosphere has shortwave going down through it and longwave coming up - it can have different emissivity for longwave than absorptivity for shortwave, right?


The spectrum of the sun is broad. The light absorbed by CO2 or any other gas comes from anywhere.

You are still ignoring the effects of conduction and convection. You are also ignoring the effects of radiation from other gases as well as the surface itself.


The Parrot Killer
28-09-2016 05:37
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Yes, the Sun has a broad spectrum, but it's almost entirely non-overlapping with the radiation from Earth.

Wait, we need to consider all those other things too? I thought we could prove it with only basic laws of thermodynamics and radiation.


Conduction and convection cannot cool the Earth system. Only radiation can carry energy through the aether. (I am aware that that theory was disproven centuries ago. It is my attempt at a joke.)

How would you like to go about including those other factors?
28-09-2016 13:56
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Yes, the Sun has a broad spectrum, but it's almost entirely non-overlapping with the radiation from Earth.

Wait, we need to consider all those other things too? I thought we could prove it with only basic laws of thermodynamics and radiation.


Conduction and convection cannot cool the Earth system. Only radiation can carry energy through the aether. (I am aware that that theory was disproven centuries ago. It is my attempt at a joke.)

How would you like to go about including those other factors?

What problem are we trying to solve?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-09-2016 21:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Yes, the Sun has a broad spectrum, but it's almost entirely non-overlapping with the radiation from Earth.
Actually, no. It's not.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Wait, we need to consider all those other things too? I thought we could prove it with only basic laws of thermodynamics and radiation.

Nah. We get to mess with ideal gas law too.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Conduction and convection cannot cool the Earth system. Only radiation can carry energy through the aether. (I am aware that that theory was disproven centuries ago. It is my attempt at a joke.)

Conduction and convection are major factors transferring thermal energy from the surface into the atmosphere.
jwoodward48 wrote:
How would you like to go about including those other factors?

The atmosphere is the primary means of radiating energy into space.


The Parrot Killer
28-09-2016 21:59
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
So you're saying that most radiation from the Earth system originates in (that is, the photon was emitted from) the atmosphere?
28-09-2016 22:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
So you're saying that most radiation from the Earth system originates in (that is, the photon was emitted from) the atmosphere?


They are emitted from both.

Convection and conduction carry thermal energy away from the surface and into the atmosphere, but the surface also radiates. The atmosphere does most of the radiating though. It is a wonderful medium to carry energy aloft and spreading out the job of radiating it into space across a significant bit of volume.

Think of the atmosphere like a river, carrying energy into space.

If a tree falls in a river, it floats downstream, never upstream. It may make it all the way to the sea, or it may stop for awhile along the river banks before doing so. It never flows back upstream to where it came from. Eventually, it will wind up in the sea.

The atmosphere is like the river but without banks for a log to snag up on.


The Parrot Killer
28-09-2016 22:26
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
So I take it we are discussing the 2nd?

First, let me start with the statement that some radiation from the atmosphere will be directed downward. This seems indisputable, but you never know.

You are claiming that a cool object cannot heat a warm object. In a particular set of circumstances (no other energy source, etc.), this is true. But in application, false.

Imagine that the background radiation were changed to be 100K, instead of 2K. Would this change the temperature of the Earth? (The corresponding energy of the background radiation increases with temperature, of course.)
28-09-2016 22:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
So I take it we are discussing the 2nd?
As part of this, yes.
jwoodward48 wrote:
First, let me start with the statement that some radiation from the atmosphere will be directed downward. This seems indisputable, but you never know.
So?
jwoodward48 wrote:
You are claiming that a cool object cannot heat a warm object.
True, according to the 2nd LoT.
jwoodward48 wrote:
In a particular set of circumstances (no other energy source, etc.), this is true.
The law always applies. There are no exceptions.
jwoodward48 wrote:
But in application, false.
There are no exceptions.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Imagine that the background radiation were changed to be 100K, instead of 2K. Would this change the temperature of the Earth? (The corresponding energy of the background radiation increases with temperature, of course.)

Contrived problem ignored.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 28-09-2016 22:55
28-09-2016 23:20
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
...what? Huh? How is that contrived?

Maybe I'm bad at explaining. Let me quote:

"This apparent paradox is again based on a misunderstanding. Imagine you are standing outside on a cold winters night. It's really cold and you are soon chilled to the bone so you step inside. Inside it's a pleasant 20°C and almost immediately you feel warmer. But you are at 37°C and the room is 17°C cooler at 20°C how can it warm you, the second law of thermodynamics forbids it! No it doesn't. When you were outside, you body was radiating energy to space but because the environment was so cold there was very little radiating back to you so the net loss was substantial. When you step inside your body is still radiating exactly the same amount of energy (remember the amount radiated depends only on the temperature and emissivity) however now the warmer walls of the room radiate more energy back to you than did the cold outside. Since the walls are colder than you are you still radiate more energy than you receive (heat flow is still from you to the room) but the difference between what you radiate and what you receive is less. You lose less net energy when inside than when outside so you feel warmer inside the room and it is easy to feel the room is warming you. In fact it is more accurate to say the room cools you less than did the outside."
28-09-2016 23:45
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
So that I'm not looking like a parrot, here's my own explanation.

Everything radiates. Even cold things. This ice here radiates. Why don't I feel any warmer when I stand next to it? Because I used to be standing next to a fire. But compared to space, I prefer the ice.


If we just had the Earth, no Sun, it would be at 2K or so. That's the background radiation. (We're ignoring the heat of the core because it doesn't really matter.) If we raised the background radiation to 100K, the Earth would be at 100K.

Now imagine an Earth heated by the Sun and the background radiation. The Sun adds to the temperature that the Earth would otherwise have. So instead of being at 2K, Earth is at 250K or something. (The number is off, I'm sure, it doesn't matter.)

Now increase the background radiation again, keeping it cooler than the Earth. Now the Earth is at 300K. But I thought cooler things couldn't warm things? They can - but not in the sense that the 2nd Law prohibits! Changing the temperature of a cooler thing can indeed change the temperature of a warmer thing. The 2nd Law only prohibits the background radiation on its own heating the Earth to above its own temperature.
28-09-2016 23:49
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Everything radiates. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that the radiation from an object cannot on its own raise a body to above the temperature of the object.

So if I have two iron rods, one at -10K and one at 10K, there is radiation going from the cooler to the warmer, but there is even more radiation going from the warmer to the cooler. If we increase the radiation from the cooler, say, by increasing its temperature to 0K, the temperature of everything the radiation reaches will increase, regardless of its temperature. Cooler things will heat up, obviously. But warmer things must have a separate energy source. Increasing one of the energy sources will obviously heat up the body. And it doesn't violate 2LoT because the cool rod isn't the only energy source.
29-09-2016 02:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
...what? Huh? How is that contrived?

Maybe I'm bad at explaining. Let me quote:

"This apparent paradox is again based on a misunderstanding. Imagine you are standing outside on a cold winters night. It's really cold and you are soon chilled to the bone so you step inside. Inside it's a pleasant 20°C and almost immediately you feel warmer. But you are at 37°C and the room is 17°C cooler at 20°C how can it warm you, the second law of thermodynamics forbids it!


No it doesn't. Indeed, it specifies that exactly that will happen.

Your internal temperature is 37 degC. Your skin temperature is actually about 34 degC. You lose a few degrees just right there, thanks to the 2nd law again.

You feel warmer because the 2nd LoT is all about the difference of temperature. That difference is not as great indoors, so your rate of heat loss is not as great. You don't need your coat.

Outside, (you didn't give a temperature, so let's just say 0 degC for grins) you experience a bigger difference of temperature between you and the cold air. Your rate of heat loss is now greater than your body by itself can cope with. You need a coat. You won't last long out there naked, while you can be reasonably comfortable in the house at 20 degC being naked.

It is not because of radiation. It is because of overall ways of losing heat (in this case primarily by conduction and convection, which you can restrict by putting on a coat).


The Parrot Killer
29-09-2016 02:42
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Radiation, convection, conduction, the 2nd Law doesn't care. If the rate of heat loss is decreased, in the Earth system (since we have a sort-of-constant solar energy source), the temperature increases.

With radiation, we have radiation going both ways, and one direction having a greater flow. Conduction is a bit different, but it still has the same end result - the net heat flow will be from warmer to cooler, at a rate dependent on the temperature difference.

I have two metal bars, both being heated on one end by a heat lamp, and each with their opposite end placed by a cooler object. With Bar A, the cooler object is 273K. With Bar B, the cooler object is 1K.

Is there a difference in temperature between the two bars?
29-09-2016 02:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Everything radiates. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that the radiation from an object cannot on its own raise a body to above the temperature of the object.

So if I have two iron rods, one at -10K and one at 10K, there is radiation going from the cooler to the warmer, but there is even more radiation going from the warmer to the cooler. If we increase the radiation from the cooler, say, by increasing its temperature to 0K, the temperature of everything the radiation reaches will increase, regardless of its temperature. Cooler things will heat up, obviously. But warmer things must have a separate energy source. Increasing one of the energy sources will obviously heat up the body. And it doesn't violate 2LoT because the cool rod isn't the only energy source.


We are bottom dwellers. We live at the bottom of a sea of air. That air has a mass. Like any mass, it absorbs light converting it to thermal energy; it takes time to heat it or cool it; it moves heat by combinations of convection, conduction, and radiation; it has a weight in a gravity field; it has inertia; and it can convert one form of energy into another.

Remember the cold 'rod' is open space itself. You can't just arbitrarily make it warmer or colder. That's why I discarded your contrived example. The cold side of it is meaningless.


The Parrot Killer
29-09-2016 02:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Radiation, convection, conduction, the 2nd Law doesn't care. If the rate of heat loss is decreased, in the Earth system (since we have a sort-of-constant solar energy source), the temperature increases.

With radiation, we have radiation going both ways, and one direction having a greater flow. Conduction is a bit different, but it still has the same end result - the net heat flow will be from warmer to cooler, at a rate dependent on the temperature difference.

I have two metal bars, both being heated on one end by a heat lamp, and each with their opposite end placed by a cooler object. With Bar A, the cooler object is 273K. With Bar B, the cooler object is 1K.

Is there a difference in temperature between the two bars?


The question is based on a context shift. The answer is both yes and no.

The hot ends of the bars are the same temperature.

The cold ends of the bars are at different temperatures.

One bar has a steeper temperature gradient than the other.

The answer is NO at the hot end of the bars.

The answer is YES at any equally distant point along the bars from their hot ends.


The Parrot Killer
29-09-2016 02:52
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:We are bottom dwellers. We live at the bottom of a sea of air.


Yep, with you so far.

That air has a mass. Like any mass, it absorbs light converting it to thermal energy...


Yes, although this is also dependent on its absorptivity and chemical identity.

it takes time to heat it or cool it


Yes, dependent on its specific heat.

it moves heat by combinations of convection, conduction, and radiation


Yes, although the latter is not always true - sometimes visible light passes straight through.

it has a weight in a gravity field; it has inertia


It is matter. It has mass. It is within a gravity field. All of this is not disputed.

and it can convert one form of energy into another.


Yes.

How does anything else follow from this?

Remember the cold 'rod' is open space itself. You can't just arbitrarily make it warmer or colder. That's why I discarded your contrived example. The cold side of it is meaningless.


That was not a representation of the Earth. It would be a really shitty representation. I am showing that the 2nd Law cannot be applied the way you are using it. Energy flows from warmer to cooler, and vice versa - the net energy flow is from warmer to cooler, but increasing the cooler-to-warmer increases the energy of the warmer object. It just can't increase it on its own past its own temperature, which is why I included the heat lamp.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
29-09-2016 15:06
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote: That was not a representation of the Earth. It would be a really shitty representation.

Remember, warmizombies become enamored with chitty representations, especially if they can be implemented in parlor tricks designed to fool kids into believing that Global Warming is "real settled science" and that they can perform at school "show-n-tell" to convince other kids of the same.

jwoodward48 wrote: I am showing that the 2nd Law cannot be applied the way you are using it.

You are always required to show how you are adhering to the 2nd LoT. No one is ever required to defend how the 2nd LoT needs to be applied. The 2nd LoT applies at all times in all situations in all locations. Any argument that relies on using the words "does not apply" wrt the 2nd LoT is summarily dismissed and full stop.

My recommendation is that you focus on wording to the effect of how your scenario/results/idea adheres to the 2nd LoT. I made the same recommendation to spot regarding his bogus questions but he's clueless.

jwoodward48 wrote: Energy flows from warmer to cooler, and vice versa - the net energy flow is from warmer to cooler,

Didn't I predict that you were going to "go there" and start using the phrase "net energy flow"? Save yourself time. Just abandon your current argument and start over. Once you start with the "net energy flow" you're done.

Jump to the end. The answer is "No, you can't get around the 2nd LoT."



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-09-2016 16:07
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
The 2nd LoT does not state that a change in a cooler source of radiation cannot lead to an increase in the temperature of a warmer body. I am showing that such situations occur, and can in fact be observed.

Once I'm on my computer, I'll try to support my argument with respect to the second LoT.
29-09-2016 16:07
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
The 2nd LoT does not state that a change in a cooler source of radiation cannot lead to an increase in the temperature of a warmer body. I am showing that such situations occur, and can in fact be observed.

Once I'm on my computer, I'll try to support my argument with respect to the second LoT.
29-09-2016 16:16
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote: The 2nd LoT does not state that a change in a cooler source of radiation cannot lead to an increase in the temperature of a warmer body.

The 2nd LoT does not state it but that is exactly the conclusion we draw from the 2nd LoT.

Let's discuss your assertion with an example. Under what conditions will the earth increase the temperature of the sun?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-09-2016 16:30
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
If the Earth was removed from existence, the Sun would cool ever so slightly.

Here's a better example: would you rather stand naked next to cool water or next to 5K ice?

Also, what's wrong with net energy flow?
29-09-2016 17:17
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote: Also, what's wrong with net energy flow?

I already took the time to explain it to you in another thread. If I see that phrase become a crux of an argument I will simply dismiss and drop out of the discussion.

You can't get around the 2nd LoT by inventing a Maxwell's Demon argument.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-09-2016 17:37
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:You're missing the point - the air conducts heat to the ground, yes, but the ground is conducting even more heat to the air.

Here's where you are going to allow yourself to be confused if you are gullible enough to listen to warmizombies.

The 2nd LoT is pretty clear. Heat flows from warmer temperatures to cooler temperatures.

Warmizombies will try to confuse you by creating an overly convoluted scenario based around the phrase "net flow."

Anyway, if you are speaking to any actual scientist and you assert that heat is flowing from cooler temperatures to warmer temperatures then s/he will simply stop you right then and there, tell you that you are violating the 2nd LoT and won't bother wasting time discussing the matter with you until you are no longer violating the 2nd LoT. I guarantee that it won't help if you start hurling around a "net flow" this and a "net flow" that.

Scientists pretty much consider the laws of thermodynamics to be inviolate. If you see someone arguing "greenhouse effect" and Global Warming and "climate change" using the phrase "net flow" (or some variation thereof) then you will know that person is not an actual scientist.


.


Is this the explanation? I don't see any explanation in there.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
29-09-2016 17:38
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Radiation goes from A to B regardless of temperature. The radiation from A cannot by itself cause B to be warmer than A.
Page 2 of 4<1234>





Join the debate I'm not quite so sure, though:

Remember me

▲ 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