Remember me
▼ Content

I'm not quite so sure, though



Page 1 of 4123>>>
I'm not quite so sure, though25-09-2016 01:09
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
The First Law of Thermodynamics:

It's possible for things to heat up, right? That's not disputed. So this boils down to "can CO2 reduce the outflow of energy to below the inflow?". After some thought, I'm not sure it can't. Hear me out.

CO2 absorbs outgoing energy, right? Not incoming, but only outgoing? So it doesn't affect the incoming energy, so it boils down even further to "does CO2 reduce energy outflow?".

So imagine a photon coming from the Earth. It hits a CO2 molecule. It gets absorbed. Now the CO2 radiates the energy again, at (about) the same wavelength. This new photon is travelling... we can't say where. It's in a random direction.

But since about half of the directions that could be chosen point at Earth, there's a coinflip chance as to whether it'll return to Earth. Let's say this photon does. It hits the Earth's surface.

What happens?

The photon could have gone to space today. It almost did. But it didn't. The energy that would have been in space - where is it now? It can't disappear! It has to have gone into Earth - but that means it would heat up! Aaaaaah! We could be wrong and the Earth could be heating up and natural disasters and floods and melting ice caps and we couldn't even tell because we can't measure the temperature! AAAAAAAAA


"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!
Edited on 25-09-2016 01:11
25-09-2016 01:53
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
CO2 absorbs incoming IR. Everything can absorb incoming IR. Oxygen. Nitrogen. You name it. Light absorption is specific to atoms, not to molecules, which are made up of atoms.
25-09-2016 02:03
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
If you place a 100 C cup of water in a room at 20 C. If you place a 100 C cup of water in a room at 10 C. In which room will that 100 C cup of water cool faster? Obviously the cooler room. Likewise, the atmosphere reduces cooling of the surface by adding heat to it. That's how the greenhouse effect works. Without the atmosphere, the surface would cool down much faster, and will have less temperature.
Edited on 25-09-2016 02:04
25-09-2016 02:30
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
CO2 absorbs incoming IR. Everything can absorb incoming IR. Oxygen. Nitrogen. You name it. Light absorption is specific to atoms, not to molecules, which are made up of atoms.


False. Patently false. The shortwave radiation from the Sun does not overlap significantly with the absorption spectra of CO2. And absorption spectra are properties of MOLECULES. Not atoms. Molecules.


"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!
25-09-2016 02:34
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
If you place a 100 C cup of water in a room at 20 C. If you place a 100 C cup of water in a room at 10 C. In which room will that 100 C cup of water cool faster? Obviously the cooler room. Likewise, the atmosphere reduces cooling of the surface by adding heat to it. That's how the greenhouse effect works. Without the atmosphere, the surface would cool down much faster, and will have less temperature.


But the atmosphere is part of the Earth system, not some external surroundings. That would be SPACE.

In your example, you have a teacup which is being looked at, and then this external room. This does not represent the atmosphere adequately.

Also, the "adding heat to the Earth" part - where is that heat coming from? It's people like you that IB and Into get the idea that warmists think that the atmosphere is a magical 1st-LoT-defying substance from.


"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!
25-09-2016 09:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Tai Hai Chen wrote: That's how the greenhouse effect works.

You are apparently very knowledgeable on "greenhouse effect" and how it works.

Does "greenhouse effect" increase earth's average global temperature by reducing earth's thermal radiation to space?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-09-2016 16:04
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No, it reduces the energy that is conducted to the atmosphere by conducting energy to the atmosphere. Because that makes so much sense.
25-09-2016 17:12
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote: That's how the greenhouse effect works.

You are apparently very knowledgeable on "greenhouse effect" and how it works.

Does "greenhouse effect" increase earth's average global temperature by reducing earth's thermal radiation to space?


.


Greenhouse effect reduces cooling. At night, the surface does not cool off as much and when the sun rises again the ground heats up more than it would have otherwise.
Edited on 25-09-2016 17:14
25-09-2016 20:26
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
And where does this energy come from?
25-09-2016 20:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:Greenhouse effect reduces cooling.

What does that mean exactly? I notice that water takes just as long to freeze whether or not I introduce "greenhouse effect" into the system.


Tai Hai Chen wrote: At night, the surface does not cool off as much and when the sun rises again the ground heats up more than it would have otherwise.

Except when it does. How does that happen?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-09-2016 20:52
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
jwoodward48 wrote:
And where does this energy come from?


The air has heat. The air transfers heat to the ground at night, making the ground cool off slower. If you have an 80 C cup of water . You put it in a 40 C room or you put it in a 10 C room. In which room does the 80 C cup of water cool off slower? Obviously the 40 C room.
Edited on 25-09-2016 21:06
25-09-2016 21:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
And where does this energy come from?


The air has heat. The air transfers heat to the ground at night, making the ground cool off slower. If you have an 80 C cup of water . You put it in a 40 C room or you put it in a 10 C room. In which room does the 80 C cup of water cool off slower? Obviously the 40 C room.


The air can only heat to the ground if it is warmer than the ground. Otherwise it will not do anything to the ground. The ground will heat the air.

You are using a false equivalence. The cup of water in the two rooms is an example of the 2nd LoT. The rate of heating is dependent on the difference in temperature. That does not show anything about which way heat is flowing for the air at night.

Heat always flows 'downhill', towards the cooler substance, whichever that is, at the rate determined by the difference between them.


The Parrot Killer
25-09-2016 21:48
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
Into the Night wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
And where does this energy come from?


The air has heat. The air transfers heat to the ground at night, making the ground cool off slower. If you have an 80 C cup of water . You put it in a 40 C room or you put it in a 10 C room. In which room does the 80 C cup of water cool off slower? Obviously the 40 C room.


The air can only heat to the ground if it is warmer than the ground. Otherwise it will not do anything to the ground. The ground will heat the air.

You are using a false equivalence. The cup of water in the two rooms is an example of the 2nd LoT. The rate of heating is dependent on the difference in temperature. That does not show anything about which way heat is flowing for the air at night.

Heat always flows 'downhill', towards the cooler substance, whichever that is, at the rate determined by the difference between them.


No. Anything that has heat transfers heat to other objects. The air has less heat than the ground, but it transfers heat to the ground, making the ground cool off slower at night, therefore the ground heats up faster at day, reaching higher temperature than otherwise.
25-09-2016 22:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
And where does this energy come from?


The air has heat. The air transfers heat to the ground at night, making the ground cool off slower. If you have an 80 C cup of water . You put it in a 40 C room or you put it in a 10 C room. In which room does the 80 C cup of water cool off slower? Obviously the 40 C room.


The air can only heat to the ground if it is warmer than the ground. Otherwise it will not do anything to the ground. The ground will heat the air.

You are using a false equivalence. The cup of water in the two rooms is an example of the 2nd LoT. The rate of heating is dependent on the difference in temperature. That does not show anything about which way heat is flowing for the air at night.

Heat always flows 'downhill', towards the cooler substance, whichever that is, at the rate determined by the difference between them.


No. Anything that has heat transfers heat to other objects. The air has less heat than the ground, but it transfers heat to the ground, making the ground cool off slower at night, therefore the ground heats up faster at day, reaching higher temperature than otherwise.


The 2nd LoT disagrees with you.


The Parrot Killer
26-09-2016 00:56
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
You're missing the point - the air conducts heat to the ground, yes, but the ground is conducting even more heat to the air.
26-09-2016 14:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
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.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-09-2016 15:01
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I know. It's like saying that a water cup might indeed get water from the air, but EVEN MORE water will be lost to the air.
26-09-2016 17:02
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
jwoodward48 wrote:
I know. It's like saying that a water cup might indeed get water from the air, but EVEN MORE water will be lost to the air.


Unless it's raining....
26-09-2016 18:02
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
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.


Unlike on Mars, on Earth there is hardly any temperature difference between the ground and the air 2 meters above the ground. There is hardly any difference between conduction between air to ground and ground to air.
26-09-2016 18:07
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
Heat flows from hotter to cooler. Yes. On Earth the air has very little temperature different from the ground, in contrast with the case on Mars. This is why on Earth the night is warm because at night the ground radiates very little heat to the air above it.

This is why, if you have an 80 C cup of water. You put it in a 70 C room or you put it in a 10 C room, it radiates faster in the 10 C room than in the 70 C room, so it cools faster in the 10 C room than in the 70 C room.

The air is pretty much the same temperature as the ground, so the ground radiates very little heat to the air at night, so the ground stays warm at night.

Greenhouse gases in the air do not back radiate heat to the ground because they are cooler than the ground. Therefore the greenhouse effect advocated by scientists is wrong.

The ground radiates to the air because the ground is warmer than the air. The air does not radiate to the ground because the air is cooler than the ground. The air is almost the same temperature as the ground, so at night the ground barely radiates to the air and therefore stays fairly warm when the sun rises again.

The greenhouse theory is wrong because it claims cooler CO2 in the air radiates heat to the warmer ground which violates the laws of physics.
Edited on 26-09-2016 18:17
26-09-2016 19:55
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No no no no that is all wrong. Except for the insulation that air does.

The cup will radiate the same, whether or not there is air surrounding it. IF there is an atmosphere, it will radiate some heat to the cup - ignoring conduction and convection, the cup will lose or gain temperature until it is at the same temperature as the atmosphere.

Since the atmosphere is cooler than the Earth, it cannot heat the Earth - on its own! But when combined with the Sun... It can.
26-09-2016 19:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Tai Hai Chen wrote: This is why, if you have an 80 C cup of water. You put it in a 70 C room or you put it in a 10 C room, it radiates faster in the 10 C room than in the 70 C room, so it cools faster in the 10 C room than in the 70 C room.

Nope.

It cools faster in the 10C room because of convection/conduction.

However, a cup of 80C water RADIATES per its temperature, irrespective of the temperature of other things. Hence the 80C water radiates the same in a 70C room as it does in a 10C room. Review Stefan-Boltzmann.

People are forever confusing thermal radiation with thermal convection/conduction. When they do, it becomes an easy matter to anticipate resulting erroneous conclusions.

Tai Hai Chen wrote: Greenhouse gases in the air do not back radiate heat to the ground because they are cooler than the ground. Therefore the greenhouse effect advocated by scientists is wrong.

What scientists do you believe advocate these violations of physics?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-09-2016 20:21
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I'm a bit confused. IB, is the energy radiated from a body independent of all variables except temperature, emissivity, absorptivity, and the average flux coming to its surface?
26-09-2016 22:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
jwoodward48 wrote: I'm a bit confused. IB, is the energy radiated from a body independent of all variables except temperature, emissivity, absorptivity, and the average flux coming to its surface?


First, emissivity *is* absorptivity; it is a percentage.

Second, albedo *is* reflectivity; it is a percentage.

emissivity = 1 - albedo. albedo = 1 - emissivity. If you know one, you know the other.
e.g. emissivity of 89% means albedo is 11%
e.g. albedo 23% means an emissivity of 77%
e.g. an ideal black body has emissivity 100% and 0% albedo.
e.g. an ideal white body has albedo 100% and 0% emissivity.

Energy radiated = energy absorbed = incident energy * emissivity

---------------------

So energy radiated is dependent ONLY upon: The body's temperature (as one increases the other increases) which is determined by energy absorbed, the body's constant of emissivity, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-09-2016 00:05
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
A quick thought: does this, at any point, assume that the Earth is in thermodynamic equilibrium?

Because that's the first thing my mind goes to when I hear something - is it begging the question?
27-09-2016 01:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
jwoodward48 wrote:
A quick thought: does this, at any point, assume that the Earth is in thermodynamic equilibrium?

Because that's the first thing my mind goes to when I hear something - is it begging the question?

Yes. Equilibrium.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-09-2016 01:30
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No. Does the argument contain the assumption that the systems considered are in thermodynamic equilibrium? If so, that would preclude any temperature change, of course.
27-09-2016 01:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
jwoodward48 wrote:
No. Does the argument contain the assumption that the systems considered are in thermodynamic equilibrium? If so, that would preclude any temperature change, of course.

Energy input is a variable.

If energy input changes then temperature changes. A constant energy input precludes temperature change.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-09-2016 01:43
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No, that is a result of your argument. If, say, SB only worked when the system was under TD-equilibrium, then you would be begging the question.
27-09-2016 02:53
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
How do you get this?

"Energy radiated = energy absorbed"
27-09-2016 05:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
jwoodward48 wrote:
How do you get this?

"Energy radiated = energy absorbed"

This is a built-in assumption from the overarching Planck's Law.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-09-2016 14:32
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But... Not everything follows Planck's Law. Take gases, for instance.
27-09-2016 14:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
jwoodward48 wrote: But... Not everything follows Planck's Law. Take gases, for instance.

Planck's applies to everything, including gases. Why do you say otherwise? Are you adopting Surface Detail's confusion? Please tell me you weren't educated in the UK.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-09-2016 15:21
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
So what is Planck's Law?
27-09-2016 15:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
jwoodward48 wrote:So what is Planck's Law?




Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-09-2016 15:39
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Well, yes, I know the equation. But how do you apply it to gases? They have their own emission spectra, you know.
27-09-2016 15:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
jwoodward48 wrote: Well, yes, I know the equation. But how do you apply it to gases? They have their own emission spectra, you know.

Let's walk through this.

Post here in this thread one of your favorite spectrographs for a specific gas.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-09-2016 17:28
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I can't. I won't have computer access for several hours. Let's pick good old CO2. (Could you upload it?)
27-09-2016 18:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
jwoodward48 wrote: I can't. I won't have computer access for several hours. Let's pick good old CO2. (Could you upload it?)

I'm going to apologize but a quick image search didn't reveal a convenient CO2 emission spectrograph (but plenty of absorption graphs which are not what I want) but I found an emission spectrograph for Hydrogen, Carbon and Oxygen:



Now let's look at Planck's:



Notice that the function E has two parameters: temperature and wavelength.

Planck's is a generalized model for radiation so pick your substance (let's say Oxygen). The spectrograph above gives you the DOMAIN for the wavelength parameter. The temperature domain is the set of all physical temperature values.

Now all you need to do is find just one E(lambda,T) that does not produce the correct E value for what is measured and you will have shown that the substance does not radiate per Planck's.

Sounds simple enough, yes?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-09-2016 18:12
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Planck's Law predicts that all wavelengths will be emitted. (Well, besides the ones that don't have enough energy for a single photon.) If I plug a wavelength that O2 (or is that just O?) doesn't radiate, I get a nonzero expected emission energy (or flux, but meh, same difference for our purposes).

I might not have understood your question though.
Page 1 of 4123>>>





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