Remember me
▼ Content

Nils-Axel Mörner



Page 5 of 10<<<34567>>>
08-05-2020 17:09
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1211)
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:...deleted Mantras 20a2...20g...29...fallacy fallacy...17...16c...16b...10f...10b...29...6...


No arguments presented. RQAA.

Since are probably not familiar with these mantra numbers yet, you can find them here.

You canna change the laws of physics by ignoring 'em, laddie.


Aaaand we made it! Woohooo!
You officially ran out of things to say.

As I said in my initial comments, there was really pretty much 0 hope that you' (or your buddy IBdaMan) would ever admit to being wrong about pretty much anything. It'll be up to anyone reading this thread to decide for themselves who makes more sense, you or I.
I have demonstrated to my satisfaction that you're clown, so I'm happy.

I've been reading through this thread, and I have decided that ITN and IBD make MUCH more sense than you do. Your whole bit about all forms of energy being exactly the same was rather humorous.
08-05-2020 17:26
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1211)
tmiddles wrote:
JackFou wrote:
Aaaand we made it! Woohooo!
You officially ran out of things to say.
I must say Jack I've never seen ITN shut up so quickly.

??? He's still responding, ipiddle.

tmiddles wrote:
IBD generally degenerates into ad hominem attacks and nonsense right away

He's answered your questions. You've yet to answer his. We are all waiting (but not holding our breath).

tmiddles wrote:
but ITN usually lasts longer.

He's still here. So is IBD. So am I.

tmiddles wrote:
Your rebuttal was very well said so I'm not really surprised.

His "rebuttal" made for a good laugh.

tmiddles wrote:
JackFou wrote:For all *you* know, the reason why heat flows from warm to cold could be because of invisible witches up in the sky waving their magic wands.
Or one might still believe in the "ether". If you are going to reject conventional physics you cannot just leave what you do believe unsaid.

You and Jack are the people rejecting physics here.

tmiddles wrote:
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
It seems like you just weren't cut out to discuss physics.

Your capacity to "discuss physics" seems to be limited to pointing to a thermometer and asking people to read what it says.
Actually
these guys aren't big on thermometers either:
gfm7175 wrote:
I have no clue what the temperature of my house is.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver.
He's absolutely correct....

No, YOU simply deny logic, science, and mathematics.

You can't just look at the temperature displayed on the thermostat and claim that to be the temperature of the whole house, ipiddle... I've already told you about how (during the Winter, at a simultaneous point in time) the temperature on the thermostat in my living room can read 66degF, the temperature on the thermometer in the "mud room" can read 78degF, and the temperature on the thermometer in my bedroom can read 58degF. So, ipiddle, what is the temperature of my house at that particular moment in time?

tmiddles wrote:... deleted blathering and lies about ITN/IBD...

No argumentation presented.
Edited on 08-05-2020 17:34
08-05-2020 17:27
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
IBdaMann wrote:
Are you claiming that thermal energy can flow from cooler body to a warmer body? If so, demonstrate it. What can I do to see some thermal energy flow from a cooler body to a warmer body? Remember that I will only be looking at thermal energy (ergo reading temperatures and noting changes in temperatures).


We have already established that thermal energy is not the same as temperature. Temperature is an aggregate quantity that is related to but not equal to an *average* thermal energy.

So it really boils down to the following question: Do you agree that I have sufficiently demonstrated that (thermal) energy can flow from cold to warm if I have demonstrated that...
JackFou wrote:
a) Thermal energy can be transformed into electromagnetic energy aka photons.
b) Photons emitted from a colder body can be absorbed by a warmer body (and transformed back into thermal energy if you will).
c) An atom or molecule can absorb photons that have less energy than the total energy already contained in the atom/molecule.


... yes or no?
08-05-2020 17:32
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
gfm7175 wrote:
I've been reading through this thread, and I have decided that ITN and IBD make MUCH more sense than you do.

That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion.

gfm7175 wrote:
Your whole bit about all forms of energy being exactly the same was rather humorous.

I never said that. ITN claims that I said that but I haven't. I have said that all forms of energy have the same units (eV, J, cal...) and that no form of energy has the unit Kelvin.
I have also said that all forms of energy can be converted into other forms. If you look closely, you'll find that this is not the same as saying that all forms of energy are (exactly) the same.
Gosh, you guys have some *serious* issues with reading comprehension.
Edited on 08-05-2020 17:33
08-05-2020 17:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
tmiddles wrote:So getting back on track are you saying that thermal energy is transmitted through space through "no known mechanism ...yet it happens." ?

So, going off on another one of your tangents, yes, no one knows why thermal energy follows the laws of thermodynamics, just that it does.

tmiddles wrote: IBD what do you say happens when thermal energy is transmitted through space?

Give me an example of thermal energy in space. Do you that there is? Out with it. To what exactly are you pretending to refer.

Before you do, however, demonstrate thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body. It can be through space if that makes it easier for you.

tmiddles wrote: A transfer of thermal energy through space is radiance IBD.

What I see is your attempt to redefine thermal energy flow as electromagnetic emission.

I think not. Get back to your demonstration. That monkey surely must be getting heavy. You've been carrying it since August.

tmiddles wrote: It is worth reminding that this issue is discussed on this board, and has been denied by ITN/IBD for 5 years,

You haven't been on this board getting this issue totally wrong for anywhere near that long.

tmiddles wrote: Now IBD you can play this "I won't consider radiance" game all you like ...

You are brain dead. I am the one who is refusing to play your game of "thermal energy is electromagnetic energy."

Now you can play your game all you like, but I am not obligated to participate. In fact, I will sit that one out, thank you very much. Have you tried inviting Into the Night to play; he might be interested. Perhaps GasGuzzler might be up for a match or two. Maybe gfm would like to take you up on playing. Have you asked James__? ... or duncan? Surely there must be someone who wants to play "Conflate Forms of Energy!" with you. I'm just not in the mood to play, that's all.

tmiddles wrote: but you've been claiming, for 5 years, that it's IMPOSSIBLE for radiance from CO2 in the atmosphere to return to Earth and be absorbed. So has ITN. That's why it has come up at all.

Rather than bother with this, I'll just write you down as having fulfilled your daily requirement to misrepresent my position.

.
Attached image:


Edited on 08-05-2020 17:36
08-05-2020 17:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
JackFou wrote:We have already established that thermal energy is not the same as temperature.

Correct, and we have already established that a flow of thermal energy between bodies will result in a change in the quantity of thermal energy of the bodies which will result in a change of temperature of the bodies.

We have established that measuring the temperature of bodies allows us to monitor the flow of thermal energy of those bodies.

JackFou wrote: So it really boils down to the following question: Do you agree that I have sufficiently demonstrated that (thermal) energy can flow from cold to warm if I have demonstrated that...
JackFou wrote:
a) Thermal energy can be transformed into electromagnetic energy aka photons.
b) Photons emitted from a colder body can be absorbed by a warmer body (and transformed back into thermal energy if you will).
c) An atom or molecule can absorb photons that have less energy than the total energy already contained in the atom/molecule.


... yes or no?

No.

I need to see a temperature increase in the warmer body.

Today's episode of Sesame Street was brought to you by the scientific method.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
08-05-2020 17:47
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1211)
JackFou wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Your whole bit about all forms of energy being exactly the same was rather humorous.

I never said that.

Denying your own argumentation now, eh?

JackFou wrote:
ITN claims that I said that but I haven't.

Yup, definitely denying your own argumentation.

JackFou wrote:
I have said that all forms of energy have the same units (eV, J, cal...) and that no form of energy has the unit Kelvin.
I have also said that all forms of energy can be converted into other forms.

So now you're gonna revert back to the same argumentation which you just got done denying?

JackFou wrote:
If you look closely, you'll find that this is not the same as saying that all forms of energy are (exactly) the same.

No, that's exactly what you're saying. It's rather humorous.

JackFou wrote:
Gosh, you guys have some *serious* issues with reading comprehension.

Nope, that's your issue.
08-05-2020 18:11
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
IBdaMann wrote:
No.


Well, then our discussion about the topic of thermal energy transfer ends here.

If you don't accept that a photon being emitted from a cold body and absorbed and turned into thermal energy by a warm body constitutes transfer of (thermal) energy from cold to warm, then I have nothing more to discuss with you.

The laws of thermodynamics describe quantities like energy and entropy, not temperature. There is no "conservation of temperature", only conservation of energy.
The laws of thermodynamics as you have described them are derived exclusively from observations the behaviour of *macroscopic* bodies. Insisting that processes that occur at the scale of atoms must be detectable at a macroscopic scale, within the accuracy of imperfect measuring devices, specifically as a value of a particular quantity of your choice doesn't make you a scientist, it makes you contrarian.
Without an considering mechanisms of action, what you call "science" is worth about as much as staring out of a window all day.

I do have one more thing for you though, if I have time for it at some point later/don't forget about it. I remember reading some papers that should interest you which claim to provide repeatable experimental evidence that the laws of thermodynamics can be broken on the scale of atomic and molecular processes.
Edited on 08-05-2020 18:18
08-05-2020 18:16
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
gfm7175 wrote:
JackFou wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Your whole bit about all forms of energy being exactly the same was rather humorous.

I never said that.

Denying your own argumentation now, eh?

Nope
gfm7175 wrote:
JackFou wrote:
I have said that all forms of energy have the same units (eV, J, cal...) and that no form of energy has the unit Kelvin.
I have also said that all forms of energy can be converted into other forms.

So now you're gonna revert back to the same argumentation which you just got done denying?

My statement and your statement are still not the same.
JackFou wrote:
I have also said that all forms of energy can be converted into other forms. If you look closely, you'll find that this is not the same as saying that all forms of energy are (exactly) the same.


Are you aspiring to be the next ITN? You're definitely copying his rhetorical style, for some reason.
There is no point in arguing with you because you will just redefine words to your liking at every turn, just like he does.
Edited on 08-05-2020 18:18
08-05-2020 19:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
No.


Well, then our discussion about the topic of thermal energy transfer ends here.

I doubt it, we shall see. BTW, this is called 'heat'. Mantra 10b...3.
JackFou wrote:
If you don't accept that a photon being emitted from a cold body and absorbed and turned into thermal energy by a warm body constitutes transfer of (thermal) energy from cold to warm, then I have nothing more to discuss with you.

IBdaMann doesn't ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Neither do I. You do. Since you now openly declare your religion to be 'The Truth', you are now making a circular argument fallacy. Mantras 20a2...3.
JackFou wrote:
The laws of thermodynamics describe quantities like energy and entropy, not temperature.

Correct. Energy naturally dissipates. It doesn't naturally gather into one place, as you are suggesting. Mantras 20g...15...20a2.
JackFou wrote:
There is no "conservation of temperature", only conservation of energy.

Correct. Mantras 15...30.
JackFou wrote:
The laws of thermodynamics as you have described them are derived exclusively from observations the behaviour of *macroscopic* bodies. Insisting that processes that occur at the scale of atoms must be detectable at a macroscopic scale, within the accuracy of imperfect measuring devices, specifically as a value of a particular quantity of your choice doesn't make you a scientist, it makes you contrarian.

Nope. They apply everywhere, all the time. Mantras 20q...20a2...20m...20e2.
JackFou wrote:
Without an considering mechanisms of action, what you call "science" is worth about as much as staring out of a window all day.

Science is not 'mechanisms of action'. It is now staring out a window. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Mantras 20m...38a...29.
JackFou wrote:
I do have one more thing for you though, if I have time for it at some point later/don't forget about it. I remember reading some papers that should interest you which claim to provide repeatable experimental evidence that the laws of thermodynamics can be broken on the scale of atomic and molecular processes.

Papers are not science, neither are they any kind of proof, science has no proofs. It is an open functional system. The 2nd law of thermodynamics has not yet been falsified.

Mantras 20l...4e...15...34.

No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
08-05-2020 19:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
JackFou wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
JackFou wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Your whole bit about all forms of energy being exactly the same was rather humorous.

I never said that.

Denying your own argumentation now, eh?

Nope

Lie. You conflated all forms energy as the same. Now you deny you ever said that. Which is it, dude? Paradox.
JackFou wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
JackFou wrote:
I have said that all forms of energy have the same units (eV, J, cal...) and that no form of energy has the unit Kelvin.
I have also said that all forms of energy can be converted into other forms.

So now you're gonna revert back to the same argumentation which you just got done denying?

My statement and your statement are still not the same.

You attempted this in order to conflate different forms of energy as the same, liar. Now you deny it. Paradox. Which is it, dude?
JackFou wrote:
JackFou wrote:
I have also said that all forms of energy can be converted into other forms. If you look closely, you'll find that this is not the same as saying that all forms of energy are (exactly) the same.


Are you aspiring to be the next ITN? You're definitely copying his rhetorical style, for some reason.

Did you know that the theory of science being discussed hasn't changed? If he becomes 'the next ITN' as you put it, he will have advanced quite far in his knowledge indeed. He has done well in learning the science you deny. Mantras 7...5...15...20a2...23...29...30...35c.
JackFou wrote:
There is no point in arguing with you because you will just redefine words to your liking at every turn, just like he does.

Inversion fallacy. Mantras 17...10f...10b...20a2...15...4d.

No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
08-05-2020 19:57
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
Papers are not science, neither are they any kind of proof, science has no proofs. It is an open functional system. The 2nd law of thermodynamics has not yet been falsified.


So what does anyone need to do to falsify the theory of the 2nd law of thermodynamics according to you?
If I show you evidence in the form of results of repeatable measurements which contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics, is that sufficient?
08-05-2020 19:58
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: but you've been claiming, for 5 years, that it's IMPOSSIBLE for radiance from CO2 in the atmosphere to return to Earth and be absorbed. So has ITN. That's why it has come up at all.

Rather than bother with this, I'll just write you down as having fulfilled your daily requirement to misrepresent my position.


Uhhh... wait... so you *don't* wish to claim that radiance from CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be absorbed by the surface of the earth?
08-05-2020 23:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Papers are not science, neither are they any kind of proof, science has no proofs. It is an open functional system. The 2nd law of thermodynamics has not yet been falsified.


So what does anyone need to do to falsify the theory of the 2nd law of thermodynamics according to you?

Produce a test of the theory's null hypothesis that is defined, specific, and produces a specific result.
JackFou wrote:
If I show you evidence in the form of results of repeatable measurements which contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics, is that sufficient?


If and only if the measurements, it's method of collection, only raw data is used, the person collecting it is known, the time it was collected is known are all published; can be repeated by another, and demonstrate the concentration of energy or the reduction of entropy within a given closed system.

Go ahead.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 08-05-2020 23:32
08-05-2020 23:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: but you've been claiming, for 5 years, that it's IMPOSSIBLE for radiance from CO2 in the atmosphere to return to Earth and be absorbed. So has ITN. That's why it has come up at all.

Rather than bother with this, I'll just write you down as having fulfilled your daily requirement to misrepresent my position.


Uhhh... wait... so you *don't* wish to claim that radiance from CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be absorbed by the surface of the earth?


You cannot heat a warmer body with a colder gas. Mantra 20a2.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-05-2020 03:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
JackFou wrote:So what does anyone need to do to falsify the theory of the 2nd law of thermodynamics according to you?

An actual scientist would know the answer to that question.

An actual scientist wouldn't append the words "according to you" to the end of that question.

An actual scientist would have gleaned from my post exactly what was needed in this particular case, since I specified exactly what was needed in this particular case.

You are a fraud. You have no business being in this conversation.

JackFou wrote: If I show you evidence in the form of results of repeatable measurements which contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics, is that sufficient?

If you show repeatable increases in temperature of the warmest object due to thermal energy flow (as opposed to molecular excitation, for example) then yes, absolutely. I'm not asking for much ... or do you admit that I am in fact asking for the impossible?

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
09-05-2020 04:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
JackFou wrote:Well, then our discussion about the topic of thermal energy transfer ends here.

Well, when it comes to fleeing from a topic, better late than never. This is the first (semi)intelligent decision you have made since you arrived.

JackFou wrote: If you don't accept that a photon being emitted from a cold body and absorbed and turned into thermal energy by a warm body constitutes transfer of (thermal) energy from cold to warm, then I have nothing more to discuss with you.

You just wrote that if I don't assume without question what you are on tap to demonstrate that you have nothing more to say. You have just confirmed that your egregious misunderstanding of physics is based in some sort of WACKY religion that must first be believed in order to be accepted.

I reiterate that you are a fraud and that you have no business discussing physics. I applaud your ability to recognize when you are in over your head as well as your decision to duck out this conversation.

Will you be sticking around this forum? If so, we can work on clearing some of your misconceptions about science.

JackFou wrote:I do have one more thing for you though, if I have time for it at some point later/don't forget about it. I remember reading some papers that should interest you which claim to provide repeatable experimental evidence that the laws of thermodynamics can be broken on the scale of atomic and molecular processes.

The words "experimental" and "evidence" don't go together. You really should learn what an experiment is, and while you are at it, learn about the scientifc method.

Either an experiment falsifies a theory or it does not. Nothing is ever confirmed in science, ergo there is no value in claiming that some phenomenon is somehow "supported" by some experiments. It might be supported by some tests/demonstrations but it doesn't produce any science. At best it provides researchers clues as to where to look further.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
09-05-2020 12:12
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: but you've been claiming, for 5 years, that it's IMPOSSIBLE for radiance from CO2 in the atmosphere to return to Earth and be absorbed. So has ITN. That's why it has come up at all.

Rather than bother with this, I'll just write you down as having fulfilled your daily requirement to misrepresent my position.


Uhhh... wait... so you *don't* wish to claim that radiance from CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be absorbed by the surface of the earth?


You cannot heat a warmer body with a colder gas. Mantra 20a2.


That wasn't my question.
09-05-2020 12:16
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
If and only if the measurements, it's method of collection, only raw data is used, the person collecting it is known, the time it was collected is known are all published; can be repeated by another, and demonstrate the concentration of energy or the reduction of entropy within a given closed system.

Go ahead.


Why would the person who collected the data and the time it was collected be relevant? Surely, the laws of thermodynamics don't care about who studies them and when?
Looks like you're trying to hold open a door for a cheap cop-out.
Edited on 09-05-2020 12:45
09-05-2020 12:24
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
IBdaMann wrote:
An actual scientist would know the answer to that question.

I do know the answer to that question but since you guys constantly redefine words to mean whatever you want them to mean in that moment, I have to ask you for your definition/standards so that you cannot just claim afterwards that I used inappropriate definitions/standards.

IBdaMann wrote:
An actual scientist wouldn't append the words "according to you" to the end of that question.

An intellectually honest person wouldn't constantly redefine words and change definitions/standards throughout an argument and yet here you guys are.

IBdaMann wrote:
You are a fraud. You have no business being in this conversation.

Oh no. What are you gonna do about it?
Without people like me or tmiddels chiming in, the only "conversation" here would be a giant circlejerk between you and your buddies.

IBdaMann wrote:
If you show repeatable increases in temperature of the warmest object due to thermal energy flow (as opposed to molecular excitation, for example) then yes, absolutely. I'm not asking for much ... or do you admit that I am in fact asking for the impossible?

Any conditions on how I can measure temperature? Like do I have to use a a mercury thermometer? A thermocouple? An infrared thermometer? Or can I use any method I chose?

Oh and I would still like your answer to the question I posted yesterday.

JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: but you've been claiming, for 5 years, that it's IMPOSSIBLE for radiance from CO2 in the atmosphere to return to Earth and be absorbed. So has ITN. That's why it has come up at all.


Rather than bother with this, I'll just write you down as having fulfilled your daily requirement to misrepresent my position.



Uhhh... wait... so you *don't* wish to claim that radiance from CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be absorbed by the surface of the earth?

Edited on 09-05-2020 13:18
09-05-2020 19:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: but you've been claiming, for 5 years, that it's IMPOSSIBLE for radiance from CO2 in the atmosphere to return to Earth and be absorbed. So has ITN. That's why it has come up at all.

Rather than bother with this, I'll just write you down as having fulfilled your daily requirement to misrepresent my position.


Uhhh... wait... so you *don't* wish to claim that radiance from CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be absorbed by the surface of the earth?


You cannot heat a warmer body with a colder gas. Mantra 20a2.


That wasn't my question.

Yes it was, liar.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-05-2020 20:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
If and only if the measurements, it's method of collection, only raw data is used, the person collecting it is known, the time it was collected is known are all published; can be repeated by another, and demonstrate the concentration of energy or the reduction of entropy within a given closed system.

Go ahead.


Why would the person who collected the data and the time it was collected be relevant?

For the simple reason of knowing where the data came from and how relevant it is to any claim made about it.
JackFou wrote:
Surely, the laws of thermodynamics don't care about who studies them and when?

The laws of thermodynamics are not data. They are theories of science.
JackFou wrote:
Looks like you're trying to hold open a door for a cheap cop-out.

No, you are attempting to build strawmen. Mantra 15.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-05-2020 20:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
An actual scientist would know the answer to that question.

I do know the answer to that question

No, you don't. Mantra 20a2...7
JackFou wrote:
but since you guys constantly redefine words to mean whatever you want them to mean in that moment,

Mantra 17.
JackFou wrote:
I have to ask you for your definition/standards so that you cannot just claim afterwards that I used inappropriate definitions/standards.

Mantra 22.
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
An actual scientist wouldn't append the words "according to you" to the end of that question.

An intellectually honest person wouldn't constantly redefine words and change definitions/standards throughout an argument and yet here you guys are.

Mantra 17...22...26.
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
You are a fraud. You have no business being in this conversation.

Oh no. What are you gonna do about it?
Without people like me or tmiddels chiming in, the only "conversation" here would be a giant circlejerk between you and your buddies.

Mantra 1.
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
If you show repeatable increases in temperature of the warmest object due to thermal energy flow (as opposed to molecular excitation, for example) then yes, absolutely. I'm not asking for much ... or do you admit that I am in fact asking for the impossible?

Any conditions on how I can measure temperature? Like do I have to use a a mercury thermometer? A thermocouple? An infrared thermometer? Or can I use any method I chose?

Mantra 15...26.


No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-05-2020 21:40
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: but you've been claiming, for 5 years, that it's IMPOSSIBLE for radiance from CO2 in the atmosphere to return to Earth and be absorbed. So has ITN. That's why it has come up at all.

Rather than bother with this, I'll just write you down as having fulfilled your daily requirement to misrepresent my position.


Uhhh... wait... so you *don't* wish to claim that radiance from CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be absorbed by the surface of the earth?


You cannot heat a warmer body with a colder gas. Mantra 20a2.


That wasn't my question.

Yes it was, liar.


So you're calling IBdaMan a liar then. Got it.
Because either your answer didn't answer my question or he lied about tmiddels misrepresenting his position. You can't have it both ways.

The CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't heat the surface of the earth. The sun does. What the CO2 does is it partially prevents certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation to escape into space, thereby it partially prevents earth from cooling itself.
As a result, the surface of the earth has to have increased radiance to make up for the energy imbalance which corresponds to an increase in temperature, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
I know this is very difficult for both of you to understand but if you try really hard, you might eventually get it.
09-05-2020 21:46
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:
An intellectually honest person wouldn't constantly redefine words and change definitions/standards throughout an argument and yet here you guys are.

Mantra 17...22...26.


Ah yes, asking the other party to use conventional and consistent standards and definitions is "Irrelevant Obsession" ("mantra 26").
And of course, your favourite response: "no u!" ("mantra 17")

I couldn't have summed up any better just how much of a clown you are.
Edited on 09-05-2020 21:51
09-05-2020 23:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
JackFou wrote:
...deleted Mantras 17...29...16b...
What the CO2 does is it partially prevents certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation to escape into space, thereby it partially prevents earth from cooling itself.

Not possible. You cannot decrease entropy in any system. Mantra 20a2. You cannot block light. You cannot block heat. You cannot block thermal energy.
JackFou wrote:
As a result, the surface of the earth has to have increased radiance to make up for the energy imbalance which corresponds to an increase in temperature, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. ...deleted Mantra 12.

There is no sequence. The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not have a frequency term. You are trying to add one.

Mantras 20b3...20b1...20b5

You cannot warm the surface using a colder gas. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-05-2020 23:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
JackFou wrote:...deleted Mantra 26...10b...17...1...


No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-05-2020 23:03
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
If and only if the measurements, it's method of collection, only raw data is used, the person collecting it is known, the time it was collected is known are all published; can be repeated by another, and demonstrate the concentration of energy or the reduction of entropy within a given closed system.

Go ahead.


Why would the person who collected the data and the time it was collected be relevant?

For the simple reason of knowing where the data came from and how relevant it is to any claim made about it.


If I measure, say, the electromagnetic emission spectrum of a compound it is irrelevant who pressed the button on the spectrometer and when. Neither have any bearing on the repeatability of the experiment.
What matters are the experimental parameters which are required for anyone attempting to independently verify the results.

You're just looking for an easy cop-out.
Edited on 09-05-2020 23:19
10-05-2020 00:05
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
You cannot decrease entropy in any system.

You can decrease entropy in a system by exchanging heat with the environment.

Into the Night wrote:
There is no sequence.

What do you mean by "sequence"?

Into the Night wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not have a frequency term. You are trying to add one.

I'm only talking about energy per time aka power, which does appear in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Into the Night wrote:
You cannot warm the surface using a colder gas. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

The gas isn't heating the earth, the sun is.
Edited on 10-05-2020 00:20
10-05-2020 00:46
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1783)
JackFou wrote:
The gas isn't heating the earth, the sun is.


I certainly don't understand the science like you guys do, so I'm COMPLETELY guessing here when I say that if the sun is ACTUALLY heating the earth, then you'll need more output from the sun to increase the surface temperature....don't you think so JackFou?


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
10-05-2020 02:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
JackFou wrote: Why would the person who collected the data and the time it was collected be relevant?

A real scientist would know that there are always questions that arise about the data, about the collection and about the notes/comments made thereof, and these questions cannot be directed to anyone other than the official POC for the collection.

In cases where the "collector" is an automatic sensor, the owning organization designates a POC to field questions about the data.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
10-05-2020 02:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
JackFou wrote: What the CO2 does is it partially prevents certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation to escape into space, ....

In science, this is called "reducing radiance."


JackFou wrote: thereby it partially prevents earth from cooling itself.

... resulting in an increase in the eqilibrium temperature, yes?


Reduced radiance with a corresponding increase in temperature, ... this is what you are arguing.



Yes, no scientist would argue against Stefan-Boltzmann without offering new science to correct identified errors.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
10-05-2020 10:09
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(570)
I have just returned from a gathering of people I have known a long time and not seen for a long time and it was very pleasant to be with people who care for me and we all shared a lot of fond memories.I always raise the AGW/CC topic as it is my main thing at the moment.As I answered the questions posed A lot of my theories made sense regards sea levels not going anywhere and planet Earth average temperature not being able to be acurately measured and every one without exception got it.IBDM and ITN I love your work but is there any chance you could stop being so incredibly patronising to most of the new people that weigh in here.They just get annoyed and leave over you all splitting hairs over the same thing
10-05-2020 10:16
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(570)
JackFou am I correct in assuming that increasing CO2 can somehow change the weather if so please allow for a saturation level and for CO2 going up in the atmosphere if it is cabable of reflecting energy back to Earth it is not a one for one deal.Doubling the CO2 does not double its alleged effect and its all theory not actually demonstratably real time events.Example a claim is made half the Ice at the poles has already melted yet the sea has not gone up at all anywhere so I say melt the lot and see what actually happens not that human activity has the ability to change anything.The world is a big place not a jar in a lab
10-05-2020 10:22
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
IBdaMann wrote:
... and quit trying to shift your burden.
You started this whole thing IBD with your wild and weird claim:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed

So the burden in yours. Do you disavow your claim?

gfm7175 wrote:
[ITN]'s answered your questions.
You consider RQAA mantra mantra an answer. I don't.

gfm7175 wrote:You can't just look at the temperature displayed on the thermostat and claim that to be the temperature of the whole house,
I agree completely!! You can ONLY ever survey temperature by taking sample readings. That is all we will ever have with anything. But you know what? We can actually come to a conclusion about the temperature RANGE of something. We don't "have no clue" as you put it. Follow your own claim out to it's logical conclusion: You are saying we never have a clue about the temperature of anything.

gfm7175 wrote:66degF,... 78degF, ...58degF.
Well I'd say it's not 0degF and it's not 200degF wouldn't you? The mean temperature of your house? Pretty solid case for it being in the 50 to 80 deg range.

IBdaMann wrote:Give me an example of thermal energy in space.
I never said there was. I said it's able to move through space by transforming into radiance and back. Still confused?

IBdaMann wrote:...your attempt to redefine thermal energy flow...
No I don't use that vacabulary at all it's your own made up language. I have claimed consistently that thermal energy is "transferred" or "radiated" through space. If you want to say I claimed something quote me.


IBdaMann wrote:I will sit that one out, thank you very much.
Oh I'm well aware! You and ITN both, down for the count


Misuse of the 1st LTD, Plancks Law/SB Law, and glaring hypocrisy of "Valid Data" exposed:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s720.php#post_53762
60 days with no reply
Here:
Debating "photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object." and that the a light bulb absorbs the radiance from an oven, IBD claims "go ahead ... I'm ready to debate it.":
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-radiative-greenhouse-effect-does-not-exist-d10-e3047-s40.php#post_53357
67 days with no reply
And Here:
2nd Law and disproving IBD's confusion about Earth being a isolated system:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/2nd-law-d6-e3030-s80.php#post_53063
73 days with no reply

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 10-05-2020 10:24
10-05-2020 10:26
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
JackFou wrote:
I claim that three phenomena...:
a) Thermal energy ...into ...photons.
b) Photons emitted ...can be absorbed by a warmer body ...
c) An atom...can absorb photons that have less energy..
Outstanding description Jack.

IBdaMann wrote:...which is your claim..
When you say "You claim" it is simply dishonest not quote the person. Like this:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
2) what the photons actually do is governed more by uncertainty than by any science that predicts what will happen. Like I said before, photons can deflect, do back-flips, take selfies and interact in any way other than being absorbed.

Establishing two things:

1 - The Stefan-Boltzmann law dictates that a body will lose thermal energy, through radiance, at a rate independent of it's environment. (based only on surface are, emissivity and temperature).

2 - It is impossible for an object to gain thermal energy through conduction/convection from cooler surroundings.

So every object, in a cooler environment, losed it's full SB emission of radiance plus whatever it loses through Conduction/Convection. Correct? Anyone dispute that?

Now just as the IRS can prove criminal income based on a bank account balance (where did the money come from Mr. Capone?) we can prove that thermal energy is gained from an objects cooler surroundings. Because where id it come from otherwise? (IBD might think it's witches, he keeps dodging this)

Why? Because there is no way to explain the following:

A human body loses ~700 watts from radiance alone:
Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)306K^4=-723W
Metabolism of a normal diet is +100 watts.
So +624 watts come from where?

Earlier IBD proposed a ball in a room:link
tmiddles:From your own scenario (for which you have no solutions so far).
A: Room is 18C the ball loses thermal energy to the room at 0.1206 Watts
B: Room is 30C the ball loses thermal energy to the room at 0.0632 Watts
C: Room is 42C there is not change in the thermal energy of the ball or the room
If the ball were not absorbing radiance from the room then A and B would show the same loss.

Does that make sense to anyone? That a ball or anything in a room would cool just the same regardless of the temperature of the room? (remember that conduction and convection can't help you here, they can only ADD to the loss, not offset it. You cannot explain away a loss in thermal energy by radiance by claiming you got some back through conduction)

Note that EVERY SINGLE REFERENCE on this subject shows thermal energy being gained by the environment. Every one!:
TWELVE REFERENCES

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
10-05-2020 12:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
tmiddles wrote: When you say "You claim" it is simply dishonest not quote the person.

Thank you. I will throw this back at you when you do this.

tmiddles wrote:Establishing two things:

Nope. That's not what it establishes.

tmiddles wrote: Now just as the IRS can prove criminal income based on a bank account balance (where did the money come from Mr. Capone?)

... except that the IRS cannot prove anything. They can show things and convince judges and juries of particular theories. You don't get to use the word "prove."

How's that demonstration coming along? I know you've been working diligently since August to set that up. It will be glorious when you demonstrate thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer ... presuming you do it within my lifetime.


.
Attached image:

10-05-2020 13:06
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: When you say "You claim" it is simply dishonest not quote the person.

Thank you. I will throw this back at you when you do this.
Good luck with that as I always quote you.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Establishing two things:

1 - The Stefan-Boltzmann law dictates that a body will lose thermal energy, through radiance, at a rate independent of it's environment. (based only on surface area, emissivity and temperature).

2 - It is impossible for an object to gain thermal energy through conduction/convection from cooler surroundings.

So every object, in a cooler environment, loses it's full SB emission of radiance plus whatever it loses through Conduction/Convection. Correct? Anyone dispute that?
Nope.
Nope? You disagree with both points? Did you have an actual argument to make?

IBdaMann wrote:...demonstrate thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer..
I have demonstrated that the radiance from the walls of the room you're in right now is absorbed by your skin IBD. Call that what you will but it thoroughly debunks your claim:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
See how I quoted you there and it's linked to the source? Good stuff

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 10-05-2020 13:16
10-05-2020 14:28
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
GasGuzzler wrote:
JackFou wrote:
The gas isn't heating the earth, the sun is.


I certainly don't understand the science like you guys do, so I'm COMPLETELY guessing here when I say that if the sun is ACTUALLY heating the earth, then you'll need more output from the sun to increase the surface temperature....don't you think so JackFou?


Not necessarily. You'd have to either increase the influx of energy *or* attenuate the outflux of energy. Greenhouse gases do the latter.
The temperature of a system depends not only on the rate of incoming energy but on the ratio between incoming and outgoing energy.
In other words, if you can't cool yourself as effectively, you will run hotter.

Let's say you have an engine running at a certain load and rpm. After you start the engine, it will heat up until it eventually reaches an equilibrium temperature at which the rate of energy influx and energy dissipation into the environment are the same.
Now what happens if you stop the flow of cooling water to the engine without changing the load and rpm? Right, the engine gets hotter. But you haven't increased the rate of energy input into the system, so how is this possible? Did we transfer heat from the cooling water back to the engine? Did the colder cooling water warm the hotter engine? Obviously not. By stopping the circulation you've simply reduced the capacity of the engine to cool itself. Therefore, the engine has to respond by increasing its temperature, thereby radiating more heat per unit of time to the environment until influx and outflux are again in balance.

Now IBD and ITN being predictable as always will probably chime in and say that I'm confused about conductive/convective and radiative heat transfer and that those are not the same.
They are of course not the same but for the result it doesn't matter whether I consider conductive or radiative cooling. We would still get the same behaviour in a vacuum. All that matters is the rate of energy influx vs the rate of energy outflux. Whether the energy flows out through radiation or conduction makes no difference to this fundamental fact. You could do an equivalent thought experiment for radiative heat transfer if you wanted.

It's not very easy to come up with a good analogy for radiative heat transfer to visualize it because classical macroscopic behaviour doesn't reflect quantum mechanic behaviour on the microscopic scale very well but I'll try.

Let's say you stand on a tennis court and there's a machine firing 100 tennis balls at you per minute. If you do nothing, the balls just accumulate on your side of the court and we don't want that. What we want is equilibrium, meaning the same amount of balls are leaving your half of the court per minute as are coming in. So you need to hit 100 balls per minute across the net and out of your half of the court to reach a steady equilibrium. That was easy, right?

So let's say I position myself at the net and I hit half of the balls you send in my direction back at you. Now there are still 100 balls per minute coming into your side from the machine but if you hit 100 balls per minute towards the net there are only 50 balls per minute leaving your side (remember, I send half of the balls you hit back to you). Another way to look at it is that there are now 150 tennis balls per minute flying towards you (100 from the machine, 50 from me) but you're only sending 100 tennis balls per minute towards the net. So now we're no longer in equilibrium, balls start to accumulate on your side. What to do?

The solution is pretty obvious, I hope. You need to increase the rate at which you hit the balls towards the net.
So let's say you hit 150 balls per minute. Are we there yet? Let's see... I still hit half of the balls back to you so now I'm letting 75 balls per minute through while sending 75 balls per minute flying towards you. The machine hasn't changed at all, it's still sending 100 balls per minute in your direction.
This got us a bit closer -- now there are 75 tennis balls per minute coming out of your half while 100 are going in -- but that's still not quite an equilibrium.

To reach equilibrium you need to hit at a rate of 200 balls per minute. That means I leave 100 balls per minute through and send 100 back to you. The machine still only sends 100 per minute towards you. So now 100 balls are going in to your side of the court, 100 balls are coming out and you hit 200 balls per minute while 200 balls per minute are flying towards you (100 from me, 100 from the machine). It all adds up.

Note that I didn't have to do any magic and create any tennis balls out of thin air to do this. There is no violation of conservation of energy (or tennis balls for that matter).
You could object by saying that since I'm hitting some balls back to you there is an additional energy input into the system but that's just a simple confusion. You could also place a tall fence at the net that covers half the area so that statistically, half the balls will bounce off of it and back to you. You don't need another person for this to work.

Now if I wanted to *really* stretch this analogy, I could say that in order to reach the new equilibrium you need to work harder than before and you'll get warmer as a result.

To bring this back to the system "earth", "you" are now a patch of surface area, the tennis ball machine is the sun, no longer firing tennis balls but energy (joules) in the form of photons and "I" am a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
The sun sends a certain amount of energy per unit of time towards the surface of the earth. Let's say for the sake of argument that for a certain patch of the surface of the earth that's 100 joules of incoming energy per second.
Without greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the patch of surface area would just have to radiate energy back up towards space at a power of 100 J/s to maintain energy balance. The temperature of this equilibrium state can be calculated from the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
If I now introduce greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, they absorb (infrared) radiation at specific wavelengths. The energy they absorb isn't lost of course (conservation of energy and all). Some of it is converted into heat through collisions with other molecules in the atmosphere while some of it is send out again as radiation. Now the molecules don't have a sense of direction, they don't know up from down. They send the radiation equally in all directions meaning some of it goes up towards space, some of it goes back down towards earth.

So now we have an imbalance in the energy flux just like we had an imbalance in tennis ball flux before. If the greenhouse gases let half of the radiation through and send half of it back down to earth, the result will be that the surface of the earth now has to radiate at 200 J/s to maintain equilibrium with the 100 J/s from the sun and 100 J/s being sent back from the greenhouse gases, just like you had to increase your rate of hitting tennis balls to 200 per minute. According to Stefan-Boltzmann increased radiative power corresponds to a higher temperature.

Of course reality is a lot more complicated and delicate than that because greenhouse gases don't absorb all wavelengths of radiation and because an increase in temperature of a black/grey body actually changes the energy distribution across different wavelengths of its blackbody radiation and so on and we could go on until the end of time trying to make the math as complicated as possible by adding all the tiny little intricacies. But the general idea remains the same.

To summarize, in order to maintain energy balance, earth needs to send the same amount of energy per unit of time back to space as it receives from the sun. If I introduce greenhouse gases, the gases only let some of the energy emitted from the surface through and send some of it back down to the surface. Therefore, in order to maintain equilibrium, the surface needs to increase its energy output which can only happen when the temperature of the surface goes up.
Edited on 10-05-2020 14:53
10-05-2020 14:42
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
IBdaMann wrote:
In science, this is called "reducing radiance."


You're trying to be sneaky by mixing up different things. The radiance at the top of the atmosphere and the radiance at the surface aren't the same.
If you look down at the earth from space and you measure the spectrum of thermal radiation you'll indeed find that the outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere is a pretty good approximation of a blackbody curve -- minus the wavelengths at which the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb radiation.

But the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere needs be maintained. If it's not you'd be in a disequilibrium state and we both know that any macroscopic system will tend towards equilibrium over time.
If the greenhouse gases prevent some of the radiation emitted by the surface from escaping into space, the only way to maintain energy balance for the whole of system earth is by *increasing* the radiance at the surface of the planet. An *increase* in radiance corresponds to an *increase* in temperature.

I don't know about you but I definitely live at the surface of the planet, not in the upper atmosphere. So really, the temperature at the surface is what I care more about.
Edited on 10-05-2020 14:43
Page 5 of 10<<<34567>>>





Join the debate Nils-Axel Mörner:

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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact