Our Fragile Planet

Into the Night wrote:
* You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.

Into the Night wrote:
No atmosphere or lack of it changes the temperature of any planet.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.

IBdaMann wrote:
Verner doesn't get to use any of those formulas at .

VernerHornung wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
One more time ... 1) draw a circle, ...

... show us your own calculation.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
* You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.

This has been thoroughly debunked. Radiance from a cooler gas is being absorbed by your warmer skin right now.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No atmosphere or lack of it changes the temperature of any planet.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.

Your wild claim is contradicted by every textbook and the available data.
Another debunked lie.

tmiddles wrote: Explain Venus.

James___ wrote:
I must ask you to keep things simple. isn't and mini-isn't will be confused by the earth's gravity being different at the poles than it is at the equator.

IBdaMann wrote:
What could we do to show this?.

IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No atmosphere or lack of it changes the temperature of any planet.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.

Your wild claim is contradicted by every textbook and the available data.
Another debunked lie.

Wow, you are saying that Into the Night's assertion that energy cannot be created out of nothing is a wild claim

VernerHornung wrote:
...., a hollow tube or block of tungsten in which a tiny hole has been drilled to connect the interior with the outside world...

VernerHornung wrote:

James___ wrote:
I must ask you to keep things simple. isn't and mini-isn't will be confused by the earth's gravity being different at the poles than it is at the equator.

I'd do better not to post in a flippant mood, yet the only known sources of blackbody radiation are points: the hole in a cavity radiator, a hollow tube or block of tungsten in which a tiny hole has been drilled to connect the interior with the outside world (illustration).



Because photons in the cavity are absorbed and re-emitted multiple times before exiting through the hole, they are in thermal equilibrium with the cavity walls at some temperature T, usually high so the detectors won't confuse radiation from the hole with the background infrared in the lab. Hence choice of tungsten, the old light bulb filament wire, for these devices.

The hole is basically a point. Any stray light entering is absorbed, and the measured Planck curve shows how the radiant power leaving the hole is distributed over the spectrum. A point in all directions equally, but surfaces do not.

Generalization to radiation from a surface is an ideal, never realized in practice as all surfaces have their own emission characteristics that vary with material, surface roughness and shape. The materials have their own spectral lines and a surface enclosing them interacts thermally with them by conduction and so on, violating the premise that blackbodies interact only by radiation.

Still, blackbodies approximate stars quite well, and most real-world objects have emission curves similar to the Planck, with lower power at each wavelength. It's why ceramics in a kiln all look the same color even though they have different glazes on them.

My apologies to IBdaMann.
~

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
What could we do to show this?.

Up to you to support your wild claim (found NOWHERE in the history of science):

IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.

Weird stuff you're claiming there IBD! Should be easy for you to support your claim with a repeatable experiment.
He really doesn't have to. It is YOU claiming the 2nd law of thermodynamics is wrong. It is currently a theory of science. YOU are claiming to have falsified it. The burden of proof is upon YOU. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
* Using random numbers is not a proof or a falsification.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: [quote]Into the Night wrote:
No atmosphere or lack of it changes the temperature of any planet.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.

Your wild claim is contradicted by every textbook and the available data.
Another debunked lie.

Wow, you are saying that Into the Night's assertion that energy cannot be created out of nothing is a wild claim

No his assertion that the presence of an atmosphere increasing ground level temperature is an example is a wild claim.
But you knew that. You just love dishonesty as a tactic.

tmiddles wrote:

So you're saying Nitrogen contriburltes more per molecule or more because of how much there is?

Yes, that's what RS shows us.

Why can't this be demonstrated more professionally than what you find online? This is short, I asked about it here months ago:

tmiddles wrote:Look CO2 does get hot relative to other gases:
Hotter Co2

In the video alkaseltzer is used to boost CO2 in a soda bottle and under a heat lamp it's compared to room air.

I addressed this in my second paper on thermoelectrics; I deduced what is really being tested for in such demonstrations is the Heat capacity of the different gases. CO2 has a lower heat capacity so will rise in temperature faster. Notice the 'air' still increased in temperature, presumably by radiation? Yes by radiation and now I know how this works, by it respective emission spectra in the IR. Whatever their respective differences, gases will go to thermal equilibrium by the zeroth law.

VernerHornung wrote:Now we'll take up your mantle hydrogen business, clarify it and remind you there was no suggestion from any of the authors writing on this subject that it makes oil & gas.

VernerHornung wrote:Possible hydrogen in lower mantle

VernerHornung wrote: No suggestion from the authors it makes oil & gas, however.

VernerHornung wrote: Possible hydrogen in upper mantle

HarveyH55 wrote:
Has anyone ever considered the instrument used to measure temperature at a distance?
...

Like a camera, there is a focus factor too, you can be too close, or too far away.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Has anyone ever considered the instrument used to measure temperature at a distance? From you basic one pixel IR thermometer, or a multi-element FLIR sensor, it works the same as a camera. Only the light striking the element directly, is being captured in the reading. You all agree that everything radiates in all directions. The instrument used, on captures light coming from one direction, straight on. I doesn't looked behind, through objects. or around corners. You won't always get the same reading, as shoving a glass thermometer into something. Like a camera, there is a focus factor too, you can be too close, or too far away.

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Has anyone ever considered the instrument used to measure temperature at a distance?
...

Like a camera, there is a focus factor too, you can be too close, or too far away.

One huge problem with said type of sensor is that your includes undetermined readings from other directions/angles. When you take a photograph and you get a lens flare, or glare from an off angle, or an "over exposure", etc... all of these things occur to any sort of light sensor.

Yes, holding your light sensor at different angles at different places will certainly render different temperature "photographs."

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:his assertion that the presence of an atmosphere increasing ground level temperature is an example is a wild claim.

...The daytime temperature on the surface of the Moon can approach 250 deg F. ....If the atmosphere warms the Earth, why is any measured temperature on Earth's surface so much COLDER?

Blair Macdonald wrote:

tmiddles wrote:Look CO2 does get hot relative to other gases:
Hotter Co2In the video alkaseltzer is used to boost CO2 in a soda bottle and under a heat lamp it's compared to room air.

...what is really being tested for in such demonstrations is the Heat capacity of the different gases. CO2 has a lower heat capacity so will rise in temperature faster....

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:his assertion that the presence of an atmosphere increasing ground level temperature is an example is a wild claim.

...The daytime temperature on the surface of the Moon can approach 250 deg F. ....If the atmosphere warms the Earth, why is any measured temperature on Earth's surface so much COLDER?

Average temperature. But you knew that. But, ah HA! why do you claim the temperature of the Moon can approach 250 deg F??? How do you know the Earth doesn't get that hot??? How do you know that ITN? How?!?

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The daytime temperature on the surface of the Moon can approach 250 deg F. ....If the atmosphere warms the Earth, why is any measured temperature on Earth's surface so much COLDER?

Average temperature. But you knew that. But, ah HA! why do you claim the temperature of the Moon can approach 250 deg F??? How do you know the Earth doesn't get that hot??? How do you know that ITN? How?!?

IBdaMann wrote:....misrepresenting others.

Into the Night wrote:
Measured temperatures on the Moon have recorded 250 deg F. No weather station has reported a temperature anywhere near that high,...

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:....So you say that Venus isn't hotter than Mercury!....?

....There is NO measurement of the temperature of Venus....

HarveyH55 wrote:
Why can't they just fill to jars with air taken outdoors, add just enough CO2 to one jar, so it's equal to the amount that's suppose to kill off all life on the planet. Shove a thermometer in both, and crank-up the heat lamp, and watch the fireworks. ...

HarveyH55 wrote:
Why can't they just fill to jars with air taken outdoors, add just enough CO2 to one jar, so it's equal to the amount that's suppose to kill off all life on the planet. Shove a thermometer in both, and crank-up the heat lamp, and watch the fireworks. Maybe piss off PETA, and put a lab rat in each jar too. Should see the temperature rise in one jar, at an alarming rate, will the other stays 1 C cooler. Or would we have to wait a decade for the warming to occur, and the rat to die (likely die before then anyway)...

tmiddles wrote: Tut tut IBD I always quote accurately.

tmiddles wrote: Especially when I'm quoting Planck and Provost, the authors of modern net radiative heat, as they debunk you for being a total fraud and lying to this board for 5 years.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:....misrepresenting others.

Tut tut IBD I always quote accurately.

tmiddles wrote:
Especially when I'm quoting Planck and Provost,

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Measured temperatures on the Moon have recorded 250 deg F. No weather station has reported a temperature anywhere near that high,...

Just to be clear ITN that's one thermometer in one location but you're comfortable making a comparative statement about the Earth vs. the Moon based on it?

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:....So you say that Venus isn't hotter than Mercury!....?

....There is NO measurement of the temperature of Venus....

tmiddles wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Why can't they just fill to jars with air taken outdoors, add just enough CO2 to one jar, so it's equal to the amount that's suppose to kill off all life on the planet. Shove a thermometer in both, and crank-up the heat lamp, and watch the fireworks. ...

Exactly! I don't get why you can't do exactly that. I put the onus on all sides on this one. You could disprove, prove, discover, why not?! I don't get it. Maybe Verner can help on this one.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: Especially when I'm quoting Planck and Provost, the authors of modern net radiative heat, as they debunk you for being a total fraud and lying to this board for 5 years.

Were you planning on bringing either Planck or Provost into this conversation so I can cross-examine them,

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: Especially when I'm quoting Planck and Provost, the authors of modern net radiative heat, as they debunk you for being a total fraud and lying to this board for 5 years.

Were you planning on bringing either Planck or Provost into this conversation so I can cross-examine them,

Nope. Guess what dufuss. I'm not trying to convince you. Just debunk you. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

tmiddles wrote:Nope. Guess what dufuss. I'm not trying to convince you.

tmiddles wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:
...., a hollow tube or block of tungsten in which a tiny hole has been drilled to connect the interior with the outside world...

So Planck did real experiments with a similar setup?

VernerHornung wrote:...German industry wanted more efficient lighting, a better light bulb than Thomas Edison had...

tmiddles wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:...German industry wanted more efficient lighting, a better light bulb than Thomas Edison had...

Too cool I never knew there was a practical application looming in the work.

Funny thing is I really knew nothing about Max Planck before using him to debunk the clowns here. He is really amazing.

I asked if he did real experiments because one thing he does that I love is thought experiments for his reader to be able to understand. What he presents is always easy to imagine and it clarifies the concepts. He's a good teacher. Example:
"a rapidly moving molecule of one system is struck obliquely by a slower moving molecule its velocity is increased while that of the slower moving molecule is still further diminished."
He just get's right into it. I've played pool and live in the physical world so there is no need to do an actual experiment to demonstrate the above. His books are full of that.

He just has a wonderfully inquisitive mind and it's inspiring.



"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 ever valid for them

IBdaMann wrote:
Nor did they discuss the tortuous conflict suffered by Gollum in the Lord of the Rings. You were questioning the availability of the ingredients necessary to make hydrocarbons.

tmiddles wrote:
He's a good teacher. Example: "a rapidly moving molecule of one system is struck obliquely by a slower moving molecule its velocity is increased while that of the slower moving molecule is still further diminished."

VernerHornung wrote:H and C are two of the most common elements in the universe. Hardly surprising if there's a little in the mantle. Or even the core. But they're light, so most of them ended up at the surface when the Earth differentiated in its formative history, especially the H.

VernerHornung wrote: Petroleum geologists don't believe commercial quantities of oil & gas form from mantle materials,

James___ wrote:

tmiddles wrote:[Planck]"a rapidly moving molecule of one system is struck obliquely by a slower moving molecule its velocity is increased while that of the slower moving molecule is still further diminished."

An example would be if gases like water vapor, N2, etc. become more excited when they strike a slower moving CO2 molecule?

Max Planck wrote:Pg.190
According [to the Boltzmann] atomic theory the thermal energy of a body is the sum-total of a small, rapid, and unregulated movement of its molecules. The temperature corresponds to the medium kinetic energy of the molecules, and the transfer of heat from a hotter to a colder body depends upon the fact that the kinetic energies of the molecules are averaged because of their frequent collision with one another.

VernerHornung wrote:The oscillators couldn't have energy 1.5hf, for instance. Just 1 or 2 or 3 or any larger whole number. ...
is the minimum quantum of action. It's very tiny. If it were big enough, my mattress springs would jerk instead of compressing smoothly at bedtime!

IBdaMann wrote:
You do not speak for "petroleum geologists."

VernerHornung wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
You do not speak for "petroleum geologists."

I'm not speaking for them.

VernerHornung wrote:
Go to the web page and see for yourself.

VernerHornung wrote:
There is no endless oil supply coming up from below to replace what we use,

VernerHornung wrote:
within the time frame of our civilization.

VernerHornung wrote:
And Exxon knows that.

IBdaMann wrote: Answer yourself: How deep are oil wells? Are they under impermeable rock? How do you believe hydrocarbons formed and under what conditions?

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:

tmiddles wrote:[Planck]"a rapidly moving molecule of one system is struck obliquely by a slower moving molecule its velocity is increased while that of the slower moving molecule is still further diminished."

An example would be if gases like water vapor, N2, etc. become more excited when they strike a slower moving CO2 molecule?

Planck goes on to say that

Max Planck wrote:Pg.190
According [to the Boltzmann] atomic theory the thermal energy of a body is the sum-total of a small, rapid, and unregulated movement of its molecules. The temperature corresponds to the medium kinetic energy of the molecules, and the transfer of heat from a hotter to a colder body depends upon the fact that the kinetic energies of the molecules are averaged because of their frequent collision with one another.

He's just pointing out net heat. That there is give an take and a cooler body absolutely does transfer thermal energy to a warmer one even in conduction.

I didn't understand the second part with the W/mk link.


"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 ever valid for them

James___ wrote: With something like this, a solar panel with a surface area of 1 m^2 would be used to show how many watts of output power it generates without changing the CO2 levels. This is because if solar radiance changes then that would be accounted for.
Changing the amount of water vapor would also need to be tested.

James___ wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:

tmiddles wrote:[Planck]"a rapidly moving molecule of one system is struck obliquely by a slower moving molecule its velocity is increased while that of the slower moving molecule is still further diminished."

An example would be if gases like water vapor, N2, etc. become more excited when they strike a slower moving CO2 molecule?

Planck goes on to say that

Max Planck wrote:Pg.190
According [to the Boltzmann] atomic theory the thermal energy of a body is the sum-total of a small, rapid, and unregulated movement of its molecules. The temperature corresponds to the medium kinetic energy of the molecules, and the transfer of heat from a hotter to a colder body depends upon the fact that the kinetic energies of the molecules are averaged because of their frequent collision with one another.

He's just pointing out net heat. That there is give an take and a cooler body absolutely does transfer thermal energy to a warmer one even in conduction.

I didn't understand the second part with the W/mk link.


"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 ever valid for them

With w/mk, if you had a cube with a surface area of 1 m^2, if heat passes through one face and out the opposite face, what is the net heat that it's radiating? That would be it's "k" value.
This would show how gases slow the flow of heat. And if CO2 increases the net heat content, it will show it.
This is something that using a cube open to the atmosphere with a solar panel below it. How many watts would the solar panel have as output power as CO2 levels in the cube are raised?
With something like this, a solar panel with a surface area of 1 m^2 would be used to show how many watts of output power it generates without changing the CO2 levels. This is because if solar radiance changes then that would be accounted for.
Changing the amount of water vapor would also need to be tested. With your quote by Planck, that could explain a relationship between increased levels of CO2 and water vapor.