Remember me
▼ Content

The First Law of Thermodynamics



Page 2 of 2<12
21-09-2016 16:32
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:No, you claimed that wavelength of radiation emitted by a substance depends solely on its temperature.

I stand behind that. I'm pretty sure you do as well.

1. When O2 and N2 increase in temperature, do they radiate at a greater rate?
2. When O2 and N2 cool, do they radiate less?

You stated that the existence of spectroscopy renders this false. I have no idea why you jumped into wavelengths.

Gas molecules emit radiation only at wavelengths specific to the type of molecule. Hot gases emit more radiation at these wavelengths; cooler gases emit less radiation at these wavelengths. O2 and N2 do not emit IR radiation, but they do emit microwaves and radio waves (more so when hot, less so when cold).

Spectroscopy is the science of determining the nature of a substance from the radiation it emits (or absorbs). If the radiation emitted by a substance depended solely on its temperature, as you asserted, spectroscopy would be impossible.
21-09-2016 16:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:No, you claimed that wavelength of radiation emitted by a substance depends solely on its temperature.

I stand behind that. I'm pretty sure you do as well.

1. When O2 and N2 increase in temperature, do they radiate at a greater rate?
2. When O2 and N2 cool, do they radiate less?

You stated that the existence of spectroscopy renders this false. I have no idea why you jumped into wavelengths.

Gas molecules emit radiation only at wavelengths specific to the type of molecule. Hot gases emit more radiation at these wavelengths; cooler gases emit less radiation at these wavelengths. O2 and N2 do not emit IR radiation, but they do emit microwaves and radio waves (more so when hot, less so when cold).

Spectroscopy is the science of determining the nature of a substance from the radiation it emits (or absorbs). If the radiation emitted by a substance depended solely on its temperature, as you asserted, spectroscopy would be impossible.


Great. Your post above is accurate.

1. When O2 and N2 increase in temperature, do they radiate at a greater rate?
2. When O2 and N2 cool, do they radiate less?



.


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
21-09-2016 16:58
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:No, you claimed that wavelength of radiation emitted by a substance depends solely on its temperature.

I stand behind that. I'm pretty sure you do as well.

1. When O2 and N2 increase in temperature, do they radiate at a greater rate?
2. When O2 and N2 cool, do they radiate less?

You stated that the existence of spectroscopy renders this false. I have no idea why you jumped into wavelengths.

Gas molecules emit radiation only at wavelengths specific to the type of molecule. Hot gases emit more radiation at these wavelengths; cooler gases emit less radiation at these wavelengths. O2 and N2 do not emit IR radiation, but they do emit microwaves and radio waves (more so when hot, less so when cold).

Spectroscopy is the science of determining the nature of a substance from the radiation it emits (or absorbs). If the radiation emitted by a substance depended solely on its temperature, as you asserted, spectroscopy would be impossible.


Great. Your post above is accurate.

1. When O2 and N2 increase in temperature, do they radiate at a greater rate?
2. When O2 and N2 cool, do they radiate less?

Yes, but not in the IR part of the EM spectrum. Which is what I just wrote.
21-09-2016 17:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
1. When O2 and N2 increase in temperature, do they radiate at a greater rate?
2. When O2 and N2 cool, do they radiate less?

Yes, but not in the IR part of the EM spectrum. Which is what I just wrote.

So is there any other factor besides temperature that drives how O2 and N2 radiate?


.


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
21-09-2016 17:58
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
1. When O2 and N2 increase in temperature, do they radiate at a greater rate?
2. When O2 and N2 cool, do they radiate less?

Yes, but not in the IR part of the EM spectrum. Which is what I just wrote.

So is there any other factor besides temperature that drives how O2 and N2 radiate?

Yes, their identity. O2 and N2 at the same temperature radiate differently.
21-09-2016 18:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
1. When O2 and N2 increase in temperature, do they radiate at a greater rate?
2. When O2 and N2 cool, do they radiate less?

Yes, but not in the IR part of the EM spectrum. Which is what I just wrote.

So is there any other factor besides temperature that drives how O2 and N2 radiate?

Yes, their identity. O2 and N2 at the same temperature radiate differently.

Your EVASION is infantile and transparent.

So, no factor other than temperature, correct? ... or are you science denier?

Better yet, let's just leave it at your inability to admit when you are in error, even if it's trivial.


.


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
21-09-2016 18:17
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
1. When O2 and N2 increase in temperature, do they radiate at a greater rate?
2. When O2 and N2 cool, do they radiate less?

Yes, but not in the IR part of the EM spectrum. Which is what I just wrote.

So is there any other factor besides temperature that drives how O2 and N2 radiate?

Yes, their identity. O2 and N2 at the same temperature radiate differently.

Your EVASION is infantile and transparent.

So, no factor other than temperature, correct? ... or are you science denier?

Better yet, let's just leave it at your inability to admit when you are in error, even if it's trivial.

There's no need to throw your toys out of the pram. I've just answered your questions as straightforwardly as possible. In what way am I being evasive?
21-09-2016 18:17
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
It's the energy that the molecule can absorb by putting photons into higher shells IIRC. When the photon drops back into its old position, only a particular wavelength of light is made.
21-09-2016 18:22
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
jwoodward48 wrote:
It's the energy that the molecule can absorb by putting photons into higher shells IIRC. When the photon drops back into its old position, only a particular wavelength of light is made.

Yes, that's true for visible light. Infrared radiation is emitted when the vibrational energy of the molecule drops from one quantised level to another, while radio emission is associated with rotational energy levels. Simple molecules like O2 don't have vibrational modes corresponding to IR emission, whereas heterogeneous molecules like CO2 do.
21-09-2016 18:27
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Vibrational energy is also quantized? Interesting. Are all forms of energy quantized? What about kinetic energy?
21-09-2016 18:40
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Vibrational energy is also quantized? Interesting. Are all forms of energy quantized? What about kinetic energy?

No, kinetic energy isn't quantised. However, energy is continually transferred between kinetic energy and vibrational energy during collisions. An O2 molecule could, for example, collide with a CO2 molecule thus raising its vibrational energy to a higher state. This state could then decay with the emission of an IR photon.
21-09-2016 18:48
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Is the way vibrational/rotational energy is quantized simple enough for you to not mind explaining it, or do you know of a good site for learning more?
21-09-2016 18:59
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
As for his accusation of evasiveness, I believe he was asking for an explanation of how different molecules can radiate differently at the same temperature. "Because they're different" is technically true, but doesn't really give any information that you hadn't already told him. Of course, he WAS being ridiculous: you explained that oxygen radiates differently from nitrogen, and then he asked if you agreed that there was no difference between O2 and N2 in terms of radiation, even though you just explained that there was a difference.
21-09-2016 19:08
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Is the way vibrational/rotational energy is quantized simple enough for you to not mind explaining it, or do you know of a good site for learning more?

I don't have time right now, but here's an example of a site that explains some of this:

https://www2.chemistry.msu.edu/faculty/reusch/virttxtjml/Spectrpy/InfraRed/infrared.htm

There's lots more to be found by googling! Happy hunting!
21-09-2016 19:12
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
jwoodward48 wrote:
As for his accusation of evasiveness, I believe he was asking for an explanation of how different molecules can radiate differently at the same temperature. "Because they're different" is technically true, but doesn't really give any information that you hadn't already told him. Of course, he WAS being ridiculous: you explained that oxygen radiates differently from nitrogen, and then he asked if you agreed that there was no difference between O2 and N2 in terms of radiation, even though you just explained that there was a difference.

I think I may have overestimated IBdaMann's level of knowledge in this area. I was assuming he had at least secondary school physics, and pitching to that level. No wonder he was getting frustrated!
21-09-2016 19:29
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But he doesn't seem like he has only a middle school education. (Of course, you never know - I could just as easily have made half these arguments when I was 13.)
21-09-2016 19:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Surface Detail wrote: I think I may have overestimated IBdaMann's level of knowledge in this area. I was assuming he had at least secondary school physics, and pitching to that level. No wonder he was getting frustrated!

Did they indoctrinate you into Global Warming in the UK? What am I asking? Of course they did.

So, you were going to explain how you account for the additional energy that "greenhouse effect" requires to increase temperature.


.


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
21-09-2016 20:05
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
The additional energy comes from the longwave radiation that could have gone to space, that would have if not for GHG, that is absorbed and radiated back to Earth.
21-09-2016 20:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
jwoodward48 wrote:The additional energy comes from the longwave radiation that could have gone to space, that would have if not for GHG, that is absorbed and radiated back to Earth.

So you are saying that increased "greenhouse gas" causes earth's thermal radiation to decrease while it's temperature increases, in violation of Stefan-Boltzmann, yes?

...and your response is that of course it violates Stefan-Boltzmann because earth is a body with an atmosphere and Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't apply bodies with an atmosphere, yes?


Nothing lights up "greenhouse effect" like good ol' Stefan-Boltzmann.


.


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
21-09-2016 20:31
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
More importantly what did you mean by reamed? what was on your mind when you typed that? Is this the right forum for you?
21-09-2016 21:32
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Tell me if I'm wrong, but your conclusion is that the spectrum of emission from Earth is the same regardless of atmospheric composition, right?
21-09-2016 21:54
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tell me if I'm wrong, but your conclusion is that the spectrum of emission from Earth is the same regardless of atmospheric composition, right?

IBdaMann does indeed appear to believe that all materials emit radiation purely as a function of their temperature and regardless of the emitting material, i.e. as black bodies. This is obviously falsified by the existence of line spectra, but I'm not sure if IBdaMann actually understands what a line spectrum is. The story of the discovery of helium is quite relevant here, I think!
21-09-2016 22:00
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Because that conclusion is easily disproven by exoplanet spectrum analysis. It lets us know what gases are in the atmosphere of exoplanets. If what IB says is true, that would be impossible.
21-09-2016 22:42
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Because that conclusion is easily disproven by exoplanet spectrum analysis. It lets us know what gases are in the atmosphere of exoplanets. If what IB says is true, that would be impossible.

And, of course, helium was discovered in the sun from its line spectrum before it was discovered on Earth. Hence the name (from Helios, the Greek sun god).
Edited on 21-09-2016 22:43
21-09-2016 23:29
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Ah, in a long-standing scientific and mathematical tradition*, it seems we independently found similar ways to disprove his hypothesis. I didn't know that about helium, that's interesting. Is there a pattern as to whether absorption or emission spectra will be more noticeable? Both the Sun and exoplanets give off black body radiation, but one spectrum is modified through absorption and one through emission.

*It's a joke. Newton and Leibnitz, etc.
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate The First Law of Thermodynamics:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Stefan-Boltzmann Law At A Non-Vacuum Interface017-10-2019 21:26
Election Law3208-10-2019 13:02
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law64813-09-2019 05:55
Greenhouse gas hypothesis violates Law of Conservation of Energy218-03-2019 18:56
Why the greenhouse effect does not violate the first law of thermodynamics35509-01-2018 15:22
▲ 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