Remember me
▼ Content

The First Law of Thermodynamics



Page 1 of 212>
The First Law of Thermodynamics19-09-2016 06:31
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
This is only for talk about the 1st LoT. Complaining that analogies or statements. violate the 2nd LoT, Plank, or SB will be punished with one hour of listening to Marx. (Serious version: don't do it. Breaking things up helps everybody.)

Since the burden of proof is on those who go against mainstream science, you get the first words - how do you think that climate change violates the 1st LoT?


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

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

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
19-09-2016 12:07
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Changing the amount of CO2 in of air changes the properties of it, you can prove it experimentally with stuff in a high school lab. ergo the "greenhouse effect" is real if it violates our understanding of physical laws its our understanding that is wrong.

I paraphrase Marx; "Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?".
19-09-2016 18:32
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Consider an Earth with no atmosphere. Any heat radiated from the surface will escape from the Earth.

Now consider our Earth. Some of the radiation will be absorbed by CO2, and some of that will be radiated back to Earth. In the absence of a heat source, this would not heat the Earth, only slow its cooling. But since part of the Sun's radiation bypasses the CO2 by not being infrared, the incoming energy is decreased by less than the outgoing energy. This means that the Earth's temperature must increase.
19-09-2016 20:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Consider an Earth with no atmosphere. Any heat radiated from the surface will escape from the Earth.

Now consider our Earth. Some of the radiation will be absorbed by CO2, and some of that will be radiated back to Earth. In the absence of a heat source, this would not heat the Earth, only slow its cooling. But since part of the Sun's radiation bypasses the CO2 by not being infrared, the incoming energy is decreased by less than the outgoing energy. This means that the Earth's temperature must increase.


Since you feel you can just separate out one law and ignore the rest, this thread is one that will go nowhere. It's a package deal, dude.


The Parrot Killer
19-09-2016 21:02
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Fine. Fine! I give up. This is now the "Any Laws You Want to Claim Invalidate Global Warming, Go Here" thread.

You ignored my post. Please at least try to rebut it.
20-09-2016 00:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Fine. Fine! I give up. This is now the "Any Laws You Want to Claim Invalidate Global Warming, Go Here" thread.

You ignored my post. Please at least try to rebut it.


I already have. I don't need to rebut it again.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2016 00:17
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
"It's a package deal"

That's not a rebuttal, Into, that's a weasel. But to make you happy, like I ALREADY SAID, I'll let you point out any error, not just a discrepancy with the 1st Law.
20-09-2016 01:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
jwoodward48 wrote:
"It's a package deal"

That's not a rebuttal, Into, that's a weasel. But to make you happy, like I ALREADY SAID, I'll let you point out any error, not just a discrepancy with the 1st Law.


It's a rebuttal to your attempt to separate out laws while ignoring others. A valid rebuttal at that.

As far as pointing discrepancies out to you, I have already done so. Try re-reading those old posts when were talking better. I'm not going to write them all over again.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2016 01:15
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
You have shown a lack of understanding of energy flow. Do you deny that CO2 returns some energy to the Earth through radiation, while a vacuum will not?
20-09-2016 22:23
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
jwoodward48 wrote: Fine. Fine! I give up. This is now the "Any Laws You Want to Claim Invalidate Global Warming, Go Here" thread.

You ignored my post. Please at least try to rebut it.

Have you heard of Stefan-Boltzmann? That answers your questions.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Consider an Earth with no atmosphere. Any heat radiated from the surface will escape from the Earth.

The earth's atmosphere does not prevent radiation. The earth's atmosphere radiates itself. No substance can prevent its own radiation or prevent the free radiation of any other substance (or body). That radiation is governed by Stefan-Boltzmann.

jwoodward48 wrote: Now consider our Earth. Some of the radiation will be absorbed by CO2, and some of that will be radiated back to Earth. In the absence of a heat source, this would not heat the Earth, only slow its cooling.

Stefan-Boltzmann says that thermal emission is not altered. In fact, Stefan-Boltzmann says that only LOWERING earth's temperature can "slow its cooling."

This would be about the eighth time this has been clarified to you. This is clearly a pillar of your religion which demands you deny the science that destroys it. I will assume we are effectively done discussing this point.

jwoodward48 wrote: But since part of the Sun's radiation bypasses the CO2 by not being infrared, the incoming energy is decreased by less than the outgoing energy.

Nope. There is no thermal emission decrease from an atmosphere.

This means that the Earth's temperature cannot increase.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-09-2016 23:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
IBdaMann wrote:

Nope. There is no thermal emission decrease from an atmosphere.

This means that the Earth's temperature cannot increase.

.


Which is why I keep raising the violation of the 2nd law.


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2016 01:55
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Stefan-Boltzmann does not apply to non-black/gray bodies!! Until you have proven that they do, your arguments are all unfounded.

Also, somehow the radiation from CO2 knows to always go up, not down. Otherwise, the outflow of energy would decrease, and that's IMPOSSIBLE. Like if I put a mirror in front of a light, it would have to go through, because otherwise some of it would be prevented from reaching my eyes, which is IMPOSSIBLE.
21-09-2016 01:55
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
Into the Night wrote:Which is why I keep raising the violation of the 2nd law.

Absolutely correct. It's normally after realizing that there can be no change in the average global temperature that those of a particular "Climate" denomination will realize "I don't need for the whole planet to increase in temperature, just the surface!" Said believer will proclaim that "greenhouse effect" is a poor name because that's not really what's going on and that what's happening is that the surface is being warmed...by a cooler atmosphere and the cooler atmosphere is being cooled by the warm surface ... because it's a feedback loop of a thermal forcing!

You just pulled out the 2nd LoT in anticipation to have it ready. Kudos.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-09-2016 02:05
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
There can be a change in the overall global temperature, because SB does not apply to the Earth. (I'm giving more proof than you are. I linked to Wikipedia. You linked to nothing, gave no sources, just proof by assertion.)
21-09-2016 02:10
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
jwoodward48 wrote: There can be a change in the overall global temperature, because SB does not apply to the Earth.

Denial.

If you''re happy pressing forward with "greenhouse effect" debunked then so am I.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-09-2016 02:16
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
jwoodward48 wrote:
There can be a change in the overall global temperature, because SB does not apply to the Earth. (I'm giving more proof than you are. I linked to Wikipedia. You linked to nothing, gave no sources, just proof by assertion.)

Greenhouse gases change the temperature of the Earth by changing its effective emissivity. The mechanism for this is the absorption and re-emission of upwelling IR radiation. As the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere rises, the effective emissivity of the Earth falls. This means that the surface of the Earth has to become hotter in order to maintain the same output of radiation and satisfy LoT 1.
Edited on 21-09-2016 02:17
21-09-2016 02:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Stefan-Boltzmann does not apply to non-black/gray bodies!! Until you have proven that they do, your arguments are all unfounded.


Then why does the S-B law have emissivity as one of its variables?


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2016 02:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
jwoodward48 wrote:
There can be a change in the overall global temperature, because SB does not apply to the Earth. (I'm giving more proof than you are. I linked to Wikipedia. You linked to nothing, gave no sources, just proof by assertion.)


1) Wikipedia is not God. This is just another way to refer to your Great God Consensus. Use a real source.

2) He and I both reference the Stefan-Boltzmann law, Planck's Law, and the laws of thermodynamics. Any moron can look these up...at least I used to think so. Apparently you have difficulty with this.


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2016 03:28
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
1. You use a real source. Actually, no, I'll be fine with you using any kind of source at all other than "my brain thought it".

2. You reference the laws of thermodynamics and radiation and then claim that a naïve application to Earth must be true. I have looked them up. Nowhere has anybody claimed that objects with different emissivity/absorbance must follow SB/Planck. I've found several good rebuttances of your "1st and 2nd LoT" arguments. Any moron could look these up. Apparently you have difficulty with this.

Then why does the S-B law have emissivity as one of its variables?


"Bodies that emit less thermal radiation than a blackbody have surface emissivities less than 1. If the surface emissivity is independent of wavelength, then the body is called a "gray" body, in that no particular wavelength (or color) is favored."

This is readily available on the internet. Gray bodies have a constant emissivity, no matter what wavelength is being radiated. No real-life objects are gray bodies, though some are gray bodies within the visible spectrum, making them look gray. Planck's Law only works for black bodies and gray bodies - other things may act similarly to black bodies, but diffuse, not-very-high-temperature gases will in fact radiate no wavelengths not present on their emission spectra.

The Laws of Radiation (Planck, S-
are like the Ideal Gas Law - they both model ideal things, and may or may not be a good approximation for a given physical object. The Ideal Gas Law is pretty good sometimes, but ideal gases don't exist, and every gas eventually departs from the Law. The Laws of Radiation are pretty good sometimes, but black/gray bodies don't exist. Why would you think that everything would obey them?
21-09-2016 05:29
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
My first point was not "a person who uses a source is you." It was "YOU use a source." Just clarifying.
21-09-2016 06:28
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Okay, a bit more research has been done; I am no longer quite so sure about whether or not Planck's Law applies to all solids, but it seems that it is at least a good approximation for many. It is gases and aggregates that tend to "violate" Planck's Law.
21-09-2016 07:29
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I'm sorry, guys, a bit more Internet research (which is a thing; although it is not scientific per se, it is useful as an individual to understand science better) has led me to the conclusion that the Laws of Emission do indeed apply to Earth's surface. They still don't apply to gases, though. (In fact, my Internet research has strengthened my statement on gases; I am now fairly sure that no gases will ever emit black body radiation, regardless of temperature or pressure.)
21-09-2016 14:04
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
jwoodward48 wrote:They still don't apply to gases, though.

...then keep researching, but do it at authoritative sites.

Gases don't radiate? What hocus-pocus warmizombie sites do you frequent?

Anyway, all substances radiate, and radiate per temperature alone. Your science denial in defense of your religion is phenomenal. I wish you luck in your pursuit.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-09-2016 14:06
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
jwoodward48 wrote: I am no longer quite so sure about whether or not Planck's Law applies to all solids, but it seems that it is at least a good approximation for many. It is gases and aggregates that tend to "violate" Planck's Law.


This is a strong contender for my signature. D - Nigh - L


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-09-2016 14:10
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Anyway, all substances radiate, and radiate per temperature alone.

Your claim is disproved by the existence of spectroscopy.
21-09-2016 14:18
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Anyway, all substances radiate, and radiate per temperature alone.

Your claim is disproved by the existence of spectroscopy.


Your claim implies that there exists some substance that will not cool in the vacuum of space. Your claim is absurd.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-09-2016 14:20
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
It will radiate only at its own emission spectra. Not Planck's Law.
21-09-2016 14:34
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Anyway, all substances radiate, and radiate per temperature alone.

Your claim is disproved by the existence of spectroscopy.


Your claim implies that there exists some substance that will not cool in the vacuum of space. Your claim is absurd

No, it doesn't. All substances with a temperature above absolute zero will radiate EM radiation at the wavelengths corresponding to the energy level transitions available to them.
21-09-2016 14:37
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
Surface Detail wrote:No, it doesn't. All substances with a temperature above absolute zero will radiate EM radiation at the wavelengths corresponding to the energy level transitions available to them.

What atmospheric gas do you claim will not radiate thermally?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-09-2016 14:47
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
It will emit thermal radiation, just not black body radiation.
21-09-2016 14:48
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:No, it doesn't. All substances with a temperature above absolute zero will radiate EM radiation at the wavelengths corresponding to the energy level transitions available to them.

What atmospheric gas do you claim will not radiate thermally?

As I have repeatedly pointed out to you, simple diatomic gases such as O2 and N2 cannot radiate in the IR part of the EM spectrum because there are no available energy transitions corresponding to these wavelengths. They are able to radiate in, for example, the microwave and radio parts of the EM spectrum. This is fundamental physics.
21-09-2016 15:01
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
Surface Detail wrote: ... simple diatomic gases such as O2 and N2 cannot radiate in the IR part of the EM spectrum


All substances radiate per their temperature, and the wavelength of the emission is determined by the temperature.

Ergo, you are saying that there exists a temperature at which O2 and N2 cannot cool in the vacuum of space because the temperature would require an IR emission but O2 and N2 cannot emit such, so they will not radiate and will remain at the same temperature.

Your assertion is absurd.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-09-2016 15:11
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: ... simple diatomic gases such as O2 and N2 cannot radiate in the IR part of the EM spectrum


All substances radiate per their temperature, and the wavelength of the emission is determined by the temperature.

Ergo, you are saying that there exists a temperature at which O2 and N2 cannot cool in the vacuum of space because the temperature would require an IR emission but O2 and N2 cannot emit such, so they will not radiate and will remain at the same temperature.

Your assertion is absurd.

No, according to the laws of quantum physics, isolated molecules (as in a gas) can only radiate at specific wavelengths. This is the basis of spectroscopy.

O2 and N2 will (and do) cool in the vacuum of space by emitting microwaves and radio waves. Indeed, radio astronomers can detect this radiation and thus determine the constituents of interstellar gas clouds.
21-09-2016 15:23
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
Surface Detail wrote:O2 and N2 will (and do) cool in the vacuum of space by emitting microwaves and radio waves.

You have a strange way of violently agreeing with me. All this just to say what I said.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-09-2016 15:37
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:O2 and N2 will (and do) cool in the vacuum of space by emitting microwaves and radio waves.

You have a strange way of violently agreeing with me. All this just to say what I said.

No, you claimed that wavelength of radiation emitted by a substance depends solely on its temperature. This is not true. For isolated molecules, as in a gas, the wavelengths of the emitted radiation depend on the substance itself. O2 and N2, for example, cannot emit IR radiation. Other gases, such as CO2, can emit IR radiation. These are the gases we call greenhouse gases.
21-09-2016 15:54
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IB/Into, you are claiming that gases will emit black body radiation according to Planck's Law. They will not, and Surface is explaining why. As you said, "you should sit down and take notes."
21-09-2016 15:56
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IB/Into, you are claiming that gases will emit black body radiation according to Planck's Law. They will not, and Surface is explaining why. As you said, "you should sit down and take notes."

Is Surface Detail having difficulty posting for himself? Were you going to add anything beyond what he has stated?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-09-2016 16:08
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
1. I started writing that before Surface posted.
2. I was pointing out a double standard.
21-09-2016 16:19
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
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.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-09-2016 16:24
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Well, I don't stand behind that. Spectroscopy is the study of emission and absorption spectra, which show that gases do not radiate as black bodies - otherwise, all spectra would be identical.

The radiation emitted from O2 and N2 does indeed have a positive correlation with temperature, but this does not follow Planck's Law - they will never absorb nor emit any infrared light.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate The First Law of Thermodynamics:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law39925-08-2019 09:55
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
Simple thermodynamics for climate sceptics3914-05-2017 02:25
Every thread turns into a discussion about the 2nd law of thermodynamics1727-04-2017 06:09
▲ 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