The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist
| 03-03-2020 04:24 | |
tmiddles ★★★★★(3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:Harry C wrote: You totally ignored the context of my sentence.......your bogus faith.... IBdaMann wrote:Harry C wrote: There is a controversy......warmizombie dogma.... IBdaMann wrote:Harry C wrote:...the truth as you know it is not out there.... you are seeking to convert members here to your faith.... IBdaMann wrote:It checked twice. You had absolutely NOTHING to say there IBD.Harry C wrote: ...scientific answers that you keep replying with are contained solely in this forum....stop whining and pouting like a baby, ... Into the Night wrote:RQAA.And the old stand by has nothing as always. gfm7175 wrote:No response either. Believe you're winning if you want gentleman. What you are not doing is debating. Into the Night wrote:I haven't seen a valid argument out of him for quite awhile now.Oh really ITN? How about this one: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s520.php#post_52747 It's just a 10 out of 10 for exposing a BSer. Harry C wrote:I'm not comfortable merely reciting physics laws and telling people to figure it outThis is particularly problematic when the "laws" have been invented by anonymous crackpots online. "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 |
| 03-03-2020 05:45 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
Into the Night wrote:The Magick Blanket argument tries to argue that CO2 somehow prevents infrared light from leaving Earth at all...This would create a feedback loop that would destroy the Earth. I have never once seen this idea presented. Into the Night wrote:The Magick Bouncing Photon argument tends to argue that photons are all equal,...somehow heat the warmer surface using a colder gas...Essentially the argument that a radiance from a colder object can be absorbed by a warmer one. This being what ITN and IBD hang their hats on: IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object...It is total BS. The example of a person in a room debunks it in my sig. I recently challenged ITN and IBD to debate a dead person in a room and they ran away (this is a well documented police science of course). If an object couldn't absorb radiance from a cooler object then it would be no different if the cooler object were even colder, or not there at all. It's demonstrably false and here are 12 references that constradict ITN:TWELVE REFERENCES Into the Night wrote:No because that is the definition of Heat. Radiance abosolutely is traded by objects in both directions. If there is radiant "Heat" it's the differnce in the trade. Into the Night wrote:Space Station...250 deg F...why is...Earth so much colder?Because the gas atmosphere diffuses the energy. Diffusion, spreading something out, does not mean you diminish it's over all quantity. ITN will conveniently pretend we are not very warm on the dark side of Earth. Into the Night wrote:...so-called 'data'.My sig says it all. no data is valid for IBD or ITN ITN pretends that this is a binary question: Yes you can calculate it, or No you cannot. The reality is that statistics allow us to establish a margin of error, or a zone, within which we can be 95% or 99% confident the answer is. Of course he asserts it's impossible to know the temperature of Denver. Into the Night wrote:...anyone that tells you they know the temperature of Earth is simply lying.This THE KEY BIT here. ITN doens't include what would make his statement coherent: "within ___ degrees". You can say: "anyone that tells you they know the temperature of Earth WITHIN 0.25 DEGREES is simply lying." OK probably Or: "anyone that tells you they know the temperature of Earth to WITHIN 500 DEGREES is simply lying." Nope! This bit of BS is how you arrive at: Into the Night wrote:...it's not possible to measure it...Again it's implied you can't measure it "AT ALL", like it's a Yes or No question when it is a "How well" or "How accurately" question. Into the Night wrote:...the emissivity of Earth is unknown.Same brain fart as saying temperature is unknown. To what margin of error! And if someone claims they know ANYTHING you can simply ask them to how many decimal places and you've got a margin/range right there. This is just a device to end debate. I'm sorry we can't talk about this there is something we don't know to 8 decimal places! Into the Night wrote:...the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics falsify any notion of a gas or vapor being able to warm the Earth.There are two sides to this being wrong, theoretical and empirical. First this has all the veracity of explaining why bumble bees cannot fly (que video of flying bumble bee). I have already presented that Venus falsifys the use by ITN and IBD of the 1st law. They argue the amount of energy is fixed and you can't make more with Co2 or any atmosphere. This is a misapplication of the 1st law as it only works with an isolated system. Earth, Venus and any planet is not isolated at all with energy coming in from the outside and flowing out into space. It's like making an argument that water cannot be created or destroyed as you analyze a tennis ball being hit with a fire hoze. Into the Night wrote:To make that stone warmer, we need a bigger campfire,Yet Venus is further from the fire than Mercury and yet it's WAY WAY hotter. Debunked. As for the 2nd law it all hinges on their entirely manufactured (you will not find a citation for this ANYWHERE) that radiance from cooler object isn't absorbed by warmer ones. The argument that you are not absorbing the warmth of the room you're in any more than you would if the room were 200 degrees colder. IT IS FALSE They refuse to debate it. "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 03-03-2020 05:56 |
| 03-03-2020 21:01 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(21612) |
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 23..5...5...7...17...25g...25c...4b...7...20e1...20a1...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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 03-03-2020 21:14 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21612) |
tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote:The Magick Blanket argument tries to argue that CO2 somehow prevents infrared light from leaving Earth at all...This would create a feedback loop that would destroy the Earth. I have never once seen this idea presented. YOU made the Magick Blanket argument several times. Now you deny what you said again, liar. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 04-03-2020 00:51 | |
Harry C ★★☆☆☆(157) |
Into the Night wrote: Thank you. You have been particularly enlightening. You learn something new every day if you are lucky! |
| 04-03-2020 01:42 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
Into the Night wrote:No I did not. Prove it. You know this forum can be linked to right? Where did I make that argument? |
| 04-03-2020 02:06 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21612) |
tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote:No I did not. Prove it. You know this forum can be linked to right? Where did I make that argument? I'm not going to go back and look for it. If you want to deny what you said, liar, go ahead. I'll be happy to flag it next time you make that argument. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 04-03-2020 02:07 |
| 04-03-2020 02:16 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
Into the Night wrote:Well it would be hard to do since I never said it. |
| 04-03-2020 03:08 | |
| James___★★★★★ (5513) |
Harry C wrote:Into the Night wrote: It is typical for chemistry texts to write the first law as ΔU=Q+W. It is the same law, of course - the thermodynamic expression of the conservation of energy principle. It is just that W is defined as the work done on the system instead of work done by the system. In the context of physics, the common scenario is one of adding heat to a volume of gas and using the expansion of that gas to do work, as in the pushing down of a piston in an internal combustion engine. I'll explain. Delta U is the change in the field. Q is heat added to the system where W is the work the system does. with our atmosphere, it would be Delta U. When heat is added, the atmosphere expands. So added heat + expansion equals the change in the atmosphere. That's the First Law of Thermodynamics. When the Sun is shining or moves above the surface of the Earth, heat is added to the system. Am wondering if you and ITN are claiming that the Sun doesn't introduce heat (Q) into the Earth's atmosphere (U). With both formulas, they demonstrate the change in a field. With Q + W, that could be the same as O + O2 + hf = O3. And then O3 - O = O2 + O + hf. In both cases, either adding or subtracting W shows that the system of 3 oxygen molecules change. So I guess with subtraction it'd actually be Delta U = W - Q. Then it would show the opposite sequence of Delta U = Q + W. Attached image: 
Edited on 04-03-2020 03:15 |
| 04-03-2020 03:39 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21612) |
Harry C wrote:Into the Night wrote: Excellent. Now for the 2nd law and why the UN is so interested in this religion. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is: e(t+1)>=e(t) where 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time. In other words, entropy must always increase or stay the same in any system. This brings up the term 'entropy'. What does it actually mean? 'Entropy' is simply the randomness of a system. A 'system' is any bound system of your choosing. Let's contrive a system of two cages full of rats (These are of course, 'scientific' rats! ). One cage has 20 white rats, and the other cage has 20 brown rats. A passageway joins the two cages, but it is currently closed. At this point the system of cages and rats have minimum entropy. This is as organized as it's going to get. Now we open the passageway. Rats are free to move from cage to cage. Over time, you will have a fairly even mix of white and brown rats in each cage. At this point, you have maximum entropy. It is as randomized as you're going to get. When you apply this to thermal energy (the total internal kinetic energy in a substance), you can have two regions, one hot (lots of thermal energy) and one cold (less thermal energy). When a 'passageway' opens between them, thermal energy can likewise dissipate evenly across both regions. Concentrations of energy dissipate toward relative voids of energy. This gives a direction for heat, which is the flow of thermal energy. Heat always flows from concentrated areas of energy to relative voids of energy, in other words from hot to cold, assuming the same density of thermal energy. The surface is denser than air, so the surface has more thermal energy per cubic volume, even though the temperature might be the same. How is this so? Thermal energy is the total internal kinetic energy in a substance, and temperature is the average internal kinetic energy in a substance. Given two densities of matter at the same temperature, the denser material will have more thermal energy (the total). Heat is only concerned with the movement of thermal energy. The 2nd law works for other forms of energy as well. An excess of electrons on a wire will flow towards a relative void (from the negative terminal on a battery for example to the positive one). Light (electromagnetic energy) will tend to spread out and dissipate with distance from its source. This the 2nd law of thermodynamics in action yet again. Whatever is concentrated will tend to randomly dissipate across the boundaries of any given system. The Earth itself is a closed system. It has described boundaries of the surface and it's atmosphere. If you consider only this system, everything will tend towards one uniform temperature. If you consider the Earth, the Sun, and the space around Earth as the system, again, energy will tend to dissipate towards even distribution. It never gets there, but that is the tendency. The Sun is huge compared to the Earth, and space can be considered an almost perfect energy sink. The energy in this case is electromagnetic energy, which has no temperature. Some of this light is absorbed by the Earth. How much? No one knows. That gets into another law which I will discuss later called the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and gets into how matter absorbs light. It also gets a bit into what light itself actually is. I will leave that for the next part. Note: tmiddles tends to confuse electromagnetic energy and thermal energy, and tends to confuse the difference between thermal energy and temperature. Be aware of it. Now comes an interesting proposition: Is there such a thing as an open system, and does the 2nd law of thermodynamics apply in this case. To answer this question, let's consider the universe as a whole as our system. The size of the universe, for all we know, is infinite. We really don't know, since we can't see all of the universe. For what we do see, however, there is a definite boundary, called the visible universe horizon (or something similar sounding). In this observable universe, planets and stars form, do their thing, then destroy themselves again. For this system, entropy simply stays the same. It is not increasing, but it is not decreasing either. The 2nd law is still satisfied. Now let's imagine including ALL of the universe, including any parts we cannot see. Here we finally enter parts unknown, and with it, an untestable situation with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Because of this, we don't really know if this theory holds across the entire universe, including all that we cannot see. This is not a valid test for falsification of the theory, however, so the theory remains in force, at least for what we can observe in the universe. Beyond the visible horizon, we are just speculating. Now let's look at one example that people sometimes consider a reduction of entropy, the refrigerator. In this box, items get cold, while outside the box the room is warm. Is this entropy actually reducing, in violation of the 2nd law? No. The system is the problem, not the 2nd law. What is failed to be considered is that innocuous power cord plugged into the wall. Unplug that power cord, and the refrigerator will reach room temperature. The 2nd law is still satisfied for the system including the room and the refrigerator. Plug in that cord though, and you now have to consider the power plant that provides power through that cord. Falling water, burning coal, oil, or natural gas, all make use of increasing entropy to make it appear entropy is 'reducing' as the refrigerator gets colder. A common fault with handling the 2nd law of thermodynamics is comparing two different systems as if they were the same system. For a refrigerator to get cold, you MUST use the system that includes the power plant and its fuel. There is no 'local' reduction of entropy in the room. That is an entirely different system. Thus, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is still satisfied. There is no case where you can cause heat to flow from cold to hot. The Church of Global Warming, using the so-called Bouncing Photon Argument, tries to heat a warmer surface of Earth with a colder gas (CO2) in the atmosphere. Obviously, this is not possible. You might as well try to make hot coffee using ice. Again, e(t+1)>=e(t). Now, the UN: The United Nations is a government of sorts. Like any government, it wants more power. It wants to become bigger. In private business, profit is a success metric. You get it by providing a better product than your competitors or by providing a cheaper product than your competitors (or both!). In the end, it's about satisfying the desires and demands or your customers. Fail to do so, and you won't be in business long! Government has no such success metric. They can tax. In many cases, they can print their own money as well. So what is the success metric of a government agency? How does one grow and become more influential? The answer is a simple one. A government (or a government agency) must somehow justify it's own existence. Since these agencies were created to solve a problem, what happens if that 'problem' is actually solved? There would be no more need of the agency, would there? Thus, the agency must show it is 'solving' the problem without actually solving it. Indeed, if it can show the 'problem' is getting bigger, it can actually justify a larger budget to 'solve' it. This is how government agencies grow. It is also how governments themselves grow. Getting bigger and bigger, all in the name of 'solving' the problems they were created to solve, and never solving them. They have to look like the cavalry riding to the rescue without actually rescuing anything. Worse, if there is no problem, they must create one, and then try to 'solve' it. The UN is no different. They want power. They want influence. The success metric is the same for them as it is for the U.S. federal government or any of its agencies. There are a variety of forms of government, and two types of economics that are at work here. Most of this centers around economic systems, but that does influence forms of governments. The two economic systems are capitalism and socialism. Under capitalism, you are free to become your own man. You choose your own destiny. You go out and find a product or service that someone else wants, and you find a way to provide it. If you can provide it better than anyone else, so much the better for you. You are responsible literally for yourself. No government is needed. This is the system that brought civilization literally out of the wilderness. It built the cities you see today. It built the societies you see today. Capitalism literally creates wealth out of a few raw materials, your own sweat, and your own ingenuity. Best of all, what you earn is your own. Under socialism, government is used to control economic activity. It arbitrarily decides who will go into business, what product or service they can produce, when they can produce it, who they can sell to, who they must buy from, etc. This form of socialism has a name. It is called 'fascism'. It is theft of wealth. Your wealth. It is on the road to an even more sinister form called 'communism'. Under this ultimate form, the government owns everything, including you. They tell you what to do, where you can go, what you must produce, where you can live, etc. Everything that is produced belongs to the government. You have no wealth. You are a slave. The government steals all of it. Now at this point you might think I am an anarchist, thinking that government is inherently evil. But I am talking about economic systems at this point, not governments at all. Now we will get to this part. In any society, there are those that are thieves. They steal from others. So what is to stop them in a capitalist system? This is a legitimate roll of government, and why they are formed. All contribute to fund things like police, firefighting, and even to improve roads and bridges to help further economic activity. But what if thieves find their way into government? What if the police themselves are the thieves? Then it comes down to an armed conflict to clean up the mess. Sooner or later, a limited government can be formed again. It becomes clear that government must be limited. If you are going to do that, you must clearly define what those limits are. This is what a constitution does. This form of government is called a 'republic'. The United States has layers of constitutions and multiple layers of governments. This known as a 'federation', and the form of government the United States is organized under is called a 'federated republic'. Sometimes the term 'confederation' is seen instead of 'federation'. The 'con-' is Latin for 'with'. The UN is also a government. It takes the form of an oligarchy. This is like a dictatorship, but instead of one dictator or king, it is a dictatorship by committee. China is another example. Oligarchies have no constitution in effect. The ruling committee (or dictator) has full autonomous power. The people have no say except to execute a violent revolt. As I've said before, capitalism doesn't really need governments. It can operate without any government at all. It can create wealth out of virtually nothing. Also, as I have said before, socialism requires a strong government. It is theft of wealth. People don't want their wealth stolen. They only way to implement socialism is through government intervention and theft of wealth. Thus, socialism can only be implemented through the use of dictatorships or oligarchies. The UN is such an oligarchy. It literally creates the 'global warming' problem so it can justify 'solving' it, thus expanding their own power and influence. Other governments join in because they too see an opportunity to expand their power and influence. The U.S. is no different except for one single difference: The Constitution. This document gets in the way of such expansion. In the U.S., it has to look like it's actually following the constitution that created it, when in fact they aren't. They can't be too obvious, or a revolt may form. Today, the federal government has had many programs that violate the Constitution in place for some time. One by one, these programs move the government away from the Constitution that created it. Here I will leave it. In the next part, I will cover the United States in particular, and how they are involved with the Church of Global Warming, and how their influence guides the rest of the nations of the Earth in many ways. I will also be discussing such 'friendly' nations as the UK, France, and Germany as well as 'unfriendly' nations like North Korea, Venezuela, and also discuss our bordering nations of Canada and Mexico. The next parts will be split into two: The Stefan-Boltzmann law, and the other about these governments and nations, and the uniqueness of the American continents and the nations upon it, especially the United States. I will also cover at some time the structure of our atmosphere, our weather, a bit of seamanship, and how energy flows around on Earth itself. Hopefully, this is all starting to make some better sense for you. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 04-03-2020 03:45 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21612) |
James___ wrote:Harry C wrote:Into the Night wrote: Thank you, James. This form of the 1st law of thermodynamics only differs algebraically from what I've discussed. Yes, the Sun heats the Earth by radiance and absorption. Of course, an unknown amount is absorbed, since we don't know the emissivity of Earth, but you are quite correct here. You also correct that absorption may result in a chemical reaction rather than conversion to thermal energy. I will be covering this part in more detail in a later part. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 04-03-2020 04:00 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14430) |
tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote:Well it would be hard to do since I never said it. @tmiddles, your version of the "magickal blanket" is the "additional temperature" manufactured by Greenhouse Effect that makes earth and Venus warmer than they would otherwise be without Greenhouse Effect. @Into the Night, ... tmiddles actually creates an additional energy source in the form of a fictitious invisible Greenhouse Effect. We've seen this argument many times before. He has NOT specified any mechanism of which I am aware ... just a subjunctive "coulda-shoulda-woulda" of an invisible Greenhouse Effect at the bottom layer of the atmosphere that just cranks out "heat" increasing the temperature above what it would otherwise be. "greenhouse gas" apparently summons this Greenhouse Effect which would otherwise not be present. You remember Earthling1 and his subjunctive claim that if it weren't for Geenhouse Effect the earth would be a ball of ice. tmiddles' dogma is the same. Of course, there really is no additional heat source and there is no other temperature that the bottom of the atmosphere would otherwise be. Yes, not only does this violate the 1st LoT but it violates the 2nd Lot as well because only the bottom of the atmosphere increases in temperature ... not the overall average temperature. ... and of course, tmiddles still denies the temperatures of the moon's daytime side. He insists that they are somehow cooler than the earth's daytime temperatures because the moon doesn't have an atmosphere to generate additional Greenhouse Effect energy like the earth does. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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 |
| 04-03-2020 04:19 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14430) |
Into the Night wrote:James___ wrote:Delta U is the change in the field. Q is heat added to the system where W is the work the system does. The 1st LoT actually doesn't mention work. Equations that involve work are simply derivatives from the 1st LoT. Energy cannot be created or destroyed so a given quantity remains constant, i.e. Total_Energy(t) = Total_Energy(t+1) However, we humans like to break things out and represent all elements in our systems. We particularly like to point to work performed and say that we are concerned with that particular energy. Since we must adhere to the 1st LoT, we derive our constraints: Total_Energy(t) = Work(t) + Nonwork(t) (or however we want to divide it up) ... or ... Initial_Energy = Final_Energy + Work_Performed The number of equations is infinite; it just depends on how you represent your experiment such that it adheres to Total_Energy(t) = Total_Energy(t+1) . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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 |
| 04-03-2020 04:36 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
Into the Night wrote:Heat is only concerned with the movement of thermal energy...There is no case where you can cause heat to flow from cold to hot. "Heat" is defined as thermal energy flow from hotter to colder. "Heat" is not equivalent to "thermal energy" any more that "profit" is equivalent to "money". They are related but not the same thing. You can have thermal energy, and you can have thermal energy moving, without heat, just as you can have the possession or exchange of money without profit/loss. Into the Night wrote:An excess of electrons on a wire will flow towards a relative void...Light (electromagnetic energy) will tend to spread out and dissipate with distance from its source.Light does not move toward a void, is not attracted to an absence of light and there is no "Light gradient" or "EM gradient" as there is with a temperature gradient. This is a very false statement you've made ITN. Into the Night wrote:The Earth itself is a closed system....Is there such a thing as an open system,...This needs clarification: Earth is ONLY a closed system with respect to matter (no matter enters or leaves). The 3 states for a system are: 1- ISOLATED: No matter OR energy comes into or leaves the system 2- CLOSED: No matter enters/leaves but energy does 3- OPEN: Both matter and energy come and go So if you are talking about radiance and think Earth being a "closed system" is relevant, you are dead wrong. Also we have open systems all the time depending on what we are looking at (an open system simply means matter can come or go). A power plant as a system is open, as is the fridge with the powerplant included. What you call a "system" is up to you. There is no rule or law that requires how much of the universe you draw a line around. You will always be leaving things out. Into the Night wrote:Some of this light is absorbed by the Earth. How much? No one knows.It is worth pointing out we do know the maximum limit for absorption by any matter the same distance from the Sun as Earth. We are able to measure the energy emitted by the Sun at 1 AU, one Earth distance. The equilibrium temperature for that is -23C That means that if matter, the same distance from Earth, fully, 100%, emissivity of 1.0, absorbs the Sun's radiance and then emitts it's own radiance, as per the Stefan-Boltzmann law, in equilibrium, that matter would be -23C. The only variables there by the way are the distance of the Earth from the Sun and the radiance of the Sun. Into the Night wrote:Note: tmiddles tends to confuse electromagnetic energy and thermal energy,They are not the same thing. One can turn into the other. Into the Night wrote:...and tends to confuse the difference between thermal energy and temperatureAlso related but not equivalent. Temperature is the average thermal energy of the matter. It's a lot like voltage and current. Into the Night wrote:The Church of Global Warming, using the so-called Bouncing Photon Argument, tries to heat a warmer surface of Earth with a colder gas (CO2)And ITN never discussed how it is that radiance from a cooler object is rejected by a warmer one. This is what it comes down to. An object always radiates based on it's temperature regardless of what else is going on around it. Consider two objects near each other. They will radiate toward one another and that radiance will reach the surface of the other object. It can either be absorbed, reflected or transmitted (pass through). There is no law, research or plausible excuse why radiance would not be absorbed by a warmer object from a cooler one. This is simply made up. ITN and IBD have refused to debate it. If ANYONE want's proof let me know. Just about any thermodynamic calculation involving radiance will (I like the one in my sig). "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[/quote] |
| 04-03-2020 06:03 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21612) |
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 20e2...10b...10b...16b... There is a light gradient. It's called the inverse square law, dumbass. Yes. Light flows outward into the void. No other 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 04-03-2020 06:05 |
| 04-03-2020 06:27 | |
| James___★★★★★ (5513) |
IBdaMann wrote:Into the Night wrote:James___ wrote:Delta U is the change in the field. Q is heat added to the system where W is the work the system does. Can you show a closed system? The Earth's gravity is influenced by the Moon just as both are influenced by the Sun. Then in the atmosphere we have volume which is the number of molecules and density which is the area it occupies. This shows that both the Sun and the Moon are variables that influence the bound or closed system which you say our atmosphere is. Basically just as the Moon influences the tide it will influence our atmosphere as well. |
| 04-03-2020 07:05 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14430) |
James___ wrote: Can you show a closed system? One does not "show" a closed system. One "defines" a closed system. James___ wrote: The Earth's gravity is influenced by the Moon just as both are influenced by the Sun. Then in the atmosphere we have volume which is the number of molecules and density which is the area it occupies. Sure. Within the context of thermodynamics, if no energy can enter or exit then it is a closed system. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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 |
| 04-03-2020 16:09 | |
| James___★★★★★ (5513) |
IBdaMann wrote: So you're saying that something can only be a "closed system" if you say it is? James___ wrote: The Earth's gravity is influenced by the Moon just as both are influenced by the Sun. Then in the atmosphere we have volume which is the number of molecules and density which is the area it occupies. Do you know of a closed system? You know, one where no energy enters or leaves it? |
| 04-03-2020 16:39 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14430) |
James___ wrote: So you're saying that something can only be a "closed system" if you say it is? Yes, every closed system that I define is a closed system. James___ wrote: Do you know of a closed system? Unless you are talking about the universe as a whole, one does not "know" of a closed system, one defines a closed system. Are you able to do math word problems? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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 |
| 04-03-2020 17:36 | |
| James___★★★★★ (5513) |
IBdaMann wrote:James___ wrote: So you're saying that something can only be a "closed system" if you say it is? How can you define what you say can't be shown? Do you want me to have faith in what you say? That is what you are asking me to do, right? Like you're promoting a religion or something. Ah yes, The Church of Closed Systems. I believe Brother IBDM, go tell it on the mountain top!!! |
| 04-03-2020 18:38 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14430) |
James___ wrote:IBdaMann wrote:Are you able to do math word problems? Are you able to do word problems? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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 |
| 04-03-2020 21:33 | |
| James___★★★★★ (5513) |
IBdaMann wrote:James___ wrote:IBdaMann wrote:Are you able to do math word problems? Могу? Что слово проблема? Я смотрел. Я не рузумию вас. I did see that movie War Games. Is that what you're talking about? The computer couldn't understand. Yet it was in control. As for me, I don't have the time to play a game of Tic Tac Toe with you. I think that's what you want. |
| 04-03-2020 22:01 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21612) |
James___ wrote: A better way to put it is that no energy entering or leaving it cannot be considered. Otherwise, a closed system is literally what you choose it to be. Any system with a boundary is a closed system...even the visible universe. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 04-03-2020 22:11 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
Into the Night wrote: You are misrepresenting this by equating a "light gradient" with a "temperature gradient" you will now dodge admitting they have NOTHING AT ALL to do with one another. There is no "LIGHT CONDUCTIVITY" that is dependent on a "LIGHT GRADIENT" they simply do not work the same way, not remotely. Light will move at a rate totally independent of other radiance, even if they occupy the same space. Without question, if you take a 10 watt light bulb and place it next to a 100 watt light bulb, the radiance from the 10 watt light bulb will move just as fast, in the exact same quantity, toward the 100 watt light bulb as it does in every other direction. Radiance WILL BE absorbed by the 100 watt light bulb from the 10 watt light bulb. The 100 watt light bulb will have a higher temperature because it's next to a 10 watt light bulb. IBdaMann wrote:Actually IBD that's an "Isolated System" not a "Closed System". Open = matter&energy can move in/out, Closed = only energy can, Isolated = nothing canhttps://surfguppy.com/thermodynamics/thermodynamic-system-open-closed-isolated-systems/ "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[/quote] Edited on 04-03-2020 22:16 |
| 04-03-2020 22:20 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21612) |
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 4c...20 (denial of inverse square law)...16b...16b...25k...20a2...20e2...20b...4a...4b...4c...20h... 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 04-03-2020 22:21 |
| 04-03-2020 23:03 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
Into the Night wrote:No ...I'm flattered you find me so intimidating ITN. You're just never willing to debate me. |
| 04-03-2020 23:11 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21612) |
tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote:No ...I'm flattered you find me so intimidating ITN. You're just never willing to debate me. You are not debating. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 04-03-2020 23:12 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14430) |
tmiddles wrote: Actually IBD that's an "Isolated System" Only when I say it is. When you are presenting your arguments you can define your terms. Since I am making my points, I will use the words as I choose to use them. Oh, Wikipedia owns neither English nor physics. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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 |
| 04-03-2020 23:21 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:Wikipedia owns neither English nor physics.You are using words where the meanings are contradictory. I know you like to be difficult but this is a blatant attempt to do so. And that is the definition universally. Open, Closed and Isolated defined reference #1 Open, Closed and Isolated defined reference #2 Open, Closed and Isolated defined reference #3 Open, Closed and Isolated defined reference #4 |
| 04-03-2020 23:37 | |
| James___★★★★★ (5513) |
Into the Night wrote:James___ wrote: What is the universe expanding into? it's when we seek to define a Closed or Isolated System that we find out that it's not really closed. When the tide rises or lowers, it's influencing the atmosphere. Therefore the atmosphere can not be a Closed or Isolated System. The atmosphere can be defined as a system with boundaries that define a function. This is why we can consider Delta U = Q + W, heat + expansion. And at night it would be Delta U = Q - W. Heat - expansion. And that heat goes out into space, right? And that's the change (Delta) in the atmosphere (U or field). Attached image:  |
| 04-03-2020 23:44 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14430) |
tmiddles wrote: You are using words where the meanings are contradictory. Sorry. You lose. I still get to define my terms. Your attempts to badger me into not doing so are quite doomed to failure. Have we resolved that thermal energy only flows from warmer to colder? Have we resolved that there is no Greenhouse Effect acting as an independent energy souce, jacking up temperatures at the bottom of the atmosphere as you once amusingly implied? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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 |
| 04-03-2020 23:51 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14430) |
James___ wrote: What is the universe expanding into? Many among us presume the universe is expanding into absolutely nothing, i.e. not into a vacuum as we understand it but into nothing, which we have never had in our experience. However, there are others who believe in a "continuum" that isn't necessarily expanding. I am not an expert in that theory. In both cases, the universe is "closed" in the sense that energy is not being exchanged with anything beyond it. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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 |
| 05-03-2020 00:00 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21612) |
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 20a...4b...4d...4a...4a...4a...4a... 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 05-03-2020 00:03 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21612) |
James___ wrote:Into the Night wrote:James___ wrote: Who says the universe is expanding? How can something without boundaries expand? 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 05-03-2020 00:15 | |
| James___★★★★★ (5513) |
Into the Night wrote:James___ wrote:Into the Night wrote:James___ wrote: Read your own quote; Any system with a boundary is a closed system...even the visible universe Might be why the 1st Law of Thermodynamics shows a relationship between heat and work allowing for a change in potential. If not then it would be U = Q + or - W. That shows no change because Delta (looks like a triangle) is the amount of change. |
| 05-03-2020 01:06 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:Of course you do. I said it was a blatant attempt to be difficult. As there are THREE conditions not TWO you have left one without a word to describe it in IBDeze. You have the right to be incoherent of course.tmiddles wrote: You are using words where the meanings are contradictory. IBdaMann wrote:By your definition of "flows" sure. I never said otherwise. Oh and Grant is burried in Grant's Tomb if you ever need to know that. IBD's definition of "Flows": link IBdaMann wrote:tmiddles wrote:...Yes, the flow of thermal energy only deals with the flow of thermal energy. Other forms of energy need not apply.IBdaMann wrote:So your definition has nothing to do with whether or not radiance is absorbed and converted to thermal energy, it only deals with the tally of thermal energy at the end correct?tmiddles wrote:Flow....We will need a coherent definitionAt time T1, Body A has quantity A(th) - Delta of thermal energy and Body B has quantity B(th) + Delta of thermal energy ...we can say that Delta has flowed from A to B. The statement IBD pretends Tmiddles made: "thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer." The statement Tmiddles actually made: "Radiance from a cooler object is absorbed by a warmer one": IBD's rebuttal to that statement: IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.Anytime you're ready to debate that let me know. IBdaMann wrote:Temperatures at the bottom of the atmosphere are absolutely higher due to the Greenhouse Effect. Which is not an "energy source" or an "energy souce" no, that would be only the Sun. "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 05-03-2020 01:08 |
| 05-03-2020 02:50 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14430) |
tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote: Sorry. You lose. I still get to define my terms.Of course you do. Great. Stop being difficult. tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:By your definition of "flows" sure. I never said otherwise. Yes you did. In fact, you still want to debate it: tmiddles wrote: Anytime you're ready to debate that let me know. So, go ahead ... I'm ready to debate it. tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:Temperatures at the bottom of the atmosphere are absolutely higher due to the Greenhouse Effect. Which is not an "energy source" or an "energy souce" no, that would be only the Sun. Nope. You insist that it is a second energy source. You insist that Greenhouse Effect does the work (energy) to increase the temperature. As long as you insist the temperature increases because of Greenhouse Effect, you are insisting that Greenhouse Effect is an energy source, regardless of your attempts to say that you're not saying that. Until you can otherwise account for the additional energy that increases the temperature, you are claiming an additional invisible magickal energy source. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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 |
| 05-03-2020 03:15 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:tmiddles wrote: IBD's rebuttal to that statement:So, go ahead ... I'm ready to debate it.IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.Anytime you're ready to debate that let me know. tmiddles wrote:Did you agree with that assertion? It would seem to contradict yours. IBdaMann wrote:Try quoting me and you'll what I've actually said. IBdaMann wrote:As long as you insist the temperature increases The temperature is higher. Only the Sun causes it to increase. The greenhouse effect comes into play in how much thermal energy is present. Did you think a sponge creates water? "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 05-03-2020 03:16 |
| 05-03-2020 03:48 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21612) |
James___ wrote:Into the Night wrote:James___ wrote:Into the Night wrote:James___ wrote: Evasion. Answer the question. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 05-03-2020 03:54 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21612) |
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 16a...16b...30...25k...20b...20 (denial of quantum mechanics)...31...6...20a2...20b...33b... 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
Join the debate The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| 'Greenhouse' Effect? | 49 | 30-11-2023 06:45 |
| The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect" | 291 | 05-11-2023 22:46 |
| Nitrate Reduction - Powerful Greenhouse Gas Emission AND Alkalinity | 102 | 05-06-2023 13:19 |
| Greenhouse gases cool better and cause lower surface temperature of earth than non greenhouse gases | 3 | 10-05-2023 08:27 |
| What is the cause of climate change based on the greenhouse gas theory? | 82 | 04-02-2023 20:51 |