Remember me
▼ Content

Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?



Page 21 of 28<<<1920212223>>>
04-06-2020 01:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7517)
tmiddles wrote: The heat capacity simply allows you to calculate the thermal energy matter "has" per gram based on temperature.

... at that moment ... while thermal energy is flowing out of it.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: ...the work (energy) used to compress the air cannot somehow be destroyed into nothing, ergo we should expect it to change form and ultimately manifest as an increase in thermal energy
Also it's a bit chicken or the egg but the pressure is similar to pulling on a rubber band. A rubber band does nothing on it's own just as gravity does nothing on it's own. The thermal energy from the Sun is pushing the atmosphere out from the planet, against gravity, the way you would pull on a rubber band.

You have the basic idea ... but you are mistaken on the component parts.

* The atmosphere pushes on the surface due to the force of gravity.
* The surface pushes back on the atmosphere with exactly the same amount of contact force because of the law of every force having an equal force in the opposite direction.
* The energy of the sun causes the atmospheric temperature to increase, causing the pressure to increase, causing the atmosphere to [try to] expand *but* the force of gravity ends up serving as a grill press which ultimately, yes, causes the temperature and pressure to increase further at the bottom of the atmosphere.


.


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
04-06-2020 03:05
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(646)
Thanks IBDM I have learned something
04-06-2020 03:38
James___
★★★★★
(3294)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: The heat capacity simply allows you to calculate the thermal energy matter "has" per gram based on temperature.

... at that moment ... while thermal energy is flowing out of it.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: ...the work (energy) used to compress the air cannot somehow be destroyed into nothing, ergo we should expect it to change form and ultimately manifest as an increase in thermal energy
Also it's a bit chicken or the egg but the pressure is similar to pulling on a rubber band. A rubber band does nothing on it's own just as gravity does nothing on it's own. The thermal energy from the Sun is pushing the atmosphere out from the planet, against gravity, the way you would pull on a rubber band.

You have the basic idea ... but you are mistaken on the component parts.

* The atmosphere pushes on the surface due to the force of gravity.
* The surface pushes back on the atmosphere with exactly the same amount of contact force because of the law of every force having an equal force in the opposite direction.
* The energy of the sun causes the atmospheric temperature to increase, causing the pressure to increase, causing the atmosphere to [try to] expand *but* the force of gravity ends up serving as a grill press which ultimately, yes, causes the temperature and pressure to increase further at the bottom of the atmosphere.


.



Are you saying that your mother got hot because your father created friction? And as a result of that heat, IBDM (ie., you) was created? Your "friend" Duncan61 likes this theory.
Butt how to prove friction and heat creates a "butting" system?
You Americans. You love 2 have ur fun, don't u?
04-06-2020 09:59
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
IBdaMann wrote:
* The atmosphere pushes on the surface due to the force of gravity.
And it could do so on a planet with massive force and still have very little thermal energy.

The energy as it relates to thermal energy, even if it is transmitted through gravity, came from the sun. It's only gravity in the same way that a birthday balloon compresses the gas within it due to the force of its elastic. The input energy is the Sun as it is what is causing the atmosphere to expand against the pull of gravity, like pulling a rubber band back. Gravity is not a source of energy (as you noted) it is simply the Suns thermal energy that can be converted to gravitational energy.

IBdaMann wrote:...the sun causes the atmospheric ...pressure to increase, causing the atmosphere to [try to] expand
Yes indeed though it DOES expand successfully. Just as if I put a rubber band in my hand and flex my fingers they succeed in stretching the rubber band.

IBdaMann wrote:. *but* the force of gravity ends up serving as a grill press which ultimately, yes, causes the temperature and pressure to increase further at the bottom of the atmosphere.
Again it's simply the thermal energy of the sun converted to gravitational energy in part.

But doesn't really matter right? Basically you have the Sun's energy (the sole source of energy here) being converted to gravitational energy in part, being temporarily resident as thermal energy in the gas of the atmosphere, and the ideal gas law allows this to all get worked out. Right?

It is not "stored" in a sense that it's permanent but "built up". Like I could say rush hour traffic has a quantity of cars. Not always the same cars though it may be a consistent quantity.
04-06-2020 15:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7517)
tmiddles wrote:Gravity is not a source of energy (as you noted) it is simply the Suns thermal energy that can be converted to gravitational energy.

No. Only mass and distance are factors in gravity, not thermal energy.

tmiddles wrote: Yes indeed though it DOES expand successfully.

... but not nearly as successfully as if there were no force of gravity. Grill press.

tmiddles wrote:Just as if I put a rubber band in my hand and flex my fingers they succeed in stretching the rubber band.

Your analogy works better in discussing electrical potential.

tmiddles wrote: Again it's simply the thermal energy of the sun converted to gravitational energy in part.

Nope. Not at all.

Gravity is not considered in the Ideal Gas Law. Pressure, however, is. If gravity is the reason for the increase in pressure then gravity is a factor only in that specific situation and only insofar as it affects pressure.

tmiddles wrote: It is not "stored" in a sense that it's permanent but "built up". Like I could say rush hour traffic has a quantity of cars. Not always the same cars though it may be a consistent quantity.
.
If there are eight of us in a room with the door open, then the room has eight occupants. The eight occupants are not "trapped" in any way, nor are we "stored" or even "contained." We are free to leave. If the fire alarm sounds and we must leave, sure there is a rate at which we can leave, given that only one person can walk through the doorway at a time. Any wording, however, implying storage, containment, capture, etc ... is inappropriate and misleading. The room cannot perform any of those verbs, i.e. store, contain, capture. It can at most "have" in the sense of indicating a relationship to the certain quantity of people.


.


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
04-06-2020 23:15
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
IBdaMann wrote: The room cannot perform any of those verbs, i.e. store, contain, capture.
Spaghetti strainer and water works (rooms have doors that can lock so not the best analogy).

So we don't have any fundamental matter of disagreement at this point right?

The suns radiance is converted to thermal energy and some of that energy is absorbed by the gas of our atmosphere. A gas with more thermal energy will expand more, and this is resisted by gravity. The mass of the atmosphere is pressed by gravity against the solid and liquid ground level of Earth compressing it and creating a pressure gradient:


Close enough?
05-06-2020 03:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13505)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: The room cannot perform any of those verbs, i.e. store, contain, capture.
Spaghetti strainer and water works (rooms have doors that can lock so not the best analogy).

So we don't have any fundamental matter of disagreement at this point right?

The suns radiance is converted to thermal energy and some of that energy is absorbed by the gas of our atmosphere. A gas with more thermal energy will expand more, and this is resisted by gravity. The mass of the atmosphere is pressed by gravity against the solid and liquid ground level of Earth compressing it and creating a pressure gradient:


Close enough?


No. Hot air rises. There is convection in the atmosphere because it is a fluid.


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
05-06-2020 14:37
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
Into the Night wrote:
No. Hot air rises. There is convection in the atmosphere because it is a fluid.
"No" to what exactly? I don't see what you view as a contradiction with what you've said, which sounds right to me.
05-06-2020 19:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13505)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No. Hot air rises. There is convection in the atmosphere because it is a fluid.
"No" to what exactly? I don't see what you view as a contradiction with what you've said, which sounds right to me.

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
05-06-2020 21:12
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:"No" to what exactly?

RQAA
You just said "No" to a paragraph with several points. I asked you exactly once to clarify it. You have now refused to answer.

OK

I can't make you participate
05-06-2020 21:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13505)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:"No" to what exactly?

RQAA
You just said "No" to a paragraph with several points. I asked you exactly once to clarify it. You have now refused to answer.

OK

I can't make you participate

I won't participate in you asking the same questions that have already been answered over and over and over and over and over.

RQAA.

You are not participating in any discussion. You are simply being inane.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 05-06-2020 21:21
05-06-2020 21:35
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
Into the Night wrote:...you asking the same questions...


ITN I just tried to sum up where IBD and I were at to see if I was missing something in where we do/don't disagree and you simply said "No" and I can't see what in my description triggered that. It is the first time ever I asked that question about that comment.

Since I completely understand what you wrote after you said "No" to be accurate I can't imagine we ever disagreed about it in the past.

Is it this chart you object to?:

Edited on 05-06-2020 21:37
05-06-2020 21:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13505)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:...you asking the same questions...


ITN I just tried to sum up where IBD and I were at to see if I was missing something in where we do/don't disagree and you simply said "No" and I can't see what in my description triggered that. It is the first time ever I asked that question about that comment.

Since I completely understand what you wrote after you said "No" to be accurate I can't imagine we ever disagreed about it in the past.

Is it this chart you object to?:

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
06-06-2020 02:35
James___
★★★★★
(3294)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:...you asking the same questions...


ITN I just tried to sum up where IBD and I were at to see if I was missing something in where we do/don't disagree and you simply said "No" and I can't see what in my description triggered that. It is the first time ever I asked that question about that comment.

Since I completely understand what you wrote after you said "No" to be accurate I can't imagine we ever disagreed about it in the past.

Is it this chart you object to?:



This only applies to the Earth's gravity. It's the only planet whose gravitational field has been extensively studied.
06-06-2020 05:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7517)
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote: The room cannot perform any of those verbs, i.e. store, contain, capture.
Spaghetti strainer and water works (rooms have doors that can lock so not the best analogy).
OK, spaghetti strainer it is. Thermal energy pours out freely and there is nothing any matter can do to stop it, restrict it, contain it, keep it in, etc..

tmiddles wrote: The suns radiance is converted to thermal energy and some of that energy is absorbed by the gas of our atmosphere.

Let's avoid unnecessary wording issues. We say that electromagnetic energy is "absorbed", not thermal energy. We say thermal energy "flows" from one body to another. When we say "absorbed" in relation to electromagnetic energy, we are speaking colloquially because we have no experience about what happens exactly in the quantum world.

Ergo ... the sun's radiance is converted to thermal energy, yes, which flows around via conduction, convection and thermal radiation. It flows, baby, it flows. Yes, into the atmosphere, around the atmosphere, ... it finds its way into virtually all the matter from the bottom of the atmosphere up.

Does this wording work for you?


tmiddles wrote: A gas with more thermal energy will expand more, and this is resisted by gravity.

Adding thermal energy to a gas will increase its temperature which will increase its pressure which will cause it to expand if it can. If it cannot expand because it is contained within a fixed volume then we stop at the pressure simply increasing. Where we have a planetary situation similar to that of the earth, the bottom of the atmosphere, increasing in temperature (and thus pressure) in the daytime sun, tries to expand but it bears the full weight of the rest of the atmosphere above it. Yes, it expands some, but the rest of the atmosphere above serves as a grill press, preventing the full expansion of the atmosphere as warranted by the increase in temperature.

Oh, I wanted to clear up a technicality for the record. I said previously that the sun's energy does not affect earth's gravity. The truth is that it does not affect earth's gravity in any substantive way, however the extent that it does is not zero.

Whenever the sun radiates energy, it loses mass. How much mass?

mass lost = Energy / c^2

If you do the math you will find that it isn't very much at all. In fact, you would do well to treat it as zero. Nonetheless. the earth has a certain amount of thermal energy that it would not have had it not been in a thermal equilibrium of solar energy, and so that additional mass is equal to Thermal Energy / c^2

Add that additional mass to the earth's mass and you can calculate the neglible but non-zero gravity added to the earth by the sun's energy.

Oh, I apologize for my delay in getting back to you. I was stuck in a planet. I didn't want to try to give you some LAME excuse.
.
Attached image:


Edited on 06-06-2020 05:53
07-06-2020 12:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
IBdaMann wrote:
... the sun's radiance is converted to thermal energy, yes, which flows around via conduction, convection and thermal radiation. ... it finds its way into virtually all the matter from the bottom of the atmosphere up.

OK great. So I had first asked about Fourier's "Greenhouse Effect" here: link
tmiddles wrote:...gases act as a thermal blanket, causing more heat to be retained in the atmosphere....this happens on any planet with an atmosphere. A planet with an atmosphere is kept warmer by it. No atmosphere = colder planet. Everyone knows first hand air can be hot.
IBD you and ITN said:
IBdaMann wrote:
Let's review your post:......Violations of science ... no scientists believe in violations of physics. Only Climate Scientists preach violations of physics as being true
Into the Night wrote:
* You cannot create energy out of nothing.

So as Fourier, and I, simply noted that the gas atmosphere of a planet has thermal energy resulting in a higher temperature (where we are standing) how is that a violation of science and where does the objection that the 1st LTD is violated come from? (that being "You cannot create energy out of nothing.")

Certainly gravity is not a source of energy so it cannot solve a problem with energy being created out of nothing.

My answer to this as stated earlier is that the 1st LTD objection is nonsense since Earth is not an isolated system but has energy flowing into and out of it constantly.
07-06-2020 12:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13505)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
... the sun's radiance is converted to thermal energy, yes, which flows around via conduction, convection and thermal radiation. ... it finds its way into virtually all the matter from the bottom of the atmosphere up.

OK great. So I had first asked about Fourier's "Greenhouse Effect" here:
...deleted Holy Link...

Mantras 20a1...22g...
Into the Night wrote:
* You cannot create energy out of nothing.

So as Fourier, and I, simply noted that the gas atmosphere of a planet has thermal energy resulting in a higher temperature (where we are standing) how is that a violation of science and where does the objection that the 1st LTD is violated come from? (that being "You cannot create energy out of nothing.")[/quote]
[/quote]
Mantras 25l...20a1...10e2...20e3...20h...20i...20n...4c...
tmiddles wrote:
Certainly gravity is not a source of energy so it cannot solve a problem with energy being created out of nothing.

Mantras 25k...10 (force<->energy)...29...
tmiddles wrote:
My answer to this as stated earlier is that the 1st LTD objection is nonsense since Earth is not an isolated system but has energy flowing into and out of it constantly.

Mantras 20a1...20i...29...39d...39o...


No argument presented. Math error. Denial of science. Conflation of thermodynamic systems. Declaring a closed system as open. 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
07-06-2020 13:10
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
Into the Night wrote:
Declaring a closed system as open.
The Earth is without question not an isolated system as the radiance of the Sun comes in. The Earth and Sun combined aren't even an isolated system as the radiance is flowing out into space from them both.
08-06-2020 01:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7517)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Declaring a closed system as open.
The Earth is without question not an isolated system as the radiance of the Sun comes in. The Earth and Sun combined aren't even an isolated system as the radiance is flowing out into space from them both.


You don't get it.

The earth, the sun and the surrounding space form a closed system. Stating that one component of the closed system, i.e. the earth, is itself not a closed system, is meaningless gibberish.

It is an error, however, to treat the closed system of the sun, earth and surrounding space as though it were an open system, even if your rationale is the claim that the earth is itself not a closed system.

.


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

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

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-06-2020 03:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13505)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Declaring a closed system as open.
The Earth is without question not an isolated system as the radiance of the Sun comes in. The Earth and Sun combined aren't even an isolated system as the radiance is flowing out into space from them both.


The Sun-Earth-space system is a closed system.
Earth by itself is another closed system.
The observable Universe is another closed system.

They are not the same system. They can all be isolated. You cannot consider any energy source or sink outside a system. You cannot compare two different systems as if they were the same system.

Mantras 20h...20i.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
08-06-2020 04:02
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
IBdaMann wrote:
The earth, the sun and the surrounding space form a closed system.
What do you mean by "the surrounding space" ? You mean all of space, stars, ect.? If so that would simply mean you are calling the entire universe a "closed system".

To recap on our conflicting terminology, I follow the terminology below:
A System and Its Surroundings link
An open system is a system that freely exchanges energy and matter with its surroundings.
A closed system is a system that exchanges only energy with its surroundings, not matter.
An isolated system does not exchange energy or matter with its surroundings.

I believe you, ITN and various others simply call an isolated system "closed", and lump open and closed systems, as defined above, into "open system".

I think it doesn't really require pointing out that looking at the Earth, Sun and Moon as one system there is a small quantity of radiance coming in from other planets and the universe but that most of the radiance is lost to the universe as a whole. There is no zero sum equation following the 1st LTD of energy not be created or destroyed within the system because it is not isolated.

Into the Night wrote:
The Sun-Earth-space system is a closed system.
Earth by itself is another closed system.
The observable Universe is another closed system.
Very unclear how you define "closed system" ITN. I'm asking even though I'm sure you'll say RQAA. But I'm asking.
Edited on 08-06-2020 04:04
08-06-2020 14:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7517)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
The earth, the sun and the surrounding space form a closed system.
What do you mean by "the surrounding space" ?

Stupid question.

Go read up on early work in thermodynamics and realize that the surrounding space is the heat reservoir for the closed system that is the sun, earth and the surrounding space.


.


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

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

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-06-2020 20:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13505)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
The earth, the sun and the surrounding space form a closed system.
What do you mean by "the surrounding space" ? You mean all of space, stars, ect.? If so that would simply mean you are calling the entire universe a "closed system".

The entire observable Universe is a closed system. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
I believe you, ITN and various others simply call an isolated system "closed", and lump open and closed systems, as defined above, into "open system".

WRONG. A closed system is simply one that has it's boundaries closed. You choose the system. No energy source from outside that system can be considered. No energy sink from outside that system can be considered. The very moment you start considering them, you are talking about a different system.

You cannot compare two different systems as if they were the same system.

If you define Earth as the system, you cannot consider the Sun or the space around it. You can only consider Earth itself. The system is closed.

If you define the Sun-Earth-space combination as the system, you cannot consider any stars or anything beyond our solar system. The system is closed.

If you consider the observable Universe as the system, you cannot consider any energy source or sink from outside what we can observe. The system is closed.

You cannot compare the Earth itself as the system, to the Earth-Sun-space combination as if they were the same system. This is what you keep doing.

tmiddles wrote:
I think it doesn't really require pointing out that looking at the Earth, Sun and Moon as one system there is a small quantity of radiance coming in from other planets and the universe but that most of the radiance is lost to the universe as a whole. There is no zero sum equation following the 1st LTD of energy not be created or destroyed within the system because it is not isolated.

You cannot consider the observable Universe as an energy sink. It is outside the Earth-Sun-space system (the space within the solar system). It is isolated.

The 1st law of thermodynamics holds true. No energy is being created or destroyed in any system.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics holds true. No entropy is decreasing in any system.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law holds true. Radiance emitted by way of thermal energy is still proportional to temperature^4.

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The Sun-Earth-space system is a closed system.
Earth by itself is another closed system.
The observable Universe is another closed system.
Very unclear how you define "closed system" ITN. I'm asking even though I'm sure you'll say RQAA. But I'm asking.

I have already answered this question at least a dozen times for you. 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
09-06-2020 07:56
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
Into the Night wrote:A closed system is simply one that has it's boundaries closed. You choose the system. No energy sink from outside that system can be considered....You cannot consider the observable Universe as an energy sink. It is outside the Earth-Sun-space system
Any Planet+Sun system has the surrounding universe as the energy sink where most of the energy goes. How can you not consider that? You're saying "you can't" but it is the primary energy sink.

And that is your VERY weird definition of "closed system" as an observers focus I guess? I'll keep that in mind when I read your posts but it is not a definition used elsewhere and as pointed out above makes no sense.

Into the Night wrote:You cannot compare the Earth itself as the system, to the Earth-Sun-space combination as if they were the same system. This is what you keep doing.
Not sure what you mean. An example would help.

Into the Night wrote:No energy is ...destroyed in any system.
Yet if you're not considering the energy sink where most of the energy goes, the surrounding universe for the Earth, then energy is disappearing from the system.

I understand the 1st LTD as a zero sum equation, as with balancing a chemistry reaction, in that everything is accounted for. The 1st LTD helps us to catch errors and make discoveries because we can see where something was not accounted for. So what you've said above makes little sense to me at this point.
09-06-2020 07:59
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
IBdaMann wrote:...the surrounding space is the heat reservoir...
Yes it's a heat sink and you meant the rest of the universe.

Shall we move forward?
09-06-2020 08:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7517)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...the surrounding space is the heat reservoir...
Yes it's a heat sink and you meant the rest of the universe.
Shall we move forward?

I don't know. Do we have this issue resolved or will I be wating my time spinning my wheels under the false sense that we are moving forward?

The sun, earth and surrounding space are a closed system, yes?

(by the way, what point are we supposedly moving towards?)



.


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

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

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-06-2020 10:08
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
IBdaMann wrote:
The sun, earth and surrounding space are a closed system, yes?
Yes, as you've defined it that is accurate indeed.

IBdaMann wrote:
(by the way, what point are we supposedly moving towards?)
If Fourier's "Greenhouse effect" violates the 1st LTD.
Edited on 09-06-2020 10:32
09-06-2020 10:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13505)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:A closed system is simply one that has it's boundaries closed. You choose the system. No energy sink from outside that system can be considered....You cannot consider the observable Universe as an energy sink. It is outside the Earth-Sun-space system
Any Planet+Sun system has the surrounding universe as the energy sink where most of the energy goes. How can you not consider that? You're saying "you can't" but it is the primary energy sink.

You can't compare two systems as if they are the same system. If you are considering only the Earth as the system, you cannot consider any energy source or sink outside that system.
tmiddles wrote:
And that is your VERY weird definition of "closed system" as an observers focus I guess? I'll keep that in mind when I read your posts but it is not a definition used elsewhere and as pointed out above makes no sense.

Again, you show your complete illiteracy in thermodynamics.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:You cannot compare the Earth itself as the system, to the Earth-Sun-space combination as if they were the same system. This is what you keep doing.
Not sure what you mean. An example would help.

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:No energy is ...destroyed in any system.
Yet if you're not considering the energy sink where most of the energy goes, the surrounding universe for the Earth, then energy is disappearing from the system.

Nope. You cannot consider any energy sink outside the Earth as a system.
tmiddles wrote:
I understand the 1st LTD as a zero sum equation,

No it is not. It is e(t+1)=e(t)+w.
tmiddles wrote:
as with balancing a chemistry reaction, in that everything is accounted for.

It is not limited to chemistry.
tmiddles wrote:
The 1st LTD helps us to catch errors and make discoveries because we can see where something was not accounted for.

It is not used to account for anything.
tmiddles wrote:
So what you've said above makes little sense to me at this point.

Because you deny science and mathematics.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-06-2020 10:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13505)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...the surrounding space is the heat reservoir...
Yes it's a heat sink and you meant the rest of the universe.

Shall we move forward?

Not necessary to consider the entire observable Universe. The space around the Earth is sufficient.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-06-2020 10:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13505)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
The sun, earth and surrounding space are a closed system, yes?
Yes, as you've defined it that is accurate indeed.

IBdaMann wrote:
(by the way, what point are we supposedly moving towards?)
If Fourier's "Greenhouse effect" violates the 1st LTD.


It does. 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
09-06-2020 11:30
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
Into the Night wrote:
Not necessary to consider the entire observable Universe. The space around the Earth is sufficient.
And I think we all agree that the space around the system (Earth + Sun) is a thermal energy sink and that's all we need to say about it right? Or we can go with the system of just Earth, in which case the "space around" Earth would include incoming radiance (from the Sun) and also be an energy sink. Or we could look at our real subject, the bottom 2 meters of the atmosphere, in which case the "surrounding space" is everything else.
09-06-2020 11:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13505)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Not necessary to consider the entire observable Universe. The space around the Earth is sufficient.
And I think we all agree that the space around the system (Earth + Sun) is a thermal energy sink and that's all we need to say about it right? Or we can go with the system of just Earth, in which case the "space around" Earth would include incoming radiance (from the Sun) and also be an energy sink. Or we could look at our real subject, the bottom 2 meters of the atmosphere, in which case the "surrounding space" is everything else.


You cannot consider two different system as if they are the same system. Mantra 20h.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-06-2020 13:03
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
Into the Night wrote:
You cannot consider two different system as if they are the same system. Mantra 20h.
that was 3 options. I didn't say they were the same.
09-06-2020 13:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13505)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You cannot consider two different system as if they are the same system. Mantra 20h.
that was 3 options. I didn't say they were the same.

Yes you did, liar.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-06-2020 16:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7517)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
The sun, earth and surrounding space are a closed system, yes?
Yes, as you've defined it that is accurate indeed.

IBdaMann wrote:
(by the way, what point are we supposedly moving towards?)
If Fourier's "Greenhouse effect" violates the 1st LTD.


Please post here in this thread Fourier's greenhouse effect equation.

.


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

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

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-06-2020 16:57
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1242)
I WANNA SEE!!!! I WANNA SEE!!!!! I second the notion for Fourier's greenhouse effect equation...

My interest is now sparked.
10-06-2020 04:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7517)
gfm7175 wrote:
I WANNA SEE!!!! I WANNA SEE!!!!! I second the notion for Fourier's greenhouse effect equation...

My interest is now sparked.


Until then, some gfm7175 wisdom:
.
Attached image:

10-06-2020 05:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7517)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You cannot consider two different system as if they are the same system. Mantra 20h.
that was 3 options. I didn't say they were the same.

Yes you did, liar.


Sorry, off topic ... but you aren't going anywhere with tmiddles anyway ...

Congratulations on getting kicked out of Muna's newly created kiddie pool. Well done! I won't be participating in what is clearly a snowflake safe-space intended to curtail free speech.

Your account is being credited as we speak (write).
.
Attached image:

10-06-2020 14:55
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You cannot consider two different system as if they are the same system. Mantra 20h.
that was 3 options. I didn't say they were the same.
Yes you did, liar.
I'm sorry you misunderstood me.

I'm telling you now that they are 3 options. Three unique systems as they have different contents in each system.

IBdaMann wrote:Please post here in this thread Fourier's greenhouse effect equation.
So this is an old discussion of course. That's why I wanted to understand it now link:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:

1827 Fourier indicated...gases act as a thermal blanket, causing more heat to be retained in the atmosphere. (source)...Disagree?
Let's review your post:...3) Violations of science ... and claiming that it's the argument of a famous dead mathematician.
Is there a "greenhouse equation" from Fourier? You had enough to claim there was a violation of science so let's start there.
10-06-2020 17:04
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1242)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
I WANNA SEE!!!! I WANNA SEE!!!!! I second the notion for Fourier's greenhouse effect equation...

My interest is now sparked.


Until then, some gfm7175 wisdom:
.

Wise words indeed!
Page 21 of 28<<<1920212223>>>





Join the debate Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Why can't you say Venus is hotter than Mercury because Venus got CO2?12919-12-2019 17:10
I don't believe CO2 makes air hotter because I don't see any experimental proof509-10-2019 03:15
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus8826-09-2019 05:49
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus and Mercury418-09-2019 22:37
There is no evidence water vapor makes things hotter018-09-2019 21:34
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact