Remember me
▼ Content

Why the greenhouse effect does not violate the first law of thermodynamics



Page 4 of 9<<<23456>>>
14-01-2016 18:06
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1077)
IBdaMann wrote:
So let's revisit "greenhouse effect." What causes the increase in temperature?


.


Because of reflection. More CO2 means less radiation to space, more radiation to Earth. Less CO2 means more radiation to space, less radiation to Earth. It is a redistribution of radiation. It's like, a darker thing absorbs more and reflects less, a lighter thing absorbs less and reflects more. The total energy in the Earth space system does not change, only distribution of to Earth and to space changes.
14-01-2016 20:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
Tai Hai Chen wrote: Because of reflection. More CO2 means less radiation to space,

No, that is not what it means. Radiation is based on temperature. A decrease in radiation to space signifies a decrease in earth's temperature.

Remember, temperature is the cause and radiance is the effect. Don't get those two confused.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-01-2016 20:49
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1077)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote: Because of reflection. More CO2 means less radiation to space,

No, that is not what it means. Radiation is based on temperature. A decrease in radiation to space signifies a decrease in earth's temperature.

Remember, temperature is the cause and radiance is the effect. Don't get those two confused.


.


That makes sense. It seems the greenhouse effect theory could be wrong. I wonder what distinguished scientists like William Happer, Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Tim Ball, John Christy think about this. Perhaps you can get in touch them and let them know your viewpoint.
Edited on 14-01-2016 20:54
14-01-2016 21:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote: Because of reflection. More CO2 means less radiation to space,

No, that is not what it means. Radiation is based on temperature. A decrease in radiation to space signifies a decrease in earth's temperature.

Remember, temperature is the cause and radiance is the effect. Don't get those two confused.


.


That makes sense. It seems the greenhouse effect theory could be wrong. I wonder what distinguished scientists like William Happer, Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Tim Ball, John Christy think about this. Perhaps you can get in touch them and let them know your viewpoint.

He doesn't need to. They have each published their viewpoint. You can look that stuff up yourself.


The Parrot Killer
14-01-2016 21:58
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)



14-01-2016 22:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote: Because of reflection. More CO2 means less radiation to space,

No, that is not what it means. Radiation is based on temperature. A decrease in radiation to space signifies a decrease in earth's temperature.

Remember, temperature is the cause and radiance is the effect. Don't get those two confused.


.


That makes sense. It seems the greenhouse effect theory could be wrong. I wonder what distinguished scientists like William Happer, Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Tim Ball, John Christy think about this. Perhaps you can get in touch them and let them know your viewpoint.

Yes, "greenhouse effect" is a violation of physics. It supposes the creation of thermal energy in violation of the 1st LoT.

Those scientists are not distinguished. They sold their credibility for political status.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-01-2016 01:31
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Surface Detail wrote:
Excellent! So now we're all agreed the emission of electromagnetic radiation from a material may indeed depend on factors other than its temperature, i.e. factors that lie outside the scope of Planck's Law.

Contrary to reality, IB and ITN believe that every material emits and absorbs electromagnetic radiation exactly like Planck's theoretical ideal blackbody, even though they have reluctantly admitted that an ideal blackbody doesn't exist in reality.

Jaw dropping stuff.




Edited on 16-01-2016 01:35
16-01-2016 01:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
Ceist wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Excellent! So now we're all agreed the emission of electromagnetic radiation from a material may indeed depend on factors other than its temperature, i.e. factors that lie outside the scope of Planck's Law.

Contrary to reality, IB and ITN believe that every material emits and absorbs electromagnetic radiation exactly like Planck's theoretical ideal blackbody, even though they have reluctantly admitted that an ideal blackbody doesn't exist in reality.

Jaw dropping stuff.


Concerning emission:

Nothing reluctant about it. The only blackbody is a theoretical one. You must achieve absolute zero to have one. That is not possible.

To say that Planck's law only applies to a true blackbody is to say that Planck's law doesn't apply anywhere except at absolute zero, where the law specifically could NOT apply with any sense, since there is no such thing as a frequency of light that is zero cycles per second.

This effectively is saying the Planck's law doesn't apply anywhere...ever. It would be saying that Planck was out and out wrong.

Jaw dropping stuff, as you said.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 16-01-2016 01:46
16-01-2016 01:56
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Planck wasn't wrong. ITN and IbDaMann are.

Planck was a clever man. ITN and IBdaMann are stupid men.

"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." - Bertrand Russell.



Edited on 16-01-2016 01:56
16-01-2016 02:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
Ceist wrote:
Planck wasn't wrong. ITN and IbDaMann are.

You failed to say how. You just make the claim itself. This amounts to nothing more than an ad hominem.
Ceist wrote:
Planck was a clever man.

Agreed. It is too bad he seems to be beyond your reckoning.
Ceist wrote:
ITN and IBdaMann are stupid men.

Definitely just another ad hominem.
Ceist wrote:
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." - Bertrand Russell.

Tu quoque.

Considering that your only response to anything is to call people names, make vague references to people and their theories you know nothing about, discard anything said to you out of hand simply because of who said it, and any other of a number of fallacies, you have contributed nothing of value for quite some time.

Yours is a religion of hate. All you know is denigration, insults, and hatred. It stems from your religion of Global Warming. It is the reason this viewpoint will ultimately fail.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 16-01-2016 02:39
16-01-2016 02:45
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
ITN and IBdaMann desperately need to pretend that ALL objects/materials in nature emit/absorb electromagnetic radiation as per Planck's Law so they can then claim that the temperature of object/material temperature has nothing to do with its composition/structure etc. But that is only true for a theoretical ideal blackbody (as described by Planck's Law). Which doesn't exist in nature. Max Planck knew his equation is only true for a theoretical ideal blackbody.

Real objects/materials are not ideal black bodies.

The emissivity of an object/material is a measure of the objects/materials ability to absorb and radiate energy- which is also dependent on its composition/structure etc.

Emissivity is the ratio of the energy emitted by an object/material compared to the energy emitted by a theoretical ideal black body (using Planck's Law) at the same temperature. Emissivity of a theoretical ideal blackbody is 1. Emissivity of real objects/materials is less than 1 (dependent on the structure/composition etc).

Just look at any of the graphs presented in this thread showing the smooth theoretical blackbody radiation curves versus the absorption/emission lines of real objects/materials with 'notches' and 'spikes'.

IbDaMann wanted to 'remove' the blackbody radiation curves (he called them graph indicators
) from the graph Surface Detail presented because he thought they were 'not needed'. ITN claimed the 'notches' were 'irrelevant'.


That's how jaw-droppingly stupid they are. As thick as two short Plancks.

Max Planck would be rolling in his grave if he could see them misrepresenting his work due to their ideologically/religiously induced blindness and stupidity.



Edited on 16-01-2016 03:06
16-01-2016 03:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
Ceist wrote:
ITN and IBdaMann desperately need to pretend that ALL objects/materials in nature emit/absorb electromagnetic radiation as per Planck's Law so they can then claim that the temperature of object/material temperature has nothing to do with its composition/structure etc. But that is only true for a theoretical ideal blackbody (as described by Planck's Law). Which doesn't exist in nature. Max Planck knew his equation is only true for a theoretical ideal blackbody.

Real objects/materials are not ideal black bodies.

The emissivity of an object/material is a measure of the objects/materials ability to absorb and radiate energy- which is also dependent on its composition/structure etc.

Emissivity is the ratio of the energy emitted by an object/material compared to the energy emitted by a theoretical ideal black body (using Planck's Law) at the same temperature. Emissivity of a theoretical ideal blackbody is 1. Emissivity of real objects/materials is less than 1 (dependent on the structure/composition etc).

Just look at any of the graphs presented in this thread showing the smooth theoretical blackbody radiation curves versus the absorption/emission lines of real objects/materials with 'notches' and 'spikes'.

IbDaMann wanted to 'remove' the blackbody radiation curves from the graph Surface Detail presented because he thought they were 'not needed'. ITN claimed the 'notches' were 'irrelevant'.


That's how jaw-droppingly stupid they are. As thick as two short Plancks.

Max Planck would be rolling in his grave if he could see them misrepresenting his work due to their ideologically/religiously induced blindness and stupidity.


An ideal black body has zero temperature. It is at absolute zero. If it is emitting anything, it is not an ideal black body.

Considering that you can't get this simple concept through your head, you seem to be hopelessly lost.


The Parrot Killer
16-01-2016 03:09
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Reposting Surface Details early post:

Surface Detail wrote:As I've explained on multiple occasions, the Earth's atmosphere does indeed not radiate per Planck's Law. The Earth's IR emission spectrum as measured from outside the atmosphere looks like this:



Edit: Source - http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html

See the big chunks missing from the Planck distribution? That's where greenhouse gases have absorbed the outgoing radiation.

The methane leak is relevant because if what you said were true, the methane plume would appear the same as the atmosphere around it, i.e. transparent.

Note the smooth theoretical blackbody radiation curves derived using Planck's Law being used as a reference.



Edited on 16-01-2016 04:08
16-01-2016 03:11
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: The emission at 656nm will stay exactly where it is regardless of the temperature of the hydrogen. As will the other lines. Their wavelengths are dictated by the difference in the energy states of a hydrogen atom, not its temperature. Just the intensity of the lines changes with temperature.


Yes, my bad, ignore what I wrote at the end of the previous post. I was conflating two different things. The radiance is what I want to get at.

We agree that as temperature increases, rate of emission increases. There is no other way to modify/change/alter the rate of emission besides changing the temperature.

Ergo, if the rate of emission decreases, we know that the temperature has decreased.
Ergo, if the rate of emission increases, we know that the temperature has increased.

So let's revisit "greenhouse effect." What causes the increase in temperature?

Imagine first that the Earth's atmosphere consists of just N2 and O2. These molecules have no vibrational energy transitions corresponding to IR wavelengths and so do not interact with IR radiation. They are transparent to IR radiation. This means that all the IR radiation emitted by the Earth (to balance the incoming radiation from the sun) goes straight out into space.

Now add greenhouse gases (H2O, CO2, etc.). These molecules have vibrational modes corresponding to IR radiation, and so are able to absorb and emit IR radiation. IR radiation from the Earth is absorbed by these molecules, this energy is then transferred via collisions to the other atmospheric gases thus warming the lower part of the atmosphere. Other CO2 molecules are excited into vibrational modes by collisions and then radiate this energy away as IR radiation, some of which ends up back on Earth.

Hence the net effect of the greenhouse gas molecules is to absorb some of the outgoing IR radiation, warming the atmosphere, and to re-radiate some IR back to Earth, thus warming the Earth. The Earth and lower atmosphere then continue to warm and so output increasing quantities of IR radiation until the total amount of radiation emitted into space again balances that arriving from the sun.
16-01-2016 03:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
Ceist wrote:
Reposting Surface Details early post:

Surface Detail wrote:As I've explained on multiple occasions, the Earth's atmosphere does indeed not radiate per Planck's Law. The Earth's IR emission spectrum as measured from outside the atmosphere looks like this:



Edit: Source - http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html

See the big chunks missing from the Planck distribution? That's where greenhouse gases have absorbed the outgoing radiation.

The methane leak is relevant because if what you said were true, the methane plume would appear the same as the atmosphere around it, i.e. transparent.


Reposting first rebuttal: If the light you are looking at appears green because you are looking at it through a green filter, must the light itself be green?


The Parrot Killer
16-01-2016 03:13
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Ceist wrote:
Reposting Surface Details early post:

Thanks - that's useful!
Edited on 16-01-2016 03:13
16-01-2016 03:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: The emission at 656nm will stay exactly where it is regardless of the temperature of the hydrogen. As will the other lines. Their wavelengths are dictated by the difference in the energy states of a hydrogen atom, not its temperature. Just the intensity of the lines changes with temperature.


Yes, my bad, ignore what I wrote at the end of the previous post. I was conflating two different things. The radiance is what I want to get at.

We agree that as temperature increases, rate of emission increases. There is no other way to modify/change/alter the rate of emission besides changing the temperature.

Ergo, if the rate of emission decreases, we know that the temperature has decreased.
Ergo, if the rate of emission increases, we know that the temperature has increased.

So let's revisit "greenhouse effect." What causes the increase in temperature?

Imagine first that the Earth's atmosphere consists of just N2 and O2. These molecules have no vibrational energy transitions corresponding to IR wavelengths and so do not interact with IR radiation. They are transparent to IR radiation. This means that all the IR radiation emitted by the Earth (to balance the incoming radiation from the sun) goes straight out into space.

Now add greenhouse gases (H2O, CO2, etc.). These molecules have vibrational modes corresponding to IR radiation, and so are able to absorb and emit IR radiation. IR radiation from the Earth is absorbed by these molecules, this energy is then transferred via collisions to the other atmospheric gases thus warming the lower part of the atmosphere. Other CO2 molecules are excited into vibrational modes by collisions and then radiate this energy away as IR radiation, some of which ends up back on Earth.

Hence the net effect of the greenhouse gas molecules is to absorb some of the outgoing IR radiation, warming the atmosphere, and to re-radiate some IR back to Earth, thus warming the Earth. The Earth and lower atmosphere then continue to warm and so output increasing quantities of IR radiation until the total amount of radiation emitted into space again balances that arriving from the sun.


Step 1: Warm the Earth
Step 2: Radiate IR away from the Earth due to it's temperature.
Step 3: Absorb the IR in a magick gas.
Step 4: Re-radiate said energy back to Earth.
Step 5: The Earth Warms.
Step 6: Goto step 1 until Earth is destroyed.


The Parrot Killer
16-01-2016 03:16
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Concerning emission:

Nothing reluctant about it. The only blackbody is a theoretical one. You must achieve absolute zero to have one. That is not possible.

To say that Planck's law only applies to a true blackbody is to say that Planck's law doesn't apply anywhere except at absolute zero, where the law specifically could NOT apply with any sense, since there is no such thing as a frequency of light that is zero cycles per second.

This effectively is saying the Planck's law doesn't apply anywhere...ever. It would be saying that Planck was out and out wrong.

Jaw dropping stuff, as you said.

Go back and read Kirchhoff's definition of a blackbody as used by Planck. A blackbody is an object that is a perfect absorber and emitter. It's not necessarily black!
16-01-2016 03:19
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: The emission at 656nm will stay exactly where it is regardless of the temperature of the hydrogen. As will the other lines. Their wavelengths are dictated by the difference in the energy states of a hydrogen atom, not its temperature. Just the intensity of the lines changes with temperature.


Yes, my bad, ignore what I wrote at the end of the previous post. I was conflating two different things. The radiance is what I want to get at.

We agree that as temperature increases, rate of emission increases. There is no other way to modify/change/alter the rate of emission besides changing the temperature.

Ergo, if the rate of emission decreases, we know that the temperature has decreased.
Ergo, if the rate of emission increases, we know that the temperature has increased.

So let's revisit "greenhouse effect." What causes the increase in temperature?

Imagine first that the Earth's atmosphere consists of just N2 and O2. These molecules have no vibrational energy transitions corresponding to IR wavelengths and so do not interact with IR radiation. They are transparent to IR radiation. This means that all the IR radiation emitted by the Earth (to balance the incoming radiation from the sun) goes straight out into space.

Now add greenhouse gases (H2O, CO2, etc.). These molecules have vibrational modes corresponding to IR radiation, and so are able to absorb and emit IR radiation. IR radiation from the Earth is absorbed by these molecules, this energy is then transferred via collisions to the other atmospheric gases thus warming the lower part of the atmosphere. Other CO2 molecules are excited into vibrational modes by collisions and then radiate this energy away as IR radiation, some of which ends up back on Earth.

Hence the net effect of the greenhouse gas molecules is to absorb some of the outgoing IR radiation, warming the atmosphere, and to re-radiate some IR back to Earth, thus warming the Earth. The Earth and lower atmosphere then continue to warm and so output increasing quantities of IR radiation until the total amount of radiation emitted into space again balances that arriving from the sun.


Step 1: Warm the Earth
Step 2: Radiate IR away from the Earth due to it's temperature.
Step 3: Absorb the IR in a magick gas.
Step 4: Re-radiate said energy back to Earth.
Step 5: The Earth Warms.
Step 6: Goto step 1 until Earth is destroyed.

It's science, not magic. Though I appreciate that the difference may be lost on you given your obvious incomprehension of even the most basic principles of radiative physics.
16-01-2016 03:42
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:
An ideal black body has zero temperature. It is at absolute zero. If it is emitting anything, it is not an ideal black body.

Considering that you can't get this simple concept through your head, you seem to be hopelessly lost.


LOL! Into LaLaLand needs to try finding out what an ideal blackbody and blackbody radiation is. Talk about clueless.




Edited on 16-01-2016 03:44
16-01-2016 04:02
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Surface Detail wrote:It's science, not magic. Though I appreciate that the difference may be lost on you given your obvious incomprehension of even the most basic principles of radiative physics.

I'm sure this has all been explained and demonstrated to IbDamned and Into LaLaLand many times. They have been posting their pseudoscience nonsense around the net for years. And they STILL can't get it.

If they ever bothered to read the excellent American Chemical Society source you provided, they might get a clue, but I doubt it. Their ideologically/religiously induced blindness will stop them. They'll convince themselves the ACS must have been taken over by Marxists or something.

They probably aren't this stupid about other things, just science which they believe undermines their ideological/religious beliefs.

After all, they can string together some interesting and entertaining insults.




Edited on 16-01-2016 04:16
16-01-2016 04:11
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1077)
All scientists agree that CO2 warms the air a bit, but the effect is minor and wholly beneficial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcsSn7ehZ1g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaPWV6-GhUk
16-01-2016 04:31
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
All scientists agree that CO2 warms the air a bit, but the effect is minor and wholly beneficial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcsSn7ehZ1g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaPWV6-GhUk


Nope.

Will Happer will say whatever the fossil fuel companies/far-right GOP want him to say-depending on the price per interview/tabloid press article. He's fairly cheap.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science

John Christy (and Roy Spencer) will say whatever he believes his 'God' wants him to say.

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/landmark-documents/the-biblical-perspective-of-environmental-stewardship-subduing-and-ruling-the-earth-to-the-glory-of-god-and-the-benefit-of-our-neighbors/

Meanwhile, most scientists would agree with what ALL the major science institutions around the world are saying because the views are based on a consilience of overwhelming evidence and the laws of physics.

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/


https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php



Edited on 16-01-2016 04:52
16-01-2016 05:45
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1077)
Ceist wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
All scientists agree that CO2 warms the air a bit, but the effect is minor and wholly beneficial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcsSn7ehZ1g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaPWV6-GhUk


Nope.

Will Happer will say whatever the fossil fuel companies/far-right GOP want him to say-depending on the price per interview/tabloid press article. He's fairly cheap.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science

John Christy (and Roy Spencer) will say whatever he believes his 'God' wants him to say.

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/landmark-documents/the-biblical-perspective-of-environmental-stewardship-subduing-and-ruling-the-earth-to-the-glory-of-god-and-the-benefit-of-our-neighbors/

Meanwhile, most scientists would agree with what ALL the major science institutions around the world are saying because the views are based on a consilience of overwhelming evidence and the laws of physics.

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/


https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php


No one can prove the greenhouse effect. It is a hypothesis at best. No evidence has ever pointed to the existence of the greenhouse effect. Certainly, Gore's hypothesis CO2 affects temperature is wrong because CO2 increased as much as from glaciation to interglacial without any change in temperature. The greenhouse effect is not even a mathematically sound concept like the black hole is. There is no mathematical or scientific foundation of the greenhouse effect. You cannot apply the Stefan Boltzmann law to Earth. It simply does not work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JIuKjaY3r4
Edited on 16-01-2016 05:52
16-01-2016 06:05
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Ceist wrote:


No one can prove the greenhouse effect. It is a hypothesis at best. No evidence has ever pointed to the existence of the greenhouse effect. Certainly, Gore's hypothesis CO2 affects temperature is wrong because CO2 increased as much as from glaciation to interglacial without any change in temperature. The greenhouse effect is not even a mathematically sound concept like the black hole is. There is no mathematical or scientific foundation of the greenhouse effect. You cannot apply the Stefan Boltzmann law to Earth. It simply does not work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JIuKjaY3r4

Complete and utter Bollocks.




Edited on 16-01-2016 06:07
16-01-2016 21:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
Ceist wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Ceist wrote:


No one can prove the greenhouse effect. It is a hypothesis at best. No evidence has ever pointed to the existence of the greenhouse effect. Certainly, Gore's hypothesis CO2 affects temperature is wrong because CO2 increased as much as from glaciation to interglacial without any change in temperature. The greenhouse effect is not even a mathematically sound concept like the black hole is. There is no mathematical or scientific foundation of the greenhouse effect. You cannot apply the Stefan Boltzmann law to Earth. It simply does not work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JIuKjaY3r4

Complete and utter Bollocks.


Another quality scientific discussion by Ceist.


The Parrot Killer
16-01-2016 21:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
Surface Detail wrote: Imagine first that the Earth's atmosphere consists of just N2 and O2. These molecules have no vibrational energy transitions corresponding to IR wavelengths and so do not interact with IR radiation.

It's up to you to explain why I care about that. "Interaction" with IR cannot create additional energy, nor does it change the fact that temperature governs radiation.

Surface Detail wrote: Now add greenhouse gases (H2O, CO2, etc.).

I don't know what "greenhouse gas" is, it is not defined in science. Proponents of "greenhouse gas" dogma normally claim that "greenhouse gas" has something to do with its absorption signature including IR frequency bands. I ask "So what?" All I need to know is whether "greenhouse gas" is a substance. Is it?

Any freshman physics student knows that all substances have absorption signatures that are very different from their radiation signatures. Yet for some reason, when the topic is the atmosphere's radiation, said proponents try to change the subject to the absorption signature of this nebulous "greenhouse gas.

I don't care about any particular absorption signature. I have the 1st LoT to tell me that all the energy has to add up. I do not need to track every single photon. I am not fooled by anyone who tries to convince me that temperature, i.e. the amount of thermal energy, can be increased by directing my attention to a subset of photons.

I also know that all solar EM that strikes the earth (that is not reflected/deflected away) is absorbed by the planet, either in the aquasphere, the atmosphere or the surface. The frequencies absorbed become completely irrelevant at that point. All this energy is radiated away, just in differing quantities of differing frequencies than that which was absorbed. It all radiates away based completely on temperature. No one who understands (and accepts) thermodynamics believes that additional energy is somehow created by the frequencies of absorption being converted to frequencies of radiation.

So, it still appears that it is not possible for some substance called "greenhouse gas" to cause "greenhouse effect" that somehow increases temperature without a chemical reaction.

Surface Detail wrote: Hence the net effect of the greenhouse gas molecules is to absorb some of the outgoing IR radiation, warming the atmosphere, and to re-radiate some IR back to Earth, thus warming the Earth.

So written another way, the net effect of "greenhouse gas" is to absorb some outgoing IR (which cools the earth) and to then lose some of that radiation (which cools the atmosphere), yes? Isn't all this cooling exactly equal the amount of warming indicated in your statement above?

By the way, I noticed your use of the term "re-radiate" which is also used by scientifically illiterate warmizombies to announce to the world that they mistakenly believe that frequencies radiated are the same as those absorbed. You're not under that mistaken impression, are you? You do realize that essentially nothing is ever re-radiated, yes?

So we still need to get to the root of the issue: How can a substance increase temperature without a chemical reaction. It still appears to be impossible.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-01-2016 21:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
Into the Night wrote: Another quality scientific discussion by Ceist.

By my calculations, Ceist is due for a post involving my "petard."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-01-2016 21:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
Ceist wrote: Meanwhile, most scientists would agree with what ALL the major science institutions around the world are saying because the views are based on a consilience of overwhelming evidence and the laws of physics.


It's good to know that you still believe you somehow speak for "most scientists." You are also consistent in your devotion to the idea that science is somehow based on democratic vote of beliefs based on subjective interpretation of signs and "evidence." How admirable if not completely misguided.

It's too bad your religion hasn't much time left. The congregation dwindles every day. The overall cooling of the seasons will accelerate the decline. When the next generation of liberal college students forms the next religion of the imminent ice age and the death of the planet due to the prominent capitalist institutions, they will make videos of how today's warmizombies actually believed in Global Warming and how people in the past were certain that humans could not survive speeds of 67 km/hr and that the earth was flat.

You are tomorrow's comedy material. Well, today's as well, but mostly tomorrow's.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-01-2016 02:40
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
So we still need to get to the root of the issue: How can a substance increase temperature without a chemical reaction. It still appears to be impossible.

It's really quite straightforward. The presence of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere effectively reduces the emissivity of the Earth (though the mechanism of IR absorption and radiation that I've already described). This means that the Earth must then maintain a higher temperature in order to radiate the same amount of energy as it would without these gases.

Perhaps what is confusing you is the fact that we have a continuous flow of energy from the sun to the Earth and back into space. Hindering the flow of energy from Earth into space is enough to warm the Earth; we don't need another source of energy. It's like building a dam to create a lake.
17-01-2016 03:03
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
I don't know what "greenhouse gas" is, it is not defined in science. Proponents of "greenhouse gas" dogma normally claim that "greenhouse gas" has something to do with its absorption signature including IR frequency bands. I ask "So what?" All I need to know is whether "greenhouse gas" is a substance. Is it?

A greenhouse gas is a gas that absorbs and emits IR radiation. It's as simple as that. The term is widely used in the scientific literature. Examples are CO2 and H2O.

Any freshman physics student knows that all substances have absorption signatures that are very different from their radiation signatures. Yet for some reason, when the topic is the atmosphere's radiation, said proponents try to change the subject to the absorption signature of this nebulous "greenhouse gas.

No, the absorption and radiation signatures must be identical. If they weren't, then an object at thermal equilibrium with its surroundings would spontaneously warm or cool in violation of the 2nd LoT. It's a corollary of Kirchhoff's Radiation Law.
17-01-2016 03:36
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1077)
AFAIK, CO2 and H2O are not called greenhouse gases in China. Does anyone know when they got that name in the US?
Edited on 17-01-2016 03:36
17-01-2016 04:46
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
IBdaMann and Into the Night are not only violating the laws of Thermodynamics and laws of Radiation, they are torturing them, over and over again.

There should be an association for the protection and prevention of cruelty of the laws of physics.




Edited on 17-01-2016 05:29
17-01-2016 09:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I don't know what "greenhouse gas" is, it is not defined in science. Proponents of "greenhouse gas" dogma normally claim that "greenhouse gas" has something to do with its absorption signature including IR frequency bands. I ask "So what?" All I need to know is whether "greenhouse gas" is a substance. Is it?

A greenhouse gas is a gas that absorbs and emits IR radiation. It's as simple as that. The term is widely used in the scientific literature. Examples are CO2 and H2O.

Any freshman physics student knows that all substances have absorption signatures that are very different from their radiation signatures. Yet for some reason, when the topic is the atmosphere's radiation, said proponents try to change the subject to the absorption signature of this nebulous "greenhouse gas.

No, the absorption and radiation signatures must be identical. If they weren't, then an object at thermal equilibrium with its surroundings would spontaneously warm or cool in violation of the 2nd LoT. It's a corollary of Kirchhoff's Radiation Law.


Sorry, that is NOT Kirchoff's Radiation law or any of it's corollaries. Kirchoff wasn't even talking about radiation or absorption signatures at all. He was talking about all absorption and all radiation in a general way. It is through this law, in fact, that he described the same conservation of energy through any node of an electrical circuit.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 17-01-2016 09:04
17-01-2016 09:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Concerning emission:

Nothing reluctant about it. The only blackbody is a theoretical one. You must achieve absolute zero to have one. That is not possible.

To say that Planck's law only applies to a true blackbody is to say that Planck's law doesn't apply anywhere except at absolute zero, where the law specifically could NOT apply with any sense, since there is no such thing as a frequency of light that is zero cycles per second.

This effectively is saying the Planck's law doesn't apply anywhere...ever. It would be saying that Planck was out and out wrong.

Jaw dropping stuff, as you said.

Go back and read Kirchhoff's definition of a blackbody as used by Planck. A blackbody is an object that is a perfect absorber and emitter. It's not necessarily black!

Go back and read Kirchoff's definition again. You will find the only possible ideal black body is one at absolute zero. This was Planck's effective conclusion on Kirchoff's ideal black body.


The Parrot Killer
17-01-2016 09:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: The emission at 656nm will stay exactly where it is regardless of the temperature of the hydrogen. As will the other lines. Their wavelengths are dictated by the difference in the energy states of a hydrogen atom, not its temperature. Just the intensity of the lines changes with temperature.


Yes, my bad, ignore what I wrote at the end of the previous post. I was conflating two different things. The radiance is what I want to get at.

We agree that as temperature increases, rate of emission increases. There is no other way to modify/change/alter the rate of emission besides changing the temperature.

Ergo, if the rate of emission decreases, we know that the temperature has decreased.
Ergo, if the rate of emission increases, we know that the temperature has increased.

So let's revisit "greenhouse effect." What causes the increase in temperature?

Imagine first that the Earth's atmosphere consists of just N2 and O2. These molecules have no vibrational energy transitions corresponding to IR wavelengths and so do not interact with IR radiation. They are transparent to IR radiation. This means that all the IR radiation emitted by the Earth (to balance the incoming radiation from the sun) goes straight out into space.

Now add greenhouse gases (H2O, CO2, etc.). These molecules have vibrational modes corresponding to IR radiation, and so are able to absorb and emit IR radiation. IR radiation from the Earth is absorbed by these molecules, this energy is then transferred via collisions to the other atmospheric gases thus warming the lower part of the atmosphere. Other CO2 molecules are excited into vibrational modes by collisions and then radiate this energy away as IR radiation, some of which ends up back on Earth.

Hence the net effect of the greenhouse gas molecules is to absorb some of the outgoing IR radiation, warming the atmosphere, and to re-radiate some IR back to Earth, thus warming the Earth. The Earth and lower atmosphere then continue to warm and so output increasing quantities of IR radiation until the total amount of radiation emitted into space again balances that arriving from the sun.


Step 1: Warm the Earth
Step 2: Radiate IR away from the Earth due to it's temperature.
Step 3: Absorb the IR in a magick gas.
Step 4: Re-radiate said energy back to Earth.
Step 5: The Earth Warms.
Step 6: Goto step 1 until Earth is destroyed.

It's science, not magic. Though I appreciate that the difference may be lost on you given your obvious incomprehension of even the most basic principles of radiative physics.


It is neither. It is simply the algorithm that describes the result of your crazy ideas about the magick qualities of CO2.


The Parrot Killer
17-01-2016 09:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
An ideal black body has zero temperature. It is at absolute zero. If it is emitting anything, it is not an ideal black body.

Considering that you can't get this simple concept through your head, you seem to be hopelessly lost.


LOL! Into LaLaLand needs to try finding out what an ideal blackbody and blackbody radiation is. Talk about clueless.


Go read it again. Bring the argument between Kirchoff and Planck to it's conclusion.


The Parrot Killer
17-01-2016 09:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
Ceist wrote:
IBdaMann and Into the Night are not only violating the laws of Thermodynamics and laws of Radiation, they are torturing them, over and over again.

There should be an association for the protection and prevention of cruelty of the laws of physics.

Be careful what you wish for! You might wind up being the first against the wall!


The Parrot Killer
18-01-2016 11:23
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Once again, In the Dark and IBdaMned demonstrate that they are thoroughly confused and ignorant about radiative heat transfer, blackbody radiation, Planck's Law, Kirchoff's Law, the electromagnetic spectrum, the earth's atmosphere..... or well....basically anything at all on this topic.

This thread is also a good example of why it's a complete waste of time and energy trying to discuss science with ideological science deniers on forums like this.

I'll just leave them with some more educational sources below which shows them they are not only wrong, they are "Not Even Wrong".

They probably won't bother to read them either.

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/black_body_radiation.html

http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~scarn/teaching/GE4250/emission_lecture.pdf


After this thread, I've revised my estimation of their ideologically induced stupidity (which is only exceeded by their hubris)


How thick are they?

As thick as a two hundred short Plancks.



Edited on 18-01-2016 11:42
18-01-2016 20:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
Ceist wrote:
Once again, In the Dark and IBdaMned demonstrate that they are thoroughly confused and ignorant about radiative heat transfer, blackbody radiation, Planck's Law, Kirchoff's Law, the electromagnetic spectrum, the earth's atmosphere..... or well....basically anything at all on this topic.

This thread is also a good example of why it's a complete waste of time and energy trying to discuss science with ideological science deniers on forums like this.

I'll just leave them with some more educational sources below which shows them they are not only wrong, they are "Not Even Wrong".

They probably won't bother to read them either.

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/black_body_radiation.html

http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~scarn/teaching/GE4250/emission_lecture.pdf


After this thread, I've revised my estimation of their ideologically induced stupidity (which is only exceeded by their hubris)


How thick are they?

As thick as a two hundred short Plancks.

All I can say to you is, read your own quoted sources. YOU are the one twisting them around.


The Parrot Killer
Page 4 of 9<<<23456>>>





Join the debate Why the greenhouse effect does not violate the first law of thermodynamics:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
So what if the Chinese fossil fuel industry pays me to spread lies about greenhouse gas?7515-11-2019 04:47
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law74208-11-2019 19:42
Stefan-Boltzmann Law At A Non-Vacuum Interface2020-10-2019 23:41
Election Law3208-10-2019 13:02
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy2422-09-2019 22:20
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact