Remember me
▼ Content

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



Page 5 of 9<<<34567>>>
19-01-2016 00:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Surface Detail wrote: A greenhouse gas is a gas that absorbs and emits IR radiation. It's as simple as that.

So you've come full circle in your circular argument. We've been around and around on this and we always end up back here. You say that "greenhouse gas" causes "greenhouse effect" which increases temperature. I ask what the defining characteristics are of "greenhouse gas" because they clearly must include that which increases temperature. You respond that the only defining characteristics of "greenhouse gas" are the inclusion of IR EM bands in the absorption and radiation signatures. That being the case, the conclusion is that the process of IR EM being absorbed and radiated somehow creates energy that increases temperature.

You then say "I never said energy is being created" so I ask how the temperature is being increased by "greenhouse gas" merely absorbing and radiating IR EM. You then respond that "greenhouse gas" has the magical superpower to decrease earth's radiance while increasing earth's temperature, which you have acknowledged runs counter to Planck's Law.

We just finished establishing that temperature is the driver for radiance. No substance has any magical superpower to simply affect radiance (without a chemical reaction). We ended with me asking you if "greenhouse gas" is a substance, and you didn't answer. If it is just a substance, and not some magical deity with divine superpowers, then "greenhouse gas" cannot increase temperature any more than a rock at room temperature can increase room temperature.

To complete the cycle you reiterate the story of "The Little Photon that Could", in which despite being told that no one can violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics simply by being radiated "back to earth"...he nonetheless believes in himself and successfully does so anyway. Your story conveniently omits all the equivalent cooling that occurs with every instance of warming but hey, it's just a children's story. It's not meant to be taken seriously.

When you finish the story, though, you insist that that's what "greenhouse gas" does, forcing the question "What are the defining characteristics of 'greenhouse gas'?" ...and the whole cycle starts over again.

Surface Detail wrote: The term is widely used in the scientific literature. Examples are CO2 and H2O.

I'm sorry but no one owns science, not even you. You don't get to declare any particular literature as more important by putting the word "scientific" in front of it. I agree that the term "greenhouse gas" is common in coloquial speech, on the internet and in conversations among the scientifically illiterate but it is not yet to be found in the body of science. Reports/papers that discuss "greenhouse gas" dogma are no less religious in nature, and no more scientific, just because you call it "scientific."

Currently, your particular version of "greenhouse effect" is an invalid circular argument that cycles through religiously popular violations of physics. There is nothing scientific about it.

Surface Detail wrote: No, the absorption and radiation signatures must be identical.

Let's all test this assertion. Let's put some water vapor in a microwave oven. After a short while with the oven on, let's turn it off, open the microwave door and see if the water vaopr inside radiates microwaves or if it radiates something else primarily, e.g. IR. I'll go do that experiment right now.

Well, it turns out that the water effectively absorbs the microwaves but radiates IR, not microwaves. Did I just prove that water vapor is not "greenhouse gas"? Regardless, its absorption signature is nothing like its radiation signature. Nothing whatsoever.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

Edited on 19-01-2016 00:49
19-01-2016 01:24
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
As I understand it, IBdaMann is making the point that CO2 only change their absorption and emission of IR if their temperature changes.

So in other words, temperature is first determined by conduction, then CO2 absorption and emission is determined by temperature.

For example, because Venus is much closer to the Sun than Earth is, Venus' air is much hotter than Earth's air, so CO2 in Venus' air has much higher absorption and emission compared to CO2 in Earth's air and, because Mars is much further from the Sun than Earth is, Mars' air is much colder than Earth's air, so CO2 in Mars' air has much lower absorption and emission compared to CO2 in Earth's air.

Is this correct, IBdaMann?


But, if the number of CO2 molecules increases in the air, without any change in CO2's absorption and emission level, wouldn't that increase temperature because there are more of those molecules doing that?
Edited on 19-01-2016 01:34
19-01-2016 03:15
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:Is this correct, IBdaMann?

Unfortunately, no.

There are several points that I am making:

1) The 1st Law of Thermodynamics says that energy can change form, but energy can never be created or destroyed. Therefore the EM absorption and emission of any substance can never create energy and thus cannot somehow increase temperature. Ergo CO2 and water vapor cannot cause any "greenhouse effect" simply because of their respective absorption and emission signatures.

2) Planck's Law tells us that temperature drives radiance (the rate of emission). The higher the temperature, the greater the radiance. No substance has the magic superpower to cause a body (e.g. earth) to increase in temperature yet decrease in radiance, i.e. to violate Planck's Law.

3) Nobody owns science. Nobody gets to determine what counts as "scientific" literature. Science is a collection of falsifiable models whose falsifiablility is inherent in each model. Only the falsifiable models in the body of science get to say what is scientific.

3a) Any literature that runs counter to the body of science, e.g. discussions of "greenhouse effect", is not scientific.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-01-2016 16:18
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
Hi guys, I've been following this discussion and it's rather interesting. There are lots of things I don't know about climate science (and I'm happy to admit my complete ignorance). Here is my understanding of the situation.

* Planck's law is a universal law of nature and applies everywhere.

* The Stefan-Boltzmann law is derived from Planck's law and is more often used when determining the warming from a given increase in radiation.

* The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to blackbodies but it can be used to cover grey-bodies when combined with emissivity/absorptivity of the body in question.

* The CO2 in the atmosphere does not behave like a blackbody.

* According to measurements by Hottel and Leckner CO2 in the atmosphere has a maximum total emissivity of 0.003 (blackbodies have an emissivity of 1.0).

* The maximum theoretical warming from CO2 can then be calculated with the Stefan-Boltzmann law for two radiating bodies assuming a 100% view-factor.

* Nasif Nahle has done this and found the warming from CO2 to be small. I have done the calculation too assuming T1 = 288K, T2 = 255K, E1 = 1, E2 = 0.003.

The result I got was 0.45 W/sq.m from CO2. John Daly got 0.5 W/sq.m. (Wikipedia has an equation for the radiative-transfer between two bodies).
Edited on 19-01-2016 16:39
19-01-2016 17:03
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:Is this correct, IBdaMann?

Planck's Law tells us that temperature drives radiance (the rate of emission). The higher the temperature, the greater the radiance. No substance has the magic superpower to cause a body (e.g. earth) to increase in temperature yet decrease in radiance, i.e. to violate Planck's Law.

When people say that the radiance out to space decreases and the radiance back to Earth increases they are not suggesting that greenhouse gases are increasing in temperature and yet decreasing in radiance. Let me give you an example (as far as I understand) as to what is happening. To make things easy to understand let us just imagine one photon. The photon is radiating as long-wave radiation from the Earth's surface at 100 W/sq.m. Now imagine that we added a CO2 molecule into the atmosphere and the CO2 molecule intercepted that radiation (it only intercepts long-wave radiaton from the surface remember). The CO2 molecule then re-radiates 100 W/sq.m in all directions (i.e. up and down). As a consequence, 50%, i.e. 50 W/sq.m gets radiated out to space and the other 50 W/sq.m gets radiated down to the Earth's surface. Hence less radiation is now escaping to space (in our case, 50% less) and more radiation is being radiated down to the surface. That is what I assume is happening.
Edited on 19-01-2016 17:14
19-01-2016 20:03
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
One Punch Man wrote: When people say that the radiance out to space decreases and the radiance back to Earth increases they are not suggesting that greenhouse gases are increasing in temperature and yet decreasing in radiance.

What they are saying is that "greenhouse gases" increase earth's atmospheric temperature while decreasing earth's atmospheric radiance into space.

This is a violation of Planck's Radiation Law.

One Punch Man wrote: To make things easy to understand let us just imagine one photon.

I'm guessing that you are going to recite the story of "The Little Photon that Could!"

One Punch Man wrote: The photon is radiating as long-wave radiation from the Earth's surface at 100 W/sq.m.

Hold on. Are we talking about one single photon or are we talking about a stream of them; in fact 100 W/sq.m.-worth?

One Punch Man wrote: Now imagine that we added a CO2 molecule into the atmosphere and the CO2 molecule intercepted that radiation (it only intercepts long-wave radiaton from the surface remember). The CO2 molecule then re-radiates 100 W/sq.m in all directions (i.e. up and down). As a consequence, 50%, i.e. 50 W/sq.m gets radiated out to space and the other 50 W/sq.m gets radiated down to the Earth's surface. Hence less radiation is now escaping to space (in our case, 50% less) and more radiation is being radiated down to the surface. That is what I assume is happening.

OK, this is what you assume.

Would you prefer you assumptions be correct?

Redo the above story but this time adhere to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Lump all solar photons that are striking the earth together (i.e. all incoming energy). Simply explain what "greenhouse gas" does to provide the additional energy required to increase earth's atmospheric temperature. The 1st LoT tells us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so if the temperature increases, you simply need to account for that additional energy.

Telling me about a constant quantity of energy radiating around in different directions and changing frequencies is telling me only about the same amount of energy, implying that temperature must be remaining the same.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-01-2016 21:10
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
Hold on. Are we talking about one single photon or are we talking about a stream of them; in fact 100 W/sq.m.-worth?

Of course. I understand that one photon won't be emitting at 100 W/sq.m. I did that for illustative purposes so it would be easier to picture in your mind.

Redo the above story but this time adhere to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Lump all solar photons that are striking the earth together (i.e. all incoming energy). Simply explain what "greenhouse gas" does to provide the additional energy required to increase earth's atmospheric temperature

Well, according to the AGW-theory, the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are re-radiating the energy emitted from the Earth and are re-directing a portion of that energy back down towards the surface where the radiation would then be absorbed by the surface and once a body absorbs radiation, from whatever source, its internal temperature should increase in accordance with the 1st law of thermodynamics. The same radiative recycling principle is at work when accident victims are given foil IR-reflective survival jackets. These IR-reflective jackets are supposedly more effective at preventing heat-loss because they work by reflecting the IR radiation from the person's body back to them. The same thing apparently happens to the Earth-greenhouse-system. The greenhouse gases merely prevent radiation from escaping, as explained in the example above.

This is in violation of Planck's radiation law

I do not know how greenhouse gases intercepting radiation from the surface thereby leading to less radiation escaping to space would violate Planck's law.
Edited on 19-01-2016 22:02
19-01-2016 21:45
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:For example, because Venus is much closer to the Sun than Earth is, Venus' air is much hotter than Earth's air, so CO2 in Venus' air has much higher absorption and emission compared to CO2 in Earth's air and, because Mars is much further from the Sun than Earth is, Mars' air is much colder than Earth's air, so CO2 in Mars' air has much lower absorption and emission compared to CO2 in Earth's air.

I think the CO2 on Mars would be more efficient at absorbing radiation than on Venus or Earth. CO2 absorbs radiation most strongly at 15 micrometers and the mean temperature of Mars is 210K and a temperature of 200K corresponds to a peak emission wavelength of around 15 micrometers by Wien's Displacement law. There's a good article pointing this out called "IR-Expert Speaks Out After Years Of Silence". Google it.
Edited on 19-01-2016 22:01
20-01-2016 14:50
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
One Punch Man wrote: Well, according to the AGW-theory, the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are re-radiating the energy emitted from the Earth and are re-directing a portion of that energy back down towards the surface ...

Yes, yes, yes...the same classic children's story of The Little Photon that Could!

Here's the same classic glaring violation of the 1st LoT that you just reiterated. In order to increase temperature without a chemical reaction there must be additional energy added. You and your "greenhouse effect" brethren just don't seem to get it. As long as you don't understand 1st LoT and as long as you don't understand that you must account for the additional energy that causes the increase in temperature that you assert, you will never understand your glaring error.

In your cute little story of The Little Photon that Could! you describe a fixed quantity of energy that is simply radiated around in different directions. This is worth repeating. You describe a fixed quantity of energy that is simply radiated around in different directions. You never get to the required part whereby additional energy enters the picture.

So, give it another try. You have a fixed quantity of energy bouncing around all over the place, changing frequencies, having a grand ol' time, with the average global atmospheric temperature remaining the same because it's still the same amount of energy. Tell me when that amount of energy increases, presuming a constant energy stream from the sun.

One Punch Man wrote: where the radiation would then be absorbed by the surface and once a body absorbs radiation, from whatever source, its internal temperature should increase in accordance with the 1st law of thermodynamics.

If the radiation is absorbed by the surface (thus increasing its temperature) then it had to have been radiated from somewhere else, cooling it by exactly that same amount of energy. The 1st LoT insists that the net balance is zero.

In your fairy tale above, every incidence of "absorption that increases temperature" is preceded by an incidence of "emission that cools" for the exact same quantity of energy. Net balance of zero. Fixed quantity of energy. Overall average global temperature remains the same.

There is no "greenhouse effect" whereby some "greenhouse gas" magically creates energy (that increases temperature) in violation of the 1st LoT.

One Punch Man wrote: The same radiative recycling principle is at work when accident victims are given foil IR-reflective survival jackets.

The last time I checked, there was no such foil IR-reflective survival jacket up in the sky covering the earth. There's a reason those jackets are made of IR-reflective foil and not made of CO2 gas balloons (which would be much cheaper to produce). Would you care to guess what the reason is?

One Punch Man wrote:I do not know how greenhouse gases intercepting radiation from the surface thereby leading to less radiation escaping to space would violate Planck's law.

Irrespective of this not actually happening, you nonetheless claim that:

1. Earth's atmospheric temperature increases
2. Earth's atmospheric radiance decreases

That is a direct violation of Planck's Law. You cannot resolve this through any convolution of radiation of any individual photons.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

Edited on 20-01-2016 14:52
20-01-2016 16:34
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
There are several points that I am making:

1) The 1st Law of Thermodynamics says that energy can change form, but energy can never be created or destroyed. Therefore the EM absorption and emission of any substance can never create energy and thus cannot somehow increase temperature. Ergo CO2 and water vapor cannot cause any "greenhouse effect" simply because of their respective absorption and emission signatures.

For the umpteenth time, nobody is claiming that energy is being created. The absorption of IR radiation by CO2 and H2O has the effect of reducing the emissivity of the Earth in the IR part of the spectrum. Hence the temperature of the Earth must increase in order to maintain the same IR emission as when these gases are absent. It's very simple; I don't know why you have such difficulty understanding this.

2) Planck's Law tells us that temperature drives radiance (the rate of emission). The higher the temperature, the greater the radiance. No substance has the magic superpower to cause a body (e.g. earth) to increase in temperature yet decrease in radiance, i.e. to violate Planck's Law.

Oh dear, you seem to have forgotten again that gases, such as the Earth's atmosphere, are not blackbodies and so are not subject to Planck's Law. It's no magic superpower, just quantum mechanics.

3) Nobody owns science. Nobody gets to determine what counts as "scientific" literature. Science is a collection of falsifiable models whose falsifiablility is inherent in each model. Only the falsifiable models in the body of science get to say what is scientific.

Actually, scientists do get to decide whether a particular piece of work satisfies the requirements (including falsifiability) necessary to count as science. It's called peer review and, while not perfect, it does help to ensure that only actual science is published in scientific journals. These constitute the scientific literature.

3a) Any literature that runs counter to the body of science, e.g. discussions of "greenhouse effect", is not scientific.

The greenhouse effect is based on scientific principles and is discussed in the peer-reviewed literature that makes up the body of science. Your claims that it is unscientific are irrational.
Edited on 20-01-2016 16:35
20-01-2016 19:00
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Surface Detail wrote:For the umpteenth time, nobody is claiming that energy is being created.

For the umpteenth time, you are incorrect. Could I get you to stop pretending you speak for everybody?

The answer is that, yes, MANY people claim that "greenhouse effect" increases temperature without additional energy entering the system because of "greenhouse gas". Whether or not it is followed with the words "no energy is being created," if they are saying that temperature is increasing then they are nonetheless saying that energy is being created and that "greenhouse gas" is the cause.

If you don't sufficiently understand thermodynamics to understand that an increase in temperature (without a chemical reaction) means an increase in thermal energy, well that's on you. I have debated with many people who make this claim and then follow with the words "no energy is being created" as if that somehow changes everything.

This happens to be your problem as well. You insist on an increase in temperature stemming from the mere existence of "greenhouse gas". You do not account for any additional energy. There has to be some quantity of additional energy to cause the increase in temperature and when the only factor you provide is the existence of "greenhouse gas" then you are asserting that "greenhouse gas" is creating this additional energy that increases the temperature. At this point you have a violation on your hands.

Your attempt to explain how "greenhouse gas" creates this additional energy is to talk about how a fixed quantity of energy radiates around in different directions and changes frequency/wavelength. Unfortunately, it is still the same quantity of energy. In an attempt to obscure this fact you tack on the words "and no energy is created." Sorry, it's too late. Your entire premise is based on temperature increasing and yet you do not account for the required additional energy other than to say that "greenhouse gas" is the causes.

Surface Detail wrote: The absorption of IR radiation by CO2 and H2O has the effect of reducing the emissivity of the Earth in the IR part of the spectrum.


Your explanation is all crap. Let's cut out the crap.

Does "greenhouse effect" increase earth's atmospheric temperature? Yes or no?
Does "greenhouse effect" decrease earth's atmospheric radiance? Yes or no?

[I already know what's coming. You are going to waffle with more unfalsifiable quibbling over semantics of basic words so that you effectively won't answer those two questions above. You will bog down with an unnecessary dissection of the atmosphere and unnecessarily talk about EM absorption. You will not get to the point that you explain from where the additional energy comes to increase the temperature involved in "greenhouse effect." I am prepared]

Surface Detail wrote: Hence the temperature of the Earth must increase in order to maintain the same IR emission as when these gases are absent. It's very simple; I don't know why you have such difficulty understanding this.

It's a load of crap. Any assertion of "the temperature of the earth must increase" must necessarily be preceded by an increase in energy, i.e. the cause.

Account for that energy. I don't know why you are having so much trouble understanding this.

Surface Detail wrote: Oh dear, you seem to have forgotten again that gases, such as the Earth's atmosphere, are not blackbodies and so are not subject to Planck's Law.

Oh dear, you have apparently forgotten that we just went over this.

There are no ideal black bodies in nature. Don't you remember that?

Temperature drives radiance. Don't you remember that?

You are claiming an increase in earth's atmospheric temperature, the driver for earth's atmospheric radiance, or have you forgotten?

Surface Detail wrote: It's no magic superpower, just quantum mechanics.

Claiming something has the ability to increase temperature while simultaneously decreasing its radiance is a magic superpower, not quantum mechanics.

I'm curious, where did you learn that increasing temperature while decreasing radiance is quantum mechanics? Was it easy to convince you that it was true? Was it someone you trusted?

Surface Detail wrote: Actually, scientists do get to decide whether a particular piece of work satisfies the requirements (including falsifiability) necessary to count as science.

No. That's like saying the fans in the stadium get a say on which runner crossed the finish line first.

All people, not just people who declare themselves to be some sort of approval authority, get to try to show a science model to be false. Until someone does, then no one gets any sort of veto.

Surface Detail wrote: It's called peer review and, while not perfect, it does help to ensure that only actual science is published in scientific journals. These constitute the scientific literature.

No review is required for any falsifiable model to become science. No one gets a veto. Science is not beholden to any authority.

Instead of lamely trying to lend undue authority to your preferred publications by calling them "scientific journals" you should recognize that they are just "publications."

If a housewife has an epiphany, scribbles her falsifiable model on a spare Pampers and, without any review by anyone, publishes her model in Oprah's "O" magazine, until someone shows it to be false, that's science and no one gets any say. All people the world over are free to subject that model to the scientific method and to try to prove it false. All people the world over are free to use that model predict nature and engineer things...and no one gets to put a stop to all that.

No review of any sort is required.

Surface Detail wrote: The greenhouse effect is based on scientific principles and is discussed in the peer-reviewed literature that makes up the body of science. Your claims that it is unscientific are irrational.

"greenhouse effect" runs counter to science. It is a religious dogma that appeals to the scientifically illiterate.

You should try focusing on accounting for the additional energy that increases temperature as you insist.

You should also learn what constitutes the body of science. As it stands, you are greatly confused.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-01-2016 19:22
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann, let me try to make this very simple for you:

The energy radiated by a body depends on its temperature and its emissivity.

If you reduce the emissivity of a body, then its temperature must increase if the energy radiated is to remain constant.

Adding CO2 to the Earth's atmosphere reduces the Earth's emissivity.

Hence the earth's temperature must increase.
20-01-2016 20:04
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann, let me try to make this very simple for you:


Sure. Proceed.

Surface Detail wrote: The energy radiated by a body depends on its temperature and its emissivity.

...and let's not forget that in the equation, emissivity is a constant and temperature is the independent variable.

This means that better wording is "The energy radiated by a body is a function of its temperature."

Surface Detail wrote: Adding CO2 to the Earth's atmosphere reduces the Earth's emissivity.


False.

...but I appreciate the refreshingly different new angle on this whole "greenhouse effect" thingy. You attempted some mathematical sleight-of-hand in treating emissivity as an independent variable instead of the constant it is, and then to tie CO2 into the emissivity. Certainly credit is due for creativity.

Actually, I recall another discussion about a year ago on another board in which someone quietly modified Stefan-Boltzmann by sneaking in a CO2 variable as affecting emissivity in a similar manner. It took me a while to realize that was what he did.

Regrettably, the way this whole science thing works, you can't change the math.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-01-2016 20:20
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
The math doesn't dictate which is the dependent variable; the science does. Emissivity depends on composition. If you change the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, then you change the Earth's emissivity, so here it is the emissivity, not the temperature, that is the independent variable. The temperature is then the dependent variable.
20-01-2016 21:45
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Surface Detail wrote:
The math doesn't dictate which is the dependent variable; the science does. Emissivity depends on composition. If you change the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, then you change the Earth's emissivity, so here it is the emissivity, not the temperature, that is the independent variable. The temperature is then the dependent variable.
IB admits that perfect blackbodies do not exist in nature then insists that the earths atmosphere and everything else in nature must be a perfect black body. That's how confused and insane he is.

What's funny is that he doesn't even realize that's what he is insisting because he can't comprehend that temperature is the only variable ONLY for a theoretical blackbody with an emissivity of 1, as described by Plancks Law.



Edited on 20-01-2016 22:10
20-01-2016 22:06
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Surface Detail wrote: Emissivity depends on composition.

Sure.

Surface Detail wrote: If you change the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, then you change the Earth's emissivity,

Not necessarily. If you change the composition, you might change the emissivity. CO2 doesn't seem to be able to change emissivity.



Surface Detail wrote: so here it is the emissivity, not the temperature, that is the independent variable. The temperature is then the dependent variable.

Not even close, but I am going to give you credit for this different approach to "greenhouse effect."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-01-2016 22:31
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
CO2 doesn't seem to be able to change emissivity.

There's no "seeming" about it. The greenhouse gases, including CO2, in the Earth's atmosphere obviously and measurably reduce the emissivity of the Earth. Look again at this graph:


The solid line represents the IR radiance of the Earth as a function of wavenumber, as measured by satellite. Do you think it would be the same shape if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Of course not. That's because the greenhouse gases reduce the Earth's emissivity at certain wavelengths.
20-01-2016 22:44
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Surface Detail wrote: There's no "seeming" about it. The greenhouse gases, including CO2, in the Earth's atmosphere obviously and measurably reduce the emissivity of the Earth. Look again at this graph:


I don't know what you have against the 1st LoT (aside from it blasting holes in your dogma) but you need to start focusing more on accounting for energy than worrying about absorption and emission signatures.

I have seen your chart. I recommend you look at it again as well. Shifting wavelengths within a fixed amount of energy is not reducing the amount of energy. You really should understand any graphs you decide to post. Yours neither addresses temperature nor total energy. It certainly does not show total energy radiated per differing levels of atmospheric CO2 to provide a comparison.

So we return to your need to account for additional energy.

Does "greenhouse effect" increase temperature?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-01-2016 22:47
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: There's no "seeming" about it. The greenhouse gases, including CO2, in the Earth's atmosphere obviously and measurably reduce the emissivity of the Earth. Look again at this graph:


I don't know what you have against the 1st LoT (aside from it blasting holes in your dogma) but you need to start focusing more on accounting for energy than worrying about absorption and emission signatures.

I have seen your chart. I recommend you look at it again as well. Shifting wavelengths within a fixed amount of energy is not reducing the amount of energy. You really should understand any graphs you decide to post. Yours neither addresses temperature nor total energy. It certainly does not show total energy radiated per differing levels of atmospheric CO2 to provide a comparison.

So we return to your need to account for additional energy.

Does "greenhouse effect" increase temperature?

Do you think the graph would be the same shape if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Yes or no.
21-01-2016 01:06
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
I don't think CO2 does much to temperature. 125,000 years ago was 3 to 4 C hotter than today's world when CO2 was only 280 ppm compared to today's 403 ppm. IMO, CO2 is mainly a plant food, not a planet heater.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian
Edited on 21-01-2016 01:09
21-01-2016 01:19
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
I don't think CO2 does much to temperature. 125,000 years ago was 3 to 4 C hotter than today's world when CO2 was only 280 ppm compared to today's 403 ppm. IMO, CO2 is mainly a plant food, not a planet heater.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian

You're forgetting the inertia in the system. It takes hundreds of years for all the land and oceans of the world to fully warm in response to increased CO2. If we were to keep the CO2 concentration at its current level, the Earth would continue warming for the next few hundred years before reaching its new equilibrium temperature.
21-01-2016 02:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
I don't think CO2 does much to temperature. 125,000 years ago was 3 to 4 C hotter than today's world when CO2 was only 280 ppm compared to today's 403 ppm. IMO, CO2 is mainly a plant food, not a planet heater.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian

You're forgetting the inertia in the system. It takes hundreds of years for all the land and oceans of the world to fully warm in response to increased CO2. If we were to keep the CO2 concentration at its current level, the Earth would continue warming for the next few hundred years before reaching its new equilibrium temperature.


If the sun suddenly were to go out, we would feel the effect in less than 12 hours. In 48 hours the planet would become an ice ball. To achieve a difference of temperature much smaller, such as you are describing, much less time is needed.

The inertia of mass is great, but it can't stop change from happening for hundreds of years.


The Parrot Killer
21-01-2016 02:57
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
I don't think CO2 does much to temperature. 125,000 years ago was 3 to 4 C hotter than today's world when CO2 was only 280 ppm compared to today's 403 ppm. IMO, CO2 is mainly a plant food, not a planet heater.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian

You're forgetting the inertia in the system. It takes hundreds of years for all the land and oceans of the world to fully warm in response to increased CO2. If we were to keep the CO2 concentration at its current level, the Earth would continue warming for the next few hundred years before reaching its new equilibrium temperature.


LOL if it takes hundreds of years we wouldn't be having summer and winter within the same year. It typically takes the ocean about a couple of weeks to adjust. CO2 increase by 2 to 3 ppm per year. There's plenty of time for the ocean to adjust every year.

When has the ocean ever taken hundreds of years to adjust to any changes?
Edited on 21-01-2016 02:57
21-01-2016 04:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Surface Detail wrote:Do you think the graph would be the same shape if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Yes or no.

I don't care about wavelengths.

I am focused on your assertion of an increase in temperature, which means that there is an increase in energy.

Your graph details a distribution of wavelengths. We can put it away as not being helpful in finding the additional energy needed to increase temperature.

Let's go back to that. Where is the additional energy that causes the increase in temperature?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-01-2016 10:45
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
I don't think CO2 does much to temperature. 125,000 years ago was 3 to 4 C hotter than today's world when CO2 was only 280 ppm compared to today's 403 ppm. IMO, CO2 is mainly a plant food, not a planet heater.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian

You're forgetting the inertia in the system. It takes hundreds of years for all the land and oceans of the world to fully warm in response to increased CO2. If we were to keep the CO2 concentration at its current level, the Earth would continue warming for the next few hundred years before reaching its new equilibrium temperature.


LOL if it takes hundreds of years we wouldn't be having summer and winter within the same year. It typically takes the ocean about a couple of weeks to adjust. CO2 increase by 2 to 3 ppm per year. There's plenty of time for the ocean to adjust every year.

When has the ocean ever taken hundreds of years to adjust to any changes?

LOL! It's only the top few metres of land and ocean that change in temperature with the seasons. The vast bulk of both remains at roughly the same temperature throughout the year. It takes long time to heat all of this material. Not to mention the time taken to melt the ice.
21-01-2016 10:55
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Do you think the graph would be the same shape if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Yes or no.

I don't care about wavelengths.

I am focused on your assertion of an increase in temperature, which means that there is an increase in energy.

Your graph details a distribution of wavelengths. We can put it away as not being helpful in finding the additional energy needed to increase temperature.

Let's go back to that. Where is the additional energy that causes the increase in temperature?

The energy that causes the increase in temperature comes from the imbalance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing IR radiation that has arisen due to the introduction of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. The Earth is currently absorbing more energy than it emits.

It's like building a leaky dam across a stream to form a lake. You don't need some extra source of water to fill the lake; it forms naturally because more water is flowing in than out. Similarly, we have a constant stream of energy flowing from the sun to the Earth and out again. If you dam the outgoing flow with greenhouse gas, then less energy flows out than in, and the temperature rises.
21-01-2016 13:50
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Surface Detail wrote: The energy that causes the increase in temperature comes from the imbalance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing IR radiation that has arisen due to the introduction of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.


So now the miracle of your "greenhouse gas" is that is magically creates an ill-defined and unfalsifiable "imbalance" ... and that "imbalance" magically creates the additional energy needed to increase temperature.

This is still a violation of the 1st LoT.

Also, it appears you still want to say that "greenhouse gas" causes earth's atmospheric radiation to decrease while earth's atmospheric temperature increases (or remains the same). This is a violation as well. If earth's atmospheric temperature increases, so must the earth's atmospheric radiation.

Surface Detail wrote: The Earth is currently absorbing more energy than it emits.

Pure dogma, pure religious faith.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-01-2016 14:10
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: The energy that causes the increase in temperature comes from the imbalance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing IR radiation that has arisen due to the introduction of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.


So now the miracle of your "greenhouse gas" is that is magically creates an ill-defined and unfalsifiable "imbalance" ... and that "imbalance" magically creates the additional energy needed to increase temperature.

This is still a violation of the 1st LoT.

Also, it appears you still want to say that "greenhouse gas" causes earth's atmospheric radiation to decrease while earth's atmospheric temperature increases (or remains the same). This is a violation as well. If earth's atmospheric temperature increases, so must the earth's atmospheric radiation.

Surface Detail wrote: The Earth is currently absorbing more energy than it emits.

Pure dogma, pure religious faith.

It you are unable to comprehend how reducing the output of energy while the input remains the same leads to an accumulation of energy, then you have no hope of grasping the concept of the greenhouse effect. No wonder it looks like magic to you. How strange it must be to be so ignorant, yet convinced that everyone else has got it wrong.
21-01-2016 16:08
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Surface Detail wrote: It you are unable to comprehend how reducing the output of energy while the input remains the same leads to an accumulation of energy, then you have no hope of grasping the concept of the greenhouse effect.

So we're back to what I can't comprehend. You do this every time you run yourself into a brick wall.

I understand how reducing loss causes an increase in point of equilibrium.

You have not shown such a reduction of loss. You have merely claimed it by asserting violations of Planck's Law. You claim an increase in earth's atmospheric temperature and a simultaneous decrease in earth's atmospheric radiance.

Violation. Your claim is summarily dismissed.

Surface Detail wrote: No wonder it looks like magic to you.

...and magic it remains.

Surface Detail wrote: How strange it must be to be so ignorant, yet convinced that everyone else has got it wrong.

So ignorant? Everyone else? I think we're done here.


Let me know if you ever become able to account for the additional energy that increases temperature and we can reengage.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-01-2016 17:54
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Can anyone just do a simple experiment and see if more CO2 increases temperature? The bottle experiments I've seen are not controlled for pressure and therefore not valid.
Edited on 21-01-2016 17:59
21-01-2016 22:02
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
IBdaMned has created his own special version and application of Planck's Law.

It's called 'IBdaMned's Thick as two short Plancks Law".

In his special version, everything in the universe radiates like a theoretical perfect blackbody, even though he admits that a theoretical perfect blackbody, as described by Planck's Law, doesn't actually exist in nature.

It's he only way he can pretend that the composition of the atmosphere doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter how many times people explain to him why he is wrong, or refer him to textbooks that show him he is wrong, or show him graphs showing absorption and emission spectra from observations as compared to theoretical blackbody radiation curves which show him he is wrong, he will stick to his ideologically driven special version. He takes science denial to a new extreme.



Edited on 21-01-2016 22:52
21-01-2016 22:21
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Meanwhile, Into the Dark has taken "IBdaMned's Thick as two short Plancks Law" and created his own variation called "Into the Dark's thick as a hundred short Plancks Law".

In his special version, everything in the universe radiates like a theoretical perfect blackbody, but he adds a special twist where he thinks the temperature of a perfect blackbody is 0K. So in his version, everything in the universe has a temperature of 0K.



Edited on 21-01-2016 22:23
21-01-2016 22:29
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Then we have a new poster who thinks that Nasif Nahle (a biologist whose field is 'herbal medicine') is actually an expert in atmospheric physics. There is still some hope for this poster if he reads a textbook on atmospheric physics to learn some basics, and realises why people like Nahle, IbDaMned and Into the Dark are scientifically illiterate self-deluded crackpots.

Welcome to the Climate-Debate.com forum. It has become more like a mental health facility for deranged Sky Dragon Slayers* and other ideologically driven scientifically illiterate science deniers who believe they are 'experts'.



(*Sky Dragon Slayers have their own special version of ideologically driven science denial as they reject even the earth's natural 'greenhouse' effect.)



Edited on 21-01-2016 22:58
21-01-2016 22:31
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Then we have Tai Hai Chen whose mission seems to be to search for every crackpot youtube video on the net he can find and post them here, then mindlessly parrot whatever his crackpot du jour claims.



Edited on 21-01-2016 22:46
22-01-2016 02:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Do you think the graph would be the same shape if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Yes or no.

I don't care about wavelengths.

I am focused on your assertion of an increase in temperature, which means that there is an increase in energy.

Your graph details a distribution of wavelengths. We can put it away as not being helpful in finding the additional energy needed to increase temperature.

Let's go back to that. Where is the additional energy that causes the increase in temperature?

The energy that causes the increase in temperature comes from the imbalance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing IR radiation that has arisen due to the introduction of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. The Earth is currently absorbing more energy than it emits.

It's like building a leaky dam across a stream to form a lake. You don't need some extra source of water to fill the lake; it forms naturally because more water is flowing in than out. Similarly, we have a constant stream of energy flowing from the sun to the Earth and out again. If you dam the outgoing flow with greenhouse gas, then less energy flows out than in, and the temperature rises.

You are just describing a larger version of the 'bathtub' model. It fails for the same reason. The real heat sink is not limited. It's area is much greater than the energy source.

A limited heat sink is not the problem. Access to the heatsink is not the problem.


The Parrot Killer
22-01-2016 02:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
Ceist wrote:
Meanwhile, Into the Dark has taken "IBdaMned's Thick as two short Plancks Law" and created his own variation called "Into the Dark's thick as a hundred short Plancks Law".

In his special version, everything in the universe radiates like a theoretical perfect blackbody, but he adds a special twist where he thinks the temperature of a perfect blackbody is 0K. So in his version, everything in the universe has a temperature of 0K.


Wrong, dude. That was YOUR model. I was just showing you how ridiculous it was.


The Parrot Killer
22-01-2016 02:51
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Meanwhile, Into the Dark has taken "IBdaMned's Thick as two short Plancks Law" and created his own variation called "Into the Dark's thick as a hundred short Plancks Law".

In his special version, everything in the universe radiates like a theoretical perfect blackbody, but he adds a special twist where he thinks the temperature of a perfect blackbody is 0K. So in his version, everything in the universe has a temperature of 0K.


Wrong, dude. That was YOUR model. I was just showing you how ridiculous it was.
nope. That was you. I was just showing everybody else how ridiculous you and IB are.


22-01-2016 04:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Meanwhile, Into the Dark has taken "IBdaMned's Thick as two short Plancks Law" and created his own variation called "Into the Dark's thick as a hundred short Plancks Law".

In his special version, everything in the universe radiates like a theoretical perfect blackbody, but he adds a special twist where he thinks the temperature of a perfect blackbody is 0K. So in his version, everything in the universe has a temperature of 0K.


Wrong, dude. That was YOUR model. I was just showing you how ridiculous it was.
nope. That was you. I was just showing everybody else how ridiculous you and IB are.


Tu quoque. Sub-thread done. You only want to insult people and deny what you said.


The Parrot Killer
24-01-2016 19:59
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ

found this video I think some participants of this thread could learn something from watching it.
25-01-2016 01:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
spot wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ

found this video I think some participants of this thread could learn something from watching it.


Yes. You could learn a magic trick.


The Parrot Killer
Page 5 of 9<<<34567>>>





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law38123-08-2019 09:21
There is no greenhouse effect1513-08-2019 23:33
Greenhouse effect of CO22713-08-2019 17:11
Antarctica's Effect on Sea Level Rise in Coming Centuries2613-05-2019 07:51
City of Toronto staff to explore cost of climate change, legal options for compensation from greenhouse g026-04-2019 15:37
▲ 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