Remember me
▼ Content

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



Page 6 of 9<<<45678>>>
28-01-2016 20:22
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
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.


He obviously doesn't get it Surface Detail and I think you're wasting your time.

His misunderstanding is obvious when he writes: "You still want to say that "greenhouse gas" causes earth's atmospheric radiation to decrease while earth's atmospheric temperature increases".

The greenhouse effect does not say that "The earth's atmospheric radiation decreases while earth's atmospheric temperature increases". It says that 'The earth's outgoing radiation decreases while earth's atmospheric temperature increases'. Big difference. Here is it explained once more. If the surface of earth is radiating at 390 W/m^2 (at an average surface temperature of 288K) and the atmosphere has an average temperature of, say, 255K, or 240 W/m^2, what happens if we added greenhouse gases into the atmosphere?

This is simple: These gases will intercept energy emanating from the earth's surface and will re-radiate that energy in all directions, up and down. The probability-split would be about 50:50, that is to say that about 50% of the absorbed radiation by greenhouse gases will be re-radiated upwards out to space and the other 50% will be re-radiated back to the surface.

Therefore if we added enough greenhouse gases to intercept around 1 W/m^2 of energy emanating from the earth's surface then about 50% of that 1 W/m^2 will be re-radiated back to earth's surface and the other 50% will be re-radiated out to space. Therefore 0.5 W/m^2 less radiation would now be escaping to space because it is being re-radiated back to the surface, and the atmosphere has increased in temperature (to the tune of 1 W/m^2) because there are more greenhouse gases that are absorbing energy from the surface.

It's simple, and there is no violation of Planck's law.
28-01-2016 21:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
One Punch Man 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. 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.


He obviously doesn't get it Surface Detail and I think you're wasting your time.

His misunderstanding is obvious when he writes: "You still want to say that "greenhouse gas" causes earth's atmospheric radiation to decrease while earth's atmospheric temperature increases".

The greenhouse effect does not say that "The earth's atmospheric radiation decreases while earth's atmospheric temperature increases". It says that 'The earth's outgoing radiation decreases while earth's atmospheric temperature increases'. Big difference. Here is it explained once more. If the surface of earth is radiating at 390 W/m^2 (at an average surface temperature of 288K) and the atmosphere has an average temperature of, say, 255K, or 240 W/m^2, what happens if we added greenhouse gases into the atmosphere?

You have denied your own argument. First you say Earth's outgoing radiation decreases while temperature increases is false, then you say it's true. Something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same context.

One Punch Man wrote:
This is simple: These gases will intercept energy emanating from the earth's surface and will re-radiate that energy in all directions, up and down. The probability-split would be about 50:50, that is to say that about 50% of the absorbed radiation by greenhouse gases will be re-radiated upwards out to space and the other 50% will be re-radiated back to the surface.

The classic magick mirror argument.
One Punch Man wrote:
Therefore if we added enough greenhouse gases to intercept around 1 W/m^2 of energy emanating from the earth's surface then about 50% of that 1 W/m^2 will be re-radiated back to earth's surface and the other 50% will be re-radiated out to space. Therefore 0.5 W/m^2 less radiation would now be escaping to space because it is being re-radiated back to the surface, and the atmosphere has increased in temperature (to the tune of 1 W/m^2) because there are more greenhouse gases that are absorbing energy from the surface.

The surface puts energy into the CO2. That energy is almost all converted into thermal energy. You cannot heat the surface in turn with that energy. That is a violation of the 2nd LOT. It's like trying to make hot coffee by putting an ice cube in it.
One Punch Man wrote:
It's simple, and there is no violation of Planck's law.

Just ignoring it completely because it gets in the way. There is also a violation of both the 1st and 2nd LOT. The 2nd, because you are trying to describe energy flowing the wrong way and because you have decreased entropy in the process of trying to justify the reduced radiation; the 1st because you are creating energy out of nothing to warm the surface of the Earth in this way.


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2016 22:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
Into the Night wrote:
You have denied your own argument. First you say Earth's outgoing radiation decreases while temperature increases is false, then you say it's true. Something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same context.

The surface puts energy into the CO2. That energy is almost all converted into thermal energy. You cannot heat the surface in turn with that energy. That is a violation of the 2nd LOT. It's like trying to make hot coffee by putting an ice cube in it.

Just ignoring it completely because it gets in the way. There is also a violation of both the 1st and 2nd LOT. The 2nd, because you are trying to describe energy flowing the wrong way and because you have decreased entropy in the process of trying to justify the reduced radiation; the 1st because you are creating energy out of nothing to warm the surface of the Earth in this way.


Excellent review.

I would like to take the opportunity to point out the vehicle for the fallacy. We know that the sun is the energy source for the earth's atmosphere/aquasphere/surface which is why the only good models focus on the sun with the earth as a body in space being heated by the sun.

Enter "greenhouse effect" models that essentially eliminate the sun. The focus is on the CO2 in the atmosphere being heated by the earth's surface. The earth's surface/aquasphere, in effect, become the source of energy. The earth essentially supplants the sun as the heat source. Anything that increases that energy source, e.g. "CO2 radiating back to the surface like a heat lamp," must obviously be increasing temperature, right?

When analyzed correctly, the focus is on the sun with the earth as a body in space being warmed and radiating. As such, it is easy to account for all the energy and to show that there is no resulting increase in temperature.

But with some sleight of hand and a shift of focus to within the atmosphere, it is easy to have unforthwith accounted energy coming in from all different angles. Energy can be created under the justification that it isn't being created but rather is simply flying out of the woodwork like everything else. There is no limit to the amount of convolution that can be created by leveraging the limitless number of directions energy can travel and the infinite options for wavelength conversion.


.


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
29-01-2016 01:49
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
You have denied your own argument. First you say Earth's outgoing radiation decreases while temperature increases is false, then you say it's true.

Where have I denied my own argument?

The classic magick mirror argument.

I cannot address an argument if you choose not to make one.

The surface puts energy into the CO2. That energy is almost all converted into thermal energy. You cannot heat the surface in turn with that energy. That is a violation of the 2nd LOT. It's like trying to make hot coffee by putting an ice cube in it.

The 2nd law about heat flowing spontaneously from hot to cold only refers to net-transfer and does not preclude any heat whatsoever flowing from cold to hot. Heat from a cold body can slow the rate at which energy is lost from a warmer body. Whether we say that CO2 "creates warming" or CO2 "delays cooling", the principle is the same. Furthermore, the 2nd law of thermodynamics only refers to heat. Radiation is not heat. It only becomes heat when it is absorbed by a body and gets converted into kinetic energy. The 2nd law says nothing about radiation not being able to flow from a colder body to a warmer one.

Just ignoring it completely because it gets in the way. There is also a violation of both the 1st and 2nd LOT. The 2nd, because you are trying to describe energy flowing the wrong way

No. This appears to just be your misunderstanding of the 2nd law.

the 1st because you are creating energy out of nothing to warm the surface of the Earth in this way.

But the greenhouse effect theory does not propose that energy is being created out of nothing and therefore the 1st law has not been broken. Greenhouse gases such as CO2 in the atmosphere are transparent to incoming shortwave radiation and only absorb longwave radiation emitted by the surface. This means that when we increase CO2 in the atmosphere it intercepts some energy emitted from the surface and the temperature of the atmosphere rises and when the surrounding temperature of a body increases then the net radiative heat-loss from that body should decrease in accordance with well-established physics.
Edited on 29-01-2016 01:54
29-01-2016 02:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
One Punch Man wrote:
You have denied your own argument. First you say Earth's outgoing radiation decreases while temperature increases is false, then you say it's true.

Where have I denied my own argument?

Read the above paragraph again. I explained exactly where you denied your own argument.
One Punch Man wrote:
The classic magick mirror argument.

I cannot address an argument if you choose not to make one.
You already did. Your argument fell into the classic magick mirror argument. CO2 is not a magick substance with special qualities and with no ability to mirror anything.
One Punch Man wrote:
The surface puts energy into the CO2. That energy is almost all converted into thermal energy. You cannot heat the surface in turn with that energy. That is a violation of the 2nd LOT. It's like trying to make hot coffee by putting an ice cube in it.

The 2nd law about heat flowing spontaneously from hot to cold only refers to net-transfer and does not preclude any heat whatsoever flowing from cold to hot. Heat from a cold body can slow the rate at which energy is lost from a warmer body. Whether we say that CO2 creates warming or CO2 delays cooling, the principle is the same. Furthermore, the 2nd law of thermodynamics only refers to heat. You know that radiation is not heat, right? It only becomes heat when it is absorbed by a body and gets converted into kinetic energy. The 2nd law says nothing about radiation not being able to flow from a colder body to a warmer one.
Actually, it does. By Planck's law, electromagnetic energy IS dependent on thermal energy. You cannot create a greater difference of temperature by 'slowing' the loss of heat which causes some upper air or upper radiation to diminish. Air is not an insulator.
One Punch Man wrote:
Just ignoring it completely because it gets in the way. There is also a violation of both the 1st and 2nd LOT. The 2nd, because you are trying to describe energy flowing the wrong way

This appears to just be your misunderstanding of the 2nd law.
Okay, let's see you explain how the light bouncing off the wall of a room heats the light bulb producing the light.
One Punch Man wrote:
the 1st because you are creating energy out of nothing to warm the surface of the Earth in this way.

But the greenhouse effect theory does not propose that energy is being created out of nothing and therefore the 1st law has not been broken. Greenhouse gases such as CO2 in the atmosphere are transparent to incoming shortwave radiation and only absorb longwave radiation emitted by the surface. This means that when we increase CO2 in the atmosphere it intercepts some energy emitted by the surface and the temperature of the atmosphere rises and when the surrounding temperature of a body increases then the net radiative heat-loss from that body should decrease in accordance with well-established physics.

It in fact does. When the temperature of anything rises, the net radiative heat loss INCREASES, not decreases. I don't know what physics you refer to, but sounds like some pretty strange stuff to me.


The Parrot Killer
29-01-2016 13:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
One Punch Man wrote: The 2nd law about heat flowing spontaneously from hot to cold only refers to net-transfer and does not preclude any heat whatsoever flowing from cold to hot.

It seems as though all warmizombies feel obligated to make this one last irrelevant assertion before tipping their kings.

Question: Are you asserting that the 2nd LoT does not apply to "greenhouse effect"?

One Punch Man wrote: Heat from a cold body can slow the rate at which energy is lost from a warmer body.

Only in one way...by being warmer. Yours is another absolutely stupid statement.

One Punch Man wrote: Whether we say that CO2 "creates warming" or CO2 "delays cooling", the principle is the same.

Not at all. They both refer to specifically different violations of physics.

One Punch Man wrote: Furthermore, the 2nd law of thermodynamics only refers to heat.

False. It refers to total energy, usable energy, entropy and time. I'm not going to give you the rather long physics lesson that addresses everything that the 2nd LoT covers but I will point you in the right direction.

Look up "Arrow of Time" and peruse Amazon's book collection under the search criteria "Direction of Time."

One Punch Man wrote: Radiation is not heat.

Radiation is energy.
Thermal energy is energy.
Heat is the flow of thermal energy and is subject to the 2nd LoT. This can occur through thermal (electromagnetic) radiation just as through conduction/convection.

One Punch Man wrote: It only becomes heat when it is absorbed by a body and gets converted into kinetic energy.

I submit you don't completely understand what heat is.

One Punch Man wrote: The 2nd law says nothing about radiation not being able to flow from a colder body to a warmer one.

How about the 2nd LoT saying that a colder body will not increase the temperature of a warmer body?

One Punch Man wrote: No. This appears to just be your misunderstanding of the 2nd law.

It looks more like your misunderstanding of the 2nd LoT.

You desperately want for there to exist "greenhouse effect" and after exhausting other violations of physics you ultimately settle on trying to have the cooler upper atmosphere increase the temperature of the warmer lower atmosphere. This is an egregious violation of the 2nd LoT. If you don't understand this, there's still hope. You can always read up.


One Punch Man wrote: But the greenhouse effect theory does not propose that energy is being created out of nothing and therefore the 1st law has not been broken.


The "greenhouse effect" theory states only that "greenhouse gas" causes "greenhouse effect" which increases earth's temperature. The inherent violation of the 1st LoT is obvious. No substance simply increases temperature (increases energy) without a chemical reaction. Energy can never be created or destroyed. No substance, i.e. "greenhouse gas" has the magical superpower to defy the 1st LoT.

I know, I know...at this point you flee to the safety of other violations of physics, like claiming that CO2 somehow "slows" thermal radiation of other substances. No substance has this magical superpower either. Thermal radiation is governed by temperature and nothing else. If you tell me that the
earth's thermal radiation has "slowed" then you have also told me that the earth's temperature has decreased. Physics. It's a good thing to know.

The Global Warming religion, on the other hand, is a funny fantasy at best.


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
29-01-2016 14:05
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Physics. It's a good thing to know.

Indeed it is. If you actually knew any, you wouldn't keep spouting such crap.
29-01-2016 18:04
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
This will be my last reply until I leave you very-intelligent, well-learned physicists to your own devices.

You cannot create a greater difference of temperature by 'slowing' the loss of heat which causes some upper air or upper radiation to diminish.
Yes you can. When the temperature of anything rises, the net radiative heat loss INCREASES, not decreases. I don't know what physics you refer to, but sounds like some pretty strange stuff to me.

Please go back and read what I write. I said that the temperature of a body is dependent on the temperature-surroundings and this can be determined by the following equation as shown in the other thread:



The warmer body (T1 in this example) can absorb radiation from the cooler body (T2) and will be warmed by it because its own intrinsic energy will have increased by the amount of energy absorbed. So in the case of the atmosphere and the earth's surface, although the atmosphere is generally cooler than the surface it will nevertheless radiate some energy in all directions with an intensity that is characteristic of its temperature. Some of that emitted radiation will strike the earth's surface and be absorbed by it, thereby raising the effective temperature of the earth at the surface accordingly. Physicists in general and thermodynamicists in particular have no problem with it. Why should we?

Read the above paragraph again. I explained exactly where you denied your own argument.

No you haven't. You merely said "First you say Earth's outgoing radiation decreases while temperature increases is false, then you say it's true" without specifying where the supposed contradiction was.

You already did. Your argument fell into the classic magick mirror argument. CO2 is not a magick substance with special qualities and with no ability to mirror anything

So Kirchhoff's law (absorptivity equalling emissivity) is "magic" as far as you're concerned? How fascinating.

The surface puts energy into the CO2. That energy is almost all converted into thermal energy. You cannot heat the surface in turn with that energy. That is a violation of the 2nd LOT. It's like trying to make hot coffee by putting an ice cube in it.

There is no obvious reason why any of these greenhouse processes should violate basic laws of physics such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Energy-recycling happens naturally in many different circumstances and situations and it never breaks the 2nd law. Also most internal combustion engines are now designed to utilise energy-recycling as a means of enhancing efficiency and no violations of the 2nd law are known to take place in them either. So why should we believe that any such violations are needed to explain the recycling of energy in the earth's climate system? I can see no reason for that.

While I respect your right as a free individual not to accept this concept (which is commonplace in science) I must say that I cannot imagine the reason why you don't. Back-radiation is the principle of the survival blanket. If it can warm an injured mountaineer, why shouldn't it also be able to warm a planet?
Edited on 29-01-2016 18:11
29-01-2016 23:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
One Punch Man wrote:
This will be my last reply until I leave you very-intelligent, well-learned physicists to your own devices.

When the temperature of anything rises, the net radiative heat loss INCREASES, not decreases. I don't know what physics you refer to, but sounds like some pretty strange stuff to me.

Please go back and read what I write. I said that the temperature of a body is dependent on the temperature-surroundings and this can be determined by the following equation as shown in the other thread:



The warmer body (T1 in this example) can absorb radiation from the cooler body (T2) and will be warmed by it because its own intrinsic energy will have increased by the amount of energy absorbed. So in the case of the atmosphere and the earth's surface, although the atmosphere is generally cooler than the surface it will nevertheless radiate some energy in all directions with an intensity that is characteristic of its temperature. Some of that emitted radiation will strike the earth's surface and be absorbed by it, thereby raising the effective temperature of the earth at the surface accordingly. Physicists in general and thermodynamicists in particular have no problem with it. Why should we?

Physicists DO have a problem with it.This response is not responding to what I said. You misquoted what I said. I have corrected it.

One Punch Man wrote:
Read the above paragraph again. I explained exactly where you denied your own argument.

No you haven't. You merely said "First you say Earth's outgoing radiation decreases while temperature increases is false, then you say it's true" without specifying where the supposed contradiction was.

LOL. Well, if you don't call what you just quoted a contradiction, then perhaps you had better learn English!

One Punch Man wrote:
You already did. Your argument fell into the classic magick mirror argument. CO2 is not a magick substance with special qualities and with no ability to mirror anything

So Kirchhoff's law (absorptivity equalling emissivity) is "magic" as far as you're concerned? How fascinating.

Kirchoff's law is not magic. The way you are mis-using it is magick.


One Punch Man wrote:
The surface puts energy into the CO2. That energy is almost all converted into thermal energy. You cannot heat the surface in turn with that energy. That is a violation of the 2nd LOT. It's like trying to make hot coffee by putting an ice cube in it.

There is no obvious reason why any of these greenhouse processes should violate basic laws of physics such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Energy-recycling happens naturally in many different circumstances and situations and it never breaks the 2nd law.

Energy is not 'recycled'. There is no curbside bin you can put it in.

Energy is dissipated. It follows the law of entropy. The whole concept of greenhouse gases reduces entropy, in violation of the 2nd LOT.

One Punch Man wrote:
Also most internal combustion engines are now designed to utilise energy-recycling as a means of enhancing efficiency and no violations of the 2nd law are known to take place in them either.

It is obvious you have no concept of how any engine (internal or external combustion) works. You should read about Carnot and the ideal engine. Then go study internal combustion engines.

One Punch Man wrote:
So why should we believe that any such violations are needed to explain the recycling of energy in the earth's climate system? I can see no reason for that.

Obviously. But then you believe you can create energy out of nothing and reduce overall entropy of the universe.

One Punch Man wrote:
While I respect your right as a free individual not to accept this concept (which is commonplace in science) I must say that I cannot imagine the reason why you don't.

Because it's not science. It has nothing to do with science at all. It is religion dressed up to look like science.

One Punch Man wrote:
Back-radiation is the principle of the survival blanket.
If it can warm an injured mountaineer, why shouldn't it also be able to warm a planet?

Because the atmosphere is not an insulator.


The Parrot Killer
30-01-2016 02:38
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night confidently asserts: "Physicists DO have a problem with it".

If he is so confident he is right, surely he could come up with a couple of names of physicists who have published research papers demonstrating that the 'greenhouse' effect 'violates the laws of thermodynamics'?

Or even one Atmospheric Physics textbook?



Edited on 30-01-2016 02:40
30-01-2016 03:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night confidently asserts: "Physicists DO have a problem with it".

If he is so confident he is right, surely he could come up with a couple of names of physicists who have published research papers demonstrating that the 'greenhouse' effect 'violates the laws of thermodynamics'?

Or even one Atmospheric Physics textbook?


Why would one publish a research paper on it? It's not worth their time. What's to research?

You are just trying to pass the burden of proof again. The burden of proof is on YOU to describe how greenhouse gases modify the laws of physics as required. So far you haven't done that.


The Parrot Killer
30-01-2016 04:26
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Science is just so 'unfair' to crackpot science deniers like IBdaMned and Into the Dark isn't it? They have to violate and torture the laws of physics so they can convince themselves that their scientifically illiterate ideological/religious beliefs are right and scientists and all the textbooks are wrong.


Into the Dark must think it's very 'unfair' that he can't find ANY Atmospheric Physics textbook that doesn't discuss the physics of the earth's 'greenhouse' effect. There's no violation or 'modification' of the laws of physics.



Edited on 30-01-2016 05:09
30-01-2016 10:38
John Niclasen
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
From university course, "Global Warming", as taught at the University of Chicago. This lecture has the title:

Lecture 7 - Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere

At 00:49 these words are spoken:

So this is our first stage in our sort of journey of discovery about how inadequate the layer model is to describing the real world.

This is an interesting thread, and many false things are said. And many tend to intimidate others, which is not beneficial for the dialogue.

As a real great scientist said:

Richard Feynman
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

Atmospheric science has a long way to go.
Edited on 30-01-2016 10:40
30-01-2016 12:18
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night confidently asserts: "Physicists DO have a problem with it".

If he is so confident he is right, surely he could come up with a couple of names of physicists who have published research papers demonstrating that the 'greenhouse' effect 'violates the laws of thermodynamics'?

Or even one Atmospheric Physics textbook?


Why would one publish a research paper on it? It's not worth their time. What's to research?

You are just trying to pass the burden of proof again. The burden of proof is on YOU to describe how greenhouse gases modify the laws of physics as required. So far you haven't done that.


Since any scholkid can demonstrate the properties of greenhouse gasses with a "parlour trick" and the problem is your understanding not the laws of physics I can't really see why people should bother.
30-01-2016 16:49
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
John Niclasen wrote:
From university course, "Global Warming", as taught at the University of Chicago. This lecture has the title:

Lecture 7 - Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere

At 00:49 these words are spoken:

So this is our first stage in our sort of journey of discovery about how inadequate the layer model is to describing the real world.

This is an interesting thread, and many false things are said. And many tend to intimidate others, which is not beneficial for the dialogue.

As a real great scientist said:

Richard Feynman
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

Atmospheric science has a long way to go.


If you only got 49 seconds into one lecture in a series of 23 lectures for undergrads, I would say that it's you who has a long way to go.

As Bertrand Russell said: "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"



Edited on 30-01-2016 16:51
30-01-2016 17:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
spot wrote: Since any scholkid can demonstrate the properties of greenhouse gasses


What is "greenhouse gas" anyway?

How does one conclude Global Warming from "demonstrating its properties" ?

I can demonstrate the properties of a magnet. Will you conclude Global Warming from that as well?


.


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
30-01-2016 17:01
John Niclasen
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
Ceist wrote:
If you only got 49 seconds into ... it's you who has a long way to go.

... "A stupid ..."

You are very hostile. Bye bye, have fun!
30-01-2016 17:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
John Niclasen wrote:
Atmospheric science has a long way to go.

What does Global Warming have to do with atmospheric science?


.


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
30-01-2016 17:13
John Niclasen
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
IBdaMann wrote:
John Niclasen wrote:
Atmospheric science has a long way to go.

What does Global Warming have to do with atmospheric science?

Very little, as I see it. If you raise the amount of atmosphere so much, that you can measure an increase in pressure at the surface, then you could expect some warming directly caused by properties of the atmosphere.

Like we see on Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.

Other properties can change temperature to different degrees up and down.

Maybe they should call that course at University of Chicago something else than "Global Warming".
30-01-2016 17:23
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: Since any scholkid can demonstrate the properties of greenhouse gasses


What is "greenhouse gas" anyway?

How does one conclude Global Warming from "demonstrating its properties" ?

I can demonstrate the properties of a magnet. Will you conclude Global Warming from that as well?


.


You want words defined again. I can't see why you are asking me If you are struggling you could look it up. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/greenhouse+gas Anyway my understanding is that A greenhouse gas is a gas that is transparent to visible light but not infra red, not all gasses are like this argon oxygen and nitrogen dont have this property a spectrograph proves it, its not controvesial.

And yes you demonstrate magnets but if we were having an argument about say the arms of the spiral galaxy and you invoked magnetism as an explanation and I countered that magnetism does not exist for some reason known only to myself your simple demonstration would prove that it did.
30-01-2016 17:38
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
John Niclasen wrote:
Ceist wrote:
If you only got 49 seconds into ... it's you who has a long way to go.

... "A stupid ..."

You are very hostile. Bye bye, have fun!

Perhaps you could have read the context of what Feynman said:

http://profizgl.lu.lv/pluginfile.php/32795/mod_resource/content/0/WHAT_IS_SCIENCE_by_R.Feynman_1966.pdf

or the context of what Archer was saying in that lecture.

But no, you went for the cheap, lazy shot.... and missed by a mile.



Edited on 30-01-2016 18:12
30-01-2016 17:51
John Niclasen
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
w> .
Hello, World!
Attached image:

30-01-2016 21:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
spot wrote:You want words defined again. I can't see why you are asking me

So the question "What is 'greenhouse gas'?" is too difficult for you to answer in your own words. I apologize. I didn't intend to make you struggle.

spot wrote: Anyway my understanding is that A greenhouse gas is a gas that is transparent to visible light but not infra red

So when you say "..my understanding is..." I presume that you are admitting that you just guessing. I didn't mean to make you struggle.

...but that would explain why you completely EVADED my main question about how demonstrating this property, i.e. it absorbs IR EM, would lead anyone who isn't gullible to conclude Global Warming.

The only way temperature can increase is to provide additional energy, yet the sun's energy stream is essentially constant for our purposes, so I'm really trying to get you to explain how the properties of "greenhouse gas" that I can verify on my own via a standard parlor trick, somehow creates energy that would increase temperature.

On the one hand, I have the 1st LoT that says energy can never be created or destroyed, yet on the other hand I have you insisting that "greenhouse gas" does exactly that by increasing temperature, as demonstrated in your standard parlor trick.

So please explain in your own words how "greenhouse gas" creates this additional energy.


.


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
30-01-2016 21:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
Into the Night wrote:Why would one publish a research paper on it? It's not worth their time. What's to research?

Perhaps Ceist might notice that no Physicist with a PhD from an accredited university has published a thorough work proving that there is no Santa Claus.

Maybe Ceist believes in Santa Claus for this reason.

Ooops. I hope Ceist doesn't read this.


.


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
30-01-2016 22:00
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
Fine but first explain how a coat works. It seems to violate the 1st law of physics, I'm warmer with it on yet no extra energy is being created, Is it a psychological effect?
30-01-2016 22:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
spot wrote:
Fine but first explain how a coat works. It seems to violate the 1st law of physics, I'm warmer with it on yet no extra energy is being created, Is it a psychological effect?

This is YET ANOTHER example demonstrating how the Global Warming congregation don't know the difference between thermal conduction/convection and thermal radiation.

A coat works by insulating against thermal conduction/convection.

This principle has nothing to do with thermal radiation.

Earth's radiation and Planck's Law are all about thermal radiation.

Please collaborate with Surface Detail, go learn the fundamentals of each, and then let's re-engage this discussion from this point, just with the advantage that you will not be wasting time asking stupid questions that have been answered many times and you will not be drawing irrelevant analogies.

Once again, gain a working command of:

1. Thermal conduction and convection,

2. Thermal radiation


.


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
31-01-2016 02:14
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Here's an analogy. IBdaMann and Into the Dark are like a little boy who was given a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle that when completed would be a complex picture of the earth. The boy took 10 pieces that didn't fit together and arranged them in the rough shape of a squirrel, tossed aside the other 9,990 pieces, then ran to his mummy yelling "Mummy! I solved the puzzle! Look! It's a squirrel! I'm really smart!"

As adults, they are doing the same thing as that little boy, but with science.

They post incessantly on internet forums that all the scientists are wrong and they are right. But their posts are just the equivalent of that little boy shouting "Look! It's a squirrel!"

Of course if anyone tries to explain to them that their 10 pieces don't even fit together and they are missing the other 9,990 pieces, they'll just keep insisting "It's a squirrel! You're just stupid!"



Edited on 31-01-2016 02:33
31-01-2016 04:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
Ceist wrote:
Here's an analogy. IBdaMann and Into the Dark are like a little boy who was given a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle that when completed would be a complex picture of the earth. The boy took 10 pieces that didn't fit together and arranged them in the rough shape of a squirrel, tossed aside the other 9,990 pieces, then ran to his mummy yelling "Mummy! I solved the puzzle! Look! It's a squirrel! I'm really smart!"

As adults, they are doing the same thing as that little boy, but with science.

They post incessantly on internet forums that all the scientists are wrong and they are right. But their posts are just the equivalent of that little boy shouting "Look! It's a squirrel!"

Of course if anyone tries to explain to them that their 10 pieces don't even fit together and they are missing the other 9,990 pieces, they'll just keep insisting "It's a squirrel! You're just stupid!"

CSIEA


The Parrot Killer
31-01-2016 22:34
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night: "Look mommy! It's a squirrel!"


23-07-2016 01:17
eheat
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
Ceist wrote:
Of course if anyone tries to explain to them that their 10 pieces don't even fit together and they are missing the other 9,990 pieces, they'll just keep insisting "It's a squirrel! You're just stupid!"


If the whole base for your argument is the difference in temperature between measurement and the failed attempt to calculate earth heated by blackbody sun, then it must be you that are fond of squirrels.

The calculation you rely on gives a model of the sun heating earth with 240W/m^2.
In reality it is mostly between 500 and a bit above 1000. The difference between those two models is more than just the Watts. And no one should question the fact that earth-bb heated by a sun with 240W/m^2, is a product of flawed application of physics.

Think about it, if those 33C is not a correct conclusion drawn, but instead a product of error in calculation, all your 9990 pieces are worth nothing. Hell, it´s not even a puzzle anymore. More like pieces of toiletpaper with fuzzy drawings connected with tape.

Every argument made by climateterror, are validated by only the assumption that Planck&Boltzmann with friends have made a complete model for radiating bodies in the universe, but it doesn´t work for earth.

And that is propagated continously even though there are ways to calculate the temperature to 288K with measured values in reality with no problem.

Just the fact that your starting point for the whole theory is the assumption that the blackbody theory is not functional for earth, and is thrown out the window before one thinks that just maybe there could be a problem in the calculations, is invalidating the theory.

The most intelligent people that humanity has produced is the brains behind blackbody radiation. And you say: their model doesn´t work. Let´s have a look at icecold air instead.
Edited on 23-07-2016 01:18
23-07-2016 16:49
woody
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
Awesome, a thread on thermodynamics and the laws. In my book, "Decoding Earth's Hidden Secrets" I explain the planets heating and cooling, how it works. I am working on the production of a documentary now for TV. Here is the trailer and will love this discussion. The primary law one must understand is that heat is single direction, from hot to cold. It CANNOT flow from cold to hot. If we can all agree on this, prepare to see our world as its never been seen before. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHRY2QCxn98
23-07-2016 21:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
woody wrote:
Awesome, a thread on thermodynamics and the laws. In my book, "Decoding Earth's Hidden Secrets" I explain the planets heating and cooling, how it works. I am working on the production of a documentary now for TV. Here is the trailer and will love this discussion. The primary law one must understand is that heat is single direction, from hot to cold. It CANNOT flow from cold to hot. If we can all agree on this, prepare to see our world as its never been seen before. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHRY2QCxn98


Unfortunately, there are still a few here that do not understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics. They see colder air somehow warming the surface of the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
23-07-2016 22:28
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
Another thermodynamic troll, just what this place needs, are you an unpleasant pompous buffoon as well because we need more of them.
08-08-2016 17:31
Sheesh
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
Am I the only one that spotted the flaw in the argument against the emissivity graphs, ITN said "This graph does not disprove Planck's law at all. Nothing says that the atmosphere can't filter out certain wavelengths. Any energy absorbed by such a filter is simply converted to the overall emission (another wavelength)." Correct me if im wrong but any decrease in wavelength would result in more energy being left in the atmosphere? as per the 1st law?

As I understand the argument green house gases have a tendency to increase the travel time or IR leaving the surface of the earth (due to absorbtion and emission) the longer that energy spends escaping the atmosphere the more chance of it becoming heat?

oh and on a side note mylar blankets are not insulators either they are IR reflective and offer almost no insulation from conduction and only very minor protection from convection unless you are naked. so the example is appropriate as a comparison to the atmosphere
08-08-2016 21:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
Sheesh wrote:
Am I the only one that spotted the flaw in the argument against the emissivity graphs, ITN said "This graph does not disprove Planck's law at all. Nothing says that the atmosphere can't filter out certain wavelengths. Any energy absorbed by such a filter is simply converted to the overall emission (another wavelength)." Correct me if im wrong but any decrease in wavelength would result in more energy being left in the atmosphere? as per the 1st law?

No, it shows more energy has LEFT the atmosphere.
Sheesh wrote:
As I understand the argument green house gases have a tendency to increase the travel time or IR leaving the surface of the earth (due to absorbtion and emission) the longer that energy spends escaping the atmosphere the more chance of it becoming heat?

The speed of light doesn't change due to carbon dioxide (at least any more than any other gas).
Sheesh wrote:
oh and on a side note mylar blankets are not insulators either they are IR reflective and offer almost no insulation from conduction and only very minor protection from convection unless you are naked. so the example is appropriate as a comparison to the atmosphere

Dead wrong.

Mylar blankets stop almost all convection. They also mirror light, shutting off emissive losses as well. They also block water vapor, preventing evaporative losses.

It is not an appropriate comparison to the atmosphere. Gases that absorb light are not reflecting it, but absorbing it. Absorption converts light into thermal energy which is conducted and convected upward to colder regions.


The Parrot Killer
08-08-2016 23:34
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
"No, it shows more energy has LEFT the atmosphere."

How does it show one but not the other?

"The speed of light doesn't change due to carbon dioxide (at least any more than any other gas)."

The speed of light refracted by CO2: 299657912m/s
The speed of light refracted by SO2: 299586941m/s

A difference of 0.04%. Not a lot, but still "more".
09-08-2016 02:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
Leafsdude wrote:
"No, it shows more energy has LEFT the atmosphere."

How does it show one but not the other?

"The speed of light doesn't change due to carbon dioxide (at least any more than any other gas)."

The speed of light refracted by CO2: 299657912m/s
The speed of light refracted by SO2: 299586941m/s

A difference of 0.04%. Not a lot, but still "more".


Makes no difference in the end. Refraction is not a heat producing phenomenon. A material does not get warmer because of refraction.


The Parrot Killer
09-08-2016 03:06
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Refraction doesn't produce heat, it redirects it, just as a mirror doesn't produce light, it reflects it.
Edited on 09-08-2016 03:07
09-08-2016 04:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
Leafsdude wrote:
Refraction doesn't produce heat, it redirects it, just as a mirror doesn't produce light, it reflects it.


Refraction does not redirect heat. It redirects light. A mirror does not reflect heat, it reflects light.


The Parrot Killer
09-08-2016 18:31
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Pop quiz: what is heat?
Page 6 of 9<<<45678>>>





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 Law74322-11-2019 04:54
So what if the Chinese fossil fuel industry pays me to spread lies about greenhouse gas?7515-11-2019 04:47
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