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

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Not that the debate isn't fun, either.

====

I'm trying to understand where we diverge. We agree that heat is flowing in and out of the Earth, right? Is it that I think CO2 obstructs the leaving heat, while you don't? (Just so I can keep track of two debates at once - I don't think you ever invoked the LoT or Plank/SB laws, right? If you did, how do those play into all this?)

Wait, I do remember, you said that the S-B Law applied to molecules in the [s]atomsphere[/s] atmosphere. A few posts ago. Could you clarify your use of S-B Law to specific particles?

Personally, I find a debate on this level enjoyable.

CO2 doesn't really obstruct anything. While it can absorb certain narrow bands of IR light, the effect of that absorption is the destruction of the photon and conversion of the energy it contained into kinetic energy (temperature). This is true for a single molecule or a whole beaker full of the gas.

The atmospheric density of CO2 is currently around 0.04% of the atmosphere. That means the energy the CO2 gained by absorbing a photon is dissipated across approx 2500 other nearby molecules of other stuff. This dissipation happens by conduction. That in turn is conducted and convected away from the warmer surface below.

The other molecules in the air are warmed also, but through conduction and convection from the surface.

If you were able to see infrared directly, you see the surface solid and 'hot'. The air above it in a 'redder' dim glow like a fog, that becomes redder and dimmer as you rise in to the sky.

Once you reach the tropopause and enter the stratosphere, you will see the glow becoming 'bluer' again, but still growing dimmer as you continue to rise into the sky. Once you reach the stratopause, the light, now quite dim becomes redder once more as you rise.

By the time you reach the thermosphere, the light is so dim you can't really see it anymore. You are effectively in space.

The reason the light dims is because there are fewer molecules as you rise into the sky. The reason you 'see' the light at all is because each molecule is putting out photons according to it's temperature, just as Stefan-Boltzmann predicts.

The reason such a dim glow cannot warm the surface is because of the 2nd LoT, which states that heat always flows from hot to cold, at a rate determined by the difference. It never flows from cold to hot.

It takes energy to emit a photon from the Earth. When that photon strikes a gas and is absorbed, all of that energy is converted to kinetic form. As far as the electromagnetic energy is concerned here, it is lost completely.

That molecule, after dissipating its energy in various ways to other molecules and by gaining altitude, working against gravity (which also takes energy), will emit photons according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. These are lower energy photons than what it received. If one does strike the surface and is absorbed, it cannot warm the surface as much as what it lost in the original photon.

The 2nd LoT can be extended to all forms of energy. High energy areas 'flow' to low energy areas. The reverse cannot happen. This law, which is the law of entropy, affects all forms of energy, not just kinetic (thermal) energy.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed. So the effect is that a concentrated bit of energy will be dissipated over a larger and larger area. The same energy is there, but spread over such a large area as to be effectively useless.

Now substitute 'volume' for 'area' and you get the idea in three dimensions.

So, the 1st LoT says that you cannot just create energy. It says that energy cannot be created (or destroyed).

The 2nd LoT says that you cannot gather existing energy from somewhere without putting energy into doing so. The books must balance. Once energy is dissipated, you must spend energy to get it back. The amount you spend will equal the amount you gather. Concentrating energy isn't free.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law relates electromagnetic energy (light) and kinetic energy (temperature), even for real (gray) bodies.

Planck's Law relates the energy of light to its frequency (color). It describes why photons are not equal to each other.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Maybe if you say that enough, it will become true.

SB law concerns radiating. Can't CO2 block some radiation? If I put a screen up that only blocks infrared, is that violating SB?

jwoodward48 wrote:
Deliberate -mis- interpretations. We need a better edit feature, I'm used to editing abilities always being available.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Ah, I see. There is indeed a smoothing or dulling of the short-term temperature changes, and that is what you describe. But that is entirely different from the equilibrium of internal<->external energy flow, modified by albedo, absorption, etc.

There is no equilibrium here because you are talking about light, which is not heat.

There is no delay. Light moves at ... the speed of light.

While light does slow down when it enters a transparent substance, including the atmosphere, it speeds up again when it leaves. This change of speed happens only at the interface.

The effect of this slowing down gives us our blue sky (instead of black) and our red sunsets (by scattering blue away from the horizon). It also produces the glory and the rainbow. It is why Snell's window exists underwater, and is what makes prisms and lenses work. It even produces the famous green flash sometimes seen at the moment of sunset in tropical climates. It also produces the desert mirage.

In no case in the atmosphere will light slow down to produce the kind of equilibrium you are talking about.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Okay. It turns out that S-B law doesn't care about frequency, only the outgoing energy. But then is Planck's law related to those graphs of wavelengths of radiation?

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
And where you finally go wrong. I don't really have much beef with you; you're not nasty, and you give good, actual arguments. I actually enjoy talking with you.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law as it is currently written applies only to theoretical, ideal objects. If you want to apply it to real-world objects, you have to explain how your chosen object acts like a black body. Atoms in particular, I believe, are particularly bad objects to use SB's law on; they can only emit particular wavelengths, not the continuous possibilities seen on graphs of SB's law.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law can apply to any body, ideally 'black' or even ideally 'white'. Real bodies are grey bodies, and the law does apply in exactly the same way for them with the compensation of emissivity of that body.

This law calculates the light emitting from a body due to it's temperature. By turning it around, we can calculate an 'effective' temperature of a body receiving light. Unfortunately, there are many factors that go into real bodies beyond Stefan-Boltzmann. Using the equation this way only masks what the equation is really good for and gives you incorrect values of real temperatures on real bodies (planets).

It is why this law must have a fudge factor built into every planet or moon it is calculated for. The value for this fudge factor attempts to quantify that unknown difference between effective temperature and real temperatures observed.

In the case of the Earth, that fudge factor is simply attributed to the effect of greenhouse gasses. This is a rash assumption. It could come from anywhere, including sources we do not even know about. In my opinion, the fudge factor for Earth can be attributed to our molten core and volcanic activity.

This is why the Stefan-Boltzmann law is basically good only for one way, to show that emitted light is dependent on temperature alone, regardless of substance. In this use, emissivity doesn't change anything about the nature of the equation.

Yeah, I've done a bit more research. It seems like S-B actually applies to everything, but global warming still doesn't violate it.

If I place a mirror above the Earth, less heat will escape. If I completely cover one side of the Earth's atmosphere with a one-way mirror (yes, I am aware those don't exist), letting light only in and not out, then energy will escape at half its normal rate. The external measurement of temperature will be off, using S-B, but that's because the light has been tampered with. (Assuming that you are looking at Earth from the side of the mirror, sort of like the half moon.) S-B only says what will be emitted from the Earth's surface - it doesn't care what happens in the atmosphere.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Not that the debate isn't fun, either.

====

I'm trying to understand where we diverge. We agree that heat is flowing in and out of the Earth, right? Is it that I think CO2 obstructs the leaving heat, while you don't? (Just so I can keep track of two debates at once - I don't think you ever invoked the LoT or Plank/SB laws, right? If you did, how do those play into all this?)

Wait, I do remember, you said that the S-B Law applied to molecules in the [s]atomsphere[/s] atmosphere. A few posts ago. Could you clarify your use of S-B Law to specific particles?

Personally, I find a debate on this level enjoyable.

It is fitting that you call yourself the Parrot Killer, since once all parrots are dead, you only have thinkers to talk with.

jwoodward48 wrote:

CO2 doesn't really obstruct anything. While it can absorb certain narrow bands of IR light, the effect of that absorption is the destruction of the photon and conversion of the energy it contained into kinetic energy (temperature). This is true for a single molecule or a whole beaker full of the gas.

This is an obstruction of the escaping light, no?

jwoodward48 wrote:

The atmospheric density of CO2 is currently around 0.04% of the atmosphere. That means the energy the CO2 gained by absorbing a photon is dissipated across approx 2500 other nearby molecules of other stuff. This dissipation happens by conduction. That in turn is conducted and convected away from the warmer surface below.

The other molecules in the air are warmed also, but through conduction and convection from the surface.

It doesn't matter where the energy goes as long as it's not escaping.

jwoodward48 wrote:

If you were able to see infrared directly, you see the surface solid and 'hot'. The air above it in a 'redder' dim glow like a fog, that becomes redder and dimmer as you rise in to the sky.

Once you reach the tropopause and enter the stratosphere, you will see the glow becoming 'bluer' again, but still growing dimmer as you continue to rise into the sky. Once you reach the stratopause, the light, now quite dim becomes redder once more as you rise.

By the time you reach the thermosphere, the light is so dim you can't really see it anymore. You are effectively in space.

Quite true. I agree with all of this.

The reason the light dims is because there are fewer molecules as you rise into the sky. The reason you 'see' the light at all is because each molecule is putting out photons according to it's temperature, just as Stefan-Boltzmann predicts.

Ditto. Except just a pedantic criticism - didn't you say that I could see infrared?

jwoodward48 wrote:

The reason such a dim glow cannot warm the surface is because of the 2nd LoT, which states that heat always flows from hot to cold, at a rate determined by the difference. It never flows from cold to hot.

When a dam is constructed, how does the dam at the shallow part make the other part deep? The 2nd law can't be applied as easily when you have constant incoming and outgoing energy, like a heat-leaky house with a shivering owner. Is there some crucial difference between CO2 and a dam? Is there some reason that an uninsulated home cannot represent the Earth?

jwoodward48 wrote:

It takes energy to emit a photon from the Earth. When that photon strikes a gas and is absorbed, all of that energy is converted to kinetic form. As far as the electromagnetic energy is concerned here, it is lost completely.

That molecule, after dissipating its energy in various ways to other molecules and by gaining altitude, working against gravity (which also takes energy), will emit photons according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. These are lower energy photons than what it received. If one does strike the surface and is absorbed, it cannot warm the surface as much as what it lost in the original photon.

But it warms it more than "no photon"! There is a net loss of energy to space, yes, but what matters is incoming energy minus outgoing energy. No matter how slightly the second is decreased, it will still have an effect on the equilibrium.

jwoodward48 wrote:

The 2nd LoT can be extended to all forms of energy. High energy areas 'flow' to low energy areas. The reverse cannot happen. This law, which is the law of entropy, affects all forms of energy, not just kinetic (thermal) energy.

But the energy is flowing to space. It's just that more energy is coming from the Sun, and not quite enough energy has left to make "enough room" in the current temperature. It's like a hotel - if it's scheduled to be completely full on Monday and Tuesday, and one guest who was supposed to leave on Monday decided to stay, the hotel would be too full. There is indeed a net outflow of energy when looking solely at the outgoing energy, but incoming energy matters just as much.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed. So the effect is that a concentrated bit of energy will be dissipated over a larger and larger area. The same energy is there, but spread over such a large area as to be effectively useless.

Now substitute 'volume' for 'area' and you get the idea in three dimensions.

So, the 1st LoT says that you cannot just create energy. It says that energy cannot be created (or destroyed).

The 2nd LoT says that you cannot gather existing energy from somewhere without putting energy into doing so. The books must balance. Once energy is dissipated, you must spend energy to get it back. The amount you spend will equal the amount you gather. Concentrating energy isn't free.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law relates electromagnetic energy (light) and kinetic energy (temperature), even for real (gray) bodies.

Planck's Law relates the energy of light to its frequency (color). It describes why photons are not equal to each other.

@2ndLoT: But that's just it! It takes energy to reduce entropy in a location, and that energy comes from the Sun. Besides, the 2ndLoT is dark magicks and I never trusted it anyway.

[/jk]

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Ah, I see. There is indeed a smoothing or dulling of the short-term temperature changes, and that is what you describe. But that is entirely different from the equilibrium of internal<->external energy flow, modified by albedo, absorption, etc.

There is no equilibrium here because you are talking about light, which is not heat.

There is no delay. Light moves at ... the speed of light.

While light does slow down when it enters a transparent substance, including the atmosphere, it speeds up again when it leaves. This change of speed happens only at the interface.

The effect of this slowing down gives us our blue sky (instead of black) and our red sunsets (by scattering blue away from the horizon). It also produces the glory and the rainbow. It is why Snell's window exists underwater, and is what makes prisms and lenses work. It even produces the famous green flash sometimes seen at the moment of sunset in tropical climates. It also produces the desert mirage.

In no case in the atmosphere will light slow down to produce the kind of equilibrium you are talking about.

I am talking about heat. Incoming light gives heat, outgoing light takes away heat. (Or thermal energy, whichever.)

jwoodward48 wrote:
...Are you talking about thermal radiation? Because electromagnetic radiation should be affected by this mirror. Just in case, though, let's make it "magic" for now. First I need to make sure that it's actually physically possible for anything to heat up the Earth.

Okay. S-B does apply everywhere. But if part of the radiation is blocked... so what? How exactly are you invoking S-B?

jwoodward48 wrote:The Earth then stores that energy as thermal energy and releases it through black body radiation. Right?

jwoodward48 wrote:If some of the outgoing radiation is instead redirected back toward Earth, then the equilibrium of incoming and outgoing light gets a metaphorical hard kick.

jwoodward48 wrote:Once it restabilizes, the temperature is higher.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
...Are you talking about thermal radiation? Because electromagnetic radiation should be affected by this mirror. Just in case, though, let's make it "magic" for now. First I need to make sure that it's actually physically possible for anything to heat up the Earth.

Okay. S-B does apply everywhere. But if part of the radiation is blocked... so what? How exactly are you invoking S-B?

No, I am talking about heat flow, which has nothing to do with light.

Assuming your magick barrier blocks all electromagnetic radiation coming into the Earth (the only way to keep it from heating the Earth).

Such a barrier would also block any electromagnetic radiation from leaving the Earth, and any ability for radiated energy to leave the Earth. A perfect insulator from your magick barrier.

The result is that the Earth, which contains a molten core (the result of fission inside the Earth), would gradually get hotter and hotter. The whole Earth would eventually look a lot like it's present mantle.

This is the same as putting such a perfect insulator around a house and turning the furnace on. You will eventually burn down the house (and the furnace) that way. Once the fuel is consumed and the fire is out, the remains will glow with the heat of it forever.

(why do I suddenly feel like Randall Munroe describing a fastball pitched at near the speed of light?)

jwoodward48 wrote:
Hmm. Okay. I meant thermal energy then. I guess it's another "scientist vs layman" use of the word, and after years without a refresher on this, I slipped back to the layman's use.

The light itself is only a way of conveying the energy from the Sun to the Earth. The Earth then stores that energy as thermal energy and releases it through black body radiation. Right?

If some of the outgoing radiation is instead redirected back toward Earth, then the equilibrium of incoming and outgoing light gets a metaphorical hard kick. Once it restabilizes, the temperature is higher. The bathtub and house analogies are not perfect, but they contain the idea of "inflow/outflow equilibrium" that I'm trying to convey.

jwoodward48 wrote:
(also, I do think the 2nd LoT fine, it's actually the "entropy = chaos" interpretation of it that I dislike. Chaos and disorder are crucial ideas that humanity has, but their layman interpretation cannot quite be quantized like that. In fact, maximum entropy would mean absolutely flat energy, everywhere. Seems "orderly" to me, in the layman's sense of disorder.)

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
...Are you talking about thermal radiation? Because electromagnetic radiation should be affected by this mirror. Just in case, though, let's make it "magic" for now. First I need to make sure that it's actually physically possible for anything to heat up the Earth.

Okay. S-B does apply everywhere. But if part of the radiation is blocked... so what? How exactly are you invoking S-B?

No, I am talking about heat flow, which has nothing to do with light.

...isn't radiative heat in the form of electromagnetic radiation? Hot glowing iron - the light carries some thermal energy away, converting it to some other type of energy (electromagnetic, I assume?).

jwoodward48 wrote:

Assuming your magick barrier blocks all electromagnetic radiation coming into the Earth (the only way to keep it from heating the Earth).

But that's the point! It lets any light in, no matter what, but doesn't let any light escape. I'm currently ignoring physical properties and such in order to figure out if, given a "perfect material," I could heat up the Earth.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Such a barrier would also block any electromagnetic radiation from leaving the Earth, and any ability for radiated energy to leave the Earth. A perfect insulator from your magick barrier.

Oops, I think I may have stressed the post wrong. Only half of the energy is prevented from leaving. It would prevent any and all radiation from leaving North America, but not India, for instance.

jwoodward48 wrote:

The result is that the Earth, which contains a molten core (the result of fission inside the Earth), would gradually get hotter and hotter. The whole Earth would eventually look a lot like it's present mantle.

See previous posts. Some energy cannot escape, not all.

jwoodward48 wrote:

This is the same as putting such a perfect insulator around a house and turning the furnace on. You will eventually burn down the house (and the furnace) that way. Once the fuel is consumed and the fire is out, the remains will glow with the heat of it forever.

(why do I suddenly feel like Randall Munroe describing a fastball pitched at near the speed of light?)

You like xkcd too? Awesome! Yeah, this does feel like an explainxkcd - an implausible situation being used to convey scientific explanations and theories.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:The Earth then stores that energy as thermal energy and releases it through black body radiation. Right?

Nope. No substance stores thermal energy. No substance traps thermal energy.

Thermal energy pours (radiates) freely out of all substances based on its temperature (re:Stefan-Boltzmann)

jwoodward48 wrote:If some of the outgoing radiation is instead redirected back toward Earth, then the equilibrium of incoming and outgoing light gets a metaphorical hard kick.

Nope. Energy can change form but there is no magical direction that somehow creates more of it (re: 1st LoT)

jwoodward48 wrote:Once it restabilizes, the temperature is higher.

Wow! You are still kicking Stefan-Boltzmann to the curb, I see.


P . U . R . E . * . S . C . I . E . N . C . E . * . D . E . N . I . A . L

Wake me up when you get to the point where you resort to insisting that the constants of emissivity and albedo are actually variables whose value "greenhouse gas" magically modifies to the value you wish it were.

You're not there yet but it should be just around the corner.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
...Are you talking about thermal radiation? Because electromagnetic radiation should be affected by this mirror. Just in case, though, let's make it "magic" for now. First I need to make sure that it's actually physically possible for anything to heat up the Earth.

Okay. S-B does apply everywhere. But if part of the radiation is blocked... so what? How exactly are you invoking S-B?

No, I am talking about heat flow, which has nothing to do with light.

...isn't radiative heat in the form of electromagnetic radiation? Hot glowing iron - the light carries some thermal energy away, converting it to some other type of energy (electromagnetic, I assume?).

Light is light and thermal energy is thermal energy. Never the twain shall meet and be the same thing.

You can convert one to the other, but they are not the same thing.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Assuming your magick barrier blocks all electromagnetic radiation coming into the Earth (the only way to keep it from heating the Earth).

But that's the point! It lets any light in, no matter what, but doesn't let any light escape. I'm currently ignoring physical properties and such in order to figure out if, given a "perfect material," I could heat up the Earth.

It truly would be a magick substance to have the properties you need. There is no such substance, not even remotely like it. Carbon dioxide certainly has none of these qualities, neither does water vapor.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Such a barrier would also block any electromagnetic radiation from leaving the Earth, and any ability for radiated energy to leave the Earth. A perfect insulator from your magick barrier.

Oops, I think I may have stressed the post wrong. Only half of the energy is prevented from leaving. It would prevent any and all radiation from leaving North America, but not India, for instance.

You are still ignoring the effects of thermal energy (which is not light at all). You are also still ignoring the different energies of different photons.

jwoodward48 wrote:

The result is that the Earth, which contains a molten core (the result of fission inside the Earth), would gradually get hotter and hotter. The whole Earth would eventually look a lot like it's present mantle.

See previous posts. Some energy cannot escape, not all.

If you open the door to energy escaping, the hotter the surface, the faster the energy will escape until the energy inside the barrier is the same as the energy outside the barrier. Since no sun is allowed in this scenario, other than what comes through the same door, the incoming energy to replace what is lost to space is minimal. The Earth will be quite cold, but warmer than space.

jwoodward48 wrote:

This is the same as putting such a perfect insulator around a house and turning the furnace on. You will eventually burn down the house (and the furnace) that way. Once the fuel is consumed and the fire is out, the remains will glow with the heat of it forever.

(why do I suddenly feel like Randall Munroe describing a fastball pitched at near the speed of light?)

You like xkcd too? Awesome! Yeah, this does feel like an explainxkcd - an implausible situation being used to convey scientific explanations and theories.

I'm not as good an artist.

My experiences in this stuff come from a different direction as well.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
...Are you talking about thermal radiation? Because electromagnetic radiation should be affected by this mirror. Just in case, though, let's make it "magic" for now. First I need to make sure that it's actually physically possible for anything to heat up the Earth.

Okay. S-B does apply everywhere. But if part of the radiation is blocked... so what? How exactly are you invoking S-B?

No, I am talking about heat flow, which has nothing to do with light.

...isn't radiative heat in the form of electromagnetic radiation? Hot glowing iron - the light carries some thermal energy away, converting it to some other type of energy (electromagnetic, I assume?).

Light is light and thermal energy is thermal energy. Never the twain shall meet and be the same thing.

You can convert one to the other, but they are not the same thing.

You were saying that thermal energy cannot be blocked as light is. But the only effective way for energy to escape from Earth is by radiation, which is light.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Assuming your magick barrier blocks all electromagnetic radiation coming into the Earth (the only way to keep it from heating the Earth).

But that's the point! It lets any light in, no matter what, but doesn't let any light escape. I'm currently ignoring physical properties and such in order to figure out if, given a "perfect material," I could heat up the Earth.

It truly would be a magick substance to have the properties you need. There is no such substance, not even remotely like it. Carbon dioxide certainly has none of these qualities, neither does water vapor.

I agree. This is a very idealised substance, but if I can get the slightest imbalance between incoming-energy-absorption and outgoing-energy-absorption, a similar but weaker effect is created. I am fairly sure that carbon dioxide blocks outgoing energy better than incoming energy.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Such a barrier would also block any electromagnetic radiation from leaving the Earth, and any ability for radiated energy to leave the Earth. A perfect insulator from your magick barrier.

Oops, I think I may have stressed the post wrong. Only half of the energy is prevented from leaving. It would prevent any and all radiation from leaving North America, but not India, for instance.

You are still ignoring the effects of thermal energy (which is not light at all). You are also still ignoring the different energies of different photons.

Thermal energy is not going to space. Thermal energy is the "storage form" of energy until it can be radiated to space again in the form of light.

Could you explain how the different energies of specific photons affects the macroscopic, overall energy flow? I can't really see how it makes a difference. I'm looking at the total energy flows - how does an individual photon's energy play into all this? (If it does matter, it sounds incredibly interesting - I'd like to know how that works.)

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

The result is that the Earth, which contains a molten core (the result of fission inside the Earth), would gradually get hotter and hotter. The whole Earth would eventually look a lot like it's present mantle.

See previous posts. Some energy cannot escape, not all.

If you open the door to energy escaping, the hotter the surface, the faster the energy will escape until the energy inside the barrier is the same as the energy outside the barrier. Since no sun is allowed in this scenario, other than what comes through the same door, the incoming energy to replace what is lost to space is minimal. The Earth will be quite cold, but warmer than space.

Ahh, but the one-way-ness of the door matters. Without the one-way-ness, those problems you noted would definitely happen.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

This is the same as putting such a perfect insulator around a house and turning the furnace on. You will eventually burn down the house (and the furnace) that way. Once the fuel is consumed and the fire is out, the remains will glow with the heat of it forever.

(why do I suddenly feel like Randall Munroe describing a fastball pitched at near the speed of light?)

You like xkcd too? Awesome! Yeah, this does feel like an explainxkcd - an implausible situation being used to convey scientific explanations and theories.

I'm not as good an artist.

My experiences in this stuff come from a different direction as well.

Hard to beat his stick figures.

jwoodward48 wrote: Could you explain how the different energies of specific photons affects the macroscopic, overall energy flow?

jwoodward48 wrote: But doesn't SB apply everywhere?

jwoodward48 wrote:
Wait a minute. Into, you said that the majority of the warmth on Earth comes from infrared. But perhaps even more infrared light would be measured in sunlight outside the atmosphere. Maybe the atmosphere absorbed much of the largest component of the light, but did not diminish its proportion below 50%.

jwoodward48 wrote:FFS, the first LoT is not violated!

jwoodward48 wrote: You want to convince me of that,

jwoodward48 wrote:. Into, you said that the majority of the warmth ...

casualreader wrote:....water vapor in the air doubles down on the infrared radiation absorption....

litesong wrote:

casualreader wrote:....water vapor in the air doubles down on the infrared radiation absorption....

It is good that casualreader shows GHGs do not violate the the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. It is also good to show that water vapor is a phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHG (whether "natural" or man-made) that is a positive feedback to man-made, non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHGs.

litesong wrote:

casualreader wrote:....water vapor in the air doubles down on the infrared radiation absorption....

It is good that casualreader shows GHGs do not violate the the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.

casualreader wrote:
and it'd seem there isn't much solution, it is not simply carbon dioxide it is *emissions* and *heat* and plain simple *combustion* from vehicles (gasoline and diesel burns into water vapor and carbon dioxide, etc) and industries that cause the warm water vapor to get into air and the soot in the emissions that cause all that smog + water vapor which cause all the scattering and ultimately absorbing all that infrared and other radiation from the sun, it contributes/leads to a greenhouse effect and global warming

Absorption of light from the surface by CO2 or any other gas or vapor does not warm the Earth.