Remember me
▼ Content

XKCD earth temperarture;



Page 3 of 3<123
18-09-2016 14:15
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
You do not know the definition of a temperature. A single molecule can have a temperature.

Whether you believe it or not. Stop evading the question. I have given you the question in terms of multiple molecules since you want to make a meal of stupid about this issue.

Is oxygen a radically different temperature than carbon dioxide in the same parcel of air?

This is the only question you have to answer. Stop evading and answer the question.

As I've already written, but you seem unable to grasp, it makes no sense to talk about the temperature of a single molecule of gas. The molecules of a gas that is at a particular temperature have a distribution of energies. But we'll let that go if you like.

I think the question that you're trying to ask is: Do the oxygen and carbon dioxide molecules in a parcel of air that is at a uniform temperature have the same distribution of energies? The answer to this is: Yes. Assuming that the air is sufficiently dense for the molecules to frequently exchange energy though collisions, the molecules within it (both CO2 and O2) will have the same Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of energies.

Now what does this have to do with your assertion that, in denial of quantum physics, oxygen can absorb and emit IR radiation as CO2 does?
18-09-2016 14:39
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
He says that molecules act as black bodies. He evidently does not understand the underlying mechanics of radiation, which I learned a bit about just by searching Wikipedia. If you're a worse source than Wikipedia, I'd start learning things.
18-09-2016 17:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
jwoodward48 wrote:
He says that molecules act as black bodies. He evidently does not understand the underlying mechanics of radiation, which I learned a bit about just by searching Wikipedia. If you're a worse source than Wikipedia, I'd start learning things.

Let's review:
1. You are scientifically illiterate
2. You deny science whenever possible
3. You treat Wikipedia as some sort of authoritative source
4. You are intellectually lazy and seek for others to do your thinking for you, e.g. you'll treat Wikipedia as an authoritative source.
5. You are an argumentative, insulting ashsole to those who know more than you, just because they did not get sucked into the same scam as you.

Yeah, I don't think I'm going to lend much credibility to YOUR claim that someone ELSE somehow doesn't understand something.

Oh, I forgot:

6. You hate humanity and want everyone equally broke and without hope
7. You hate the concept of a free individual and view an omnipotent, oppressive dictatorship as the solution.

Have you followed the events of Venezuela? Any sane person would dismiss anything you were to say out of hand.


.


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
18-09-2016 17:50
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Let's review

Ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem

This is a good example of a post by IB, sadly.

1. Sure, yeah, I'm "scientifically illiterate." Let's test that. Are scientifically illiterate people likely to get 36 on the science portion of the ACT, to take STEM college classes in middle school, or to achieve a 20somethingth score in Astronomy at National Science Olympiad? I'd say that that is conclusive evidence of a far-beyond-basic understanding of science. Can we get back to talking about how molecules apparently do not have emission spectra?

2. My arguments are scientific. We have actual data for GW,, but you dismiss it with conspiracy theories and hand waves.

3. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, but it's a decent starting point for research. My point is that even Wikipedia has been more reliable than you two. Also, that you incorrectly identify basic laws and definitions that a quick Google search can easily show to be false.

4. I don't need to search very hard to disprove you! I used to give better sources, but now I'm using Wikipedia because there's no point in throwing pearls before swine - you just ignore it anyway. Or try to destroy the argument inexpertly.

5. Hypocrite says what?

Into has been missing knowledgel like "individual molecules do not and cannot have a temperature" and "not every gas can absorb or emit at all wavelengths." Googling those questions shows him wrong, no matter which site you go to. A physics textbook would also (probably) prove him wrong.

6. You blame and hate the victim of capitalism, the lower classes, for their own poverty.

7. You think that complete anarchy is optimal.

Most sane people would dismiss your global nonwarming claims. Also, my political leanings have nothing to do with my scientific arguments.
19-09-2016 01:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You do not know the definition of a temperature. A single molecule can have a temperature.

Whether you believe it or not. Stop evading the question. I have given you the question in terms of multiple molecules since you want to make a meal of stupid about this issue.

Is oxygen a radically different temperature than carbon dioxide in the same parcel of air?

This is the only question you have to answer. Stop evading and answer the question.

As I've already written, but you seem unable to grasp, it makes no sense to talk about the temperature of a single molecule of gas. The molecules of a gas that is at a particular temperature have a distribution of energies. But we'll let that go if you like.

I think the question that you're trying to ask is: Do the oxygen and carbon dioxide molecules in a parcel of air that is at a uniform temperature have the same distribution of energies? The answer to this is: Yes. Assuming that the air is sufficiently dense for the molecules to frequently exchange energy though collisions, the molecules within it (both CO2 and O2) will have the same Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of energies.

Now what does this have to do with your assertion that, in denial of quantum physics, oxygen can absorb and emit IR radiation as CO2 does?

So you also are faced with the same problem. If neither oxygen nor nitrogen can emit IR radiation, how does the planet cool? How does the surface, which is not CO2, emit in the first place?

For a second finish, how many molecules are required to call it a temperature?


The Parrot Killer
19-09-2016 01:58
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You do not know the definition of a temperature. A single molecule can have a temperature.

Whether you believe it or not. Stop evading the question. I have given you the question in terms of multiple molecules since you want to make a meal of stupid about this issue.

Is oxygen a radically different temperature than carbon dioxide in the same parcel of air?

This is the only question you have to answer. Stop evading and answer the question.

As I've already written, but you seem unable to grasp, it makes no sense to talk about the temperature of a single molecule of gas. The molecules of a gas that is at a particular temperature have a distribution of energies. But we'll let that go if you like.

I think the question that you're trying to ask is: Do the oxygen and carbon dioxide molecules in a parcel of air that is at a uniform temperature have the same distribution of energies? The answer to this is: Yes. Assuming that the air is sufficiently dense for the molecules to frequently exchange energy though collisions, the molecules within it (both CO2 and O2) will have the same Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of energies.

Now what does this have to do with your assertion that, in denial of quantum physics, oxygen can absorb and emit IR radiation as CO2 does?

So you also are faced with the same problem. If neither oxygen nor nitrogen can emit IR radiation, how does the planet cool? How does the surface, which is not CO2, emit in the first place?

For a second finish, how many molecules are required to call it a temperature?

What problem? The surface of the planet, being solid, emits radiation in a similar fashion to a blackbody. For a body of the Earth's temperature, this radiation is mostly IR.

If the Earth had no atmosphere, or if its atmosphere consisted solely of oxygen and nitrogen, this IR would pass unimpeded into space, thus cooling the planet.

However, the presence of greenhouse gases like CO2 and O2 mean that some of the IR emitted from the Earth's surface does not pass though the atmosphere but is instead absorbed and re-emitted, so that some of it returns to the surface. The effect of this is prevent the planet from cooling itself quite so effectively; its temperature therefore increases.

Hence the greenhouse effect is a direct consequence of the laws of quantum physics that dictate the radiative properties of molecules.
Edited on 19-09-2016 01:58
19-09-2016 02:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Let's review

Ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem

This is a good example of a post by IB, sadly.

He's right on the button. Very succinct.
jwoodward48 wrote:

1. Sure, yeah, I'm "scientifically illiterate." Let's test that. Are scientifically illiterate people likely to get 36 on the science portion of the ACT, to take STEM college classes in middle school, or to achieve a 20somethingth score in Astronomy at National Science Olympiad? I'd say that that is conclusive evidence of a far-beyond-basic understanding of science. Can we get back to talking about how molecules apparently do not have emission spectra?

Nevertheless, you are scientifically illiterate.
jwoodward48 wrote:
2. My arguments are scientific. We have actual data for GW,, but you dismiss it with conspiracy theories and hand waves.

No, they are not. You are making extreme arguments, circular arguments, redefinitions, evasions and redirections. You have NO data for Global Warming. None exist. I do not dismiss it with a hand wave. I dismiss it with mathematics. So does he. DON'T call me or IBDaMann a liar again, ****.

jwoodward48 wrote:
3. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, but it's a decent starting point for research. My point is that even Wikipedia has been more reliable than you two. Also, that you incorrectly identify basic laws and definitions that a quick Google search can easily show to be false.

You are denying your own argument.
1) Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.
2) Wikipedia is a more reliable source.
jwoodward48 wrote:
4. I don't need to search very hard to disprove you! I used to give better sources, but now I'm using Wikipedia because there's no point in throwing pearls before swine - you just ignore it anyway. Or try to destroy the argument inexpertly.

You have no sources other than the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Marx and websites attached to the same.
These are your 'pearls'. As for (ad hominem) 'swine', stop insulting people if you want to get any respect from me again. That includes both IBDaMann and me.

jwoodward48 wrote:
5. Hypocrite says what?

Into has been missing knowledgel like "individual molecules do not and cannot have a temperature" and "not every gas can absorb or emit at all wavelengths." Googling those questions shows him wrong, no matter which site you go to. A physics textbook would also (probably) prove him wrong.

Stop insulting people, ****. Google is not God. You cannot answer how many molecules it takes to have a temperature. You cannot explain how the Earth manages to cool using ONLY greenhouse gases.
jwoodward48 wrote:
6. You blame and hate the victim of capitalism, the lower classes, for their own poverty.

Capitalism does not need poverty. It brings EVERYONE up. It and it alone can bring people out of poverty. I blame the government socialism that keeps them there and assigns them to a 'class' of people.

I blame and hate any socialist that proposes this kind of economy. YOU and your kind NEED the 'lower classes' to use as emotional pawns to further your schemes.

You disgust me.

jwoodward48 wrote:
7. You think that complete anarchy is optimal.

Most sane people would dismiss your global nonwarming claims. Also, my political leanings have nothing to do with my scientific arguments.


But they do. The connections between the Church of Marx and the Church of Global Warming are well known.

Now you called both of us insane. What a f**king hypocrite. You whine and cry because someone insults you. You insulted me first. I forgave you once. You insulted me first again. I demand the restitution I described to you. So far you are doing a lousy job.


The Parrot Killer
19-09-2016 02:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You do not know the definition of a temperature. A single molecule can have a temperature.

Whether you believe it or not. Stop evading the question. I have given you the question in terms of multiple molecules since you want to make a meal of stupid about this issue.

Is oxygen a radically different temperature than carbon dioxide in the same parcel of air?

This is the only question you have to answer. Stop evading and answer the question.

As I've already written, but you seem unable to grasp, it makes no sense to talk about the temperature of a single molecule of gas. The molecules of a gas that is at a particular temperature have a distribution of energies. But we'll let that go if you like.

I think the question that you're trying to ask is: Do the oxygen and carbon dioxide molecules in a parcel of air that is at a uniform temperature have the same distribution of energies? The answer to this is: Yes. Assuming that the air is sufficiently dense for the molecules to frequently exchange energy though collisions, the molecules within it (both CO2 and O2) will have the same Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of energies.

Now what does this have to do with your assertion that, in denial of quantum physics, oxygen can absorb and emit IR radiation as CO2 does?

So you also are faced with the same problem. If neither oxygen nor nitrogen can emit IR radiation, how does the planet cool? How does the surface, which is not CO2, emit in the first place?

For a second finish, how many molecules are required to call it a temperature?

What problem? The surface of the planet, being solid, emits radiation in a similar fashion to a blackbody. For a body of the Earth's temperature, this radiation is mostly IR.

If the Earth had no atmosphere, or if its atmosphere consisted solely of oxygen and nitrogen, this IR would pass unimpeded into space, thus cooling the planet.

However, the presence of greenhouse gases like CO2 and O2 mean that some of the IR emitted from the Earth's surface does not pass though the atmosphere but is instead absorbed and re-emitted, so that some of it returns to the surface. The effect of this is prevent the planet from cooling itself quite so effectively; its temperature therefore increases.

Hence the greenhouse effect is a direct consequence of the laws of quantum physics that dictate the radiative properties of molecules.


So...O2 is a 'greenhouse' gas now, eh? How about N2?

Doesn't your claim of O2 passing IR deny your statement that O2 is a 'greenhouse' gas?

CO2 is colder than the surface. You cannot use S-B to override the 2nd LoT. Something is wrong with the way you are using S-B. Go figure out what it is.

Both laws operate all the time. Both laws are currently accepted theory. They do not conflict with each other. You have to make them BOTH work.


The Parrot Killer
19-09-2016 02:38
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You do not know the definition of a temperature. A single molecule can have a temperature.

Whether you believe it or not. Stop evading the question. I have given you the question in terms of multiple molecules since you want to make a meal of stupid about this issue.

Is oxygen a radically different temperature than carbon dioxide in the same parcel of air?

This is the only question you have to answer. Stop evading and answer the question.

As I've already written, but you seem unable to grasp, it makes no sense to talk about the temperature of a single molecule of gas. The molecules of a gas that is at a particular temperature have a distribution of energies. But we'll let that go if you like.

I think the question that you're trying to ask is: Do the oxygen and carbon dioxide molecules in a parcel of air that is at a uniform temperature have the same distribution of energies? The answer to this is: Yes. Assuming that the air is sufficiently dense for the molecules to frequently exchange energy though collisions, the molecules within it (both CO2 and O2) will have the same Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of energies.

Now what does this have to do with your assertion that, in denial of quantum physics, oxygen can absorb and emit IR radiation as CO2 does?

So you also are faced with the same problem. If neither oxygen nor nitrogen can emit IR radiation, how does the planet cool? How does the surface, which is not CO2, emit in the first place?

For a second finish, how many molecules are required to call it a temperature?

What problem? The surface of the planet, being solid, emits radiation in a similar fashion to a blackbody. For a body of the Earth's temperature, this radiation is mostly IR.

If the Earth had no atmosphere, or if its atmosphere consisted solely of oxygen and nitrogen, this IR would pass unimpeded into space, thus cooling the planet.

However, the presence of greenhouse gases like CO2 and O2 mean that some of the IR emitted from the Earth's surface does not pass though the atmosphere but is instead absorbed and re-emitted, so that some of it returns to the surface. The effect of this is prevent the planet from cooling itself quite so effectively; its temperature therefore increases.

Hence the greenhouse effect is a direct consequence of the laws of quantum physics that dictate the radiative properties of molecules.


So...O2 is a 'greenhouse' gas now, eh? How about N2?

Doesn't your claim of O2 passing IR deny your statement that O2 is a 'greenhouse' gas?

CO2 is colder than the surface. You cannot use S-B to override the 2nd LoT. Something is wrong with the way you are using S-B. Go figure out what it is.

Both laws operate all the time. Both laws are currently accepted theory. They do not conflict with each other. You have to make them BOTH work.

Sorry, that was a typo. I meant H2O, not O2, of course


There is no conflict of laws here. The net direction of heat flow is still upwards. Where, exactly, do you see a problem?
19-09-2016 03:31
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I was just about to make that point, Surface.

Consider a dam. Water always flows down, right? So how does it go up when we construct a dam? (Assume that the dam has a series of holes at its bottom, is infinitely high so that it doesn't have any overflow, and cannot be knocked down.)

Before the dam, the river is shallow. But the dam decreases outflow. This increases the height of water. Equilibrium is reached when the height is enough for the outflow through the dam to equal the outflow before the dam.

This isn't a perfect analogy, but it's decent.

Here's a non-analogy description:

The energy coming out from the Earth is partially reradiated to Earth. The net outflow is preserved but reduced.

Remember that gases that absorb heat must either spread it throughout the atmosphere or radiate it in a random direction. Whether this direction is toward a warmer body or not, radiation will increase temperature RELATIVE TO no radiation.
19-09-2016 19:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You do not know the definition of a temperature. A single molecule can have a temperature.

Whether you believe it or not. Stop evading the question. I have given you the question in terms of multiple molecules since you want to make a meal of stupid about this issue.

Is oxygen a radically different temperature than carbon dioxide in the same parcel of air?

This is the only question you have to answer. Stop evading and answer the question.

As I've already written, but you seem unable to grasp, it makes no sense to talk about the temperature of a single molecule of gas. The molecules of a gas that is at a particular temperature have a distribution of energies. But we'll let that go if you like.

I think the question that you're trying to ask is: Do the oxygen and carbon dioxide molecules in a parcel of air that is at a uniform temperature have the same distribution of energies? The answer to this is: Yes. Assuming that the air is sufficiently dense for the molecules to frequently exchange energy though collisions, the molecules within it (both CO2 and O2) will have the same Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of energies.

Now what does this have to do with your assertion that, in denial of quantum physics, oxygen can absorb and emit IR radiation as CO2 does?

So you also are faced with the same problem. If neither oxygen nor nitrogen can emit IR radiation, how does the planet cool? How does the surface, which is not CO2, emit in the first place?

For a second finish, how many molecules are required to call it a temperature?

What problem? The surface of the planet, being solid, emits radiation in a similar fashion to a blackbody. For a body of the Earth's temperature, this radiation is mostly IR.

If the Earth had no atmosphere, or if its atmosphere consisted solely of oxygen and nitrogen, this IR would pass unimpeded into space, thus cooling the planet.

However, the presence of greenhouse gases like CO2 and O2 mean that some of the IR emitted from the Earth's surface does not pass though the atmosphere but is instead absorbed and re-emitted, so that some of it returns to the surface. The effect of this is prevent the planet from cooling itself quite so effectively; its temperature therefore increases.

Hence the greenhouse effect is a direct consequence of the laws of quantum physics that dictate the radiative properties of molecules.


So...O2 is a 'greenhouse' gas now, eh? How about N2?

Doesn't your claim of O2 passing IR deny your statement that O2 is a 'greenhouse' gas?

CO2 is colder than the surface. You cannot use S-B to override the 2nd LoT. Something is wrong with the way you are using S-B. Go figure out what it is.

Both laws operate all the time. Both laws are currently accepted theory. They do not conflict with each other. You have to make them BOTH work.

Sorry, that was a typo. I meant H2O, not O2, of course


There is no conflict of laws here. The net direction of heat flow is still upwards. Where, exactly, do you see a problem?


Your model. Your claim that O2 and N2 does not emit radiation. Your claim that you must have N molecules to have a temperature (where N>X). Your claim that CO2 (and water) both reflect energy back down to the surface AND allow the surface to cool at the same time. Your extremely poor mathematics skills that allow this.


The Parrot Killer
19-09-2016 20:55
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
O2 does not emit infrared radiation. It can absorb and emit other wavelengths.

Individual molecules do not have a temperature. The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of a body determines its temperature. Individual molecules do not have M-B distributions.

CO2 is not a mirror. It does not reflect anything. It radiates some, not all, absorbed energy back to Earth. Less energy thus escapes the Earth system than enters it.
19-09-2016 21:36
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:

Sorry, that was a typo. I meant H2O, not O2, of course


There is no conflict of laws here. The net direction of heat flow is still upwards. Where, exactly, do you see a problem?


Your model. Your claim that O2 and N2 does not emit radiation. Your claim that you must have N molecules to have a temperature (where N>X). Your claim that CO2 (and water) both reflect energy back down to the surface AND allow the surface to cool at the same time. Your extremely poor mathematics skills that allow this.

Your words make no sense at all.

What model? I haven't presented a model.

I don't claim that O2 and N2 do not emit radiation, but quantum physics says that they don't emit IR radiation.

Temperature, like, for example, colour, viscosity and pressure, is a macroscopic quantity. These terms are meaningless for single particles. Not that this is remotely relevant to the discussion.

Greenhouse gases return some, but not all, of the outgoing IR. How hard is that to understand?

My mathematics skills?? What are you talking about? I haven't done any maths here! Are you confusing me with someone else?
19-09-2016 21:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
jwoodward48 wrote:
O2 does not emit infrared radiation. It can absorb and emit other wavelengths.

Individual molecules do not have a temperature. The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of a body determines its temperature. Individual molecules do not have M-B distributions.

CO2 is not a mirror. It does not reflect anything. It radiates some, not all, absorbed energy back to Earth. Less energy thus escapes the Earth system than enters it.


The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution does not define temperature. It itself is DEPENDENT on temperature. How the hell did you ever get the idea that it defines temperature???

You have now managed to deny S-B, the definition of temperature, deny the 2nd LoT, deny thermal energy, and shut off just about any avenue of escape of heat for Earth at all. Any thermal camera that doesn't filter out the infrared of the air will show how wrong you are.

According to you, fans shouldn't be able to help move heat like they do. Radiator fans are pointless.


The Parrot Killer
19-09-2016 21:45
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution does not define temperature. It itself is DEPENDENT on temperature. How the hell did you ever get the idea that it defines temperature???


The MB distribution of a body is dependent on temperature. It is one way of theoretically determining temperature, although obvious measurement issues exist.

You need to show proof that temperature applies to molecules. Simply asserting it will not work. Of course, since you think that "supporting data has no place in science," you'll just keep on asserting without any proof.

You have now managed to deny S-B, the definition of temperature, deny the 2nd LoT, deny thermal energy, and shut off just about any avenue of escape of heat for Earth at all. Any thermal camera that doesn't filter out the infrared of the air will show how wrong you are.


I have denied your use of Stefan-Boltzmann on a complex system that involves different temperatures and non-black bodies. This is different from denying that S-B works on single black bodies of homogenous temperature.

Again, the definition of temperature does not disprove me. Temperature does not apply to molecules. If you disagree, find proof. Try Google. I found one source that said that molecules don't have temperatures, and then a hell of a lot of speculation.

Again, at least half of the energy absorbed the CO2 must escape. With my simplistic model, at most half of the energy absorbed by CO2 can return to Earth. You continue to knock down strawmen.

Infrared light can indeed pass through air. Can it pass unobstructed through multiple kilometers of atmosphere? Your simple test is inadequate - it only looks at some number of meters of air.

According to you, fans shouldn't be able to help move heat like they do. Radiator fans are pointless.


I have no idea how you are drawing this conclusion. Computer fans work by moving cool air from nowhere near the hot computer part next to the part, heating up the air and cooling the part. They then move the hot air out and bring cool air in.

Your point? How does this in any way disprove my reasoning?
Edited on 19-09-2016 22:03
19-09-2016 21:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:

Sorry, that was a typo. I meant H2O, not O2, of course


There is no conflict of laws here. The net direction of heat flow is still upwards. Where, exactly, do you see a problem?


Your model. Your claim that O2 and N2 does not emit radiation. Your claim that you must have N molecules to have a temperature (where N>X). Your claim that CO2 (and water) both reflect energy back down to the surface AND allow the surface to cool at the same time. Your extremely poor mathematics skills that allow this.

Your words make no sense at all.


Really? How many molecules does it take to have a temperature, then?

You do realize, don't you, that quantum physics STARTED with investigation into the photoelectric effect and blackbody radiation? NOTHING in quantum physics says that O2 and N2 do not emit IR or any other color of radiation.


The Parrot Killer
19-09-2016 21:59
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:

Sorry, that was a typo. I meant H2O, not O2, of course


There is no conflict of laws here. The net direction of heat flow is still upwards. Where, exactly, do you see a problem?


Your model. Your claim that O2 and N2 does not emit radiation. Your claim that you must have N molecules to have a temperature (where N>X). Your claim that CO2 (and water) both reflect energy back down to the surface AND allow the surface to cool at the same time. Your extremely poor mathematics skills that allow this.

Your words make no sense at all.


Really? How many molecules does it take to have a temperature, then?

You do realize, don't you, that quantum physics STARTED with investigation into the photoelectric effect and blackbody radiation? NOTHING in quantum physics says that O2 and N2 do not emit IR or any other color of radiation.

You need to do some homework.

Quantum physics states that the energy levels of atoms and molecules can have only certain values. Photons of EM radiation are emitted when atoms or molecules undergo energy transitions from a higher to a lower level. In O2 and N2 there are no possible transitions corresponding to the emission of IR photons. This is why O2 and N2 do not emit IR radiation.

For heaven's sake, ITN, educate yourself a little and stop embarrassing yourself.
19-09-2016 22:06
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Hey, Surface, could you explain why the concept temperature doesn't apply to individual molecules? I know that it doesn't, but is that important or is it just a scientific "tradition"? I mean, the average of one data point is that data point.

Into, yes, this is admitting that I'm not the expert on everything ever. **** you if you try to use this as more ammunition for your "scientific illiterate" smear campaign.
19-09-2016 22:25
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Hey, Surface, could you explain why the concept temperature doesn't apply to individual molecules? I know that it doesn't, but is that important or is it just a scientific "tradition"? I mean, the average of one data point is that data point.

Into, yes, this is admitting that I'm not the expert on everything ever. **** you if you try to use this as more ammunition for your "scientific illiterate" smear campaign.

To be honest, I struggle to explain this since thermodynamics was never my field of expertise, and it's a long time since I did my physics degree


It's important to note, though, that temperature isn't the average energy of the particles. It is defined as the rate of change of energy with respect to entropy, where entropy is a measure of the number of possible states that the material can take. As far as I can see, temperature only makes sense when you have a sufficiently large assembly of particles to make the number of possible states of the system essentially infinite.

A single particle has energy by virtue of its translational, vibrational and rotational motion, but I don't think it can be meaningfully assigned a temperature, in the same way that it couldn't be assigned a pressure. Temperature, I think, requires interaction with other particles.

Perhaps ITN can explain better
19-09-2016 23:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
jwoodward48 wrote:
The MB distribution of a body is dependent on temperature. It is one way of theoretically determining temperature, although obvious measurement issues exist.


You can't determine temperature by using a formula that is dependent on temperature. That's circular.


The Parrot Killer
19-09-2016 23:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:

Sorry, that was a typo. I meant H2O, not O2, of course


There is no conflict of laws here. The net direction of heat flow is still upwards. Where, exactly, do you see a problem?


Your model. Your claim that O2 and N2 does not emit radiation. Your claim that you must have N molecules to have a temperature (where N>X). Your claim that CO2 (and water) both reflect energy back down to the surface AND allow the surface to cool at the same time. Your extremely poor mathematics skills that allow this.

Your words make no sense at all.


Really? How many molecules does it take to have a temperature, then?

You do realize, don't you, that quantum physics STARTED with investigation into the photoelectric effect and blackbody radiation? NOTHING in quantum physics says that O2 and N2 do not emit IR or any other color of radiation.

You need to do some homework.

Quantum physics states that the energy levels of atoms and molecules can have only certain values. Photons of EM radiation are emitted when atoms or molecules undergo energy transitions from a higher to a lower level. In O2 and N2 there are no possible transitions corresponding to the emission of IR photons. This is why O2 and N2 do not emit IR radiation.

For heaven's sake, ITN, educate yourself a little and stop embarrassing yourself.


You are only describing only one way of making light. That is not the only one.

Go and educate yourself.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2016 00:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Hey, Surface, could you explain why the concept temperature doesn't apply to individual molecules? I know that it doesn't, but is that important or is it just a scientific "tradition"? I mean, the average of one data point is that data point.

Into, yes, this is admitting that I'm not the expert on everything ever. **** you if you try to use this as more ammunition for your "scientific illiterate" smear campaign.


Not a smear campaign. It is what it is. You even admitted it yourself to a degree.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2016 00:00
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
You invert the formula. If 250K and only 250K lead to a particular distribution, then any material with that distribution is at 250K. This is simple math for the science we're discussing. Next complaint?
20-09-2016 00:06
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:

Sorry, that was a typo. I meant H2O, not O2, of course


There is no conflict of laws here. The net direction of heat flow is still upwards. Where, exactly, do you see a problem?


Your model. Your claim that O2 and N2 does not emit radiation. Your claim that you must have N molecules to have a temperature (where N>X). Your claim that CO2 (and water) both reflect energy back down to the surface AND allow the surface to cool at the same time. Your extremely poor mathematics skills that allow this.

Your words make no sense at all.


Really? How many molecules does it take to have a temperature, then?

You do realize, don't you, that quantum physics STARTED with investigation into the photoelectric effect and blackbody radiation? NOTHING in quantum physics says that O2 and N2 do not emit IR or any other color of radiation.

You need to do some homework.

Quantum physics states that the energy levels of atoms and molecules can have only certain values. Photons of EM radiation are emitted when atoms or molecules undergo energy transitions from a higher to a lower level. In O2 and N2 there are no possible transitions corresponding to the emission of IR photons. This is why O2 and N2 do not emit IR radiation.

For heaven's sake, ITN, educate yourself a little and stop embarrassing yourself.


You are only describing only one way of making light. That is not the only one.

Go and educate yourself.

How, then, can a gas molecule emit a photon of IR radiation if not by reducing its energy from one quantum level to another? I'm all ears.
20-09-2016 00:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
Surface Detail wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Hey, Surface, could you explain why the concept temperature doesn't apply to individual molecules? I know that it doesn't, but is that important or is it just a scientific "tradition"? I mean, the average of one data point is that data point.

Into, yes, this is admitting that I'm not the expert on everything ever. **** you if you try to use this as more ammunition for your "scientific illiterate" smear campaign.

To be honest, I struggle to explain this since thermodynamics was never my field of expertise, and it's a long time since I did my physics degree


It's important to note, though, that temperature isn't the average energy of the particles. It is defined as the rate of change of energy with respect to entropy, where entropy is a measure of the number of possible states that the material can take. As far as I can see, temperature only makes sense when you have a sufficiently large assembly of particles to make the number of possible states of the system essentially infinite.

That is not the definition of temperature either. The closest thing you are describing here is heat, but not temperature.
Surface Detail wrote:
A single particle has energy by virtue of its translational, vibrational and rotational motion, but I don't think it can be meaningfully assigned a temperature, in the same way that it couldn't be assigned a pressure. Temperature, I think, requires interaction with other particles.

Yes. It has a temperature. It is meaningful. It even has a pressure (if you put that single molecule in a contained volume).
Surface Detail wrote:
Perhaps ITN can explain better


A molecule is mass. It will behave like any other mass.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2016 00:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
jwoodward48 wrote:
You invert the formula. If 250K and only 250K lead to a particular distribution, then any material with that distribution is at 250K. This is simple math for the science we're discussing. Next complaint?

Same complaint.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2016 00:21
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
That isn't either the same complaint or a new complaint. How did I fail to explain the two-wayness of the distribution law?

Edit: sorry, weird posting-while-you-posted stuff. Ignore this post, I couldn't see your argument.
Edited on 20-09-2016 00:35
20-09-2016 00:32
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Perhaps ITN can explain better


A molecule is mass. It will behave like any other mass.

Then again, perhaps not
20-09-2016 00:36
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Have you ever taken any college Chem or Physics courses, Into? Just asking.

It's ironic that you call us dogmatic and religious. Without any reason to believe that Planck's Law will apply to a molecule, you make blind, sweeping assumptions. Read up on how molecules can "borrow" energy from collisions to produce the varying wavelengths of black body radiation. Then note how diffuse gases cannot do this.
Edited on 20-09-2016 00:47
20-09-2016 01:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
jwoodward48 wrote:
That isn't either the same complaint or a new complaint. How did I fail to explain the two-wayness of the distribution law?

Edit: sorry, weird posting-while-you-posted stuff. Ignore this post, I couldn't see your argument.


Beats me. You seem to have a weird idea of what this distribution technique is for.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2016 01:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Perhaps ITN can explain better


A molecule is mass. It will behave like any other mass.

Then again, perhaps not


So....you are now arguing that a molecule has no mass???


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2016 01:16
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
On second thought, ignore the edit. You did not respond to me, only Surface. You never gave a complaint after my last explanation.
20-09-2016 01:22
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Perhaps ITN can explain better


A molecule is mass. It will behave like any other mass.

Then again, perhaps not


So....you are now arguing that a molecule has no mass???

No, of course I'm not. What a randomly daft thing to say.

To get back to the point: I'm still waiting for you to explain how a gas molecule can emit a photon of IR radiation by a method that doesn't involve reducing its energy from one quantum level to another. This seems to be the basis of your contention that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist.

Edited for clarity.
Edited on 20-09-2016 01:24
20-09-2016 01:25
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No, he'll just insist that all the laws considered together will disprove GW, even if none of them do it individually. religioooooooooooon
20-09-2016 01:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
jwoodward48 wrote:
No, he'll just insist that all the laws considered together will disprove GW,

Just speaking for me but I prefer to focus on "greenhouse effect."

I find Stefan-Boltzmann makes everything clear.

Yes, "greenhouse effect" = WACKY religion.


.


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
20-09-2016 01:56
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Stefan-Boltzmann does not apply to a heterogeneous system with different temperatures and emissivities. It also doesn't apply to molecules and diffuse gases.

You = WACKY religious person (doesn't including an ad hominem in every post make discussion so much more fun?!)
20-09-2016 17:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Stefan-Boltzmann does not apply to a heterogeneous system with different temperatures and emissivities. It also doesn't apply to molecules and diffuse gases.


Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all bodies, including all their molecules and all their diffuse gases.

Question: What's the best wording to deny 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
20-09-2016 18:18
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Stefan-Boltzmann does not apply to a heterogeneous system with different temperatures and emissivities. It also doesn't apply to molecules and diffuse gases.


Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all bodies, including all their molecules and all their diffuse gases.

That is simply wrong.

The derivation of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation assumes a body that is able to emit and absorb EM radiation of all wavelengths, or blackbody. This is approximately true for solids, but it is most definitely not true for isolated molecules. Isolated molecules can only emit or absorb EM radiation of wavelengths corresponding to the differences between their internal energy levels.
20-09-2016 19:03
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Correct! That is the best wording to disprove a WACKY science denier!

Of course, I've already told him that in different words, so he's unlikely to accept your explanation, but yours is more concise and descriptive.
Page 3 of 3<123





Join the debate XKCD earth temperarture;:

Remember me

▲ 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