AGW: atmospheric physics

[mamooth]

THEY maintain that man-made or man-caused release of "carbon" into the atmosphere (amongst other so-called "greenhouse gasses") significantly changes the degree to which the atmosphere serves as a heat-trapping blanket resulting in the slow "cooking" of planet Earth.

Actually, the data says that. The data doesn't go away just because your cult disapproves of it.

What they have yet to demonstrate by reputable science (as opposed to their contrived "proxy data" and computer models)

Here we see the usual politically-correct conspiracy nonsense which the cult mandates from the cultists.

is that any increase of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere from human sources has any appreciable impact on the "greenhouse effect."

We see the outward IR flux decreasing in the CO2 absorption bands, you know. Check with your cult to tell you how to handwave such politically inconvenient data away.

 

[mamooth]

It doesn't "know" which way to emit photons any more than a rock "knows" which way to fall, or a marble on an incline "knows" which way to roll, or air in a tire "knows" which way to move out of a hole. The laws of physics determine what will happen given any particular circumstance.

Enough with the touchy-feely handwaving. Which law of physics causes the star to not emit light in the direction of its neighbor? Given how many binaries occur near us, we should certainly be able to directly observe this magical shutdown of one sector of a star. So why haven't we observed it?

Does the rock have to know which way to fall when you drop it? Can you describe the physical process behind that...there is a nobel in it for you if you can actually describe the physical process of gravity. And since most of space is empty, emitting in the direction of cooler space isn't a problem.

When your interpretation of the second law demands a universe of stars that somehow know when to shut down a tiny directional slice aimed at some other object, you should probably take that as a hint that your interpretation of the second law is bugfuck crazy.

 

[gslack]

You are assuming that the red star must emit photons in the direction of the blue star. There is no law that says that an object must radiate in every possible direction

This. Is. Insane.

You're telling me the red star magically knows not to emit photons towards the blue star? Could you describe the physical process behind that?

Heck, the red star would have to know how to not emit photons towards every warmer star in the universe, even the ones that hadn't formed yet, but which would form by the time the light arrived. Could you describe the physical process behind that?

Boo boo kitty, taking the obtuse angle again...

That was not what he claimed at all, why not try and be honest for once? Would it kill you?

You are equating intelligence and choice to an act of nature. There is no choice at all, for either side here.

Think about this; Two identical heat lamps placed exactly two meters apart. Wait until it reaches optimum levels and the heat levels out, then Take temperature readings of the surface of each lens. Let's say the temps are about 150 degrees Fahrenheit. Now point the lens to face each other squarely. Wait a while lets say 2 hours and come back and measure the temperature of each lens again.

What do you think the temperature will be? Will it increase, decrease or stay the same?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You are assuming that the red star must emit photons in the direction of the blue star. There is no law that says that an object must radiate in every possible direction

This. Is. Insane.

You're telling me the red star magically knows not to emit photons towards the blue star? Could you describe the physical process behind that?

Heck, the red star would have to know how to not emit photons towards every warmer star in the universe, even the ones that hadn't formed yet, but which would form by the time the light arrived. Could you describe the physical process behind that?

Boo boo kitty, taking the obtuse angle again...

That was not what he claimed at all, why not try and be honest for once? Would it kill you?

You are equating intelligence and choice to an act of nature. There is no choice at all, for either side here.

Think about this; Two identical heat lamps placed exactly two meters apart. Wait until it reaches optimum levels and the heat levels out, then Take temperature readings of the surface of each lens. Let's say the temps are about 150 degrees Fahrenheit. Now point the lens to face each other squarely. Wait a while lets say 2 hours and come back and measure the temperature of each lens again.

What do you think the temperature will be? Will it increase, decrease or stay the same?

There are probably a bunch of variable that need to be accounted-for to properly answer that question.

Halogen lamps? Or, two 100 Watt incandescent bulbs drawing 100 Watts of power each? Or a three-way bulb drawing 100 Watts verus a 100 Watt incandescent bulb drawing 100 Watts of power?

If it is two of the same kind of bulbs each drawing the same power, then the temperature of each bulb might be maxed-out just producing the light. The additional energy coming into each bulb from the other bulb may not be able to to "add" any increase to the temperature, that way.

Of course, I used to be a Republican and am not in rderp's 6%, so I confess my grasp on physics might be incomplete.

 

[mamooth]

That was not what he claimed at all, why not try and be honest for once?

Intelligence is the only explanation for the theory he gives us.

You are equating intelligence and choice to an act of nature. There is no choice at all, for either side here.

Can you postulate a scenario of a star not emitting photons towards an empty pinprick on the other side of the galaxy where a star will form/move to in the future that _doesn't_ involve intelligence? Skip the outraged handwaving, and tell us about the physics that drive such a thing. How does the star know the future location of the other star? That requires a degree of omniscience, which means intelligence.

Think about this; Two identical heat lamps placed exactly two meters apart. Wait until it reaches optimum levels and the heat levels out, then Take temperature readings of the surface of each lens. Let's say the temps are about 150 degrees Fahrenheit. Now point the lens to face each other squarely. Wait a while lets say 2 hours and come back and measure the temperature of each lens again.

What do you think the temperature will be? Will it increase, decrease or stay the same?

It's going to increase, obviously. Was that supposed to be a tough question?

 

[SSDD]

Enough with the touchy-feely handwaving. Which law of physics causes the star to not emit light in the direction of its neighbor? Given how many binaries occur near us, we should certainly be able to directly observe this magical shutdown of one sector of a star. So why haven't we observed it?

How many times do you need to see it"

The second law of thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

I suppose you would not be able to see it unless you were standing on the blue star somewhere along the plane where the red star would be emitting. The fact that the blue star doesn't keep gettting hotter and hotter and the red star doesn't get hotter and hotter as a result of the additional energy being input into the blue star, it is a pretty sure bet that it isn't happening. Since you can't see radiation from a side angle, there would be no way to measure it from an outside point of view.

When your interpretation of the second law demands a universe of stars that somehow know when to shut down a tiny directional slice aimed at some other object, you should probably take that as a hint that your interpretation of the second law is bugfuck crazy.

You really are stuck in a box. Laws of physics are why things don't have to "know" what to do. The laws of physics make things happen in a certain, predictable way. Again, an object doesn't need to know in which direction to radiate any more than a rock needs to know which way to fall when it is dropped. Both have no choice but to act as the laws of physics demand. Since the second law says SPECIFICALLY that energy can't spontaneously move from your red star to your blue star, where do you think the photons go if they are, in fact, radiating towards the blue star?

 

[SSDD]

You are assuming that the red star must emit photons in the direction of the blue star. There is no law that says that an object must radiate in every possible direction

This. Is. Insane.

You're telling me the red star magically knows not to emit photons towards the blue star? Could you describe the physical process behind that?

Heck, the red star would have to know how to not emit photons towards every warmer star in the universe, even the ones that hadn't formed yet, but which would form by the time the light arrived. Could you describe the physical process behind that?

Boo boo kitty, taking the obtuse angle again...

That was not what he claimed at all, why not try and be honest for once? Would it kill you?

You are equating intelligence and choice to an act of nature. There is no choice at all, for either side here.

Think about this; Two identical heat lamps placed exactly two meters apart. Wait until it reaches optimum levels and the heat levels out, then Take temperature readings of the surface of each lens. Let's say the temps are about 150 degrees Fahrenheit. Now point the lens to face each other squarely. Wait a while lets say 2 hours and come back and measure the temperature of each lens again.

What do you think the temperature will be? Will it increase, decrease or stay the same?

One small error...you would need to take the temperature of the fillaments in the bulbs since they are the emitters. Radiation from one lamp could cause the lens of the other lamp to increase in heat as it could in fact radiate to the lens since the lens of that lamp is cooler than the fillament. If the filaments are the same temp, then no change would happen..if one is hotter, then it would cause the other to heat up and possibly fail but its own temperature wouldn't increase.

 

[SSDD]

Can you postulate a scenario of a star not emitting photons towards an empty pinprick on the other side of the galaxy where a star will form/move to in the future that _doesn't_ involve intelligence?

You do know don't you...or maybe you don't that the radiation from any given source decreases with the inverse square of the distance it is travelling. You obviously like to pretend that you know what you are talking about, but not knowing that radiation diminishes with distance is the sort of error someone who really doesn't have a grasp of the subject makes. If the star in the distance is a tiny pinprick, then it's incoming radiation would be far smaller your star's own output wouldn't it. Two stars in close proximity, however, are an entirely different matter. Whether or not a star will radiate in the directon of any given star is determined by how much radiation is reaching it from its neighbor.

 

[gslack]

LOL, relax guys it's a simple thought experiment. The type of bulbs, the wattage doesn't matter I already told you the parameters that matter here. The fact that both bulbs are equal and are at 150F..

You guys are forgetting the fact its a simple thought experiment, not a hypothesis for peer review.. Don't think too hard just remember entropy and how it behaves..

 

[IlarMeilyr]

LOL, relax guys it's a simple thought experiment. The type of bulbs, the wattage doesn't matter I already told you the parameters that matter here. The fact that both bulbs are equal and are at 150F..

You guys are forgetting the fact its a simple thought experiment, not a hypothesis for peer review.. Don't think too hard just remember entropy and how it behaves..

I am relaxed. I guess the problem is, I am not a well versed scientist.

They are at 150 BEFORE the experiment.

What does your understanding of entropy have to do with whether (or not) the bulbs would each gain a bit of temperature from the energy provided by the "other" respective bulb?

 

[mamooth]

The fact that the blue star doesn't keep gettting hotter and hotter and the red star doesn't get hotter and hotter as a result of the additional energy being input into the blue star, it is a pretty sure bet that it isn't happening.

You do realize stars radiate in 360 degrees in 3 dimensions, right? They don't radiate back and forth solely at each other.

Each star heats up one side of the other. That extra heat moves through the entire star, due to convection and conduction. Since the whole star gets a little hotter, it radiates more in all directions and reaches a new equilibrium. However, the total energy shed to the universe stays the same, since neither star can radiate to the universe through the other star. Smaller radiating area but higher average output, so energy output is the same.

Since you can't see radiation from a side angle, there would be no way to measure it from an outside point of view.

If we place a rocket between the two stars, we'll be able to see this mysterious black spot, yes? Oh wait, we won't. Our spaceship is cooler than both stars, so the photons will flow again ... but only to our spaceship! You've created a perfect bit of pseudoscience, as it's impossible to falsify!

The second law just says how total heat flow works statistically. It makes no attempt to explain what turns the source of the heat on and off. Claiming the second law controls a stellar fusion process is like claiming a speed-measuring radar gun controls the functioning of an internal combustion engine. It's just nonsense.

You wave your hands around, shout "SECOND LAW", and think that supposedly means something. It doesn't, except that you're essentially invoking magic to explain your pseudoscience.

 

[gslack]

LOL, relax guys it's a simple thought experiment. The type of bulbs, the wattage doesn't matter I already told you the parameters that matter here. The fact that both bulbs are equal and are at 150F..

You guys are forgetting the fact its a simple thought experiment, not a hypothesis for peer review.. Don't think too hard just remember entropy and how it behaves..

I am relaxed. I guess the problem is, I am not a well versed scientist.

They are at 150 BEFORE the experiment.

What does your understanding of entropy have to do with whether (or not) the bulbs would each gain a bit of temperature from the energy provided by the "other" respective bulb?

Remember this quote...

"Any method involving the notion of entropy, the very existence of which depends on the second law of thermodynamics, will doubtless seem to many far-fetched, and may repel beginners as obscure and difficult of comprehension."

Willard Gibbs, Graphical Methods in the Thermodynamics of Fluids[4]

Now before you guys get all bound up let's review the thought experiment. Remember we are assuming all things being equal here, it's not hypothesis up for review, just a thought experiment to get the idea of entropy. All things being equal would mean in this case, Assume the experiment takes place in a perfect vacum and the natural ambient temperature of the surrounding vacum to be absolute zero. That way we can eliminate the nit-picking over atmospheric make-up, wattage of the bulbs, etc..Just remember all things being equal...

Two heat lamps whose operating temperature on their own at the lens is 150F, two meters apart, facing one another squarely. Wait a few hours and measure the lens temps again and tell me if the temps increased, decreased, or stayed the same.

Think on it, but don't overlook the 2nd law, in the process. Also remember conservation of energy..

The short answer is the temperature won't go beyond 150F, reason? It's the temperature of BOTH heat sources, there is no gain over the energy output of either source. The system is in equilibrium.

I know some of you are going to wonder what happened to the 2nd 150F source right? Your thinking being 150 and 150 should be 300F. No for the effects of the two sources to double effectively they would have to act upon another object.

It may seem like it flies in the face of all that you know, and in some ways it probably does. But remember the quote I told you to memorize? Make sense now?

 

[mamooth]

The short answer is the temperature won't go beyond 150F,

That violates conservation of energy. Both lamps will get hotter.

reason? It's the temperature of BOTH heat sources, there is no gain over the energy output of either source. The system is in equilibrium.

No. To see why that's wrong, think of one big imaginary bubble drawn around both heat lamps. The energy going out through that bubble is the energy being created by the heat lamp system.

The old way, each heat lamp is beaming its heat directly out through the bubble. Most of the heat goes out as that directed heat radiation beam, while a little goes out as radiation/convection/conduction from the lamp housing.

The new way, each heat lamp is beaming at the other lamp. Little heat energy is leaving by the directed beam, since all the beam radiation is going into the other heat lamp, and none of it is being beamed out the bubble.

Energy conservation says that, at the new equilibrium, the same amount of heat will have to be leaving the bubble. If it's not going out by the beams, it has to go out by increased radiation/conduction/convection from the housing of the lamps. And for that to happen, the temperature of the lamp must increase.

I know some of you are going to wonder what happened to the 2nd 150F source right? Your thinking being 150 and 150 should be 300F.

If the experiment was done in a vacuum so that only radiation mattered, 150 + 150 = 178. Black body radiation is proportional to the 4rth power of the temperature.

 

[gslack]

The short answer is the temperature won't go beyond 150F,

That violates conservation of energy. Both lamps will get hotter.

reason? It's the temperature of BOTH heat sources, there is no gain over the energy output of either source. The system is in equilibrium.

No. To see why that's wrong, think of one big imaginary bubble drawn around both heat lamps. The energy going out through that bubble is the energy being created by the heat lamp system.

The old way, each heat lamp is beaming its heat directly out through the bubble. Most of the heat goes out as that directed heat radiation beam, while a little goes out as radiation/convection/conduction from the lamp housing.

The new way, each heat lamp is beaming at the other lamp. Little heat energy is leaving by the directed beam, since all the beam radiation is going into the other heat lamp, and none of it is being beamed out the bubble.

Energy conservation says that, at the new equilibrium, the same amount of heat will have to be leaving the bubble. If it's not going out by the beams, it has to go out by increased radiation/conduction/convection from the housing of the lamps. And for that to happen, the temperature of the lamp must increase.

I know some of you are going to wonder what happened to the 2nd 150F source right? Your thinking being 150 and 150 should be 300F.

If the experiment was done in a vacuum so that only radiation mattered, 150 + 150 = 178. Black body radiation is proportional to the 4rth power of the temperature.

AAAAAAHHHH!!!!

Conduction, convection, those require what?

BTW, a heat lamp isn't a black body.... Neither is a star. or the earth....

Come on now use your noodle...

 

[mamooth]

Conduction, convection, those require what?

In this case, an atmosphere. What's that got to do with anything? Your thought experiment doesn't change if run in a vacuum.

BTW, a heat lamp isn't a black body.... Neither is a star. or the earth....

What's that got to do with anything? It's a rough approximation. The point is that you only have to raise temperature by around 19% (the fourth root of two minus one) to double the radiated heat.

Anyways, your claim is still wrong, since it violates conservation of energy.

 

[gslack]

Conduction, convection, those require what?

In this case, an atmosphere. What's that got to do with anything? Your thought experiment doesn't change if run in a vacuum.

BTW, a heat lamp isn't a black body.... Neither is a star. or the earth....

What's that got to do with anything? It's a rough approximation. The point is that you only have to raise temperature by around 19% (the fourth root of two minus one) to double the radiated heat.

Anyways, your claim is still wrong, since it violates conservation of energy.

Nope and nope... You are using stefan-boltzman incorrectly. Your use here requires two black bodies (two bodies in thermal equilibrium with their environment). Neither of these are black bodies at all, nowhere near they are heat sources, their surroundings are a perfect vacum and ambient temps are absolute zero. They are not touching and there is no fluid or atmosphere to interact with...

If there were a third object at equal distance between the two sources of heat (all thing being equal and the third object being a perfect blackbody) S&B law would be correct, in the case of the 3rd object...

My conclusion does not defy conservation of energy.

 

[mamooth]

Neither of these are black bodies at all, nowhere near they are heat sources,

Heat sources can certainly be black bodies. Why would you think they can't?

their surroundings are a perfect vacum and ambient temps are absolute zero. They are not touching and there is no fluid or atmosphere to interact with...

Doesn't change your lamp experiment a bit. With conduction/convection removed, it means the lamps have to heat up a little more so they emit more radiation through the lamp housing.

If there were a third object at equal distance between the two sources of heat (all thing being equal and the third object being a perfect blackbody) S&B law would be correct, in the case of the 3rd object...

I have no idea why you're dragging a 3rd object into it, as it's irrelevant.

Point is, your experiment cuts the ability of the lamps to beam out power to the universe through the lens, meaning they have to radiate that heat out through the lamp housing instead. And that means the temp has to rise. Pointing the lamps at each other is as if the lamp had a shutter in front of the lens that you closed. It's going to get hotter.

My conclusion does not defy conservation of energy.

Because you say so? Fine refutation.

 

[gslack]

Neither of these are black bodies at all, nowhere near they are heat sources,

Heat sources can certainly be black bodies. Why would you think they can't?

their surroundings are a perfect vacum and ambient temps are absolute zero. They are not touching and there is no fluid or atmosphere to interact with...

Doesn't change your lamp experiment a bit. With conduction/convection removed, it means the lamps have to heat up a little more so they emit more radiation through the lamp housing.

If there were a third object at equal distance between the two sources of heat (all thing being equal and the third object being a perfect blackbody) S&B law would be correct, in the case of the 3rd object...

I have no idea why you're dragging a 3rd object into it, as it's irrelevant.

Point is, your experiment cuts the ability of the lamps to beam out power to the universe through the lens, meaning they have to radiate that heat out through the lamp housing instead. And that means the temp has to rise. Pointing the lamps at each other is as if the lamp had a shutter in front of the lens that you closed. It's going to get hotter.

My conclusion does not defy conservation of energy.

Because you say so? Fine refutation.

No junior you're insane googling is irrelevant.. You spent all that time googling up half truths and unrelated tidbits, not even stopping to understand any of it in reality. S&B is not applicable in this thought exercise. Neither of the two objects are blackbodies and neither of them are in equilibrium with their environment. They are in equilibrium with one another, not the environment...

The heat coming back through the housing now? LOL, really? what google search gave you that conclusion? So your contention is that the energy from each light flows against their opposing yet equal counterpart and effects real heat change in the apparatus it's connected to? ROFL, please patent your theory now and you can solve the world's energy problems..

Your contention defies the 2nd law. And if it were factual we could create perfect machines easily.

 

[gslack]

ROFL, okay now ask me if I can actually PROVE MY CLAIM...

Got me I can't prove it, just like you can't prove I'm wrong.. See that's how AGW theory works. It uses some slight discrepancies in observations versus equations and theory, and then makes bold claims it cannot actually prove in reality, but knows you can't really fully disprove it either..

They are using the same concept to sell you nonsense..Wake up people...

 

[Saigon]

What you aren't getting is that that paper isn't talking about the greenhouse effect.

Perhaps if you ***shudder*** read the report before commenting on it?

This is the OPENING LINE of the report, genius:

Sporadically we are challenged over the reality of Earth’s Greenhouse Effect (GE) on the grounds this represents a heat flow from a cooler to a warmer body and hence violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2nd Law).

Water is warmer than ice...water falling on ice transfers heat to the ice...not the greenhouse effect.

Lighting, being hotter than the surface of the sun is warmer than the surface of the earth...not the greenhouse effect.

The greenhouse effect is specifically the claim that the cooler atmosphere radiating IR back to the surface of the earth where it is absorbed and in turn cause the surface of the earth to warm further. Point out to me anywhere in your paper where the author addresses backradiation. He believes that because he can point out a couple of feedbacks that he has proven the greenhouse effect when he doesn't even touch on the mechanism that is claimed to be the cause of the greenhouse effect...ie backradiation

You don't get any smarter, do you, SSDD?

Honestly - you claim the report is not about the greenhouse effect - and yet in the first line if the report it mentions the greenhouse effect.

Now you claim it is not about backradiation - even though the report clearly states that it is?

Look - you know you are wrong, I know you are wrong, and anyone who has followed the thread knows you are wrong.

Let's just leave it at that, shall we?