how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[itfitzme]

Thermodynamic energy, is heat, in the form of the kinetic energy of the molecules. *This may include rotation of the molecule. *Kinetic energy may be transfered to vibrational modes of the atomic bonds, which, in turn, may emit energy as electromagnetic radiation.

The electron is bound to the nucleus. The nucleus contains protons and neutrons. *The nucleus has mass. *The seperate molecules repell each other due to the electric charge on the electron.

**The balance of forces, gravitational mass, strong, weak, and electromagnetic, are such that the electrostatic force between the electrons in different molecules is stronger than the other three, hence the molecules tend to bounce off each other, transfering kinetic energy and momentum.

Depending on the structure of the bonds, in the molecule, kinetic energy may be transfered to the electrons, resulting in the bonds vibrating. *The elecrons may then emit a photon.

 

[SSDD]

I'm just pointing out that thermodynamic laws are macroscopic laws that define the statistical behavior of large numbers of particles and that Einstein demonstrated this and the existance of atomic particles in his paper on brownian motion.

Once again, so you say and yet, that is not what the statements of the thermodynamic laws say. If they mean something other than what they say, don't you think the people who wrote them would rephrase them? What proof is presently in existence that overturns the laws of thermodynamics as they are written?

What are you talking about? Are you having difficulty, again, distinguishing betweem individuals?

No, I recognize the same individual pretending to be two via quirky grammatical habits, spelling errors, and very unusual, in fact unique ways of describing absorption and emission. Continue to play if you like, but don't expect for me to respect the game.

 

[SSDD]

Two objects of the same temperature, not touching and in a vacuum (no conduction or convection). Do they radiate at each other? If they do I am right ( or at least more correct). If they don't what happened to the radiation and how did the objects know the other was there and what temperature it was at?

Will you answer this time?

If you wonder about the direction of energy transfer, you really don't need to ask me Ian. You know what the second law says regarding energy movement from one location to another. Apply it.

And why do you insist that the objects in question must "know" anything. Does a tennis ball somehow "know" which way to travel once it is struck? Does a falling rock "know" which way to fall? Do the chemicals involved in a reaction somehow "know" how to react with each other? Does the earth "know" how far to maintain itself from the sun and or how long it should take to complete an orbit, or how fast to rotate? Do you believe all of these things somehow "know" what to do, or how to act?

Personally, I think that the natural forces at work simply make things happen as they do and the things themselves have no sort of knowledge or choice of how to act. Connect a battery to a lightbulb...do those free electrons somehow know that they should exit the battery and go cause the light bulb to illuminate?

Get over your childish sarcasm and acknowledge the fact that the Second Law says that it is not possible for energy to move from a high entropy state to a low entropy state. We can no more explain the mechanism of how it is so than we can explain the mechanism of gravity.

 

[SSDD]

I think that a more interesting question that you might know the answer to is:

When a GHG molecule absorbs longwave radiation the electron cloud moves to a higher energy state which is unstable. When it stablizes by radiating the excess energy, does a wave of energy really go off in all directions, or does a photon go off in one direction that is randomized only though many such events?

You guys, in addition to being very cute in your circle jerk ask some seriously inane questions.

It really doesn't matter whether the energy radiates in the form of a particle or a wave. It is the same amount of energy and it will radiate in accordance with the laws of nature. It will radiate towards a state of higher entropy. It will not radiate towards an object, or region that is warmer than itself. The Second Law tells you in which directions the energy can and can not move.

When you drop a rock, is the direction it falls randomized...or is its direction dictated by the laws of nature?

Does a fired bullet follow a trajectory that is randomized...or is its trajectory dictated by the laws of nature?

When you plug an electrical cord into a wall socket, is the direction of the flow of electricity randomized....or is its direction of flow dictated by the laws of nature?

You guys are hilarious...every other damned natural phenomenon in the universe is just fine with you...you don't think rocks need to know which direction to drop...you don't think bullets need to know what sort of trajectory they need to follow...you don't think that gas molecules need to know how much to heat up when put under pressure...you don't think that chemicals need to know how to react to other chemicals...you accept that they do what they do because the laws of nature dictate how they act...but in the singular case of energy moving from low entropy states to high entropy states, you want to argue with the laws of nature and say that they don't mean what they say that they mean....and why? Because if you accept the laws of nature, then your greenhouse hypothesis falls apart.

 

[SSDD]

Of course another interesting variation is:

Two bodies in space. They are attracted to each other, through the nothing in between them in proportion to their combined masses. How does each one know the mass of the other?

BTW, this is not a trick question. I agree with you on the radiation issue. I'm just curious.

Why do you goobers think these objects need to know anything. If you want to know why they behave as they do, then the Law of Gravity should enlighten you.

Every point mass attracts every single other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them:

where:
F is the force between the masses,
G is the gravitational constant,
m1 is the first mass,
m2 is the second mass, and
r is the distance between the centers of the masses.

We don't understand the actual mechanism of gravity any more than we understand the actual mechanism of radiation...We do know that the law describes the invariable...important word there....invariable relationships between the phenomena whether it be attraction between two bodies...gasses under pressure...chemical reactions...or the transfer of radiation between bodies of different temperatures...the laws tell us what will invariably happen....every time it is observed.

Now if you believe that radiation between objects of two different energy states is a two way street, then provide a link to an observed, measured, experiment proving the claim to be a fact.

 

[SSDD]

You are absolutely correct. *Two systems at thermal disequilibrium do transfer instantaneous energy in both directions. Thermodynamic laws are a description of the statistcal averages for large numbers of particle.

If that is true...proven by experiment and observation...then why are the laws of thermodynamics written in absolute terms? You keep claiming that the laws don't actually mean what their statements say, but can offer no actual evidence that the absolute statement of the laws has ever been proven wrong.

Theory and hypothesis do not overturn law. Till the law is overturned, I am afraid that you must live with it or be an obviousl goof in claiming that a fundamenal natural law is somehow mistaken, or doesn't mean what it's statement says.

 

[SSDD]

I understand that as the assumption generally made. What I don't understand is an undetectable (unlike a magnetic) gravitational field. Especially which, to be effective must have knowledge of all masses no matter how far distant.

Curvature of space time is also the accepted model but has no intuitive meaning to me.

Perhaps I'll have to bumble through life without knowing.

You don't have to understand the mechamism in order to grasp the invariable relationship between the objects. The laws of gravity tell you precisely what that relationship is every time it is observed...just like the Second Law of Thermodynamics will tell you in which direction energy will travel between objects every single time it is observed. The laws don't attempt to describe the mechanisms and in some cases, we may never fully understand them...but the invariable relationship can be observed and described.

 

[SSDD]

Thermodynamic energy, is heat, in the form of the kinetic energy of the molecules. *This may include rotation of the molecule. *Kinetic energy may be transfered to vibrational modes of the atomic bonds, which, in turn, may emit energy as electromagnetic radiation.

The electron is bound to the nucleus. The nucleus contains protons and neutrons. *The nucleus has mass. *The seperate molecules repell each other due to the electric charge on the electron.

**The balance of forces, gravitational mass, strong, weak, and electromagnetic, are such that the electrostatic force between the electrons in different molecules is stronger than the other three, hence the molecules tend to bounce off each other, transfering kinetic energy and momentum.

Depending on the structure of the bonds, in the molecule, kinetic energy may be transfered to the electrons, resulting in the bonds vibrating. *The elecrons may then emit a photon.

And if photons actually exist as particles rather than simply being part of a wave, the direction they will be emitted will be dictated by the energy state of every object around them as surely as the direction of movement of a piece of matter in space is dictated by every object that can interact with its gravitational field. There is no knowledge necssary on the part of either the object in space or the direction the energy is emitted...it happens in accordance with the forces that dictate in which direction energy can move.

Don't like it? Tough. It's the law of nature and if it fucks up your greenhouse hypothesis...to damned bad. You shouldn't have bet on a hypothesis that is in opposition to the most fundamental law of nature.

 

[itfitzme]

Well, there is something between two masses, in space, that is in proportion to the two masses. It is the gravitational field. This is sufficient for Newtonian mechanics.

Einstein collapsed this to space itself, defining that space-time is "deformed" by the presence of the mass. This is sufficient for relativity, when velocities are near light speed, mass is very large, and time is measured at small scales.

I understand that as the assumption generally made. What I don't understand is an undetectable (unlike a magnetic) gravitational field. Especially which, to be effective must have knowledge of all masses no matter how far distant.

Curvature of space time is also the accepted model but has no intuitive meaning to me.

Perhaps I'll have to bumble through life without knowing.

At any point in space, the point mass is affected only by the field at it's location.

I can feel it on my seat now. If I drop a rock, the rock experiences the field.

The Earth affects space and space, the gravitational field, affects the rock. It is, for all practical purposes, static.

A dynamic example may help.

As the planets orbit the Sun, the sun and planets all create a field in space about them. *As the Earth and Mars orbit past each other, the force that each exerts on the other is not the result of where each is, but where each was, as it takes the field time change. *That change is limited by the speed of light, 3x10^8 m/s. *At their closest, they are*33.9 million miles or*54 556 761 600 meters away. *The field that Earth experiences is then due to where Mars was,*

54 556 761 600 m/ 300 000 000 m/s = 181 seconds ago.

Of course, the light took exactly the same amount of time, so it looks like Mars is exactly where it should be given the field that is being experienced.

Both the gravitational field and light propogate according to the properties of space. No instantaneous information need pass between the two.

 

[itfitzme]

Well, there is something between two masses, in space, that is in proportion to the two masses. *It is the gravitational field. This is sufficient for Newtonian mechanics.

*Einstein collapsed this to space itself, defining that space-time is "deformed" by the presence of the mass. *This is sufficient for relativity, when velocities are near light speed, mass is very large, and time is measured at small scales.

I understand that as the assumption generally made. What I don't understand is an undetectable (unlike a magnetic) gravitational field. Especially which, to be effective must have knowledge of all masses no matter how far distant.*

Curvature of space time is also the accepted model but has no intuitive meaning to me.*

Perhaps I'll have to bumble through life without knowing.

It is helpful to build up, from static to dynamic. *

Still, to put things in context. with the exception of quantum entanglement, no information can travel faster than the speed of light. This is as true for changes in the gravitational field as it is for changes in the electromagnetic field. *So, when a body is moved in space, the change in the space-time "ripples" outward at the speed of light. *Hence, the attempt to detect gravitational waves.

Now, I am intentionally staying away from quantum mechanics and the current attempts to combine the electromagnetic force with gravity. *There are areas of physics that become philosophical. It is best to leave the philosophical pursuits to the PhDs,*
the guys with a Doctorate of Philosphy in physics.

While classical electrodynamics defines an electromagnetic field, one that is measurable as a static field, once an electron is vibrating, that field is no longer static and an electromagnetic wave is described as propogating. Light is a propogating electromagnetic wave, as described by Maxwell. *Still, Einstein proved that light is quantized. *And Feynman tells us that there are no waves, just particles.

So, for the details of the static case in classical Newtonian mechanics, gravity is a field that expresses the attraction between two masses. Two point masses are related by F=G*m1*m2/r^2, where G is the gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are each mass, and r is the distance between them. * F is the force the masses experience which gives rise to the acceleration on each as F=ma.

For m1 equating F=m1*a gives

F=G*m1*m2/r^2=m1*a.

a=G*m2/r^2.*

So, in essence, we may define a gravitational field.

As with the electric field, where the force between two point charges is given by

F= k*q1*q2/r^2 where k is a constant, 1/(4*pi*epsilon_0)

and the electric field experienced by q1 is

E=k*q2/r^2

The gravitational field is,

a=G*m2/r^2, which near Earth's surface is*

g=9.8m/s^2m

So, whether we consider mass or charge, the static fields are similar concepts.

As we move away from a point charge, we may measure the static field, at any point, as a vector with magnetude E=k*q2/r^2, pointed in the direction away from positive and towards a negative.

As we move away from a mass, we may define the gravitational field similarly, as a vector*a=G*m2/r^2. *But, as there is only positive mass, any mass will move towards the other. *The field lines are always towards the mass.
*
So that defines, at least, the static electrostatic and gravitional fields. *

Charge has both positive and negative, so the field is "higher" at the positive charge and "lower" at the negative charge. *

Mass is only positive, so the field is "higher" in empty space and "lower" at the mass.

We mighy say that free space is at zero electric potential and that the electrostatic field is "warped" by the presence of a charge. *Positrons "fall" down the field and electrons fall "up" the field.

At any point in space, the point mass and point charge is affected only by the field at it's location.

 

[itfitzme]

I see SSaDhD has been freverantly posting. He so desperately wants to be the expert. It is driving him crazy. He just can't accept that he isn't.

 

[PMZ]

Well, there is something between two masses, in space, that is in proportion to the two masses. It is the gravitational field. This is sufficient for Newtonian mechanics.

Einstein collapsed this to space itself, defining that space-time is "deformed" by the presence of the mass. This is sufficient for relativity, when velocities are near light speed, mass is very large, and time is measured at small scales.

I understand that as the assumption generally made. What I don't understand is an undetectable (unlike a magnetic) gravitational field. Especially which, to be effective must have knowledge of all masses no matter how far distant.

Curvature of space time is also the accepted model but has no intuitive meaning to me.

Perhaps I'll have to bumble through life without knowing.

At any point in space, the point mass is affected only by the field at it's location.

I can feel it on my seat now. If I drop a rock, the rock experiences the field.

The Earth affects space and space, the gravitational field, affects the rock. It is, for all practical purposes, static.

A dynamic example may help.

As the planets orbit the Sun, the sun and planets all create a field in space about them. *As the Earth and Mars orbit past each other, the force that each exerts on the other is not the result of where each is, but where each was, as it takes the field time change. *That change is limited by the speed of light, 3x10^8 m/s. *At their closest, they are*33.9 million miles or*54 556 761 600 meters away. *The field that Earth experiences is then due to where Mars was,*

54 556 761 600 m/ 300 000 000 m/s = 181 seconds ago.

Of course, the light took exactly the same amount of time, so it looks like Mars is exactly where it should be given the field that is being experienced.

Both the gravitational field and light propogate according to the properties of space. No instantaneous information need pass between the two.

In both the formula and the reality of gravitational attraction there is no limit to the distance between bodies that attract. So all masses in space attract all other masses. Of course distant attractions are small and close by attractions are large. So something undetected, at least at this time, creates a measurable force between all objects based on their mass and separation. No other properties.

Of course at this time nobody knows what mass is either. Something that both creates this universal attraction and resists changes in motion.

I wish that I was young enough to see how this story works out.

 

[itfitzme]

IanC is spot on with his view. With the exception of quantum emtanglement, which requires that the two particles are initially at the same place at thd same time, there is no action at a distance or information transfer that can happen faster than the speed of light.

Two hot bodies, seperated by space, emit radiation independently of each other. One cannot decide to not emit because it "knows" that the hotter body is at some distance from it. The only way it "knows" is in that energy impinges on it due to the other. And, as it absorbes that energy, it becomes imcrementally hotter, thus the amount of energy it emits becomes greater.

The only thing that thermodynamics limits is that the colder body radiates less energy to the hotter one than the hotted one does towards it. Thermodynamics simply limits the net flow, from hot to cold. As the two bodies reach equilibrium, the net flow is zero. On average, each radiates and absorbs the same amount tonand from the other.

 

[PMZ]

All objects, warmer than absolute zero, radiate in proportion to their temperature. (They may or may not transfer energy in other ways as well.) Therefore all objects receive radiation from all other objects.

The concept of entropy is really based on the certainty than ultimately everything will be the same temperature. And it will be impossible to do work as the flow of energy requires a delta T.

 

[PMZ]

I see SSaDhD has been freverantly posting. He so desperately wants to be the expert. It is driving him crazy. He just can't accept that he isn't.

One of the reasons that the Dunning-Kruger effect occurs is that the less one knows, the more one has to rely on passion to not get overlooked.

 

[itfitzme]

First sentence of second paragraph of Investigations On The Theory Of Brownian Motion - Albert Einstein - 1905

"... then classical thermodynamics can no longer be looked upon as applicable with precision of bodies even of dimensions distinguishable in a microscope..."

He proved the existance, even the size, of molecules in the liquid. *He proved the kinetic-molecule theory of heat. *

He eviserate classical thermodynamics as being absolute in defining the behavior of materials and gasses even up to the size visible in a microscope. *So classical thermodynamics can only be applied rigidly at macroscopic levels.

This left statistical thermodynamics or statistical mechanics, which preserves the classical macroscopic laws while describing them in terms of particles. It is, thankfully, intuitive if you understand statistics.

 

[gslack]

It answered the question do colder objects radiate energy to warmer objects but, not surprisingly, that went right over your head.*

I have revised my assessment of the human race thanks to you. I now believe that no matter how it's explained, a certain portion of the human race are incapable of understanding AGW.*

The only good news? That's not a problem in doing what has to be done.

No it didn't socko. what it did was try and explain the thermodynamics and insulating properties of cloud cover especially at night... You don't know what an insulator is? LOL, not surprising...

You need to work on your own homework. *What is photosynthesis? *What is soil carbon? *And why don't plants need coal, pencil lead and diamonds in the soil to grow?

Come back when you have finished those homework problems.

You're an Idiot dude.. Science supports me, common sense supports me, and so far only you and your clones agree with you..

Fact is as we all know, carbon has to be present to create CO2. Since carbon was first, life obviously came from carbon numbnuts.. CO2 is a created by carbon oxidization. No matter what form it takes, it requires the presence of carbon and oxygen. Therefore CO2 did not create plant life, plant's evolved to feed on it. Some plant-like organisms do not require CO2, they evolved that way just as the photosynthesis using plants evolved..

Holoparasitic Plants do not use CO2, and neither do myco-heterophytes.. They evolved, just as some of us do..

Now grow up junior socko...Your theory is stupid, your claim is retarded, and your a moron..ROFL

 

[gslack]

I am not trying to convert you, but I am trying to make sure that no unwary reader thinks your bizarre theory of prohibited emission is correct.

You are doing even worse. You are attempting to mislead people who are not even in the conversation.

I have no bizarre theory. It is you who is operating on unproven theory and hypothesis. My argument is that Second Law of Thermodynamics says: 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.

Tell me, what is strange and bizarre about my stating the Second Law and saying that I believe it to not only be true, but to mean what it says? What is bizarre Ian, is claiming that it doesn't mean what it says when if science had found it to be proveably wrong then science would have recended it and replace it with a more accurate statement. If the law didn't apply to individual events, and that was a proveable fact, don't you think that qualifier might be inclued in the statement of the law?

Would you think it bizarre if I quoted the Ideal Gas Law in a discussion over whether or not the state of a gas is determined by its pressure, volume and temperature?

Would you accuse me of bizarre theories if I quoted Dalton's Law if we were in disagreement over whether the pressure of a mixture of gasses is equal to the sum of the partial pressures of the component gasses and said that you were wrong if your position were in opposition to the statement of that law?

If you would think that bringing the statements of those laws into those conversations would constitued bizarre beliefs on the part of the one who used them, then you are even further out there than I had suspected....now if the use of those physical laws, in support of an argument are not bizarre, how then could the use of the statement of the most fundamental physical law be any more bizarre? What is bizarre Ian, is to be in disagreement with that statement.




So you keep saying but all I need do is quote the Second Law and ask you how it applies to the greenhouse effect hypotheisis, and you immediately deviate from the statement of the law and go into how it doesn't really mean what it says or that even though it is written in absolute terms it doesn't really mean what it says. If you disagree with it as an absolute statement regarding the movement of energy from one place to another, then you, by definition, think it is wrong.




And that is what it remains. Till some actual evidence, beyond mathematical and computer models proves it wrong, it is what it is. You are trying to replace a law of nature with a theory...it is as simple as that. QM is theoretical and will remain theoretical for longer than either of us have left on this earth and much of what it states today will be found out to be completely wrong. Any thoery that must form an ad hoc solution to explain the orbitals of a hydrogen atom is suspect from the start.



Statistical mechanics is a theory and it ATTEMPTS TO DESCRIBE. There is a fundamental difference between describing a thing not understood in factual, proveable terms and attempting to describe a thing not understood in unproven theoretical ideas. You put far to much faith in things that aren't even beginning to be proven.

but nowhere in all the volumes that have been writen about thermodynamics is there anything stating the existence of a previously unknown physical law prohibiting radiation emission from a particle, or the emission in a certain direction, because of a temperature differential. you wont even say how the particle knows the temperature of its surroundings.

There doesn't need to be any such statement for reasons I have already given you. The statement of the Second Law is made in absolute terms. 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. A statement like that doesn't need further qualification. There is no need to describe every possible energy exchange from place to place or in quanity.

The statement says that it is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body. Which part of "not possible" is it that you are having problems understanding. A statement like that makes it unnecessary to describe when heat might flow from a cooler object to a warmer object because it is "NOT POSSIBLE". If it were possible, then the statement would say something else, or not exist at all.

"ENERGY WILL NOT FLOW SPONTANEOUSLY FROM A LOW TEMPERATURE OBJECT TO A HIGHER TEMPERATURE OBJECT". That statement does not need a sub statement saying that the law also includes particles. It says that energy WILL NOT flow from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. The law would fill volumes that would fill and overflow the library of congress if it were necessary to clearly state every possible energy exchange.

The statement is that it is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body and energy WILL NOT flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object and it is enough. If you have a theory or hypothesis that runs afoul of that statement, then your theory or hypothesis is doomed no matter how much press it can get and you will, in fact, be the one guilty of bizarre behavior in trying to get around the most fundamental law of nature.

Two objects of the same temperature, not touching and in a vacuum (no conduction or convection). Do they radiate at each other? If they do I am right ( or at least more correct). If they don't what happened to the radiation and how did the objects know the other was there and what temperature it was at?

Will you answer this time?

It's a silly question Ian... Of course they radiate at one another, the real question is can they effect noticeable change in one another? Will they raise one anothers temperature beyond that which they already match? In other words, would it make either one warmer?

I say no because that would lead to a chain reaction and an infinite heat gain over time. But you seem to think otherwise...

The objects don't need to "know" the others existence or "decide" to radiate in that direction. And that tiresome nonsensical argument you been supplying forever now is not getting any better.. There is no thought involved in the process there is no decision made, it just happens. The difference is does that happening create noticeable change or not?

Now please stop reverting to the "decide to radiate or not" BS, it's childish...

BTW, I worked for years with a guy who was a physicist. A real one not the fake ones we see on here all the time. He worked for the same people I worked for, and was a consultant on higher end data compression and various other things I wasn't part of. Anyway, he and I used to converse from time to time and I told him once about my son thinking about engineering or physics for his future. He told me that it's one thing to be good at math,but it's another to understand what it means in reality. According to him, about 3/4 of the graduate students heading towards a Doctorate in physics, are expert at doing the math and doing things mathematically correct, but only about 1/4 of them are able to understand the real world meaning or implications behind it. For instance, your excuse above using "conscious thought" of the objects, is a perfect example of it. Also your continued treating radiation as a particle only. And your support of a theory that is although perhaps mathematically sound, realistically unlikely... Basically, you're a guy who knows numbers but not the reality of what they mean. You think if the math says it, it's fact. But the fact is not everything can be explained with math yet. And until that time comes, there are going to be situations where the math will say one thing, but the reality says another..

 

[itfitzme]

 

[westwall]

I see SSaDhD has been freverantly posting. He so desperately wants to be the expert. It is driving him crazy. He just can't accept that he isn't.

The only ones feverishly posting are you and pimmerz. You guys bring new meaning to the term "bury them with bullshit".