Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
dude the really funny line is this one:If I may interject, I already analyzed this in a different thread since it is such a popular "alternate" model. The theory by Hans Jelbring 2003 is very similar to the theory of Nikolov and Zeller. They both rely on adiabatic heating. The following is a copy and paste of what I wrote the thread, "In support of the A in AGW."But I will certainly discuss it with you if you hold up your end by showing you have even a basic understanding of the claim.
I really have no interest in discussing this crackpot nonsense. Greenhouse effect as a function of gravity / density, with no influence from the composition of the atmosphere, based on a "model" that is quite like the atmosphere on earth, except for pretty much every characteristic attributed to that "model" atmosphere? I guess, that "peer reviewed" paper is being consistently ignored by the "establishment" for a reason, and a damned good one.
I think I have seen you reference the like before, and found it to be off-the-wall crank science. The paper made absolutely no sense to me, and I just wanted to ask whether you actually put credence in that. Seemingly you do, and so... knock yourself out.
-------------------------------
Adiabatic heating occurs as a reversible process when work is done. According to the authors the work is the gravitational force. In experiments the adiabatic process must take place before any heat can dissipate otherwise it is not reversible. If it's done quickly there is not enough time for any energy to transfer as heat to or from the system.-----------------------
Here is an example: your hand pump gets hot when pumping up a tire due to adiabatic compression. If you wait, heat will dissipate and the pump will cool down. At that point the process is no longer adiabatic.
In order for the atmosphere to be in an adiabatic condition. All the air must start out, say, a few hundred miles above the earth. When the air falls to the earth it will be compressed most at the lowest levels and be the hottest. At higher levels the pressure will be less and the atmosphere will be cooler according to the ideal gas law. That is the temperature profile the authors are referring to, and as they claim, is perhaps similar to the profile of planets.
However, what the authors fail to include is the fact that without external energy, the atmosphere will eventually even out to a uniform temperature after the initial adiabatic heat is dissipated. Our atmosphere does not do that. The reason of course is that there is thermal energy continually being pumped into the system from the sun; the earth warms; and radiates LWIR, etc.
I will be very disappointed if I don't get a "funny" rating from JC.
It wasn't a typo. It is your usual confusion in using "energy" and "thermal energy" as though they were the same thing. That same confusion befuddles you in your idea that photons from a cold object cannot hit a hot object.Whoooo hoodoo..caught me in a typo...got a special victory dance for when you catch typos and spelling errors?...and maybe a special little routine when you catch a punctuation error?....catching the bastards using a comma when they should use a semicolon?
Radiation exchange between two objects does not ever violate the second law in spontaneous heat exchange.Except that isn't what it says..it is nothing more than your interpretation...
You didn't understand my comment. You were the one who equated refrigeration thermodynamics with radiation thermodynamics. And you say I'm behind the curve?You really are behind the curve aren't you?....those pumps are providing the work necessary to make energy move from cold to warm...without them, energy can't move in that direction...are you really this ignorant or are you just being obtuse?
By energy, you mean thermal energy. Photons can move anywhere....energy simply won't move spontaneously from cold to warm.
-------------------------------
Adiabatic heating occurs as a reversible process when work is done. According to the authors the work is the gravitational force. In experiments the adiabatic process must take place before any heat can dissipate otherwise it is not reversible. If it's done quickly there is not enough time for any energy to transfer as heat to or from the system.
Failure right out of the gate....all thermodynamic processes in nature are irreversible...
SECOND LAW
Any process either increases the entropy of the universe - or leaves it unchanged. Entropy is constant only in reversible processes which occur in equilibrium. All natural processes are irreversible.
http://web.pdx.edu/~bseipel/The Laws of Thermodynamic2.pdf
Heat can never pass spontaneously from a colder to a hotter body. As a result of this fact, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible.
Venus actually is validation that back radiation doesn't exist.-------------------------------
Adiabatic heating occurs as a reversible process when work is done. According to the authors the work is the gravitational force. In experiments the adiabatic process must take place before any heat can dissipate otherwise it is not reversible. If it's done quickly there is not enough time for any energy to transfer as heat to or from the system.
Failure right out of the gate....all thermodynamic processes in nature are irreversible...
SECOND LAW
Any process either increases the entropy of the universe - or leaves it unchanged. Entropy is constant only in reversible processes which occur in equilibrium. All natural processes are irreversible.
http://web.pdx.edu/~bseipel/The Laws of Thermodynamic2.pdf
Heat can never pass spontaneously from a colder to a hotter body. As a result of this fact, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible.
Bingo! For once you got something right. That is precisely why the works of Jelbring, Kikolov and Zeller are wrong. They are saying that an adiabatic processes explains the thermal profile of the atmosphere, and they are dead wrong.
Venus actually is validation that back radiation doesn't exist.-------------------------------
Adiabatic heating occurs as a reversible process when work is done. According to the authors the work is the gravitational force. In experiments the adiabatic process must take place before any heat can dissipate otherwise it is not reversible. If it's done quickly there is not enough time for any energy to transfer as heat to or from the system.
Failure right out of the gate....all thermodynamic processes in nature are irreversible...
SECOND LAW
Any process either increases the entropy of the universe - or leaves it unchanged. Entropy is constant only in reversible processes which occur in equilibrium. All natural processes are irreversible.
http://web.pdx.edu/~bseipel/The Laws of Thermodynamic2.pdf
Heat can never pass spontaneously from a colder to a hotter body. As a result of this fact, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible.
Bingo! For once you got something right. That is precisely why the works of Jelbring, Kikolov and Zeller are wrong. They are saying that an adiabatic processes explains the thermal profile of the atmosphere, and they are dead wrong.
nope. but do pray tell why is the surface cooler than the atmosphere. I'll wait.Venus actually is validation that back radiation doesn't exist.-------------------------------
Adiabatic heating occurs as a reversible process when work is done. According to the authors the work is the gravitational force. In experiments the adiabatic process must take place before any heat can dissipate otherwise it is not reversible. If it's done quickly there is not enough time for any energy to transfer as heat to or from the system.
Failure right out of the gate....all thermodynamic processes in nature are irreversible...
SECOND LAW
Any process either increases the entropy of the universe - or leaves it unchanged. Entropy is constant only in reversible processes which occur in equilibrium. All natural processes are irreversible.
http://web.pdx.edu/~bseipel/The Laws of Thermodynamic2.pdf
Heat can never pass spontaneously from a colder to a hotter body. As a result of this fact, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible.
Bingo! For once you got something right. That is precisely why the works of Jelbring, Kikolov and Zeller are wrong. They are saying that an adiabatic processes explains the thermal profile of the atmosphere, and they are dead wrong.
The atmosphere of Venus doesn't radiate in all directions? Why not?
nope. but do pray tell why is the surface cooler than the atmosphere. I'll wait.Venus actually is validation that back radiation doesn't exist.-------------------------------
Adiabatic heating occurs as a reversible process when work is done. According to the authors the work is the gravitational force. In experiments the adiabatic process must take place before any heat can dissipate otherwise it is not reversible. If it's done quickly there is not enough time for any energy to transfer as heat to or from the system.
Failure right out of the gate....all thermodynamic processes in nature are irreversible...
SECOND LAW
Any process either increases the entropy of the universe - or leaves it unchanged. Entropy is constant only in reversible processes which occur in equilibrium. All natural processes are irreversible.
http://web.pdx.edu/~bseipel/The Laws of Thermodynamic2.pdf
Heat can never pass spontaneously from a colder to a hotter body. As a result of this fact, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible.
Bingo! For once you got something right. That is precisely why the works of Jelbring, Kikolov and Zeller are wrong. They are saying that an adiabatic processes explains the thermal profile of the atmosphere, and they are dead wrong.
The atmosphere of Venus doesn't radiate in all directions? Why not?
nope. but do pray tell why is the surface cooler than the atmosphere. I'll wait.Venus actually is validation that back radiation doesn't exist.-------------------------------
Adiabatic heating occurs as a reversible process when work is done. According to the authors the work is the gravitational force. In experiments the adiabatic process must take place before any heat can dissipate otherwise it is not reversible. If it's done quickly there is not enough time for any energy to transfer as heat to or from the system.
Failure right out of the gate....all thermodynamic processes in nature are irreversible...
SECOND LAW
Any process either increases the entropy of the universe - or leaves it unchanged. Entropy is constant only in reversible processes which occur in equilibrium. All natural processes are irreversible.
http://web.pdx.edu/~bseipel/The Laws of Thermodynamic2.pdf
Heat can never pass spontaneously from a colder to a hotter body. As a result of this fact, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible.
Bingo! For once you got something right. That is precisely why the works of Jelbring, Kikolov and Zeller are wrong. They are saying that an adiabatic processes explains the thermal profile of the atmosphere, and they are dead wrong.
The atmosphere of Venus doesn't radiate in all directions? Why not?
it doesn't and why the surface on venus is cooler than the atmosphere.nope. but do pray tell why is the surface cooler than the atmosphere. I'll wait.Venus actually is validation that back radiation doesn't exist.Failure right out of the gate....all thermodynamic processes in nature are irreversible...
SECOND LAW
http://web.pdx.edu/~bseipel/The Laws of Thermodynamic2.pdf
Bingo! For once you got something right. That is precisely why the works of Jelbring, Kikolov and Zeller are wrong. They are saying that an adiabatic processes explains the thermal profile of the atmosphere, and they are dead wrong.
The atmosphere of Venus doesn't radiate in all directions? Why not?
In which specific directions does the atmosphere radiate? Why?
I already did and posted the link to the explanation and experiment. So now where is yours with your back radiation hypothesis testing?nope. but do pray tell why is the surface cooler than the atmosphere. I'll wait.Venus actually is validation that back radiation doesn't exist.Failure right out of the gate....all thermodynamic processes in nature are irreversible...
SECOND LAW
http://web.pdx.edu/~bseipel/The Laws of Thermodynamic2.pdf
Bingo! For once you got something right. That is precisely why the works of Jelbring, Kikolov and Zeller are wrong. They are saying that an adiabatic processes explains the thermal profile of the atmosphere, and they are dead wrong.
The atmosphere of Venus doesn't radiate in all directions? Why not?
but do pray tell why is the surface cooler than the atmosphere.
The average temperature on Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius). Temperature changes slightly traveling through the atmosphere, growing cooler farther away from the surface. Lead would melt on the surface of the planet, where the temperature is around 872 F (467 C). Temperatures are cooler in the upper atmosphere, ranging from (minus 43 C) to (minus 173 C). - See more at: How Hot is Venus?
it doesn't and why the surface on venus is cooler than the atmosphere.nope. but do pray tell why is the surface cooler than the atmosphere. I'll wait.Venus actually is validation that back radiation doesn't exist.Bingo! For once you got something right. That is precisely why the works of Jelbring, Kikolov and Zeller are wrong. They are saying that an adiabatic processes explains the thermal profile of the atmosphere, and they are dead wrong.
The atmosphere of Venus doesn't radiate in all directions? Why not?
In which specific directions does the atmosphere radiate? Why?
I already did and posted the link to the explanation and experiment. So now where is yours with your back radiation hypothesis testing?nope. but do pray tell why is the surface cooler than the atmosphere. I'll wait.Venus actually is validation that back radiation doesn't exist.Bingo! For once you got something right. That is precisely why the works of Jelbring, Kikolov and Zeller are wrong. They are saying that an adiabatic processes explains the thermal profile of the atmosphere, and they are dead wrong.
The atmosphere of Venus doesn't radiate in all directions? Why not?
but do pray tell why is the surface cooler than the atmosphere.
The average temperature on Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius). Temperature changes slightly traveling through the atmosphere, growing cooler farther away from the surface. Lead would melt on the surface of the planet, where the temperature is around 872 F (467 C). Temperatures are cooler in the upper atmosphere, ranging from (minus 43 C) to (minus 173 C). - See more at: How Hot is Venus?
asked and answered.it doesn't and why the surface on venus is cooler than the atmosphere.nope. but do pray tell why is the surface cooler than the atmosphere. I'll wait.Venus actually is validation that back radiation doesn't exist.
The atmosphere of Venus doesn't radiate in all directions? Why not?
In which specific directions does the atmosphere radiate? Why?
it doesn't
It doesn't radiate at all?
Does it absorb energy? Or is it magic there too?
I guess you didn't read the material I posted. Seems like if you really were interested, you would have actually read it. Oh well, the circle jerk with you is over, you have no evidence for your back radiation.I already did and posted the link to the explanation and experiment. So now where is yours with your back radiation hypothesis testing?nope. but do pray tell why is the surface cooler than the atmosphere. I'll wait.Venus actually is validation that back radiation doesn't exist.
The atmosphere of Venus doesn't radiate in all directions? Why not?
but do pray tell why is the surface cooler than the atmosphere.
The average temperature on Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius). Temperature changes slightly traveling through the atmosphere, growing cooler farther away from the surface. Lead would melt on the surface of the planet, where the temperature is around 872 F (467 C). Temperatures are cooler in the upper atmosphere, ranging from (minus 43 C) to (minus 173 C). - See more at: How Hot is Venus?
You posted an experiment that shows atmosphere doesn't radiate? LOL!
asked and answered.it doesn't and why the surface on venus is cooler than the atmosphere.nope. but do pray tell why is the surface cooler than the atmosphere. I'll wait.The atmosphere of Venus doesn't radiate in all directions? Why not?
In which specific directions does the atmosphere radiate? Why?
it doesn't
It doesn't radiate at all?
Does it absorb energy? Or is it magic there too?
I guess you didn't read the material I posted. Seems like if you really were interested, you would have actually read it. Oh well, the circle jerk with you is over, you have no evidence for your back radiation.I already did and posted the link to the explanation and experiment. So now where is yours with your back radiation hypothesis testing?nope. but do pray tell why is the surface cooler than the atmosphere. I'll wait.The atmosphere of Venus doesn't radiate in all directions? Why not?
but do pray tell why is the surface cooler than the atmosphere.
The average temperature on Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius). Temperature changes slightly traveling through the atmosphere, growing cooler farther away from the surface. Lead would melt on the surface of the planet, where the temperature is around 872 F (467 C). Temperatures are cooler in the upper atmosphere, ranging from (minus 43 C) to (minus 173 C). - See more at: How Hot is Venus?
You posted an experiment that shows atmosphere doesn't radiate? LOL!
SSDD I guess no one in here can actually debate the subject cause they have no evidence to support the violation of the second law.
which means what? asked and answered. Now it again is your turn.I guess you didn't read the material I posted. Seems like if you really were interested, you would have actually read it. Oh well, the circle jerk with you is over, you have no evidence for your back radiation.I already did and posted the link to the explanation and experiment. So now where is yours with your back radiation hypothesis testing?nope. but do pray tell why is the surface cooler than the atmosphere. I'll wait.
but do pray tell why is the surface cooler than the atmosphere.
The average temperature on Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius). Temperature changes slightly traveling through the atmosphere, growing cooler farther away from the surface. Lead would melt on the surface of the planet, where the temperature is around 872 F (467 C). Temperatures are cooler in the upper atmosphere, ranging from (minus 43 C) to (minus 173 C). - See more at: How Hot is Venus?
You posted an experiment that shows atmosphere doesn't radiate? LOL!
If you posted an experiment that showed the atmosphere doesn't radiate, I'm sure I looked at it and mocked your ignorance.
