Physics and why LWIR can not warm oceans... Info for a Clueless Senator Markey and alarmists..

[Wuwei]

Wuwei, have you ever discussed radiative heat transfer with SSDD before?

Yes. A few months ago. Just as it was getting interesting, he disappeared.

 

[Crick]

Okay. So you know that he believes matter will not radiate towards other matter with a lower temperature. He believes that matter is somehow able to know the temperature of other matter in all directions at any distance and can selectively throttle its own radiation. When you ask him how that takes place, he simply says we don't know and probably never will.

 

[flacaltenn]

Anyone arguing for smart photons has some basic misconceptions in physics.

They're smart enough to follow their laws

Exactly. That's why SSDDs claims are so ludicrous.

And the claims that there is no measured evidence for such things as 'back radiation' is foolish as well. Back radiation is simply radiation. Every substance above absolute zero gives off radiation, in all directions, because of kinetic molecular collisions.

Temperature is a function of energy input minus energy output. The surface receives 165W of solar energy. The temperature is 15C which means it gives off 400W. Where does the extra energy come from? The back radiation from the atmosphere.

Why is the atmosphere warm enough to return part of its energy to the surface? Solar input, both directly and indirectly from the surface. An atmosphere without GHGs would still be warmer than space and return some energy to the surface. With GHGs it is warmer still, and returns more, because some surface energy from radiation does not directly escape at the speed of light.

We can, and have, measured the radiation coming back from the atmosphere. It is significant and without it there would be no life here because it would be too cold.

The Greenhouse Effect is both real and necessary.


Fortunately the main GHG, water vapour, works as both a heater (absorbing radiation) and cooler (evaporation, convection, clouds and latent heat). The balance between these two functions is what has kept the Earth in the 'Goldilock's Zone' for billions of years.

Except there have been brief excursions that were very detrimental to life at the time. Snowball earth from too little GHGs in the atmosphere, the P-T extinction, and others, from too much GHGs in the atmosphere. And the present increase in GHGs is proceeding at a rate unmatched by any in the geological past according to paleo-climatologists. And we have many, many giga-ton of CH4 clathrates in our oceans. Probably won't come out. We sincerely hope.

Do you actually believe all these wild ass guesses and proclamations of doom that you are always regurgitating? A tonne of conclusions from a thimble full of evidence. And yet you are always so certain. And so unwilling to even consider looking at evidence going in another direction. I cannot converse with you. You only have talking point, endlessly repeated, and no intelligent thought to back them up.

OK, Ian, name the wild ass guesses and proclamations of doom I have made.

Remember Dr. Hanses's 1981 paper in which he predicted more droughts and the opening of the Northwest Passage in this century? And he was castigated even by many scientists as an 'alarmist'. Yet the Passage opened for the first time in 2007. He was far too conservative.

As for the clathrates, they are a known fact. And we do not know how much heat it would require to set them off. Richad Alley thinks that we are safe for the foreseeable future from that. But we really don't know. Is that wild ass guesses? A proclamation of doom?

Why that would be every time it rains -- or it doesn't.

Or it snows --- or it doesn't.

Or when there is a violent tornado outbreak -- or there isn't.

Or when spring comes early or it doesn't..

Or when the permafrost melts -- with a house on it or not.

Or when all the smart Physicists join a consensus -- or they don't..

You;'re pretty much frightened by your own shadow..

 

[flacaltenn]

You are just as bad as Old Rocks.

Radiation is one of the most thoroughly investigated subjects in science. Much of our technology is based on odd results at the edge that are seldom, if ever, found in nature.

Heat is an amorphous concept heavily dependent on how you define it, or what you're studying. If I say one thing you will simply reframe the question. You make a declarative statement first, and then I will respond.

Shuck and jive...bob and weave..duck and cover....answer the question...is heat a form of energy in and of itself, or is it merely what happens when energy moves from one place to another....if radiation is the most thoroughly investigated subject in science...and as well understood as you seem to believe...then you should be able to answer such a fundamental question...why can't you? If you were half as sure of yourself as you seem to believe you are, you wouldn't need to wait for me...you could provide information from a perfectly credible source stating whether heat is itself a form of energy or whether it is just what happens when energy moves from one place to another.

Lemme take a whack and you tell me where I go wrong.. K??

Heat is a form of energy and it moves by only conduction or convection in MATERIAL MATTER... However, all matter is capable is capable of generating radiative energy as a function of their temperature in the form of IR photons at wavelengths particular to their atomic structure.

These photons obey different laws of propagation and are not heat. But if ABSORBED by another material that is capable of being excited at their wavelength -- will be directly converted to heat and ring the atomic lattice of the receiving matter. That will RAISE the temperature of the accepting matter.. Now this last part is confused even by some physicists who just take the pansy approach and call Radiative energy in the IR --- another form of heat. Because it's the EFFECT of the impinging energy that matters. ((some simple elemental gases and materials are completely incapable of being excited by IR transfer because of the simplicity of their atomic lattice))

The study of RADIATIVE thermal transfer is kept quite separately from elementary Thermo physics curriculums and gets just a passing mention.. Leaving many semi-educated people to believe that Radiative heat transfers don't obey the laws of thermo.. But they DO..

If you take the advanced course -- you'll find that even tho this photon energy PROPAGATES differently -- and has more complex equations for it's distribution and "thermal flow". Because it propagates in any direction available to it from the source and the amount accepted by the receiver is determined by 3 dimensional geometry - the exchanges that occur obey conservation of energy and the fundamental laws of thermo..

Thus the NET FLOW of radiative heating between matter depends on geometry and the temperature of the objects and ALL objects are radiating IR in some fashion --- And the exchanges between items depend simply on "line of sight".. Any 2 objects exchanges radiative energy will have a net flow in favor of the HOTTER object.

You're welcome.. Simply acknowledge this new knowledge and I will sign for a 2 hour credit in your name at the University of your choice....

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW -- I realize how off topic all this is. I won't shut down for being off-topic. But we certainly can't have ALL threads in this forum end in this same discussion. So at some point -- there needs to be a topic created for this "debate" and have it contained there..

Because lord knows -- there's already been 400 pages of this "intervention" that I can recall.. And possibly twice that.

 

[Wuwei]

Okay. So you know that he believes matter will not radiate towards other matter with a lower temperature. He believes that matter is somehow able to know the temperature of other matter in all directions at any distance and can selectively throttle its own radiation. When you ask him how that takes place, he simply says we don't know and probably never will.

I agree. I was getting into it by a different approach, and I was curious to see just how he handled that, but he didn't and just disappeared for a while. The fact that he disappeared indicated to me that it was his way of ceding the argument. Also, I wonder where he got his faulty idea of the 2nd law.

 

[Crick]

I can almost guarantee you that no one else gave it to him. I'd say he got it from an overactive imagination and a compulsion to be contrary in order to feed his superiority complex.

Isn't that right SSDD?

I understand that he also rejects the existence of photons.

 

[SSDD]

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.

You have a mistake. Your use of energy is wrong. It should be,
Heat will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
If you don't think it's a mistake please cite a source for that statement.

I didn't write it...it came from the physics department at Georgia State. Is heat a form of energy in and of itself, or is heat what happens when energy moves from one place to another. The answer is important as you have pointed out...so which is it...and provide a credible source for your answer.

 

[SSDD]

Wuwei, have you ever discussed radiative heat transfer with SSDD before?

Yes. A few months ago. Just as it was getting interesting, he disappeared.

The only thing interesting was that you couldn't provide any actual observed, measured examples to support any of your claims... my bet is that you will still not be able to provide any as neither heat nor energy have yet been observed spontaneously moving from cool objects to warm objects.

 

[SSDD]

Okay. So you know that he believes matter will not radiate towards other matter with a lower temperature. He believes that matter is somehow able to know the temperature of other matter in all directions at any distance and can selectively throttle its own radiation. When you ask him how that takes place, he simply says we don't know and probably never will.

Actually I gave you a thorough explanation which apparently was way over your head....it involved the fact that photons (if you believe they exist) exist under certain rules...one of them being that they exist at all points between their origin and destination at the same time.

 

[SSDD]

Heat is a form of energy and it moves by only conduction or convection in MATERIAL MATTER... However, all matter is capable is capable of generating radiative energy as a function of their temperature in the form of IR photons at wavelengths particular to their atomic structure.

According to Principles of Physics: A Calculus-Based Text, Volume 1 heat is not a form of energy..

Principles of Physics: A Calculus-Based Text

According to Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics heat is not a form of energy.

Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics

According to Entropy for Biologists: An Introduction to Thermodynamics heat is not a form of energy.

Entropy for Biologists

According to Theoretical Physics Second Edition heat is not a form of energy.

Theoretical Physics


My point is that at this point in the 21st century science is not agreed on whether heat is or is not a form of energy. You guys spout what you believe as if it were true. You stated that heat was a form of energy as if it were carved in stone somewhere and was a proven fact....and then proceeded on this whole explanation based on what you believe to be true and failed to mention that the entire ball of wax remains entirely theoretical.

What we know is that neither heat nor energy whether they are one in the same or not have ever been observed spontaneously moving from cool to warm.

You'll find that even tho this photon energy PROPAGATES differently -- and has more complex equations for it's distribution and "thermal flow". Because it propagates in any direction available to it from the source and the amount accepted by the receiver is determined by 3 dimensional geometry - the exchanges that occur obey conservation of energy and the fundamental laws of thermo..

Now what if the receiver will not accept any of that radiation because it is warmer than the radiator? Why would the radiator even radiate in that direction. If it is all straight lines as you say, would not a straight line from the warmer "receiver" already exist to the origin of that straight line from the radiator? And if the "radiator" were already acting as receiver along that straight line...or all possible straight lines...what mechanism would the radiator use to radiate in the direction from which it was already receiving energy of a higher frequency? We know that we have never observed energy or heat spontaneously moving from cool to warm...any "evidence" is the result of a mathematical model...but you speak as if we see it every day....we don't. And thanks for telling me what you believe, but as you can see, what you believe is in fact, just what you believe right down to your most basic belief that heat is a form of energy...even that claim is unclear and unproven.

 

[SSDD]

Okay. So you know that he believes matter will not radiate towards other matter with a lower temperature. He believes that matter is somehow able to know the temperature of other matter in all directions at any distance and can selectively throttle its own radiation. When you ask him how that takes place, he simply says we don't know and probably never will.

I agree. I was getting into it by a different approach, and I was curious to see just how he handled that, but he didn't and just disappeared for a while. The fact that he disappeared indicated to me that it was his way of ceding the argument. Also, I wonder where he got his faulty idea of the 2nd law.

I have no idea of the second law other than what it says....Here, again, from the physics department at Georgia State University.

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.

That is the entirety of my "idea" on the second law of thermodynamics. It is you, and those who believe as you do who seem to be adding something to it that isn't there. You are adding an unobservable, untestable, unprovable mathematical model to the mix and trying to rewrite the second law. I'm not. I accept what it says as fact till such time as we observe and measure something different and as a result, rewrite the second law of thermodynamics..

 

[SSDD]

I can almost guarantee you that no one else gave it to him. I'd say he got it from an overactive imagination and a compulsion to be contrary in order to feed his superiority complex.

Isn't that right SSDD?

I understand that he also rejects the existence of photons.

Do you have any proof that photons exist?...of course you don't...Do you have any actual proof that energy is not electromagnetic waves? Do you have any thing beyond the theory of particle/wave duality which is, at this point in time, nothing more than a place holder, or story science tells itself until the actual nature of energy is more thoroughly understood? Of course you don't.

As to my "ideas" on the second law....they don't go beyond what it states....that being that neither energy, nor heat will move spontaneously from cool to warm...energy is always moving towards a state of greater entropy unless some work is done to move it in the other direction.

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.

You either believe it or you don't. If you don't, then you are the one required to provide hard, observable evidence that the statement is wrong...otherwise, it is you who is the one who has the over active imagination...I accept the law as it is stated...it is you who has a beef with it and can't prove it wrong.....apparently in not accepting the second law of thermodynamics as it is stated, are the one who is wrongly feeling superior..

 

[Wuwei]

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.

I didn't write it...it came from the physics department at Georgia State.

Below is a screen shot of the Georgia State University site that you referenced. I generally try not to be rude, but if you look at the picture you will find that what they are referring to is
a fucking refrigerator with a fucking flow of fucking FREON not phucking PHOTONS.

We are talking about CO2 radiation: PHOTONS, not FREON.
Look at the context context context. I'm surprised you don't think a snow flake will never land on your bald head because it is energy spontaneously moving from cold snow to your hot head.

That diagram from the site you cited
1) Explained refrigeration. Not radiation thermodynamics.
2) Referred explicitly to Clausius in 1854 who knew nothing about radiation or photons
3) Clarified the the word “energy” with a diagram that referred solely to heat.
4) In thermodynamics Q refers to heat energy, not any kind of energy. See the diagram. It refers to a flow of heat, Q, not energy.

 

[IanC]

Hahahaha, I see SSDD is up to his usual BS.

Sometimes he says energy is not heat, sometimes it is. Sometimes one Thermodynamics Law takes precedence, sometimes another. Sometimes he scoffs at Quantum Mechanics, at other times he he uses the most esoteric of its properties.

His 'understanding' lies stillborn as it cannot describe even the simplest of cases, two bodies at the same temperature radiating at each other. He proclaims that no radiation is possible, yet that would mean both bodies would have to miraculously lose all energy because it is kinetic energy and collisions that produce radiation. For SSDD to be right some intelligence must control every particle in the universe, linked over the entire history (past, present and future) of the universe, and make individual decisions over which interactions are allowed.

I think I will stay with all substances radiate at all times according to their temperature. No forbidden interactions.

Go ahead, you can ask SSDD what the mechanism is that stops 'incorrect' radiation but he won't tell you. "Rocks fall down" and "air comes out of a tire" seem to be his go to explanations. He simply ignores the entropy and momentum implications of his 'special theory'.

 

[IanC]

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.

I didn't write it...it came from the physics department at Georgia State.

Below is a screen shot of the Georgia State University site that you referenced. I generally try not to be rude, but if you look at the picture you will find that what they are referring to is
a fucking refrigerator with a fucking flow of fucking FREON not phucking PHOTONS.

View attachment 57233

We are talking about CO2 radiation: PHOTONS, not FREON.
Look at the context context context. I'm surprised you don't think a snow flake will never land on your bald head because it is energy spontaneously moving from cold snow to your hot head.

That diagram from the site you cited
1) Explained refrigeration. Not radiation thermodynamics.
2) Referred explicitly to Clausius in 1845 who knew nothing about radiation
3) Clarified the the word “energy” with a diagram that referred solely to heat.
4) In thermodynamics Q refers to heat energy, not any kind of energy. See the diagram. It refers to a flow of heat, Q, not energy.

Yup. That's just how SSDD rolls. He is impossible to converse with on certain topics, like this one.

 

[Wuwei]

Yup. That's just how SSDD rolls. He is impossible to converse with on certain topics, like this one.

Can you tell me what is going on in his mind? Is he a troll? He certainly fits the definition. Does he firmly believe his crap? Does he have a pride so rigid that he has to defend the indefensible to the point where he looks foolish and looses all self esteem?

 

[Wuwei]

The only thing interesting was that you couldn't provide any actual observed, measured examples to support any of your claims... my bet is that you will still not be able to provide any as neither heat nor energy have yet been observed spontaneously moving from cool objects to warm objects.

You forgot that I did provide you with an example of thermal radiation from a cold object to an object 300 degrees warmer.The cold cosmic microwave background, CMB, at 2.7 degrees K can strike a radio antenna on earth at 300 degrees K.

There are sixty five experiments in the following reference that all saw the CMB, using these detectors, or combinations,
30 bolometers,
20 HEMT,
9 Interferometers,
4 SIS detectors.
Etc.
List of cosmic microwave background experiments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After the CMB passes through the warmer atmosphere it must strike the warmer parabolic dish so that it can reflect to the detector. The dish is at an ambient temperature hundreds of degrees warmer than the CMB.

Those are 65 cases of actual observed, measured examples to support the claim that radiation can move from objects at any temperature to other objects at any temperature.

 

[IanC]

Yup. That's just how SSDD rolls. He is impossible to converse with on certain topics, like this one.

Can you tell me what is going on in his mind? Is he a troll? He certainly fits the definition. Does he firmly believe his crap? Does he have a pride so rigid that he has to defend the indefensible to the point where he looks foolish and looses all self esteem?

He is just firmly set in a particular and peculiar way of thinking. No amount of arguments will get him off his fixed position. He's not smart enough to actually run things through in his head. Lots of people like that.

 

[flacaltenn]

Heat is a form of energy and it moves by only conduction or convection in MATERIAL MATTER... However, all matter is capable is capable of generating radiative energy as a function of their temperature in the form of IR photons at wavelengths particular to their atomic structure.

According to Principles of Physics: A Calculus-Based Text, Volume 1 heat is not a form of energy..

Principles of Physics: A Calculus-Based Text

According to Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics heat is not a form of energy.

Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics

According to Entropy for Biologists: An Introduction to Thermodynamics heat is not a form of energy.

Entropy for Biologists

According to Theoretical Physics Second Edition heat is not a form of energy.

Theoretical Physics


My point is that at this point in the 21st century science is not agreed on whether heat is or is not a form of energy. You guys spout what you believe as if it were true. You stated that heat was a form of energy as if it were carved in stone somewhere and was a proven fact....and then proceeded on this whole explanation based on what you believe to be true and failed to mention that the entire ball of wax remains entirely theoretical.

What we know is that neither heat nor energy whether they are one in the same or not have ever been observed spontaneously moving from cool to warm.

You'll find that even tho this photon energy PROPAGATES differently -- and has more complex equations for it's distribution and "thermal flow". Because it propagates in any direction available to it from the source and the amount accepted by the receiver is determined by 3 dimensional geometry - the exchanges that occur obey conservation of energy and the fundamental laws of thermo..

Now what if the receiver will not accept any of that radiation because it is warmer than the radiator? Why would the radiator even radiate in that direction. If it is all straight lines as you say, would not a straight line from the warmer "receiver" already exist to the origin of that straight line from the radiator? And if the "radiator" were already acting as receiver along that straight line...or all possible straight lines...what mechanism would the radiator use to radiate in the direction from which it was already receiving energy of a higher frequency? We know that we have never observed energy or heat spontaneously moving from cool to warm...any "evidence" is the result of a mathematical model...but you speak as if we see it every day....we don't. And thanks for telling me what you believe, but as you can see, what you believe is in fact, just what you believe right down to your most basic belief that heat is a form of energy...even that claim is unclear and unproven.

All semantics without any impact on the fundamentals. Some folks prefer to quibble about the difference between thermal ENERGY and thermal POWER.. And "heat" is generally considered to be thermal energy in motion or in transfer between objects..

A BTU is defined as the amount of "heat" required to raise 1 pound of water by 1 degF.. YET -- if you contained that energy energy and restricted it's flow -- by SOME definitions you no longer have "heat".. Just the potential to CREATE heat..

In my specialty which is electronics -- the same equations used to calculate the power delivered in various branches of a circuit having different resistances are the SAME EQUATIONS (Kirchkoff's Laws) that are used to calculate thermal flow in materials with different insulation (or thermal resistance) values. Where Voltage takes the role of temperature and Current takes the role of heat flow. When heat energy flows -- it becomes heat power. So CLEARLY --- these are both quantities related to the ability of heat to be stored and transferred.

What you have here -- is just an esoteric distinction that is made because some Physicists gets pissy that HEAT is only heat energy in motion.. Capice ???? NOT -- any kind of earth of earth-smashing refutation of basic science. By that definition -- a BTU is a measure of "heat energy" not heat power...

Listen up.. By that reasoning -- a battery does not store electricity. Because there is no electricity --- unless a current flows... Hopeless semantics..