Physics question pertinent to global warming

[Crick]

Is the photon from the cooler atmosphere warmer than the ground it is flowing too? If it is not, then it simply can not be true.

Heat in the kinetic sense of molecules moving around is not a property of Electromagnetic radiation. A photon behaves like a microwave. It will CAUSE heat to flow if absorbed or carry heat FROM an object when it is emitted as InfraRed --- but it has no concept of hotter or colder.

ALL objects above Abs Zero emit IR photons. Solids, gases, liquids, or jello molds. The scuffle is about the heat "trapped" in the atmos by GHouse gases. Do they "WARM" the earth? No -- not actually, they impede the heat loss from surface by subtracting their lower IR photon flux from the larger amount of heat LEAVING the surface towards space.

What warms the surface is the new thermal equilibrium that it is reached by a thicker layer of GHGases impeding the SAME energy input from the sun -- producing the SAME conversion to surface thermal heat and then to skyward radiative IR losses...

That may be the dominant conversation on this board, but the topic of this thread is SSDD fantasies concerning radiative heat transfer.

SSDD believes it is physically impossible for any matter to ever radiate energy towards warrmer matter. He believes that the first object somehow stops radiating. He believes this happens selectively over time and space. For instance, he believes bringing in a hot object can stop a less hot object from radiating. For instance he believes that an object surrounded by matter both hotter and colder than itself, will selectively radiate towards one but not the other. He believes the Stefen-Boltzman law (the two body version with two temperatures) describes one-way energy flow. He believes warmer bodies throttle their own radiation depending on the temperature of their surroundings. He believes it is impossible for the atmosphere to heat the ocean. None of these interpretations involve net heat transfer. He believes heat transfer always takes place in a single direction, from hot to cold. And, among these sorts of oddities, he also rejects the existence of photons, rejects quantum mechanics and rejects special and general relativity.

I freely invite him to correct me if I have mischaracterized his position on any of these matters.

 

[SSDD]

Why do you ignore my questions? Of course the Sun supplies energy to produce evaporation. So what? Are you claiming that a pan of water in a dark closet will not evaporate?

Are you claiming that energy from the sun doesn't make it into a dark closet?


N

 

[SSDD]

What cooled?

Hey.. Season catch-up here. This is an ongoing intervention to ATTEMPT to get SSDD to accept how the Greenhouse Theory actually works.

SSDD denies that any ElectroMag photon energy can flow from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer ground. In a sense -- he is correct in that the NET FLOW is always heat to the sky. But radiation thermo says that photons are firing in both directions. That's how radiative heat flow is resolved -- by multi-way flux algebra. And even cooler objects can act as radiative flow insulation. Like a greenhouse gas.

Trust me on this Cav --- It's a snooze. Unless you got some fine hostage negotiation skills to get my bud SSDD out of this jam without flash/bang grenades and drone strikes.. I've tried hookers and beer.. Nothing budges the guy..

Still waiting for someone to explain within the accepted greenhouse gas/AGW hypothesis...why the tropospheric hot spot never showed up.

 

[SSDD]

Is the photon from the cooler atmosphere warmer than the ground it is flowing too? If it is not, then it simply can not be true.

Heat in the kinetic sense of molecules moving around is not a property of Electromagnetic radiation. A photon behaves like a microwave. It will CAUSE heat to flow if absorbed or carry heat FROM an object when it is emitted as InfraRed --- but it has no concept of hotter or colder.

ALL objects above Abs Zero emit IR photons. Solids, gases, liquids, or jello molds. The scuffle is about the heat "trapped" in the atmos by GHouse gases. Do they "WARM" the earth? No -- not actually, they impede the heat loss from surface by subtracting their lower IR photon flux from the larger amount of heat LEAVING the surface towards space.

What warms the surface is the new thermal equilibrium that it is reached by a thicker layer of GHGases impeding the SAME energy input from the sun -- producing the SAME conversion to surface thermal heat and then to skyward radiative IR losses...

And the tropospheric hot spot that such energy movement would inevitably cause is.....where?

 

[SSDD]

[Q

Holster your weapons pardner. NOBODY is saying that ANY flows are from Cold to hot. Not a person..

Actually, Ian, crick, toddster, and the hairball are. That is what this whole thing is about....Ian claims that a high energy photon from a low energy molecule (best I can figure) will occasionally, once in a blue moon leave the cold and go to the warm....but the rest of them seem to think that energy moves from cool to warm on a regular basis.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD believes it is physically impossible for any matter to ever radiate energy towards warrmer matter. .

And the lies continue....my position is that energy does not transfer from cold to warm...period. The rest is stories of your own design...smart waves...smart photons...smart whatever. My position, once again, is that energy does not transfer from cold to warm...if you believe it does, then prove it...lets see some measured observation. As I have stated repeatedly, I don't know why it doesn't happen...neither does anyone else...the fact remains that it doesn't.

 

[Crick]

Why do you ignore my questions? Of course the Sun supplies energy to produce evaporation. So what? Are you claiming that a pan of water in a dark closet will not evaporate?

Are you claiming that energy from the sun doesn't make it into a dark closet?

I think this addresses your claim that no heat transfer takes place between the atmosphere and the ocean.

 

[SSDD]

Why do you ignore my questions? Of course the Sun supplies energy to produce evaporation. So what? Are you claiming that a pan of water in a dark closet will not evaporate?

Are you claiming that energy from the sun doesn't make it into a dark closet?

I think this addresses your claim that no heat transfer takes place between the atmosphere and the ocean.

Energy does not move from cool to warm....The oceans heat the atmosphere...not the other way around. The rest is all stories of your own creation.

 

[Crick]

All matter radiates energy all the time in all directions. To suggest otherwise is to violate a butt-ton-load of the most fundamental laws of physics and invoke magic where none is needed.

 

[flacaltenn]

[Q

Holster your weapons pardner. NOBODY is saying that ANY flows are from Cold to hot. Not a person..

Actually, Ian, crick, toddster, and the hairball are. That is what this whole thing is about....Ian claims that a high energy photon from a low energy molecule (best I can figure) will occasionally, once in a blue moon leave the cold and go to the warm....but the rest of them seem to think that energy moves from cool to warm on a regular basis.

This is an understandable disagreement. I've never seen a entry level thermo text or syllabus that gives more than a couple pages to radiative heat transfer. So you've obviously gotten that far, and those tools are valuable. You are just a victim of "staged learning".. The reason radiative transfer is left out of undergrad work (except for Electrical Engineers and maybe some climate disciplines) is that it is energy of another type, with different rules of propagation and energy states. To solve a radiative transfer problem, the setup looks much more like antenna design and fields and waves in that you have to calculate directional propagation based on the particular geometries of the emitters and receivers of that energy. In fact, I CRINGE at some of the problems I see in low level thermo because the PHOTON energy exchange of heat is TOTALLY IGNORED. In many cases, IR photon exchange is neglible compared to conduction and convection, but you still will never get the "proper" answer by ignoring radiative heat. Such is the burden that you carry. You were given some LAWS -- before anyone told you the WHOLE TRUTH about how heat is caused. That is the trap that Dr. Spencer got into when you and many others, armed with Thermo 101 went after him on backradiation. He HAD the atmos physics that filled in the blanks, but decided NOT to get egg-headed about the physics and failed to reach them with purely empirical examples.

Those laws will not be violated by ANYTHING that happens in a Radiative Physic textbook. So you are on much firmer ground that your Chief Prosecutor Mr. BullWinkle here.

The Crickster has 11 or 12 MAJOR misconceptions about facts and science and we've REPEATEDLY seen him unabashedly flaunt his stupidity and belligerence on ALL those topics. No matter how much information to the contrary he has received. And for the most part, his belligerence is on questions INFINITELY simpler than radiative physics. YET -- he is BOUND and DETERMINED to catch ANYONE he doesn't like in some form of denial.. And his purposeful DENIAL of evidence is no where near as benign as our "understandable disagreement"..

As for the "flow from cold to hot", that never actually happens without some form of additional energy entering the system. Like on a macro scale in weather where cold air is REQUIRED to be pulled into a storm.

CONDUCTION, CONVECTION only occurs in MATTER, and doesn't require the matter to physically be displaced. It's largely kinetic and stored HEAT as ATTACHED to molecules and particles.. But radiation of photons doesn't require matter as a propagation medium because it is PURE energy, not heat, and NOT tied to MATTER. It carries no "heat" in the sense of Thermo 101.. Photons simply "communicate" heat when they interact with matter. They are ejected FROM materials as a function of temperature and energy level, and then impart temperature and energy level when absorbed. In between, they know not a word about "heat". So since radiative transfers are a vital part of how matter exchanges heat -- the rules of propagation and exchange are nuanced a bit -- BUT STILL the flow of photons from the hotter objects will dominate in that exchange.

I'm done again. This is a black hole of time and space.. See ya on Tuesday when we discuss the heat propagation characteristics of plasmas..

 

[Crick]

What an ego you've got. "I've never seen an entry level thermo text... that gives more than a couple pages to radiative heat transfer". Like you think we should believe you've reviewed the literature.

Well then , you never saw mine.

SSDD's conception of how radiative heat transfer takes is the fantasy of an idiot. If you want to make him feel good about it, be my guest.

 

[flacaltenn]

What an ego you've got. "I've never seen an entry level thermo text... that gives more than a couple pages to radiative heat transfer". Like you think we should believe you've reviewed the literature.

Well then , you never saw mine.

SSDD's conception of how radiative heat transfer takes is the fantasy of an idiot. If you want to make him feel good about it, be my guest.

..."Reviewed the literature" ???? Pffffft. No I've just spent a large portion of my life digging thru Engineering and Physic libraries. When did you work at Kennedy Space Center doing thermal analysis on flight systems? What you take as bloated ego is just my blessed career producing a biography of work that I am very content with.
And -- I don't mind sharing. In fact -- teaching and mentoring is HIGH on that list of stuff I'm proud of.. That's where I get the extraordinary patience and restraint to deal with you.

 

[Crick]

Then let's see you educate SSDD regarding radiative heat transfer.

What was the point of your bullshit contention that thermodyamics text books don't adequately cover radiative heat transfer if not to try to tell SSDD that his many critics don't know what they're talking about?

Do you agree with SSDD that cold matter does not radiate towards warmer matter?

Do you agree with SSDD that matter is able to turn its radiation on and off depending on its surroundings?

Do you agree with SSDD that matter is able to simultaneously and selectively radiate in some directions but not in others?

Do you agree with SSDD that matter is somehow able to KNOW the temperature of distant objects?

With which of these do you agree?

 

[IanC]

Flac is correctly pointing out that conduction and convection are a couple of orders of magnitude more efficient at transferring heat and energy than radiation is. Therefore introductory texts focus on those pathways.

Because the final transfer of energy from our planet to outer space can only be done by radiation most people incorrectly infer that radiation is also the primary method of energy transfer at the surface, which it is not. The water cycle, using conduction convection and latent heat does the heavy lifting from the surface to the cloud tops. Any slight radiation imbalance caused by increased CO2 is shunted into this alternate pathway.

 

[Crick]

My textbooks did not give short shrift to radiative transfer. How well it may be covered in other texts and what proportion of thermal flux it carries through the atmosphere is irrelevant to SSDD's gross misunderstanding of the processes involved.

 

[flacaltenn]

My textbooks did not give short shrift to radiative transfer. How well it may be covered in other texts and what proportion of thermal flux it carries through the atmosphere is irrelevant to SSDD's gross misunderstanding of the processes involved.

Really Clyde? Show me a SINGLE radiative heat transfer problem between 2 or more objects in an INTRO textbook to Thermodynamics. (You MIGHT actually find one if you look at texts written before the 60s and the dumbing down of collegiate syllabuses)

I have no idea in your previous post -- how you turned my remarks on textbooks into ANY kind of comment about who is informed on this matter. Or ANY OTHER form of taking sides. I've been frustrated in the past that so many students THINK they know thermo but have no concept of how the IR lamps at McDonalds heat a burger.

 

[flacaltenn]

Then let's see you educate SSDD regarding radiative heat transfer.

What was the point of your bullshit contention that thermodyamics text books don't adequately cover radiative heat transfer if not to try to tell SSDD that his many critics don't know what they're talking about?

Do you agree with SSDD that cold matter does not radiate towards warmer matter?

Do you agree with SSDD that matter is able to turn its radiation on and off depending on its surroundings?

Do you agree with SSDD that matter is able to simultaneously and selectively radiate in some directions but not in others?

Do you agree with SSDD that matter is somehow able to KNOW the temperature of distant objects?

With which of these do you agree?

Geez..... Already covered your first stinky herring. No intent to malign ANYONE. Don't see how you got there. I did however do an excellent of maligning you. You'll know when I'm insulting someone..

As for the questions. Pretty sure you were in threads the last time SSDD and i went round on this? Does the name "scienceofdoom.com" ring a bell?

1) Matter doesn't radiate. It releases photons that radiate and the answer on that clarification is NO.
2) The way you phrased it is ambiguous. Since the "surroundings" includes potential thermal energy that DETERMINES the amount and energy state of the radiation flux from the object. If you mean does a photon examine it's surroundings and make mid-course corrections --- the answer is a definite NO.
3) NO
4) NO

 

[IanC]

Crick finds it convenient to ignore the conversations that he was involved in when he name was Abraham.

 

[SSDD]

Then let's see you educate SSDD regarding radiative heat transfer.

What was the point of your bullshit contention that thermodyamics text books don't adequately cover radiative heat transfer if not to try to tell SSDD that his many critics don't know what they're talking about?

Do you agree with SSDD that cold matter does not radiate towards warmer matter?

Do you agree with SSDD that matter is able to turn its radiation on and off depending on its surroundings?

Do you agree with SSDD that matter is able to simultaneously and selectively radiate in some directions but not in others?

Do you agree with SSDD that matter is somehow able to KNOW the temperature of distant objects?

With which of these do you agree?

If you think that you have actually described any part of my position as I have stated it, then you are far more stupid than I ever thought.....

 

[SSDD]

Crick finds it convenient to ignore the conversations that he was involved in when he name was Abraham.

Hell, he is doing a fine job of ignoring discussions he is in now....He didn't accurately describe any part of my position...what he did was describe toddsters equally crummy description of my position.