Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Toddsterpatriot]

that equation only applies to black bodies in a vacuum

Two Suns in an otherwise empty universe. I say they both radiate fully. You say every particle of their surfaces are somehow prohibited from emitting at each other. Not only that but they must also know the speed at which the Suns are moving relative to each other, because it takes time for radiation to get there.

Add a little dust in between them and the surface particles must know all their positions as well.

Are the opposite sides of the Suns a little hotter to make up for the radiation not allowed to be emitted on the facing surfaces?

Does the dust control the emission of radiation it receives? Does the dust increase entropy by scattering the radiation?

Are your epicycles due to an unknown law of physics really necessary when they interfere with so many of the known laws of physics?

Again..it all looks like magic to you...or that some sort of intelligence is required...I accept that there is far more that we don't know than that we do know...I don't need fairy tales to fill in the gaps so that I can pretend that we know all and see all. I am fine with waiting for actual answers based on actual evidence.

I am fine with waiting for actual answers based on actual evidence.

Is that why you haven't posted a single source that agrees with your claims?
You're still waiting for evidence? LOL!

Weird.

 

[IanC]

Again..it all looks like magic to you...or that some sort of intelligence is required...I accept that there is far more that we don't know than that we do know...I don't need fairy tales to fill in the gaps so that I can pretend that we know all and see all. I am fine with waiting for actual answers based on actual evidence

You aren't waiting for answers. You are actively disputing the answers and explanations we already have.

Your entire position is based on a 150 year old version of the SLoT that was lacking the understanding of atomic scale interactions that we have know. Then you misinterpreted the word heat to mean all forms of energy. And topped it off by disavowing the distributive law of mathematics.

Modern quantum based explanations give the same right answers to general questions that classical physics could answer. QM and QS also give the right answers to questions that classical physics got wrong. Indeed it was the wrong answers that sparked the QM world to be discovered.

I agree that there is still more to be found. QM theory may even be supplanted by something new. But the new theory will incorporate most of QM, just like QM incorporated most of classical physics.

QM and QS says you're wrong. When and if they get replaced you will still be wrong.

 

[IanC]

Everyone has been to a Science World where you speak into the focal point of a cone and a different person at the opposite focal point can clearly hear you even though they are many metres away.

The same effect works for thermal radiation. Two hundred years ago scientists experimented with this effect and argued over their findings. Some thought that cooling Rays were being sent through the tube from cold objects and warming rays from hot ones.

There is only one special temperature, absolute zero Kelvin. Every other temperature is relative to that one. Every temperature is warm or cool depending on what you are comparing it to, but they are all warmer than absolute zero.

So it was decided that there is no such thing as a cooling Ray. Only stronger or weaker warming rays.

All objects above absolute zero strive to emit their energy by radiation in an attempt to reach absolute zero. If they are not receiving energy from their environment they will quickly cool. Deep dark space has very little radiation present, and that is where you would find the fastest cooling rate.

As the environment increases the amount of radiation in it, the cooling rate of the object slows. Not because the object is emitting less radiation but because it is now absorbing some from the environment. This slowing of the cooling rate continues until the radiation being received from the environment matches the loss by emission from the object. When there is more radiation coming in from the environment than the object is emitting then the object will start to warm until its radiation matches the radiation of the environment.

To reiterate, all objects radiate according to their temperature. They will then cool (or warm) until they reach equilibrium with the environment.

Of course reality usually throws a monkey wrench into the works. A space probe heats up on the sunward side and cools off on the space side. Mehh, whatcha gonna do?

 

[Wuwei]

Modern quantum based explanations give the same right answers to general questions that classical physics could answer. QM and QS also give the right answers to questions that classical physics got wrong. Indeed it was the wrong answers that sparked the QM world to be discovered.

I agree that there is still more to be found. QM theory may even be supplanted by something new. But the new theory will incorporate most of QM, just like QM incorporated most of classical physics.

QM and QS says you're wrong. When and if they get replaced you will still be wrong.

Good point. Anyone who doesn't believe the thermodynamics as is now understood will be perpetually wrong from one new theory to the next ad infinitum, because the new theories will always subsume the old ones as a special case. What is weird is to be wrong and also be 150 years behind.

 

[jc456]

Modern quantum based explanations give the same right answers to general questions that classical physics could answer. QM and QS also give the right answers to questions that classical physics got wrong. Indeed it was the wrong answers that sparked the QM world to be discovered.

I agree that there is still more to be found. QM theory may even be supplanted by something new. But the new theory will incorporate most of QM, just like QM incorporated most of classical physics.

QM and QS says you're wrong. When and if they get replaced you will still be wrong.

Good point. Anyone who doesn't believe the thermodynamics as is now understood will be perpetually wrong from one new theory to the next ad infinitum, because the new theories will always subsume the old ones as a special case. What is weird is to be wrong and also be 150 years behind.

and yet still no single piece of observed measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis. All of that and still nothing. hmmmmmmmm why not?

 

[IanC]

The Earth has warmed in the last hundred years.

The concentration of CO2 has risen in the last hundred years.

The properties of absorption and emission for CO2 are known by examination.

Thermal radiation physics of the atmosphere are reasonable well known from models which are confirmed by actual measurements. The effect of CO2 is real, and is a warming influence.

The effect of water vapour is well understood but the other parts of the water cycle are not.

The presence of CO2 and water vapour are a huge warming factor compared to none in the atmosphere. The incremental increase in warming for those two gases is also obvious. The entire water cycle of liquid, solid, gas, evaporation, convection, condensation, and precipitation is not clear or modeled with certainty. The guesstimated feedbacks from the water cycle are uncertain and do not appear to match the models.

The AGW theory has some areas that are solid and some that are not. The warming influence from increased CO2 is mild and probably beneficial. Only the triple feedback from the water cycle can lead to tipping points and runaway warming. Lucky for us the actual measurements show this is not happening.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Modern quantum based explanations give the same right answers to general questions that classical physics could answer. QM and QS also give the right answers to questions that classical physics got wrong. Indeed it was the wrong answers that sparked the QM world to be discovered.

I agree that there is still more to be found. QM theory may even be supplanted by something new. But the new theory will incorporate most of QM, just like QM incorporated most of classical physics.

QM and QS says you're wrong. When and if they get replaced you will still be wrong.

Good point. Anyone who doesn't believe the thermodynamics as is now understood will be perpetually wrong from one new theory to the next ad infinitum, because the new theories will always subsume the old ones as a special case. What is weird is to be wrong and also be 150 years behind.

What is weird is to be wrong and also be 150 years behind.

And to be so alone in his beliefs.

 

[Wuwei]

What is weird is to be wrong and also be 150 years behind.

And to be so alone in his beliefs.

He isn't alone. jc456 idolizes him and even parrots his words. I'm sure SSDD respects jc a lot too.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What is weird is to be wrong and also be 150 years behind.

And to be so alone in his beliefs.

He isn't alone. jc456 idolizes him and even parrots his words. I'm sure SSDD respects jc a lot too.

JC is clueless. Sometimes JC says something that completely disagrees with SSDD's idiocy
and needs to have his face rubbed in the contradiction before he notices and reverts to agreeing.

 

[Wuwei]

JC is clueless. Sometimes JC says something that completely disagrees with SSDD's idiocy
and needs to have his face rubbed in the contradiction before he notices and reverts to agreeing.

I agree, but maybe I was being a little sarcastic, or maybe I was trying to say that SSDD can take solace in having one true friend, even though JC puts his foot in is mouth sometimes, he does mean well in his idolization.

 

[IanC]

jc is beyond clueless.

If he was put on trial to defend his words he would be found not guilty on the grounds of diminished capacity. He lacks the intelligence to form intent.

 

[Wuwei]

jc is beyond clueless.

If he was put on trial to defend his words he would be found not guilty on the grounds of diminished capacity. He lacks the intelligence to form intent.

What I'm trying to say is that they were made for each other -- dumb and dumber.

 

[SSDD]

Again..it all looks like magic to you...or that some sort of intelligence is required...I accept that there is far more that we don't know than that we do know...I don't need fairy tales to fill in the gaps so that I can pretend that we know all and see all. I am fine with waiting for actual answers based on actual evidence

You aren't waiting for answers. You are actively disputing the answers and explanations we already have.

Answers based on models with no physical evidence? Stories ian...nothing but stories.

 

[SSDD]

The same effect works for thermal radiation. Two hundred years ago scientists experimented with this effect and argued over their findings. Some thought that cooling Rays were being sent through the tube from cold objects and warming rays from hot ones.

So in your model world sound behaves the same as light because sound is the same as light? In your model world is sound made up of theoretical particles...what are they called?...and whatever they are called, are there virtual ones as well? I haven't seen this theory...that sound and light are one in the same and behave in the same manner...can you provide a link to it?

 

[SSDD]

The Earth has warmed in the last hundred years.

The concentration of CO2 has risen in the last hundred years.

We know that CO2 follows warming ian...once again...do you have a single...that is ONE...just one SINGLE piece of observed, measured data which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas, and warming in the atmosphere...Just one? We both know that you don't...

 

[SSDD]

jc is beyond clueless.

If he was put on trial to defend his words he would be found not guilty on the grounds of diminished capacity. He lacks the intelligence to form intent.

In need of comfort and reassurance so soon after the last group hug? Its about time for you girls to share that group hug and then its big sloppy wet kisses all around...so sweet.

 

[IanC]

The same effect works for thermal radiation. Two hundred years ago scientists experimented with this effect and argued over their findings. Some thought that cooling Rays were being sent through the tube from cold objects and warming rays from hot ones.

So in your model world sound behaves the same as light because sound is the same as light? In your model world is sound made up of theoretical particles...what are they called?...and whatever they are called, are there virtual ones as well? I haven't seen this theory...that sound and light are one in the same and behave in the same manner...can you provide a link to it?

Good grief! How much remedial science history do you need?

Parabolic telescopes have been around since Newton, horn shaped hearing aids go too far back to know when they came into usage.

The 'aether' was almost universally accepted until Einstein developed relativity, although the Michelson-Morley speed of light experiments should have killed it off sooner.

Now you are mocking a simple physics concept. Yes, light can be moved through a tube via internal reflection. Yes, light can be focused by lenses and mirrors. Yes infrared radiation is light even though you can't see it.

Can you imagine the joy and amazement of the first guy to discover that area just past red in the spectrum produced by a prism was warming up, so there must be something there even though it is invisible?

 

[IanC]

...once again...do you have a single...that is ONE...just one SINGLE piece of observed, measured data which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas, and warming in the atmosphere...Just one? We both know that you don't..

We have all seen this mantra that you chant repeatedly. I suppose it is how you self sooth yourself when you can't answer questions directed at you.

I have answered your question hundreds of times, in dozens of ways. You refuse to acknowledge or discuss those answers, and simply go back to chanting.

So I will keep my answer short and sweet.

The first law of thermodynamics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

More radiation energy goes into the bottom of the atmosphere than comes out at the top. Where did the energy go?

 

[Wuwei]

Here is another conundrum for people who don't believe in the accepted form of the SLoT. I asked this once before, but SSDD declined to answer.

Suppose a cold gas is next to a warm solid surface. The molecules of the cold gas must hit the warm surface. This is an example of energy moving from a colder substance to a warmer substance.

Of course more thermal energy goes from the surface toward the gas than the gas to the surface, thus preserving the well understood form of the SloT.

If for some idiotic reason the molecules of the cold gas are forbidden from moving toward the warm surface, how will the surface lose thermal energy to the gas?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here is another conundrum for people who don't believe in the accepted form of the SLoT. I asked this once before, but SSDD declined to answer.

Suppose a cold gas is next to a warm solid surface. The molecules of the cold gas must hit the warm surface. This is an example of energy moving from a colder substance to a warmer substance.

Of course more thermal energy goes from the surface toward the gas than the gas to the surface, thus preserving the well understood form of the SloT.

If for some idiotic reason the molecules of the cold gas are forbidden from moving toward the warm surface, how will the surface lose thermal energy to the gas?

I'm still waiting to find out how the warmer matter knows the temperature of the colder matter,
so it knows how much to "dial down emissions".