Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[IanC]

TOA is around -80C?

I'm not sure what your point is.

Emission height is a function of density. More molecules of a particular type raises the emission height. Higher is cooler, until you get into the stratosphere.

An exception often illustrates the rule, as is the case for CO2.

CO2 has a high affinity for 15 micron photons, it latches on to them easily. 14.5 and 15.5 microns can also be absorbed but the CO2 molecule must present in a specific orientation, therefore the emmisivity is lower. As the amount of CO2 increases, the likelihood of specific orientations goes up and the wings around 15 microns gets wider.

What is the apparent exception? At exactly 15 microns the emission height appears to be warmer than the wings. Ordinarily this would mean emission from a lower level. But not in this case. The affinity for 15.00 micron radiation is so strong that it does not escape until well into the stratosphere. At that height in the stratosphere, the lapse rate has reversed and temperature is actually increasing with height. There are two answers to the problem, and the counter intuative one higher up is actually the right one.

The bottom of the CO2 notch is about -60C. 15 micron radiation appears to come from a -50C height, either 9km in the troposphere or 25km in the stratosphere.

 

[SSDD]

For at least the 10th time, I don't care how the corona became hotter than the surface.
Couldn't care less. I don't give the tiniest fuck.

I'm only interested in your silly claim that radiation only flows from hotter to cooler.

And that demonstrates that you are even less intelligent...especially after you have been told over and over that energy does not flow "SPONTANEOUSLY" from warm to cool...you have even been given definitions of spontaneous and the context of the word in relation to energy flow has been explained in detail..and still, you can't seem to apply the word spontaneous to energy movement. Sorry you can't grasp this simple concept..

 

[SSDD]

Refer to the 2nd law...one way energy movement....not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm...the sun can receive energy from sources warmer than itself, but it is not possible, without the application of work, to move energy from a cooler object to the sun.

Of course thermal radiation is unrestricted from going anywhere to anything at any temperature.

Perhaps you should request that they alter wording of the second law to reflect that claim...or are you claiming that thermal radiation is not energy?

 

[SSDD]

Adding more CO2 does not make a big difference once there is some CO2 in the atmosphere. The effect is almost totally saturated.

I didn't say that it made a big difference mr straw man...but if you increase the emissivity of a thing just a little bit, what does it do to that things ability to radiatively cool itself? You can bet that it doesn't make the thing warm up just a bit.

You are so caught up in your 15 micron spiel that you can't see the underlying flaw in your thinking...the wavelength is completely irrelevant to the fact that if you increase a thing's emissivity, you increase its ability to radiatively cool itself...increasing the emissivity of a thing NEVER results in it becoming warmer.

 

[SSDD]

Radiation, once created by a particle of matter, travels in a straight line until it interacts with another particle of matter. There is no cancelling out.

So you say...except that examples of just the opposite of that abound...ask a radio or microwave engineer about cancelling signals and how carefully the origin of signals, and placement of towers must be considered just because of the nasty habit of waves to cancel each other out.


Or are you going to claim that radio waves and microwaves are not radiation?

 

[Wuwei]

Perhaps you should request that they alter wording of the second law to reflect that claim...or are you claiming that thermal radiation is not energy?

I actually did request that they alter the wording of the second law, and the author of the Georgia Tech Hyperphysics site did just that. Look at the final paragraph.
"... Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object..."

I already told you that over a year ago in this thread:
Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

 

[SSDD]

Perhaps you should request that they alter wording of the second law to reflect that claim...or are you claiming that thermal radiation is not energy?

I actually did request that they alter the wording of the second law, and the author of the Georgia Tech Hyperphysics site did just that. Look at the final paragraph.
"... Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object..."

I already told you that over a year ago in this thread:
Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

Actually....no..they didn't....so why tell such an obvious lie? The first 3 lines state the 2nd law of thermodynamics..and it still says that it is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without work having been done to accomplish the flow...and it still says that energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Those are black and white, absolute statements...they are in opposition to the OPINION stated at the bottom of the page...and if you ask them if they can provide you any actual observed, measured examples of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...alas, they will have to tell you no.

So no....the second law still says what it says and it says it in completely unambiguous terms...NOT POSSIBLE....WILL NOT.....no wiggle room in such statements whether you like it or not...but do keep your eye out and be sure to let me know when they actually alter the wording of the 2nd law to reflect net energy movement.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Perhaps you should request that they alter wording of the second law to reflect that claim...or are you claiming that thermal radiation is not energy?

I actually did request that they alter the wording of the second law, and the author of the Georgia Tech Hyperphysics site did just that. Look at the final paragraph.
"... Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object..."

I already told you that over a year ago in this thread:
Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

Actually....no..they didn't....so why tell such an obvious lie? The first 3 lines state the 2nd law of thermodynamics..and it still says that it is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without work having been done to accomplish the flow...and it still says that energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Those are black and white, absolute statements...they are in opposition to the OPINION stated at the bottom of the page...and if you ask them if they can provide you any actual observed, measured examples of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...alas, they will have to tell you no.

So no....the second law still says what it says and it says it in completely unambiguous terms...NOT POSSIBLE....WILL NOT.....no wiggle room in such statements whether you like it or not...but do keep your eye out and be sure to let me know when they actually alter the wording of the 2nd law to reflect net energy movement.

The idea of NET energy transfer is what trips them up so badly.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

For at least the 10th time, I don't care how the corona became hotter than the surface.
Couldn't care less. I don't give the tiniest fuck.

I'm only interested in your silly claim that radiation only flows from hotter to cooler.

And that demonstrates that you are even less intelligent...especially after you have been told over and over that energy does not flow "SPONTANEOUSLY" from warm to cool...you have even been given definitions of spontaneous and the context of the word in relation to energy flow has been explained in detail..and still, you can't seem to apply the word spontaneous to energy movement. Sorry you can't grasp this simple concept..

you have been told over and over that energy does not flow "SPONTANEOUSLY" from warm to cool..


Ummmm...it does flow from warm to cool.

And from cool to warm. And between matter of identical temperatures.

What is the work done on the Sun's surface that allows radiation to flow non-spontaneously from the cooler surface toward the hotter corona?

Despite many, many opportunities, you never answer that question.

You also failed to answer, "Can IR from my skin hit the Sun?"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Perhaps you should request that they alter wording of the second law to reflect that claim...or are you claiming that thermal radiation is not energy?

I actually did request that they alter the wording of the second law, and the author of the Georgia Tech Hyperphysics site did just that. Look at the final paragraph.
"... Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object..."

I already told you that over a year ago in this thread:
Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

Actually....no..they didn't....so why tell such an obvious lie? The first 3 lines state the 2nd law of thermodynamics..and it still says that it is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without work having been done to accomplish the flow...and it still says that energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Those are black and white, absolute statements...they are in opposition to the OPINION stated at the bottom of the page...and if you ask them if they can provide you any actual observed, measured examples of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...alas, they will have to tell you no.

So no....the second law still says what it says and it says it in completely unambiguous terms...NOT POSSIBLE....WILL NOT.....no wiggle room in such statements whether you like it or not...but do keep your eye out and be sure to let me know when they actually alter the wording of the 2nd law to reflect net energy movement.

The idea of NET energy transfer is what trips them up so badly.

The idea of NET energy transfer is what trips them up so badly.

SSDD says there is no NET transfer.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Perhaps you should request that they alter wording of the second law to reflect that claim...or are you claiming that thermal radiation is not energy?

I actually did request that they alter the wording of the second law, and the author of the Georgia Tech Hyperphysics site did just that. Look at the final paragraph.
"... Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object..."

I already told you that over a year ago in this thread:
Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

Actually....no..they didn't....so why tell such an obvious lie? The first 3 lines state the 2nd law of thermodynamics..and it still says that it is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without work having been done to accomplish the flow...and it still says that energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Those are black and white, absolute statements...they are in opposition to the OPINION stated at the bottom of the page...and if you ask them if they can provide you any actual observed, measured examples of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...alas, they will have to tell you no.

So no....the second law still says what it says and it says it in completely unambiguous terms...NOT POSSIBLE....WILL NOT.....no wiggle room in such statements whether you like it or not...but do keep your eye out and be sure to let me know when they actually alter the wording of the 2nd law to reflect net energy movement.

The idea of NET energy transfer is what trips them up so badly.

The idea of NET energy transfer is what trips them up so badly.

SSDD says there is no NET transfer.

Neither does the Second Law.

 

[IanC]

Adding more CO2 does not make a big difference once there is some CO2 in the atmosphere. The effect is almost totally saturated.

I didn't say that it made a big difference mr straw man...but if you increase the emissivity of a thing just a little bit, what does it do to that things ability to radiatively cool itself? You can bet that it doesn't make the thing warm up just a bit.

You are so caught up in your 15 micron spiel that you can't see the underlying flaw in your thinking...the wavelength is completely irrelevant to the fact that if you increase a thing's emissivity, you increase its ability to radiatively cool itself...increasing the emissivity of a thing NEVER results in it becoming warmer.

What a ridiculous statement!

Increasing emmisivity results in warming anytime there is an energy source available to be absorbed.

Sprinkle some soot or sand on part of a patch of snow and see which area melts faster.

T

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Perhaps you should request that they alter wording of the second law to reflect that claim...or are you claiming that thermal radiation is not energy?

I actually did request that they alter the wording of the second law, and the author of the Georgia Tech Hyperphysics site did just that. Look at the final paragraph.
"... Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object..."

I already told you that over a year ago in this thread:
Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

Actually....no..they didn't....so why tell such an obvious lie? The first 3 lines state the 2nd law of thermodynamics..and it still says that it is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without work having been done to accomplish the flow...and it still says that energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Those are black and white, absolute statements...they are in opposition to the OPINION stated at the bottom of the page...and if you ask them if they can provide you any actual observed, measured examples of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...alas, they will have to tell you no.

So no....the second law still says what it says and it says it in completely unambiguous terms...NOT POSSIBLE....WILL NOT.....no wiggle room in such statements whether you like it or not...but do keep your eye out and be sure to let me know when they actually alter the wording of the 2nd law to reflect net energy movement.

The idea of NET energy transfer is what trips them up so badly.

The idea of NET energy transfer is what trips them up so badly.

SSDD says there is no NET transfer.

Neither does the Second Law.

What does the 2nd Law say about photons?

 

[IanC]

That example changes the ability of snow to reflect sunlight. Emmisivity is a combination of absorption/emission, reflectivity, and transmission. CO2 and the other GHGs change the transmittance of radiation through the atmosphere. If the full amount of radiation produced by the surface escaped directly to space then the increased cooling would be quick and dramatic, for both the surface and the atmosphere.

CO2 absorbs more energy at the surface/air boundary than it is able to produce at the much cooler emission height.

 

[IanC]

Perhaps you should request that they alter wording of the second law to reflect that claim...or are you claiming that thermal radiation is not energy?

I actually did request that they alter the wording of the second law, and the author of the Georgia Tech Hyperphysics site did just that. Look at the final paragraph.
"... Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object..."

I already told you that over a year ago in this thread:
Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

Actually....no..they didn't....so why tell such an obvious lie? The first 3 lines state the 2nd law of thermodynamics..and it still says that it is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without work having been done to accomplish the flow...and it still says that energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Those are black and white, absolute statements...they are in opposition to the OPINION stated at the bottom of the page...and if you ask them if they can provide you any actual observed, measured examples of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...alas, they will have to tell you no.

So no....the second law still says what it says and it says it in completely unambiguous terms...NOT POSSIBLE....WILL NOT.....no wiggle room in such statements whether you like it or not...but do keep your eye out and be sure to let me know when they actually alter the wording of the 2nd law to reflect net energy movement.

The idea of NET energy transfer is what trips them up so badly.

The idea of NET energy transfer is what trips them up so badly.

SSDD says there is no NET transfer.

Neither does the Second Law.

The SLoT was originally drafted to describe the macroscopic movement of heat, with no explanation of why it took place as it did.

Since then it has been reworked in terms of entropy, and the explanation is derived by statistical analysis of microscopic particles of mass and EMR.

While matter can only move in gross amounts because of its physical properties, radiation can only move in net amounts because of its physical properties. Only one bit of matter can occupy one point in space at any one time. Light is not constrained in the same fashion, any number of photons can occupy the same point at the same time without interacting with each other.

 

[IanC]

I actually did request that they alter the wording of the second law, and the author of the Georgia Tech Hyperphysics site did just that. Look at the final paragraph.
"... Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object..."

I already told you that over a year ago in this thread:
Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

Actually....no..they didn't....so why tell such an obvious lie? The first 3 lines state the 2nd law of thermodynamics..and it still says that it is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without work having been done to accomplish the flow...and it still says that energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Those are black and white, absolute statements...they are in opposition to the OPINION stated at the bottom of the page...and if you ask them if they can provide you any actual observed, measured examples of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...alas, they will have to tell you no.

So no....the second law still says what it says and it says it in completely unambiguous terms...NOT POSSIBLE....WILL NOT.....no wiggle room in such statements whether you like it or not...but do keep your eye out and be sure to let me know when they actually alter the wording of the 2nd law to reflect net energy movement.

The idea of NET energy transfer is what trips them up so badly.

The idea of NET energy transfer is what trips them up so badly.

SSDD says there is no NET transfer.

Neither does the Second Law.

What does the 2nd Law say about photons?

Which version of the SLoT? The 150 year old version which was a crude description, or the more recent entropy version that describes why it happens? They both give the same general answers for macroscopic questions but the entropy version gives answers to many more conditions.

 

[Wuwei]

Actually....no..they didn't....so why tell such an obvious lie? The first 3 lines state the 2nd law of thermodynamics..and it still says that it is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without work having been done to accomplish the flow...and it still says that energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Those are black and white, absolute statements...they are in opposition to the OPINION stated at the bottom of the page...and if you ask them if they can provide you any actual observed, measured examples of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...alas, they will have to tell you no.

So no....the second law still says what it says and it says it in completely unambiguous terms...NOT POSSIBLE....WILL NOT.....no wiggle room in such statements whether you like it or not...but do keep your eye out and be sure to let me know when they actually alter the wording of the 2nd law to reflect net energy movement.

Nope. The author was defining the word "energy" in the SLoT as "net energy". He was simply clarifying science to confused novices so they would understand the meaning of the SLoT as understood by all scientists.

 

[Wuwei]

What does the 2nd Law say about photons?

Good question for him. My answer for him is that the 2nd law says nothing about photons. If you look at the physics and various laws of thermal photons in black body radiation and run through any calculations, it turns out that there is never a violation of the 2nd law.

 

[SSDD]

What is the work done on the Sun's surface that allows radiation to flow non-spontaneously from the cooler surface toward the hotter corona?

this is a new low of the bar even for you...Alfven waves are the new hypothesis, and observations are bearing this out...

 

[SSDD]

What a ridiculous statement!

Increasing emmisivity results in warming anytime there is an energy source available to be absorbed.[/qiopte]

No ian..increasing the emissivity of an object always results in it being able to radiatively cool itself more efficiently...warming only occurs if you increase the energy input and alas, CO2 can not multiply energy...