Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[SSDD]

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.

And yet, the statement has not changed and there still is not the first observed, measured example of spontaneous two way energy flow.

 

[SSDD]

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.

He was giving his opinion...based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...the 2nd law still says that it is not possible for energy to move from cool to warm without an input of work to make it happen.

Again, let me know when they actually alter the 2nd law to state that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm and they have observations and measurements to back up the claim.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Are photons energy? If they are then the 2nd law is talking about them as well...the 2nd law doesn't mention the potential energy in a rock held above your head, but it is talking about that energy also..and it doesn't mention the potential energy stored in water held behind a dam, but it is talking about that as well...nor does it mention chemicals and the energy released in various reactions, but it is talking about that as well...the 2nd law speaks to all energy in every form...sorry that simple concept is so far over your head.

 

[Wuwei]

Are photons energy? If they are then the 2nd law is talking about them as well...the 2nd law doesn't mention the potential energy in a rock held above your head, but it is talking about that energy also..and it doesn't mention the potential energy stored in water held behind a dam, but it is talking about that as well...nor does it mention chemicals and the energy released in various reactions, but it is talking about that as well...the 2nd law speaks to all energy in every form...sorry that simple concept is so far over your head.

Of course what you say is elementary. Nevertheless, you don't need the 2nd law to discover that the science of thermal photons automatically obeys the 2nd law. ...sorry that simple concept is so far over your head.

 

[SSDD]

Are photons energy? If they are then the 2nd law is talking about them as well...the 2nd law doesn't mention the potential energy in a rock held above your head, but it is talking about that energy also..and it doesn't mention the potential energy stored in water held behind a dam, but it is talking about that as well...nor does it mention chemicals and the energy released in various reactions, but it is talking about that as well...the 2nd law speaks to all energy in every form...sorry that simple concept is so far over your head.

Of course what you say is elementary. Nevertheless, you don't need the 2nd law to discover that the science of thermal photons automatically obeys the 2nd law. ...sorry that simple concept is so far over your head.

Of course it obeys the 2nd law....which is why energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm as the second law states quite clearly.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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...

Alfven waves are the new hypothesis,
Alfven waves are performing work?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

And yet, the statement has not changed and there still is not the first observed, measured example of spontaneous two way energy flow.

And yet, you still have no sources that say energy only flows one way. Weird.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

He was giving his opinion...based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...the 2nd law still says that it is not possible for energy to move from cool to warm without an input of work to make it happen.

Again, let me know when they actually alter the 2nd law to state that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm and they have observations and measurements to back up the claim.

the 2nd law still says that it is not possible for energy to move from cool to warm without an input of work to make it happen.

You never answered, are IR photons from my skin allowed to hit the Sun?

 

[IanC]

What a ridiculous statement!

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

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...

[/QUOTE]

Whatta dolt you are!

Emmisivity is a two sided coin. Absorption on one side, emission on the other.

Yet you only acknowledge one side of the coin.

CO2 absorbs more energy at the bottom of the atmosphere than it emits at the top. The difference is stored in the atmosphere until it finds a different pathway out. The satellite measurements show this.

So far, your only explanation for the missing TOA energy is to invoke a Ponzi scheme where water vapour emits it. But water vapour also absorbs more surface energy than it emits to space, as per the satellite measurements. Then you tried latent heat from liquid water and solid ice precipitated out in clouds but that is also less efficient than surface radiation because half is emitted downward.

There is no explanation for why the surface can sustain an operating temperature of 400w from a solar input of 160w, without invoking a recycled input from the atmosphere.

The sun delivers 340w, 100w is reflected, the atmosphere absorbs 80w and the surface gets the remaining 160w. The surface and atmosphere emit (edit- to space) a total of 240w of IR.

The first law is followed because the input and output are balanced. The second law is followed because higher quality sunlight has been transformed into low quality IR. The impetus for the recycling of energy from surface to atmosphere and back to the surface is piggybacked on the increase of entropy.

 

[IanC]

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.

And yet, the statement has not changed and there still is not the first observed, measured example of spontaneous two way energy flow.

Actually, the statement of the SLoT has been changed. Your version is not the common one, most definitions of the SLoT are described in terms of entropy. Which only makes sense because entropy is the explanation for why energy moves the way it does. Your 150 year old version was simply an observation, not an explanation.

 

[IanC]

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.

He was giving his opinion...based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...the 2nd law still says that it is not possible for energy to move from cool to warm without an input of work to make it happen.

Again, let me know when they actually alter the 2nd law to state that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm and they have observations and measurements to back up the claim.

the 2nd law still says that it is not possible for energy to move from cool to warm without an input of work to make it happen.

You never answered, are IR photons from my skin allowed to hit the Sun?

Any IR photons from your skin that can leave through the Atmospheric Window would hit the Sun if they were traveling in the right direction.

 

[Wuwei]

Of course it obeys the 2nd law....which is why energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm as the second law states quite clearly.

Of course that's true with radiation since all warmer objects emit more energy than they receive.

 

[IanC]

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.

And yet, the statement has not changed and there still is not the first observed, measured example of spontaneous two way energy flow.

Objects radiate according to sigmaT^^4. Regardless of the environment they are imbedded in. Only the rate of cooling (or warming) is affected by the environment. If the environment is replacing the energy being lost then there is no change in temperature, etc.

There are no intermediary steps for radiation. It is created from internal conditions of a particle of matter, and exists until it is absorbed by a different particle of matter.

You cannot 'see' a photon, you can only infer its presence by its affect on matter.

 

[Wuwei]

Any IR photons from your skin that can leave through the Atmospheric Window would hit the Sun if they were traveling in the right direction.

Hmmm. It seems that photons from a laser can hit the sun because it's not black body radiation and there is work done if you consider the battery. But photons from the skin cannot hit the sun.
How does the sun know which photons are which. I will have to ask SSDD about this puzzle.

 

[IanC]

Any IR photons from your skin that can leave through the Atmospheric Window would hit the Sun if they were traveling in the right direction.

Hmmm. It seems that photons from a laser can hit the sun because it's not black body radiation and there is work done if you consider the battery. But photons from the skin cannot hit the sun.
How does the sun know which photons are which. I will have to ask SSDD about this puzzle.

Yes, SSDD's world is chock full of epicycles that add unnecessary complexities to what is allowed or not. And which lead to absurdities.

Is a 15 micron photon different if it is produced by a 10,000K arc welder, a 5000K Sun, or a 300K Earth? No.

But somehow the arc can send radiation to the Sun and Earth, the Sun only to the Earth, and the Earth to neither of the above. When pressed for an explanation he switches topic to gravity or something.

 

[SSDD]

Whatta dolt you are!

Emmisivity is a two sided coin. Absorption on one side, emission on the other.

Sorry ian, but the dolt prize goes to you...of course increased emissivity comes with increased absorption...but absorption and emission does not equal warming...you are assuming magic when there is none.

CO2 absorbs more energy at the bottom of the atmosphere than it emits at the top. The difference is stored in the atmosphere until it finds a different pathway out. The satellite measurements show this.

That is easy to explain..and easy to understand if you weren't a dolt. Most of what CO2 absorbs...the vast majority of what CO2 absorbs gets lost to other molecules via collisions...that energy doesn't get emitted at the top of the atmosphere as 15 micron radiation...it gets emitted in the wavelength of whatever molecule ends up with it in the upper atmosphere...usually water...

You are looking for magic when what you should be looking for is an accounting error.

 

[SSDD]

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.

And yet, the statement has not changed and there still is not the first observed, measured example of spontaneous two way energy flow.

Actually, the statement of the SLoT has been changed. Your version is not the common one, most definitions of the SLoT are described in terms of entropy. Which only makes sense because entropy is the explanation for why energy moves the way it does. Your 150 year old version was simply an observation, not an explanation.

Even a statement describing entropy does not allow energy to move from a less ordered state to a more ordered state spontaneously.

 

[SSDD]

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.

He was giving his opinion...based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...the 2nd law still says that it is not possible for energy to move from cool to warm without an input of work to make it happen.

Again, let me know when they actually alter the 2nd law to state that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm and they have observations and measurements to back up the claim.

the 2nd law still says that it is not possible for energy to move from cool to warm without an input of work to make it happen.

You never answered, are IR photons from my skin allowed to hit the Sun?

Any IR photons from your skin that can leave through the Atmospheric Window would hit the Sun if they were traveling in the right direction.

Not a chance but go on believing that idiotic fantasy if you like....can't make you any more of a dupe than you already are.

 

[SSDD]

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.

And yet, the statement has not changed and there still is not the first observed, measured example of spontaneous two way energy flow.

Objects radiate according to sigmaT^^4. Regardless of the environment they are imbedded in. Only the rate of cooling (or warming) is affected by the environment. If the environment is replacing the energy being lost then there is no change in temperature, etc.

There are no intermediary steps for radiation. It is created from internal conditions of a particle of matter, and exists until it is absorbed by a different particle of matter.

You cannot 'see' a photon, you can only infer its presence by its affect on matter.

Sorry...not true. You might realize this if you were able to read an equation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

He was giving his opinion...based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...the 2nd law still says that it is not possible for energy to move from cool to warm without an input of work to make it happen.

Again, let me know when they actually alter the 2nd law to state that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm and they have observations and measurements to back up the claim.

the 2nd law still says that it is not possible for energy to move from cool to warm without an input of work to make it happen.

You never answered, are IR photons from my skin allowed to hit the Sun?

Any IR photons from your skin that can leave through the Atmospheric Window would hit the Sun if they were traveling in the right direction.

Not a chance but go on believing that idiotic fantasy if you like....can't make you any more of a dupe than you already are.

Not a chance

IR from my skin can't hit the Sun? Why not?