Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[IanC]

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.

The amount of CO2 specific radiation available to be absorbed is a function of the temperature at the surface. The amount of CO2 specific radiation emitted to space is a function of the temperature at the emission height. Because the surface temperature is warmer than the emission height temperature, there is more radiation absorbed than emitted.

The amount of H2O specific radiation available to be absorbed is a function of the temperature at the surface. The amount of H2O specific radiation emitted to space is a function of the temperature at the emission height. Because the surface temperature is warmer than the emission height temperature, there is more radiation absorbed than emitted. (In this context H2O means water vapour. We can move on to latent heat by convection after you acknowledge that GHGs absorb more surface energy than they release to space further up in the atmosphere)

How can water vapour release extra energy from CO2 when it cannot even emit its own absorbed energy? You are playing at a Ponzi scheme.

 

[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.

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

Entropy (disorder) does not prohibit anything, it just makes them statistically improbable. A liquid water molecule is highly unlikely to achieve sufficient kinetic energy through random collisions to allow it to break through surface tension to become a water vapour molecule. But evaporation exists. How can this happen if no spontaneous increase of energy and order is allowed?

 

[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.

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

I can read and comprehend most equations just fine, thank you.

Like the S-B equation that describes the amount of radiation given off an object is given by sigmaT^^4.

Or the other S-B equation that describes the radiation exchange between two objects, both radiating according to sigmaT^^4

 

[SSDD]

Or the other S-B equation that describes the radiation exchange between two objects, both radiating according to sigmaT^^4

So clearly you can't read an equation just fine...no surprise there. But just to prove that you can't, lets have a little reading test. Here is the equation.

That equation states that the amount of radiation emitted by an object (P) is equal to the emissivity of the object, times the SB constant, times the area of the object, times the temperature of the object to the 4th power minus the temperature of its surroundings to the 4th power.

That means that the amount of radiation the object emits is determined by the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings. Now, I have accounted for every expression in the equation and accounted for precisely what they represent in reality.

Now kindly tell me what part of the equation I have wrong, and tell me what you believe it says...and do point out which expression says what. Show us all just how fine you can't read an equation.

 

[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.

Entropy (disorder) does not prohibit anything, it just makes them statistically improbable. A liquid water molecule is highly unlikely to achieve sufficient kinetic energy through random collisions to allow it to break through surface tension to become a water vapour molecule. But evaporation exists. How can this happen if no spontaneous increase of energy and order is allowed?

Energy does not move spontaneously from a less ordered state to a more ordered state no matter how much you wish such magic were active in the world. You are a dupe who believes unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models over actual observation, measurement and testing. How goofy is that ian?...disregarding reality in favor of a model?

 

[Wuwei]

Or the other S-B equation that describes the radiation exchange between two objects, both radiating according to sigmaT^^4

So clearly you can't read an equation just fine...no surprise there. But just to prove that you can't, lets have a little reading test. Here is the equation.

That equation states that the amount of radiation emitted by an object (P) is equal to the emissivity of the object, times the SB constant, times the area of the object, times the temperature of the object to the 4th power minus the temperature of its surroundings to the 4th power.

That means that the amount of radiation the object emits is determined by the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings. Now, I have accounted for every expression in the equation and accounted for precisely what they represent in reality.

Now kindly tell me what part of the equation I have wrong, and tell me what you believe it says...and do point out which expression says what. Show us all just how fine you can't read an equation.

For god sake SSDD you know what the equation means yet you keep trolling your same crap. You are being totally dishonest. You know what the science has been for the last 100 years concerning the SB equation. We have shown you articles by physicists from major universities. Yet you still look at equations pretending they mean something you deeply wish they meant. You should know by now that the physics comes first and the arithmetic comes second and what you wish comes last. You are putting almost a biblical sanctity on an arithmetic simplification.

Physics first: Black body radiation is simultaneously emitted and absorbed by all objects.

Emission: Rₑ = εσT₁⁴
Absorption: Rₐ =εσT₂⁴
The net rate of emission:
Rnet = Rₑ - Rₐ = εσT₁⁴ - εσT₂⁴ = εσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

 

[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.

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.

Entropy (disorder) does not prohibit anything, it just makes them statistically improbable. A liquid water molecule is highly unlikely to achieve sufficient kinetic energy through random collisions to allow it to break through surface tension to become a water vapour molecule. But evaporation exists. How can this happen if no spontaneous increase of energy and order is allowed?

Energy does not move spontaneously from a less ordered state to a more ordered state no matter how much you wish such magic were active in the world. You are a dupe who believes unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models over actual observation, measurement and testing. How goofy is that ian?...disregarding reality in favor of a model?

Not a chance

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

What are you afraid of?

 

[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.

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

Entropy (disorder) does not prohibit anything, it just makes them statistically improbable. A liquid water molecule is highly unlikely to achieve sufficient kinetic energy through random collisions to allow it to break through surface tension to become a water vapour molecule. But evaporation exists. How can this happen if no spontaneous increase of energy and order is allowed?

Energy does not move spontaneously from a less ordered state to a more ordered state no matter how much you wish such magic were active in the world. You are a dupe who believes unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models over actual observation, measurement and testing. How goofy is that ian?...disregarding reality in favor of a model?

By your interpretation of the SLoT, evaporation cannot happen. No molecule would be allowed to attain the threshold energy level necessary to break free of the liquid.

Temperature is the average kinetic speed of the cohort of molecules being measured. The individual speeds are distributed in a normal curve skewed to the right because zero is the lower limit. You say no molecule is ever allowed to increase its speed spontaneously. I call bullshit. Random collisions change the speed of individual molecules constantly. This is yet another instance of your bizarre beliefs leading to a nonsense result.

 

[SSDD]

For god sake SSDD you know what the equation means yet you keep trolling your same crap. You are being totally dishonest. You know what the science has been for the last 100 years concerning the SB equation. We have shown you articles by physicists from major universities.

Yeah..seen your bullshit equation...it isn't the SB equation...it is an fine example of shitty math applying a meaningless property to an equation in an attempt to fool idiots...congratulations..you have been fooled.

As to who is using the bullshit equation and who uses the actual equation...look first to hyperphyisics....while they did offer the opinion that the equation was talking about net energy flow, they used the actual equation and not the one that exhibits piss poor mathematical skills...

For all your senseless rants, and declarations on the value of models, you still can't produce the first observed, measured evidence of two way energy flow...every observation and measurement ever made is of one way gross energy movement...let me know when you get a measurement of spontaneous two way energy movement...and do let me know when they rewrite the 2nd law of thermodynamics to state that energy can in fact flow spontaneously from cool to warm...

Till such time, you are a dupe who believe in models more than reality.

 

[SSDD]

By your interpretation of the SLoT, evaporation cannot happen. No molecule would be allowed to attain the threshold energy level necessary to break free of the liquid.

Still waiting mr straw man...what does the equation say?

 

[IanC]

For god sake SSDD you know what the equation means yet you keep trolling your same crap. You are being totally dishonest. You know what the science has been for the last 100 years concerning the SB equation. We have shown you articles by physicists from major universities.

Yeah..seen your bullshit equation...it isn't the SB equation...it is an fine example of shitty math applying a meaningless property to an equation in an attempt to fool idiots...congratulations..you have been fooled.

As to who is using the bullshit equation and who uses the actual equation...look first to hyperphyisics....while they did offer the opinion that the equation was talking about net energy flow, they used the actual equation and not the one that exhibits piss poor mathematical skills...

For all your senseless rants, and declarations on the value of models, you still can't produce the first observed, measured evidence of two way energy flow...every observation and measurement ever made is of one way gross energy movement...let me know when you get a measurement of spontaneous two way energy movement...and do let me know when they rewrite the 2nd law of thermodynamics to state that energy can in fact flow spontaneously from cool to warm...

Till such time, you are a dupe who believe in models more than reality.

I never said that. Fix the quote attribution.

 

[IanC]

By your interpretation of the SLoT, evaporation cannot happen. No molecule would be allowed to attain the threshold energy level necessary to break free of the liquid.

Still waiting mr straw man...what does the equation say?

The equation says

Power(net)=Power(object one) minus Power(object two)

For your bizarre interpretation to work there would have to be ''anti-energy" in play. A means of cancelling out radiation between the two objects.

Around the same time as your antique version of the SLoT was formulated, there was an investigation into 'cooling rays', as opposed to 'heating rays'. It was found that coldness could be focused on distant objects.

This, of course was backwards. Cooling Rays were simply an absence of Warming rays. Temperature is always a positive value above absolute zero. Likewise, energy is always a positive value, there is no such thing as negative energy.

 

[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.

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

Entropy (disorder) does not prohibit anything, it just makes them statistically improbable. A liquid water molecule is highly unlikely to achieve sufficient kinetic energy through random collisions to allow it to break through surface tension to become a water vapour molecule. But evaporation exists. How can this happen if no spontaneous increase of energy and order is allowed?

Energy does not move spontaneously from a less ordered state to a more ordered state no matter how much you wish such magic were active in the world. You are a dupe who believes unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models over actual observation, measurement and testing. How goofy is that ian?...disregarding reality in favor of a model?

Energy goes where ever it wants to go. Given large enough numbers of interactions, we can state what the overall result will be but that does not control each and every interaction.

People go to the casinos all the time. Most know that they will lose in the long run but there is still a possibility of winning for a short session. What fun would it be if you lost every bet, every time? Your version of the SLoT denies the possibility of variance. We see variance in reality all the time, eg evaporation. Therefore your version is wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

For god sake SSDD you know what the equation means yet you keep trolling your same crap. You are being totally dishonest. You know what the science has been for the last 100 years concerning the SB equation. We have shown you articles by physicists from major universities.

Yeah..seen your bullshit equation...it isn't the SB equation...it is an fine example of shitty math applying a meaningless property to an equation in an attempt to fool idiots...congratulations..you have been fooled.

As to who is using the bullshit equation and who uses the actual equation...look first to hyperphyisics....while they did offer the opinion that the equation was talking about net energy flow, they used the actual equation and not the one that exhibits piss poor mathematical skills...

For all your senseless rants, and declarations on the value of models, you still can't produce the first observed, measured evidence of two way energy flow...every observation and measurement ever made is of one way gross energy movement...let me know when you get a measurement of spontaneous two way energy movement...and do let me know when they rewrite the 2nd law of thermodynamics to state that energy can in fact flow spontaneously from cool to warm...

Till such time, you are a dupe who believe in models more than reality.

I never said that. Fix the quote attribution.

Give the guy a break. The fact that he can even post here, with an IQ as low as his, is a miracle.
You can't expect him to get the quote function correct as well.

 

[Wuwei]

Yeah..seen your bullshit equation...it isn't the SB equation...it is an fine example of shitty math applying a meaningless property to an equation in an attempt to fool idiots...congratulations..you have been fooled.

As to who is using the bullshit equation and who uses the actual equation...look first to hyperphyisics....while they did offer the opinion that the equation was talking about net energy flow, they used the actual equation and not the one that exhibits piss poor mathematical skills...

For all your senseless rants, and declarations on the value of models, you still can't produce the first observed, measured evidence of two way energy flow...every observation and measurement ever made is of one way gross energy movement...let me know when you get a measurement of spontaneous two way energy movement...and do let me know when they rewrite the 2nd law of thermodynamics to state that energy can in fact flow spontaneously from cool to warm...

Till such time, you are a dupe who believe in models more than reality.

This is what Max Planck said in 1914 in The Theory of Heat Radiation
The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation ... when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other..."

Albert Einstein, 1916 : "Kinetic Theory of Thermal Equilibrium and of the Second Law of Thermodynamics"
... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously..."

Wilhelm Wien - Nobel Lecture "[Equilibrium state] ... atoms in the stationary state, the absorbed energy after all becomes equal to that emitted..."

Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1860) "at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

You are essentially saying these four Nobel Prize winners are engaging in:

"using shitty math"
"attempt to fool idiots"
"bullshit equation"
"piss poor mathematical skills"
"senseless rants"
"are a dupe"
​

Your troll hubris is astounding for you to think you are wiser than the fame of the four Nobel Prize winners, and every scientist since then.

.

 

[IanC]

Yeah..seen your bullshit equation...it isn't the SB equation...it is an fine example of shitty math applying a meaningless property to an equation in an attempt to fool idiots...congratulations..you have been fooled.

As to who is using the bullshit equation and who uses the actual equation...look first to hyperphyisics....while they did offer the opinion that the equation was talking about net energy flow, they used the actual equation and not the one that exhibits piss poor mathematical skills...

For all your senseless rants, and declarations on the value of models, you still can't produce the first observed, measured evidence of two way energy flow...every observation and measurement ever made is of one way gross energy movement...let me know when you get a measurement of spontaneous two way energy movement...and do let me know when they rewrite the 2nd law of thermodynamics to state that energy can in fact flow spontaneously from cool to warm...

Till such time, you are a dupe who believe in models more than reality.

This is what Max Planck said in 1914 in The Theory of Heat Radiation
The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation ... when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other..."

Albert Einstein, 1916 : "Kinetic Theory of Thermal Equilibrium and of the Second Law of Thermodynamics"
... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously..."

Wilhelm Wien - Nobel Lecture "[Equilibrium state] ... atoms in the stationary state, the absorbed energy after all becomes equal to that emitted..."

Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1860) "at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

You are essentially saying these four Nobel Prize winners are engaging in:

"using shitty math"
"attempt to fool idiots"
"bullshit equation"
"piss poor mathematical skills"
"senseless rants"
"are a dupe"
​

Your troll hubris is astounding for you to think you are wiser than the fame of the four Nobel Prize winners, and every scientist since then.

.

What you posted is true.

Unfortunately it leads to a major confusion in many people. The Earth's surface is a reasonable approximation of a Blackbody, but the atmosphere is not. The exchange of radiation between the two is limited by the lower emmisivity of the air, only wavelengths that are reactive to GHGs are involved. Other wavelengths simply escape to space. This is the main reason why there is a greenhouse effect. The energy retarded from escaping by GHGs backs up and warms the surface until it is producing enough radiation that CAN escape freely and the energy budget is balanced.

With no atmosphere then the surface would warm up and cool down at much faster rates.

 

[Wuwei]

What you posted is true.

Unfortunately it leads to a major confusion in many people. The Earth's surface is a reasonable approximation of a Blackbody, but the atmosphere is not. The exchange of radiation between the two is limited by the lower emmisivity of the air, only wavelengths that are reactive to GHGs are involved. Other wavelengths simply escape to space. This is the main reason why there is a greenhouse effect. The energy retarded from escaping by GHGs backs up and warms the surface until it is producing enough radiation that CAN escape freely and the energy budget is balanced.

With no atmosphere then the surface would warm up and cool down at much faster rates.

I agree with everything you say.

However, SSDD's problem is that he disagrees with the most basic elementary aspect of radiation. He thinks that two objects at the same temperature (in equilibrium) do not radiate anything toward each other. Zero.

If he doesn't believe basic radiation science, he will not accept anything you say involving radiation in the much more complex atmosphere.

 

[SSDD]

The equation says

Power(net)=Power(object one) minus Power(object two)

So you can't read an equation...didn't think so...that or you are as dishonest as old rocks...which is it?

 

[SSDD]

I agree with everything you say.

However, SSDD's problem is that he disagrees with the most basic elementary aspect of radiation. He thinks that two objects at the same temperature (in equilibrium) do not radiate anything toward each other. Zero.

Sorry guy, but I can read the equations and accept them at face value..it is you model guys who attempt to make them say things that they don't...and are constantly interpreting them for fun and profit...

 

[Wuwei]

I agree with everything you say.

However, SSDD's problem is that he disagrees with the most basic elementary aspect of radiation. He thinks that two objects at the same temperature (in equilibrium) do not radiate anything toward each other. Zero.

Sorry guy, but I can read the equations and accept them at face value..it is you model guys who attempt to make them say things that they don't...and are constantly interpreting them for fun and profit...

So you still think that four highly respected Nobel Prize winners and all scientists since then can't read the equations? And you think the founders of that science are interpreting the equations for fun and profit 100 years ago? Only a die-hard Troll clinging to a fantasy would ever post that here. You think those scientist of 100 years ago developed the quantum understanding of radiation physics just so they could claim AGW 100 years later? Wow!