Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

[SSDD]

Let's talk in simple terms... 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: there is a cost for all mass to energy and energy to mass conversions, right? Usable energy/heat will be lost for all transfers in form. Right? Isn't this the fundamental principle of the 2nd Law?

Conversions from mass to energy are at the nuclear level. A bunch of plutonium converts radiation byproducts to heat. But that isn't the fundamental principle of the 2nd law. The second law can simply be stated that heat cannot spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects.

Neither heat nor energy will move spontaneously from warm objects to cool objects....

 

[Wuwei]

Help me understand quantum mechanics in simple terms: we cannot know the position and velocity of a particle, right?

We certainly can know both, but not to an infinite degree of accuracy.

The act of measuring causes the particle to choose, right? Particles are being forced to choose all of the time, right?

When photons are considered en masse, they are best described as waves and can undergo diffraction when dealing with obstacles near their wavelength. The waves don't choose anything. When the waves interact with matter, they act like particles, but are statistically confined to move where waves would go.

 

[Wuwei]

The 2nd law seems to cover a bunch of things, lol. I have always viewed it in its simplest terms as there is no such thing as a free lunch. There is a cost for every exchange and that cost is a loss of usable energy. If we started from that position how does that inform us that heat cannot spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects. Is this the domain of QM? Or does QM not really apply since nature is constantly forcing particles to choose?

Quantum mechanics is not needed for the simple statement of the second law. It was an observation. However if your question is how does entropy explain the movement of heat, that does involve QM.

 

[ding]

The 2nd law seems to cover a bunch of things, lol. I have always viewed it in its simplest terms as there is no such thing as a free lunch. There is a cost for every exchange and that cost is a loss of usable energy. If we started from that position how does that inform us that heat cannot spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects. Is this the domain of QM? Or does QM not really apply since nature is constantly forcing particles to choose?

Quantum mechanics is not needed for the simple statement of the second law. It was an observation. However if your question is how does entropy explain the movement of heat, that does involve QM.

Ok, but on a large scale we don't see diametrically opposed outcomes, right? In other words, practically speaking on a large scale, we don't observe heat spontaneously moving from cold to warmer objects, right?

 

[Wuwei]

Ok, but on a large scale we don't see diametrically opposed outcomes, right? In other words, practically speaking on a large scale, we don't observe heat spontaneously moving from cold to warmer objects, right?

Right. Energy can fly any way it wants microscopically as long as the final outcome is that heat does not spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects,

 

[ding]

Ok, but on a large scale we don't see diametrically opposed outcomes, right? In other words, practically speaking on a large scale, we don't observe heat spontaneously moving from cold to warmer objects, right?

Right. Energy can fly any way it wants microscopically as long as the final outcome is that heat does not spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects,

Then I don't understand the disagreement over this. What am I missing?

 

[SSDD]

Ok, but on a large scale we don't see diametrically opposed outcomes, right? In other words, practically speaking on a large scale, we don't observe heat spontaneously moving from cold to warmer objects, right?

Right. Energy can fly any way it wants microscopically as long as the final outcome is that heat does not spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects,

Then I don't understand the disagreement over this. What am I missing?

he wants back radiation to be able to warm the surface of the earth as the AGW hypothesis claims.

 

[ding]

Ok, but on a large scale we don't see diametrically opposed outcomes, right? In other words, practically speaking on a large scale, we don't observe heat spontaneously moving from cold to warmer objects, right?

Right. Energy can fly any way it wants microscopically as long as the final outcome is that heat does not spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects,

Then I don't understand the disagreement over this. What am I missing?

he wants back radiation to be able to warm the surface of the earth as the AGW hypothesis claims.

I think I get that. What I don't understand is does he believe it requires heat to spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects to do so. Or if he is proposing something else. It seems like everyone is agreeing that heat cannot spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects. So what else am I missing?

 

[SSDD]

Ok, but on a large scale we don't see diametrically opposed outcomes, right? In other words, practically speaking on a large scale, we don't observe heat spontaneously moving from cold to warmer objects, right?

Right. Energy can fly any way it wants microscopically as long as the final outcome is that heat does not spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects,

Then I don't understand the disagreement over this. What am I missing?

he wants back radiation to be able to warm the surface of the earth as the AGW hypothesis claims.

I think I get that. What I don't understand is does he believe it requires heat to spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects to do so. Or if he is proposing something else. It seems like everyone is agreeing that heat cannot spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects. So what else am I missing?

He is claiming that heat isn't energy...and therefore energy is free to move from cool objects (the atmosphere) to warm objects (the surface of the earth) (on a statistical basis) if it feels like it.

 

[ding]

Ok, but on a large scale we don't see diametrically opposed outcomes, right? In other words, practically speaking on a large scale, we don't observe heat spontaneously moving from cold to warmer objects, right?

Right. Energy can fly any way it wants microscopically as long as the final outcome is that heat does not spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects,

Then I don't understand the disagreement over this. What am I missing?

he wants back radiation to be able to warm the surface of the earth as the AGW hypothesis claims.

I think I get that. What I don't understand is does he believe it requires heat to spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects to do so. Or if he is proposing something else. It seems like everyone is agreeing that heat cannot spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects. So what else am I missing?

He is claiming that heat isn't energy...and therefore energy is free to move from cool objects (the atmosphere) to warm objects (the surface of the earth) (on a statistical basis) if it feels like it.

I didn't get that from his comments. Maybe we should have him confirm that position. That seems pretty unreasonable. A more reasonable position would be that IR can be a factor when solar is not (albeit a very small factor).

 

[Wuwei]

He is claiming that heat isn't energy...and therefore energy is free to move from cool objects (the atmosphere) to warm objects (the surface of the earth) (on a statistical basis) if it feels like it.

That is absolutely false. Why are you lying. I know you know better. You are just being a troll.

 

[ding]

He is claiming that heat isn't energy...and therefore energy is free to move from cool objects (the atmosphere) to warm objects (the surface of the earth) (on a statistical basis) if it feels like it.

That is absolutely false. Why are you lying. I know you know better. You are just being a troll.

Let's try to put that aside. Can you explain what you are trying to say to me in very simple terms?

 

[SSDD]

He is claiming that heat isn't energy...and therefore energy is free to move from cool objects (the atmosphere) to warm objects (the surface of the earth) (on a statistical basis) if it feels like it.

That is absolutely false. Why are you lying. I know you know better. You are just being a troll.

So you are acknowledging that there is no such thing as back radiation and that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool objects to warm objects?

 

[Wuwei]

Let's try to put that aside. Can you explain what you are trying to say to me in very simple terms?

This is about as simple as I can make it:
Every object at temperatures we find on earth radiates electromagnetic energy everywhere all the time. That energy can strike any object in it's path. Every scientist understands that.

However a hotter object always radiates more energy to a colder object than the colder object radiates to the hotter object. It is easy to see that the net flow of energy is always from the hotter object to the colder object.

 

[Wuwei]

When comes to the atmosphere and earth, the hotter earth radiates energy out at around 400 watts/m^2. And the radiation from the cooler atmosphere radiates back to earth around 330 watts/m^2. So the net radiation is from the earth outward. The atmosphere does not warm the earth at all. What it does is keeps the earth from loosing as much heat as it would if the atmosphere wasn't there.

 

[IanC]

Ok, but on a large scale we don't see diametrically opposed outcomes, right? In other words, practically speaking on a large scale, we don't observe heat spontaneously moving from cold to warmer objects, right?

Right. Energy can fly any way it wants microscopically as long as the final outcome is that heat does not spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects,

Then I don't understand the disagreement over this. What am I missing?

he wants back radiation to be able to warm the surface of the earth as the AGW hypothesis claims.

I think I get that. What I don't understand is does he believe it requires heat to spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects to do so. Or if he is proposing something else. It seems like everyone is agreeing that heat cannot spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects. So what else am I missing?

Watch out for strawman arguments, especially from SSDD.

All objects radiate according to their temperature all the time. Two objects will pass net energy (heat) in the direction of warm to cold because the warm object is radiating more and at higher energy frequencies.

SSDD thinks that objects only produce the net difference of radiation, all from the warmer object, with the radiation that cancels out simply not being created at all, by an unknowable mechanism. eg two objects at the same temp stop radiating altogether.

While we can derive how much radiation is produced by each object according to its energy, we cannot ignore that both objects are radiating at the SAME TIME. Yes, energy is flowing in both directions but HEAT only flows from warm to cold.

 

[ding]

Let's try to put that aside. Can you explain what you are trying to say to me in very simple terms?

This is about as simple as I can make it:
Every object at temperatures we find on earth radiates electromagnetic energy everywhere all the time. That energy can strike any object in it's path. Every scientist understands that.

However a hotter object always radiates more energy to a colder object than the colder object radiates to the hotter object. It is easy to see that the net flow of energy is always from the hotter object to the colder object.

Sure. It is the net flow which determines direction of flow. I agree.

 

[ding]

When comes to the atmosphere and earth, the hotter earth radiates energy out at around 400 watts/m^2. And the radiation from the cooler atmosphere radiates back to earth around 330 watts/m^2. So the net radiation is from the earth outward. The atmosphere does not warm the earth at all. What it does is keeps the earth from loosing as much heat as it would if the atmosphere wasn't there.

I agree with this too. So what is you guys disagreement?

 

[IanC]

When comes to the atmosphere and earth, the hotter earth radiates energy out at around 400 watts/m^2. And the radiation from the cooler atmosphere radiates back to earth around 330 watts/m^2. So the net radiation is from the earth outward. The atmosphere does not warm the earth at all. What it does is keeps the earth from loosing as much heat as it would if the atmosphere wasn't there.

Another important concept to keep in mind is that both the Earth and atmosphere are being warmed by the Sun. It is not the much simpler case of both cooling as fast as they can.

 

[ding]

Ok, but on a large scale we don't see diametrically opposed outcomes, right? In other words, practically speaking on a large scale, we don't observe heat spontaneously moving from cold to warmer objects, right?

Right. Energy can fly any way it wants microscopically as long as the final outcome is that heat does not spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects,

Then I don't understand the disagreement over this. What am I missing?

he wants back radiation to be able to warm the surface of the earth as the AGW hypothesis claims.

I think I get that. What I don't understand is does he believe it requires heat to spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects to do so. Or if he is proposing something else. It seems like everyone is agreeing that heat cannot spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects. So what else am I missing?

Watch out for strawman arguments, especially from SSDD.

All objects radiate according to their temperature all the time. Two objects will pass net energy (heat) in the direction of warm to cold because the warm object is radiating more and at higher energy frequencies.

SSDD thinks that objects only produce the net difference of radiation, all from the warmer object, with the radiation that cancels out simply not being created at all, by an unknowable mechanism. eg two objects at the same temp stop radiating altogether.

While we can derive how much radiation is produced by each object according to its energy, we cannot ignore that both objects are radiating at the SAME TIME. Yes, energy is flowing in both directions but HEAT only flows from warm to cold.

Ok, they don't really produce anything, right? This is just about flow and transfer of energy, right? What he wrote in post #295 is accurate. I'm not sure this isn't just a misunderstanding.