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

[xband]

No it isn't...pressure is work...and energy can flow from cold to warm if work is applied...it just doesn't happen spontaneously...

Actually pressure alone is not work since nothing is moving. An isolated system at equilibrium is not doing work or receiving work.

Work (thermodynamics) - Wikipedia

There are several ways of doing work, each in some way related to a force acting through a distance.​

Second Law of Thermodynamics, heat always flows from cold to warm and never vice versa.

 

[SSDD]

No it isn't...pressure is work...and energy can flow from cold to warm if work is applied...it just doesn't happen spontaneously...

Actually pressure alone is not work since nothing is moving. An isolated system at equilibrium is not doing work or receiving work.

Work (thermodynamics) - Wikipedia

There are several ways of doing work, each in some way related to a force acting through a distance.​

Second Law of Thermodynamics, heat always flows from cold to warm and never vice versa.

heat and energy always flow SPONTANEOUSLY from cold to warm...if you apply work, you can make heat and energy flow from cool to warm...as in an air conditioner.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ok, but the heat that is exchanged immediately by the GHG and then transferred to the o2 and n2 is lost to space the exact same way as the temperature from convection was lost to space, right?

Right. It doesn't matter how the heat originally was transformed, but in the end it is radiated to space as EM energy.

And you said that the heating of o2 and n2 from convection did not warm the planet because that energy was lost to space, right?

That's right. Actually the planet heats O2 and N2, but the O2 and N2 don't back-radiate to earth.

Aren't the odds of CO2 "back radiating" toward Earth extremely small in the first place and decrease proportionally as the molecules are higher in the atmosphere? Does CO2 have some magical redirectional beam that only radiates back toward Earth surface. Most of the other potential vectors are AWAY from Earth

 

[xband]

No it isn't...pressure is work...and energy can flow from cold to warm if work is applied...it just doesn't happen spontaneously...

Actually pressure alone is not work since nothing is moving. An isolated system at equilibrium is not doing work or receiving work.

Work (thermodynamics) - Wikipedia

There are several ways of doing work, each in some way related to a force acting through a distance.​

Second Law of Thermodynamics, heat always flows from cold to warm and never vice versa.

heat and energy always flow SPONTANEOUSLY from cold to warm...if you apply work, you can make heat and energy flow from cool to warm...as in an air conditioner.

I don't know much about it but got in an argument about the Third Law of Thermodynamics with my mom and in particular, entropy. I was asking her about how life emerged from chaos, she said there are small pockets of order in disorder.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Ok, but the heat that is exchanged immediately by the GHG and then transferred to the o2 and n2 is lost to space the exact same way as the temperature from convection was lost to space, right?

Right. It doesn't matter how the heat originally was transformed, but in the end it is radiated to space as EM energy.

And you said that the heating of o2 and n2 from convection did not warm the planet because that energy was lost to space, right?

That's right. Actually the planet heats O2 and N2, but the O2 and N2 don't back-radiate to earth.

Aren't the odds of CO2 "back radiating" toward extremely small in the first place and decrease proportionally as the molecules are higher in the atmosphere? Does CO2 have some magical redirectional beam that only radiates back toward Earth surface. Most of the other potential vectors are AWAY from Earth

Does CO2 have some magical re directional beam that only radiates back toward Earth

co2 is a poor insulator

 

[Wuwei]

And yet...there were the temperature gradients..repeatable experiments demonstrating them.....and there was plenty of movement...do you think that the air in those columns was actually static?..

The random movement of a gas in a closed container is not work. The paper you cited claims it is a perpetual motion device of the second kind. Do you believe perpetual motion can be achieved?

 

[SSDD]

No it isn't...pressure is work...and energy can flow from cold to warm if work is applied...it just doesn't happen spontaneously...

Actually pressure alone is not work since nothing is moving. An isolated system at equilibrium is not doing work or receiving work.

Work (thermodynamics) - Wikipedia

There are several ways of doing work, each in some way related to a force acting through a distance.​

Second Law of Thermodynamics, heat always flows from cold to warm and never vice versa.

heat and energy always flow SPONTANEOUSLY from cold to warm...if you apply work, you can make heat and energy flow from cool to warm...as in an air conditioner.

I don't know much about it but got in an argument about the Third Law of Thermodynamics with my mom and in particular, entropy. I was asking her about how life emerged from chaos, she said there are small pockets of order in disorder.

The first consideration in such an argument is that the Earth is not a closed system...it receives energy and matter from outside itself and loses energy and matter to locations outside itself...

Secondly...the second law doesn't claim that the entropy of any, or all particular parts of a system must increase. If it did, ice could never form or vapor would never condense into liquid...

And yet...there were the temperature gradients..repeatable experiments demonstrating them.....and there was plenty of movement...do you think that the air in those columns was actually static?..

The random movement of a gas in a closed container is not work. The paper you cited claims it is a perpetual motion device of the second kind. Do you believe perpetual motion can be achieved?

Gravity exerts pressure...exerted pressure is work...like it or not, it is how it is. And the fact of the temperature gradients is still there and still repeatable...it gives far more credibility to the atmospheric thermal effect which warmer wackos claim can't exist..than the unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mechanism buy which you claim the greenhouse effect works.

 

[xband]

And yet...there were the temperature gradients..repeatable experiments demonstrating them.....and there was plenty of movement...do you think that the air in those columns was actually static?..

The random movement of a gas in a closed container is not work. The paper you cited claims it is a perpetual motion device of the second kind. Do you believe perpetual motion can be achieved?

A few years ago CERN claimed that a neutrino travels at the speed of light and thus has no mass. This amazing discovery was peer reviewed by European scientists and proved right, later they had egg on their face making an apology to the world wide scientific community.

 

[Wuwei]

Aren't the odds of CO2 "back radiating" toward Earth extremely small in the first place and decrease proportionally as the molecules are higher in the atmosphere? Does CO2 have some magical redirectional beam that only radiates back toward Earth surface. Most of the other potential vectors are AWAY from Earth

CO2 in the atmosphere is a source of isotropic radiation. It radiates in all directions equally.

 

[SSDD]

Aren't the odds of CO2 "back radiating" toward Earth extremely small in the first place and decrease proportionally as the molecules are higher in the atmosphere? Does CO2 have some magical redirectional beam that only radiates back toward Earth surface. Most of the other potential vectors are AWAY from Earth

CO2 in the atmosphere is a source of isotropic radiation. It radiates in all directions equally.

So you say...and yet, backradition can not be measured at ambient temperature even though your claim is that it is more than twice the amount of incoming solar radiation.

 

[Wuwei]

Gravity exerts pressure...exerted pressure is work...like it or not, it is how it is.

That is definitely not how it is. Look up the definition of work. Exerted pressure becomes work if it mechanically moves something, like a piston in a pump. The experiment you cited was isolated.

 

[xband]

No it isn't...pressure is work...and energy can flow from cold to warm if work is applied...it just doesn't happen spontaneously...

Actually pressure alone is not work since nothing is moving. An isolated system at equilibrium is not doing work or receiving work.

Work (thermodynamics) - Wikipedia

There are several ways of doing work, each in some way related to a force acting through a distance.​

Second Law of Thermodynamics, heat always flows from cold to warm and never vice versa.

heat and energy always flow SPONTANEOUSLY from cold to warm...if you apply work, you can make heat and energy flow from cool to warm...as in an air conditioner.

I don't know much about it but got in an argument about the Third Law of Thermodynamics with my mom and in particular, entropy. I was asking her about how life emerged from chaos, she said there are small pockets of order in disorder.

The first consideration in such an argument is that the Earth is not a closed system...it receives energy and matter from outside itself and loses energy and matter to locations outside itself...

Secondly...the second law doesn't claim that the entropy of any, or all particular parts of a system must increase. If it did, ice could never form or vapor would never condense into liquid...

And yet...there were the temperature gradients..repeatable experiments demonstrating them.....and there was plenty of movement...do you think that the air in those columns was actually static?..

The random movement of a gas in a closed container is not work. The paper you cited claims it is a perpetual motion device of the second kind. Do you believe perpetual motion can be achieved?

Gravity exerts pressure...exerted pressure is work...like it or not, it is how it is. And the fact of the temperature gradients is still there and still repeatable...it gives far more credibility to the atmospheric thermal effect which warmer wackos claim can't exist..than the unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mechanism buy which you claim the greenhouse effect works.

Please read my posts again where I clearly defined the difference between the Second and Third Law. I have a lot of questions that I need answered. How does gravity escape a black hole when light cannot and both travel at the same speed? You will probably say Frame Dragging.which will boggle my mind.

 

[Wuwei]

So you say...and yet, backradition can not be measured at ambient temperature even though your claim is that it is more than twice the amount of incoming solar radiation.

So I say? It is what every scientist says. There is no principle that says radiation from any gas is not isotropic.

 

[Wuwei]

Please read my posts again where I clearly defined the difference between the Second and Third Law. I have a lot of questions that I need answered. How does gravity escape a black hole when light cannot and both travel at the same speed? You will probably say Frame Dragging.which will boggle my mind.

This topic is about atmospheric physics. I suggest you post that question in the Science and Technology forum.

 

[xband]

So you say...and yet, backradition can not be measured at ambient temperature even though your claim is that it is more than twice the amount of incoming solar radiation.

So I say? It is what every scientist says. There is no principle that says radiation from any gas is not isotropic.

I know what an isotope is but nut sure about isotropic. Iso means close and tropic means under the Tropic of Cancer or above the Tropic of Capricorn.

 

[ding]

So can you ballpark how much heat is immediatly transferred to o2 and n2? What percent?

Almost all of it is transferred from the warm earth to the O2 and N2, if I understand your question.

Earlier I asked you if the co2 was warmer than the o2 and n2. You said that they were not that the warmer co2 would heat the o2 and n2, right?

That energy or heat that would be transferred to the o2 and n2 would be quickly lost to space, right?

So what percentage of the heat from the co2 is transfered to o2 and n2?

 

[xband]

So can you ballpark how much heat is immediatly transferred to o2 and n2? What percent?

Almost all of it is transferred from the warm earth to the O2 and N2, if I understand your question.

Earlier I asked you if the co2 was warmer than the o2 and n2. You said that they were not that the warmer co2 would heat the o2 and n2, right?

That energy or heat that would be transferred to the o2 and n2 would be quickly lost to space, right?

So what percentage of the heat from the co2 is transfered to o2 and n2?

That is wild and will read it three more times before I dare to answer. My first re-read starts now because your post got my undivided attention.

 

[xband]

So can you ballpark how much heat is immediatly transferred to o2 and n2? What percent?

Almost all of it is transferred from the warm earth to the O2 and N2, if I understand your question.

Earlier I asked you if the co2 was warmer than the o2 and n2. You said that they were not that the warmer co2 would heat the o2 and n2, right?

That energy or heat that would be transferred to the o2 and n2 would be quickly lost to space, right?

So what percentage of the heat from the co2 is transfered to o2 and n2?

You know the formula and just show it rather than making silly remarks.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Gravity exerts pressure...exerted pressure is work...like it or not, it is how it is.

That is definitely not how it is. Look up the definition of work. Exerted pressure becomes work if it mechanically moves something, like a piston in a pump. The experiment you cited was isolated.

with the disorder of the gas

energy such as heat is transferred

which is work

 

[SSDD]

Gravity exerts pressure...exerted pressure is work...like it or not, it is how it is.

That is definitely not how it is. Look up the definition of work. Exerted pressure becomes work if it mechanically moves something, like a piston in a pump. The experiment you cited was isolated.

So you say that the pressure of gravity does not result in the movement of the molecules in the air?...interesting...got any actual evidence to support that claim?...because the temperature gradients that have been shown experimentally to exist in columns of air say otherwise....if the pressure is not resulting in movement, why would the air at the bottom of the column be warmer than the air at the top?