CO2 Follows Temperature

[SSDD]

SSDD- why would I not agree with konradv's statement? "entropy of a closed system doesnt decrease" is a very good way of putting it.

So you believe that the second law only applies to closed systems and is not at work in open systems? You believe that it is a law of systems and not a law of nature? If that is what you believe, then it goes a long way towards explaining how you got to where you are.

of course the earth and its atmosphere arent really a closed system, as energy is just flowing through it. one of your problems in understanding thermodynamics is that you consider any individual interaction as a system. quantum mechanics arose because looking at smaller and smaller things led to absurdities.

It seems that you know that you are wrong Ian, and you must know that observation tells you that the physics at work in the atmosphere are not as you spend so much time insisting otherwise, and you must know that even in the very unlikely event that the effects you believe in do exist, you have so far overestimated their impact that you have entered into the realm of (to use your word) the absurd.

What is the point of your argument other than to grasp some fleetingly small particle of "I'm right"? In the big picture, you and your hypothesis are obviously wrong. Every day, observation tells us both that you are wrong. Are you so proud that you would rather go down in intellectual flames clinging to an unprovable subatomic particle of "I'm right" rather than simply acknowledge that your argument is moot because in the real world, the world that doesn't operate like questionable mathematical models or computer models based on questionable mathematical models you and your hypothesis are wrong?

 

[SSDD]

the second law is about a statistical description of systems and does not apply to individual events.

So you say. Can you prove it? Can you prove that the second law is not in effect in open systems. Can you prove that the second law is nothing more than a statistical model? Can you prove anything or is your whole argumment based on an unprovable interpretation of the second law?

I totally agree with the second law, just not your incorrect interpretation of it.

]

Again Ian, it is you who is interpreting and twisting, not me. I accept the law as it is. That is neither heat nor energy can move from a low energy region to a high energy region. Natural processes do not decrease entropy, and all natural processes are irreversible. Energy escaping from the surface of the earth can not return unless some actual work is done to put it back.

my interpretation of the second law concerning radiation even showed proof of why it must happen. yours is a dogmatic endless restating of somebody else's talking points with no understanding of the underlying basics.

Proof in a mental model? That is right up there with accepting the output of computer models as proof. Do you accept the output of computer models as proof Ian?

actually quantum mechanics was big news! it was the explanation to the ultraviolet catastrophe for one.

And explanation like the invention of photons to "explain" the photoelectric effect? Fads come and go in physics ian. Explanations for this and that drop like flies on the floor of history. The laws of physics on the other hand are here to stay. Stick with them and you won't be led by the nose into a fantasy world where the atmosphere heats the earth by any means other than those described by the ideal gas laws.

Atmospheric makeup is irrelavent beyond that makeup's contribution to the total volume.

 

[konradv]

Did he just say photons are a "fad"?!?!

 

[SSDD]

Did he just say photons are a "fad"?!?!

I said that photons are an explanation for an effect for which no other explanation could be thought of at the time. Einstein himself was never satisfied with the photon and as time passes, I am placing my bets on his dissatisfaction being correct. Their existence has not and iks not lilely to ever be proven.

You guys sure like to interpret what people say into a strawman to wrestle with don't you? It is perhaps that penchant for interpretation that has led you afoul of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and into the wacko world of the greenhouse effect.

 

[konradv]

Did he just say photons are a "fad"?!?!

I said that photons are an explanation for an effect for which no other explanation could be thought of at the time. Einstein himself was never satisfied with the photon and as time passes, I am placing my bets on his dissatisfaction being correct. Their existence has not and iks not lilely to ever be proven.

You guys sure like to interpret what people say into a strawman to wrestle with don't you? It is perhaps that penchant for interpretation that has led you afoul of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and into the wacko world of the greenhouse effect.

Einstein also said that God doesn't play dice with the universe, when modern quantum theory shows that He does. If photons don't exist, how does one explain both the wave and particle properties of light?

 

[IanC]

Did he just say photons are a "fad"?!?!

I said that photons are an explanation for an effect for which no other explanation could be thought of at the time. Einstein himself was never satisfied with the photon and as time passes, I am placing my bets on his dissatisfaction being correct. Their existence has not and iks not lilely to ever be proven.

You guys sure like to interpret what people say into a strawman to wrestle with don't you? It is perhaps that penchant for interpretation that has led you afoul of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and into the wacko world of the greenhouse effect.

hahahaha. you are accusing me of building a strawman?

I keep asking you specific questions, you keep answering with generalities.

can the earth's surface emit radiation towards the sun? or is it magically stopped by some superpower that you have deemed to call the second law? does this superpower take into account all the atmospheric molecules, their speed and potential collisions, so that only photons that would actually make it to the sun are stopped. what is the driving force behind this superpower and how does it make all those calculations?

can the atmosphere emit radiation towards the earth? or is it magically stopped by some superpower that you have deemed to call the second law? does this superpower take into account all the atmospheric molecules, their speed and potential collisions, so that only photons that would actually make it to the earth are stopped. what is the driving force behind this superpower and how does it make all those calculations?

here are two planck curves for +10C and -10C. you do believe in planck curves dont you?? they are derived by observed data, not computer models. the area under the curve for -10C is matched point for point by the +10C curve but the higher temperature curve has extra radiation left over with which it is able to warm the cooler body. this is a visual proof of how the second law works for radiative transfer of heat from a warm body to a cooler one.

there are other areas where the second law comes into play but this is the pertinent one for our discussion.

next lets look at CO2 more closely. any excited molecule will emit radiation. if you plot repeated emissions they will be released in all directions equally. again, this is observed data not 'computer models'. CO2 preferentially absorbs and emits the same frequencies of Infrared Radiation. IR is not very energetic so the excited molecule does not have a large selection of available photons to produce as it drops back to groundstate because of the quantum limits. you keep harping about irreversible, etc. the momentum change in both the particle and the receptor (if there is one) of the photon prove this. never the same river twice, no perpetual motion machine.

CO2 returns ~ half of the radiation it receives in certain IR bands. this balances out the same amount of radiation from the surface. it is not heating the surface, it is slowing the loss of energy. the sun's radiation which is more highly ordered is doing the heating. the surface is heating the atmosphere by the same process of the planck curves above. there is no violation of the second law. it is a statistical proof not some superpower all seeing unknown law of physics that stops radiation by reading the temperature of every particle in the universe.


I am sure you will just answer back with the same talking points, especially ones that dont fit the actual conditions, but you wont be able to defeat quantum mechanics, photons, or the general rather than individual nature of the second law.

 

[SSDD]

Einstein also said that God doesn't play dice with the universe, when modern quantum theory shows that He does. If photons don't exist, how does one explain both the wave and particle properties of light?

Read a bit. There are a couple of rather elegant explanations for the photoelectric effect that don't require the existence of photons.

 

[SSDD]

I keep asking you specific questions, you keep answering with generalities.

You are asking questions for which there is no known answer. There are theoretical answers, hypothetical answers, and answers that are the result of mathematical and computer models but no known answer.

You apparently like interpreting but doing so leads only to where you are. You hold a belief based on models which have not and likely never will be proven. You are guessing at best and completely snookered at worst.

can the earth's surface emit radiation towards the sun?

Perhaps towards the sun, but the energy will never transfer to the sun.

or is it magically stopped by some superpower that you have deemed to call the second law?

Again with the dishonesty. If you had an honest argument, you wouldn't have to resort to dishonesty nearly so often and could actually argue against what your opponent says rather than making up statements which you argue against. The second law and all physical laws are just expressions for forces at work in the universe. Strangely enough, we rarely actually understand those forces. Heck, we can't even fully explain gravity and it is the most well known natural force at work here on earth.

I can't tell you why energy or heat can't transfer from a cool region to a warm region and you can't either. No one can. We haven't reached that point yet that we can explain exactly what force is at work and how it works. You can bet though, when we get there, if it is in your life time you will find that you are, and have been dead wrong in your belief that energy or heat can transfer from cool to warm.

does this superpower take into account all the atmospheric molecules, their speed and potential collisions, so that only photons that would actually make it to the sun are stopped. what is the driving force behind this superpower and how does it make all those calculations?

This superpower as you so childishly describe forces which you can't begin to expain either does take everying into account or doesn't have to. Acting as if you know something that neither you, nor the most brilliant minds in modern science know is just nonsensical. Do you enjoy looking silly?

can the atmosphere emit radiation towards the earth? or is it magically stopped by some superpower that you have deemed to call the second law?

Again with the dishonesty. Are you able to honesty talk about a topic or do you fabricate whenever you sit down at the keyboard. Are you so dishonest face to face as well?

Does the second law say that the cooler atmosphere can transfer energy to the warmer surface of the earth? If it does, then I guess it can. We both know that it doesn't so it can't. There is ample evidence that it doesn't as well. You might start with the fact that in order to measure downdwelling radiation, you must cool the instrument far below the ambient atmospheric temperature. Why do you suppose it is that you can measure downdwelling radiation only when the instrument is colder than the atmosphere? Is there a superpower at work there or is it just a force that we don't presently understand?

You get more rediculous as you go. Ad hominem attacks and attempts to deride your opponent only serve to show how weak your argument is. If you had an honest argument you wouldn't have to attack me.

Science of doom? Now I am laughing at you.

next lets look at CO2 more closely. any excited molecule will emit radiation. if you plot repeated emissions they will be released in all directions equally.

Are you sure of that? I think not. If you could prove that, then you could prove that energy transfer from a cool region to a warm region were possible. Again, you are basing your argument on unproven assumptions. Do you like unproven assumptions? I am guessing you do since you buy into the greenhouse effect even when the models that supposedly prove it fail repeatedly.

again, this is observed data not 'computer models'. CO2 preferentially absorbs and emits the same frequencies of Infrared Radiation.

There has never been an observation of spontaeous energy transfer from cool to warm. Why make things up? And again, if you look at emission lines, they are not as sharp as absorption lines. That is because there is a slight frequency change upon emission.

CO2 returns ~ half of the radiation it receives in certain IR bands.

No it doesn't and this is proven by the fact that you can't measure downdwelling radiation unless you cool the instrument to a temperature far below the ambient temperature of the atmosphere. You would think that someone like you who believes he knows the unknowable (at this point in science) could at least clue into something that basic.

this balances out the same amount of radiation from the surface. it is not heating the surface, it is slowing the loss of energy.

So where is the hot spot? If CO2 were, in realty, slowing the loss of energy, there would be a hot spot and we both know that it doesn't exist. Another epic failure of the scam you have placed your belief in. You would think that someone who believes he knows the unknowable would question his belief when something so blatant as the required hot spot fails to show up.

the sun's radiation which is more highly ordered is doing the heating. the surface is heating the atmosphere by the same process of the planck curves above. there is no violation of the second law. it is a statistical proof not some superpower all seeing unknown law of physics that stops radiation by reading the temperature of every particle in the universe.

Again, do you enjoy looking absurd? When you fabricate an argument that your opponent has not made, it makes you look rediculous and dishonest. Is that your goal? If you believe that energy is being transferred from the cooler atmosphere to the surface of the earth, then yes, there is a violation of the second law. Energy transfer from cool to warm would be a reduction of entropy.

I am sure you will just answer back with the same talking points, especially ones that dont fit the actual conditions, but you wont be able to defeat quantum mechanics, photons, or the general rather than individual nature of the second law.

Your "conditions" are so far from actual as to be pointless. It is you who lives, and will eventually die by questionable mathematical models and computer simulations. And I don't have to beat quantum mechanics. All I have to do is ask you to prove downdwelling radiation at ambient temperature or show me the required hot spot in the atmosphere.. We both know that you can't do either so obviously there is a problem with your interpretation of the physics at work. That is the problem with trying to interpret what doesn't need interpreting.

 

[IanC]

a blast from the past. not much has changed although it appears as if there was a little more civility four years ago.

 

[Wuwei]

The irony of SSDD's myopia is that he relies on his misinterpretation of the second law as defined by Georgia State U:

The source is the physics department of Georgia State University. You will have to excuse me but I will accept their statement of the 2nd law over any amount of wiki.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

That very same reference states an equivalent definition further down the page that has nothing to do with his misunderstanding about thermal photons flowing from cold to warm objects.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same.​

In short, he claims to accept Georgia State, but that reference also denies his claim about energy flow.

 

[jc456]

The irony of SSDD's myopia is that he relies on his misinterpretation of the second law as defined by Georgia State U:

The source is the physics department of Georgia State University. You will have to excuse me but I will accept their statement of the 2nd law over any amount of wiki.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

That very same reference states an equivalent definition further down the page that has nothing to do with his misunderstanding about thermal photons flowing from cold to warm objects.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same.​

In short, he claims to accept Georgia State, but that reference also denies his claim about energy flow.

so curious, do you have an experiment that validates cold photons flowing to warm? you know, where something cold makes something warm warmer? Got that one?

 

[Wuwei]

so curious, do you have an experiment that validates cold photons flowing to warm? you know, where something cold makes something warm warmer? Got that one?

That was covered ages ago. The very cold cosmic background radiation can hit a radio antenna at ambient outdoor temperatures. It has been measured many times by many people.

 

[jc456]

so curious, do you have an experiment that validates cold photons flowing to warm? you know, where something cold makes something warm warmer? Got that one?

That was covered ages ago. The very cold cosmic background radiation can hit a radio antenna at ambient outdoor temperatures. It has been measured many times by many people.

are you referring to cosmic radiation that affects electronics? Causes bit flips in ASIC type chipsets which causes outages to electronic equipment?

 

[IanC]

The irony of SSDD's myopia is that he relies on his misinterpretation of the second law as defined by Georgia State U:

The source is the physics department of Georgia State University. You will have to excuse me but I will accept their statement of the 2nd law over any amount of wiki.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

That very same reference states an equivalent definition further down the page that has nothing to do with his misunderstanding about thermal photons flowing from cold to warm objects.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same.​

In short, he claims to accept Georgia State, but that reference also denies his claim about energy flow.

indeed. that is why he now refuses to answer any direct questions. his words get thrown back at him, and his links contradict his claims.

 

[Old Rocks]

Einstein also said that God doesn't play dice with the universe, when modern quantum theory shows that He does. If photons don't exist, how does one explain both the wave and particle properties of light?

Read a bit. There are a couple of rather elegant explanations for the photoelectric effect that don't require the existence of photons.

Really? Link

 

[IanC]

The irony of SSDD's myopia is that he relies on his misinterpretation of the second law as defined by Georgia State U:

The source is the physics department of Georgia State University. You will have to excuse me but I will accept their statement of the 2nd law over any amount of wiki.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

That very same reference states an equivalent definition further down the page that has nothing to do with his misunderstanding about thermal photons flowing from cold to warm objects.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same.​

In short, he claims to accept Georgia State, but that reference also denies his claim about energy flow.

so curious, do you have an experiment that validates cold photons flowing to warm? you know, where something cold makes something warm warmer? Got that one?

what a fucking idiot you are.

no one here has ever claimed that the photons from a cool object will warm a warmer object if that is the only source of energy input.

 

[jc456]

The irony of SSDD's myopia is that he relies on his misinterpretation of the second law as defined by Georgia State U:

The source is the physics department of Georgia State University. You will have to excuse me but I will accept their statement of the 2nd law over any amount of wiki.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

That very same reference states an equivalent definition further down the page that has nothing to do with his misunderstanding about thermal photons flowing from cold to warm objects.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same.​

In short, he claims to accept Georgia State, but that reference also denies his claim about energy flow.

so curious, do you have an experiment that validates cold photons flowing to warm? you know, where something cold makes something warm warmer? Got that one?

what a fucking idiot you are.

no one here has ever claimed that the photons from a cool object will warm a warmer object if that is the only source of energy input.

That depends, are you in the "heat can spontaneously move from cool to warm" camp?

We're talking about radiation, not heat.

If a hot object radiates 3 photons toward a cooler object and the cooler object radiates 2 photons toward the warmer object, do you think any laws of physics were violated?

Who cares again what happens when the photons move? do they collide, or do they hit the other object? You still haven't stated what happens to those cold photons. See, the warm photons will heat the cold object. What does that cold photon do? Heat the warm object? I mean that is the theory in warmersville.

Or perhaps they just miss the object. Ha

Who cares again what happens when the photons move?

Scientists and others who wish to have an intelligent conversation.

do they collide

No.

or do they hit the other object?

Yes.

You still haven't stated what happens to those cold photons

Any photon absorbed by matter adds energy.
So a "cold photon" that hits warmer matter adds energy, just as it would if it hit colder matter.

I mean that is the theory in warmersville.

Basic physics is not only for those who believe in AGW.
Your idiocy hurts the cause of those resisting AGW idiocy.

Or perhaps they just miss the object. Ha

Yes, SSDD's smart photon idiocy is funny.

IMO yours does. BTW, what happens to the warm object when it receives the cold photons does it increase its heat? What else would it do with it?

Have you every observed that?

BTW, what happens to the warm object when it receives the cold photons does it increase its heat?

Yes. Absolutely.

Have you every observed that?

All the time.

no one here has ever claimed that the photons from a cool object will warm a warmer object
the quote from toddster:

jc--BTW, what happens to the warm object when it receives the cold photons does it increase its heat?

todd-Yes. Absolutely.

Hmm, seems that's what he is saying.

 

[IanC]

I will let toddsterpatriot explain his own quote.

it seems like they were your words not his.

 

[Old Rocks]

The irony of SSDD's myopia is that he relies on his misinterpretation of the second law as defined by Georgia State U:

The source is the physics department of Georgia State University. You will have to excuse me but I will accept their statement of the 2nd law over any amount of wiki.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

That very same reference states an equivalent definition further down the page that has nothing to do with his misunderstanding about thermal photons flowing from cold to warm objects.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same.​

In short, he claims to accept Georgia State, but that reference also denies his claim about energy flow.

so curious, do you have an experiment that validates cold photons flowing to warm? you know, where something cold makes something warm warmer? Got that one?

Look, idiot child, everything above 0 degrees Kelvin emits energy. So if there are two objects, one much colder than the other, the warm one will be impinged by photons from the cold one, and that will add energy to the warm object. However, the warm object will emit much more energetic photons, which will result in a net energy loss to the warm object. And if those photons hit the cold object, it will experiance a net energy gain. Is this so hard to understand?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The irony of SSDD's myopia is that he relies on his misinterpretation of the second law as defined by Georgia State U:

The source is the physics department of Georgia State University. You will have to excuse me but I will accept their statement of the 2nd law over any amount of wiki.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

That very same reference states an equivalent definition further down the page that has nothing to do with his misunderstanding about thermal photons flowing from cold to warm objects.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same.​

In short, he claims to accept Georgia State, but that reference also denies his claim about energy flow.

so curious, do you have an experiment that validates cold photons flowing to warm? you know, where something cold makes something warm warmer? Got that one?

what a fucking idiot you are.

no one here has ever claimed that the photons from a cool object will warm a warmer object if that is the only source of energy input.

We're talking about radiation, not heat.

If a hot object radiates 3 photons toward a cooler object and the cooler object radiates 2 photons toward the warmer object, do you think any laws of physics were violated?

Who cares again what happens when the photons move? do they collide, or do they hit the other object? You still haven't stated what happens to those cold photons. See, the warm photons will heat the cold object. What does that cold photon do? Heat the warm object? I mean that is the theory in warmersville.

Or perhaps they just miss the object. Ha

Who cares again what happens when the photons move?

Scientists and others who wish to have an intelligent conversation.

do they collide

No.

or do they hit the other object?

Yes.

You still haven't stated what happens to those cold photons

Any photon absorbed by matter adds energy.
So a "cold photon" that hits warmer matter adds energy, just as it would if it hit colder matter.

I mean that is the theory in warmersville.

Basic physics is not only for those who believe in AGW.
Your idiocy hurts the cause of those resisting AGW idiocy.

Or perhaps they just miss the object. Ha

Yes, SSDD's smart photon idiocy is funny.

IMO yours does. BTW, what happens to the warm object when it receives the cold photons does it increase its heat? What else would it do with it?

Have you every observed that?

BTW, what happens to the warm object when it receives the cold photons does it increase its heat?

Yes. Absolutely.

Have you every observed that?

All the time.

no one here has ever claimed that the photons from a cool object will warm a warmer object
the quote from toddster:

jc--BTW, what happens to the warm object when it receives the cold photons does it increase its heat?

todd-Yes. Absolutely.

Hmm, seems that's what he is saying.

Who cares again what happens when the photons move?

Scientists and others who wish to have an intelligent conversation.

do they collide

No.

or do they hit the other object?

Yes.

You still haven't stated what happens to those cold photons

Any photon absorbed by matter adds energy.
So a "cold photon" that hits warmer matter adds energy, just as it would if it hit colder matter.

I mean that is the theory in warmersville.

Basic physics is not only for those who believe in AGW.
Your idiocy hurts the cause of those resisting AGW idiocy.

Or perhaps they just miss the object. Ha

Yes, SSDD's smart photon idiocy is funny.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/14545135/

I guess jc feels that a "cold photon" that's absorbed only adds energy to a cooler object, but that the absorption magically adds no energy if it was absorbed by a warmer object.

I'm old fashioned, I don't believe in magic.
All photons that are absorbed add energy.