Let`s have a vote on back radiation

[IanC]

polarbear said-And the radiative transfer equivalent of the above law that Roy Spencer is either too stupid to comprehend or is deliberately falsifying and "explained" it to a "Virginia" which has no science background and he managed to convince with that diminishing radiative transfer is the same as warming an object.

hahahaha!!! that it???? we didn't use your magical phrase 'diminishing radiative transfer', so we were wrong????? all the times I said it was the sun makinging the surface warmer because the surface couldnt radiate energy away as efficiently because of GHGs, and you never thought to say, "yes your concept is right but you wording could be more precise".

Spencer wrote a simple article to explain to laymen the basic ideas in heat transfer. he said that adding a second plate would increase the temperature of the heated plate which is what happens. now you are saying that he is not only wrong but a liar because your definition of warming is different than the common usage of 'warming'. would you have been OK if he had said the second plate warms the first indirectly? or does he get zero marks for omitting the phrase "diminishing radiative transfer"?

SSDD accused me of lying just so that I could be 'right'. I am only arguing the warmists' side (and only a small, narrow portion of it) because I think it is stupid to alienate normal, less than scientifically literate people by ridiculing an obvious mechanism. remember when wirebender 'proved' that blankets make you colder? you guys argue definitions and technicalities, and ignore reality. blankets make you warmer (oops, I guess I should put "diminishing radiative transfer" in there somewhere, huh?) and greenhouse gases make the surface of the earth warmer.

some of my best friends are blowhards like you. typically they know how to get things done. but you are doing a disservise to the skeptical side by saying Spencer is wrong. you could easily point out that back radiation doesnt directly heat the surface, instead it changes the conditions which indirectly cause the sun's input to warm the surface more efficiently causing a temperature rise. instead you just say Spencer is wrong and allow people to think that no warming happens even though it does (if we could separate it out from all the other factors).

 

[IanC]

Diminishing the (radiative) cooling is stating it correctly.
But that`s not what Roy is claiming. Roy claims :
"Yes Virgina cold objects can warm a warmer object even warmer still"
And at that point any engineer will tell You flat out that he has gone from photon & quantum physics to fiction and perpetual motion:
Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
Equivalence of the statements
Derive Kelvin Statement from Clausius Statement

Suppose there is an engine violating the Kelvin statement: i.e.,one that drains heat and converts it completely into work in a cyclic fashion without any other result. Now pair it with a reversed Carnot engine as shown by the graph. The net and sole effect of this newly created engine consisting of the two engines mentioned is transferring heat \Delta Q=Q\left(\frac{1}{\eta}-1\right) from the cooler reservoir to the hotter one, which violates the Clausius statement. Thus a violation of the Kelvin statement implies a violation of the Clausius statement, i.e. the Clausius statement implies the Kelvin statement. We can prove in a similar manner that the Kelvin statement implies the Clausius statement, and hence the two are equivalent.



And the radiative transfer equivalent of the above law that Roy Spencer is either too stupid to comprehend or is deliberately falsifying and "explained" it to a "Virginia" which has no science background and he managed to convince with that diminishing radiative transfer is the same as warming an object.

this is your perpetual motion machine!!?? you do realize that Spencer's first plate was heated by electricity, and the earth is heated by the sun, right? I fail to see how ordered input being transfered into disordered output is breaking any thermodynamic laws, let alone being accused of being a perpetual motion machine.

 

[SSDD]

hahahaha!!! that it???? we didn't use your magical phrase 'diminishing radiative transfer', so we were wrong????? all the times I said it was the sun makinging the surface warmer because the surface couldnt radiate energy away as efficiently because of GHGs, and you never thought to say, "yes your concept is right but you wording could be more precise".

So once more, where is the hot spot and why do you have to cool an instrument to a temperature far below the ambient in order to measure so called downdwelling radiation?

some of my best friends are blowhards like you. typically they know how to get things done. but you are doing a disservise to the skeptical side by saying Spencer is wrong.

Not when he actually is wrong. It is a disservice to everyone to promote a weaker magic than rabid warmists when even the weaker magic is incorrect.

 

[IanC]

SSDD- you have seen Spencer's set up. are you saying that the first plate which is being supplied with a constant input of energy will not have a rise in temperature on the outside surfaces when a second plate is put into the thermos?

 

[IanC]

Dr. Spencer said-

Since the temperature of an object is a function of both energy gain AND energy loss, the temperature of the plate (or anything else) can be raised in 2 basic ways: (1) increase the rate of energy gain, or (2) decrease the rate of energy loss. The temperature of everything is determined by energy flows in and out, and one needs to know both to determine whether the temperature will go up or down. This is a consequence of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics involving conservation of energy.

some posters like SSDD say that radiation from the atmosphere can't be absorbed by the surface. where does it go then? if it disappears between emission and absorption then that is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics. no answer to that question is just as feeble as wirebender's battle to a standstill clash of the 'EM fields'.

 

[SSDD]

some posters like SSDD say that radiation from the atmosphere can't be absorbed by the surface. where does it go then?

Where indeed since there doesn't exist a single measurement of said radiation hitting the ground.......ever.

The second law says that neither energy nor heat will move spontaneously from a region of cool to a region of warm. That strongly suggests that the radiation doesn't even go in that direction any more than a marble will spontaneously roll up a hill.

 

[flacaltenn]

some posters like SSDD say that radiation from the atmosphere can't be absorbed by the surface. where does it go then?

Where indeed since there doesn't exist a single measurement of said radiation hitting the ground.......ever.

The second law says that neither energy nor heat will move spontaneously from a region of cool to a region of warm. That strongly suggests that the radiation doesn't even go in that direction any more than a marble will spontaneously roll up a hill.

HEAT radiation does not flow from cool to warm. But EM radiation can and does.

If I have a power transistor dissipating 1W -- how can I make it hotter? I can crank up the music OR I can increase the ROOM TEMPERATURE !!!!! Don't even BOTHER with the EM component of what the critter is putting out. HEAT is flowing to the ROOM (a cooler object), but the ROOM temp determines the internal temp of the transistor.

This is (like I said before) to do with TRANSIENT analysis rather than STEADY STATE analysis because what determines surface temps is ENERGY -- not POWER. And the Thermodynamic aspects of GW heating are the predominant tool in increasing surface warming ---- NOT BECAUSE of back radiation of IR --- but because the ROOM TEMPERATURE has raised the "thermal resistance" of the Troposphere..

There is a daily influx of EM radiation that pumps the earth surface temperature. If you build up a higher thermal resistance in the lower tropo -- the surface will get hotter REGARDLESS of "back radiation" of EM...

For some odd reason --- some of us are stuck on the concept that EM re-radiation of IR is ALL that is involved here. What EM radiation CO2 can absorb it will. ALL ABSORBED EM is first converted to heat BEFORE any re-radiation occurs. There is no photon to photon instaneous transaction.

CO2 can ALSO hold heat. So it has the capacity to store and forward THERMAL energy as well. And THAT is primarily how the surface gets heated.

 

[polarbear]

Diminishing the (radiative) cooling is stating it correctly.
But that`s not what Roy is claiming. Roy claims :
"Yes Virgina cold objects can warm a warmer object even warmer still"
And at that point any engineer will tell You flat out that he has gone from photon & quantum physics to fiction and perpetual motion:
Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
Equivalence of the statements
Derive Kelvin Statement from Clausius Statement

Suppose there is an engine violating the Kelvin statement: i.e.,one that drains heat and converts it completely into work in a cyclic fashion without any other result. Now pair it with a reversed Carnot engine as shown by the graph. The net and sole effect of this newly created engine consisting of the two engines mentioned is transferring heat \Delta Q=Q\left(\frac{1}{\eta}-1\right) from the cooler reservoir to the hotter one, which violates the Clausius statement. Thus a violation of the Kelvin statement implies a violation of the Clausius statement, i.e. the Clausius statement implies the Kelvin statement. We can prove in a similar manner that the Kelvin statement implies the Clausius statement, and hence the two are equivalent.



And the radiative transfer equivalent of the above law that Roy Spencer is either too stupid to comprehend or is deliberately falsifying and "explained" it to a "Virginia" which has no science background and he managed to convince with that diminishing radiative transfer is the same as warming an object.

this is your perpetual motion machine!!?? you do realize that Spencer's first plate was heated by electricity, and the earth is heated by the sun, right? I fail to see how ordered input being transfered into disordered output is breaking any thermodynamic laws, let alone being accused of being a perpetual motion machine.

____

hahahaha!!! that it???? we didn't use your magical phrase 'diminishing radiative transfer', so we were wrong????? all the times I said it was the sun makinging the surface warmer because the surface couldnt radiate energy away as efficiently because of GHGs, and you never thought to say, "yes your concept is right but you wording could be more precise".

To raise the temperature with You need photons that carry a higher energy quantum ( shorter wavelength, coming from a hotter source)...not more photons that carry a lower quantum, (longer wavelength, coming from a cooler source).
Else You could "blue shift" a stationary spot of red light by irradiating this spot with more red light.
Try it out with a dozen 635 nm visible red pen light lasers,...You can by them almost anywhere.
Then bounce them off a surface and show with a monochromator that You got any reflected light with a wavelength shorter than 635 nm , which is "warmer"
It will assure You the next Nobel prize in physics.


Spencer`s claim goes even beyond that, his claim implies that You should be able to create shorter wavelength light with more 750 nm longer wavelength laser light.
Not that he ever attempted that. All he "did" ( if a mere sketch qualifies as "did") is using a non existing hotplate which he says can get hotter if he would place a cold object next to it in a vacuum chamber.

And You are still fool enough to reply here:

you do realize that Spencer's first plate was heated by electricity...

That shows not only that neither You nor Spencer don`t even understand how an electric hot plate works, never mind understanding quantum physics.
Spencer`s phantasy hot plate would have to be at an equilibrium temperature before we even begin this foolish experiment right...?
That means that it has settled in at a resistance in Ohms which limits the Power as in (a) Volts * (a) Volts / (b) Ohms =(c) Watts.
a is constant, but I have never seen an electric heater where the resistance (b) in Ohms does not increase but remained constant as the temperature goes up..
How then would You prevent "Spencer`s first plate" which is heated by electricity not to impede the amount of electrical energy which flowed through it
before these back radiation photons from the colder plate heated it up to a higher temperature than the initial equilibrium temperature,...therefore
increasing the Ohms and dropping the Watts of electrical power that had raised it to the equilibrium temperature.

Spencer`s knowledge of physics is not much better than the "Virginia" he is talking about.
Are You by any chance the "Virginia" he is talking about?

SSDD- you have seen Spencer's set up. are you saying that the first plate which is being supplied with a constant input of energy will not have a rise in temperature on the outside surfaces when a second plate is put into the thermos?

I can see that You don`t know, but if Spencer did know that the resistance of his heater goes up as the temperature goes up, then why is he using an electric hot plate...?

I tell You why, because if he would substitute the electric hot plate with a IR radiation source he would have to make the claim
that he can create higher energy short wave light , with lower energy longer wavelength light...which is a perpetual motion variant that uses radiative heat transfer instead of conductive heat transfer

The only thing that Spencer has re-invented is that the rate of cooling can be diminished which still fools You
that this is the same thing as if he had actually warmed something up.
To which You say:

hahahaha!!! that it???? we didn't use your magical phrase 'diminishing radiative transfer'

To which I reply:
After explaining it so many times, even a "Yes Virginia" housewife would know the difference by now, between what a rate of cooling is and actually warming something up to a higher temperature than it was before.
Spencer`s hybrid hot plate, which uses electric energy and some Lalah-land frequency shiftable photons would make every conventional heat source obsolete.
For that matter You would not even need a hot water tank. Maybe if we figure out the technology to do it in a vacuum chamber with reflective walls we could also heat water to 72 C by holding a cup full between 2 hands instead of just grabbing it with one.
The fact that a perfect black body, which by the way exists only in theory can emit (very few) high energy (short wave) photons at lower temperatures is as un-related as it can get with a "science" that is using a 30-35 % albedo earth as a "black body" and a "Yes Virginia" pseudo-logic.
And by the way CO2 does not emit any photons that are at a shorter wavelength than those it absorbed either.
In Spencer`s "Yes Virginia" quantum fraud it should..!!!

 

[SSDD]

HEAT radiation does not flow from cool to warm. But EM radiation can and does.

The second law isn't just about heat transfer. It covers all energy transfer. Energy won't move from a low energy region to a higher energy region any more than heat will move from a cold region to a warm region.

The second law covers all energy transfer whether it be pressure in a balloon moving from inside to outside to water flowing downhill, to electricity running down a line.

 

[polarbear]

HEAT radiation does not flow from cool to warm. But EM radiation can and does.

The second law isn't just about heat transfer. It covers all energy transfer. Energy won't move from a low energy region to a higher energy region any more than heat will move from a cold region to a warm region.

The second law covers all energy transfer whether it be pressure in a balloon moving from inside to outside to water flowing downhill, to electricity running down a line.

The Spencer cheat with the electric hot plate being a "constant" heat source analogy is complete bullshit, not only because the resistance of the heater increases and therefore drops the current at a constant voltage if the "cold " bar would indeed contribute heat to the hotter bar.
Matter of fact the main reason why Roy Spencer`s idiotic "Yes Virginia" claim went viral on the internet is because it is so full of errors of all sorts that it has become a favorite target for engineers.
It`s an engineers job to spot flaws be they erroneous calculations, concepts that are flawed because they are based on popular belief & myth or outright deliberate fraudulence rather than science.
After all it`s the engineer who is being held responsible when the design does not work as advertised.
Personally I think that the biggest cheat Teflon Don Spencer is trying to slip past all these "Virginias" is that there is no real world possibility to arrange a second "colder object" to function as a heat radiation "blockage"...when the photon "back radition" argument fails Roy with the electric heat and the heated bar. Then the slippery Teflon Roy drops the electric heater like a hot potato. How would Teflon Roy arrange and position such a "colder bar" so that it would not block the radiant heat source, which is supposed to remain at a constant output when Teflon Roy uses the sun instead of the electric heater,... which heated the warmer bar un-impeded and at a constant rate (as Roy thought it could) by heat conduction....and not radiation (!!!)

Actually Roy has not even the foggiest Idea and even admits it:

Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
July 23, 2010 at 3:40 PM

If I understand your question, then no, the maximum temperature the plate could reach for a given energy input has not been reached. The more you can reduce the rate of energy loss to the cold walls, the hotter the plate will get. Yes, the surrounding objects act to control the rate at which the plate can lose energy. I have no idea what happens if you can keep the plate from losing energy at all….I suspect the heater wire melts (Ha!)

No Roy, not unless You crank up the Voltage to make up for the resistance increase ( Resistivity at 20ºC Ω mm2m-1 / 68ºF Ω/cmf) as the wire filament heats up, limiting the power:

Metallic heating elements

Grade Maximum continuous operating temperature Resistivity at 20ºC Ω mm2m-1 / 68ºF Ω/cmf FeCrAl alloys Kanthal APM 1425ºC (2600ºF) 1.45/872 Kanthal A-1 1400ºC (2550ºF) 1.45/872 Kanthal AF 1300ºC (2370ºF) 1.39/836 Kanthal D 1300ºC (2370ºF) 1.35/812 Alkrothal 1100ºC (2010ºF) 1.25/744 NiCr alloys Nikrothal 80 1200ºC (2190ºF) 1.09/255 Nikrothal 70 1250ºC (2280ºF) 1.18/709 Nikrothal 60 1150ºC (2100ºF) 1.11/668 Nikrothal 40 1100ºC (2010ºF) 1.04/626

The only way the equivalent scenario resembling what Roy is conjuring up with his silly chamber could only be invoked if we had a clear cloud less sky over the entire hemisphere that is sun lit and 100% overcast which remains time & position synchronized over the entire dark hemisphere
For that all trade winds and jet streams would have to stop all evaporation and convection would have to be prevented on the sunny side and the 380 ppm CO2 in the sun lit hemisphere must be transferred to the dark hemisphere atmosphere and remain in that position.
"Yes Virginia" (and "IanC"), that`s what it would take in the real world to have a situation which Your Teflon daddy is trying to pass off to engineers as the real thing scenario with that electric heater con-job.
Even then the math that 380 CO2 ppm can cause a temperature curve to look like the hockey stick still does not add up.
Even if all these conditions were met, in addition to that Roy`s "Yes Virginia thought experiment world" would have to transfer the heat from the sun baked side of the globe to the "up radiation blocking" hemisphere half a world away by heat conduction in order to have any similarity whatsoever with this idiotic "Yes Virginina thought experiment" when he switches from the electric heater analogy to the sun as a heat source.
Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Teflon Roy was confronted with that and shifted the emphasis of his "reasoning" from a bar on one side to a complete "radiation blocking mantle " which surrounds the "heated bar", like his heat blanket or the "walled in room" does. After he realized that he completely boxed himself in and the "real thing" would have to be a globe entirely shrouded with clouds and CO2 where the entire solar radiation enters through a pin-hole somewhere, Roy vanished from the engineering science debating scene into thin air...
His last reply was that he has no time...
Funny I can find every con he is trying to pull in very presentation and revised presentation and counter them while I`m multi-tasking it, babysitting my 3 great grand kids, update the software for their Xbox motion sensor and speech recognition plus re-arrange the furniture so they have a large enough "sweet spot" area 6 feet away from the sensor to jump around :
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQEFEDm372c&list=UUvj7dbOY14kt_MFIR1Y1iwA&index=1&feature=plcp

Hey I even lost a few pounds myself in the process...
Maybe it was all that "back radiation" from the rest of the room that made me sweat. It`s almost as much fun as reading a Roy Spencer "science" comic.

 

[IanC]

Diminishing the (radiative) cooling is stating it correctly.
But that`s not what Roy is claiming. Roy claims :
"Yes Virgina cold objects can warm a warmer object even warmer still"
And at that point any engineer will tell You flat out that he has gone from photon & quantum physics to fiction and perpetual motion:
Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
Equivalence of the statements
Derive Kelvin Statement from Clausius Statement

Suppose there is an engine violating the Kelvin statement: i.e.,one that drains heat and converts it completely into work in a cyclic fashion without any other result. Now pair it with a reversed Carnot engine as shown by the graph. The net and sole effect of this newly created engine consisting of the two engines mentioned is transferring heat \Delta Q=Q\left(\frac{1}{\eta}-1\right) from the cooler reservoir to the hotter one, which violates the Clausius statement. Thus a violation of the Kelvin statement implies a violation of the Clausius statement, i.e. the Clausius statement implies the Kelvin statement. We can prove in a similar manner that the Kelvin statement implies the Clausius statement, and hence the two are equivalent.



And the radiative transfer equivalent of the above law that Roy Spencer is either too stupid to comprehend or is deliberately falsifying and "explained" it to a "Virginia" which has no science background and he managed to convince with that diminishing radiative transfer is the same as warming an object.

this is your perpetual motion machine!!?? you do realize that Spencer's first plate was heated by electricity, and the earth is heated by the sun, right? I fail to see how ordered input being transfered into disordered output is breaking any thermodynamic laws, let alone being accused of being a perpetual motion machine.

____



To raise the temperature with You need photons that carry a higher energy quantum ( shorter wavelength, coming from a hotter source)...not more photons that carry a lower quantum, (longer wavelength, coming from a cooler source).
Else You could "blue shift" a stationary spot of red light by irradiating this spot with more red light.
Try it out with a dozen 635 nm visible red pen light lasers,...You can by them almost anywhere.
Then bounce them off a surface and show with a monochromator that You got any reflected light with a wavelength shorter than 635 nm , which is "warmer"
It will assure You the next Nobel prize in physics.


Spencer`s claim goes even beyond that, his claim implies that You should be able to create shorter wavelength light with more 750 nm longer wavelength laser light.
Not that he ever attempted that. All he "did" ( if a mere sketch qualifies as "did") is using a non existing hotplate which he says can get hotter if he would place a cold object next to it in a vacuum chamber.

And You are still fool enough to reply here:
That shows not only that neither You nor Spencer don`t even understand how an electric hot plate works, never mind understanding quantum physics.
Spencer`s phantasy hot plate would have to be at an equilibrium temperature before we even begin this foolish experiment right...?
That means that it has settled in at a resistance in Ohms which limits the Power as in (a) Volts * (a) Volts / (b) Ohms =(c) Watts.
a is constant, but I have never seen an electric heater where the resistance (b) in Ohms does not increase but remained constant as the temperature goes up..
How then would You prevent "Spencer`s first plate" which is heated by electricity not to impede the amount of electrical energy which flowed through it
before these back radiation photons from the colder plate heated it up to a higher temperature than the initial equilibrium temperature,...therefore
increasing the Ohms and dropping the Watts of electrical power that had raised it to the equilibrium temperature.

Spencer`s knowledge of physics is not much better than the "Virginia" he is talking about.
Are You by any chance the "Virginia" he is talking about?

SSDD- you have seen Spencer's set up. are you saying that the first plate which is being supplied with a constant input of energy will not have a rise in temperature on the outside surfaces when a second plate is put into the thermos?

I can see that You don`t know, but if Spencer did know that the resistance of his heater goes up as the temperature goes up, then why is he using an electric hot plate...?

I tell You why, because if he would substitute the electric hot plate with a IR radiation source he would have to make the claim
that he can create higher energy short wave light , with lower energy longer wavelength light...which is a perpetual motion variant that uses radiative heat transfer instead of conductive heat transfer

The only thing that Spencer has re-invented is that the rate of cooling can be diminished which still fools You
that this is the same thing as if he had actually warmed something up.
To which You say:

hahahaha!!! that it???? we didn't use your magical phrase 'diminishing radiative transfer'

To which I reply:
After explaining it so many times, even a "Yes Virginia" housewife would know the difference by now, between what a rate of cooling is and actually warming something up to a higher temperature than it was before.
Spencer`s hybrid hot plate, which uses electric energy and some Lalah-land frequency shiftable photons would make every conventional heat source obsolete.
For that matter You would not even need a hot water tank. Maybe if we figure out the technology to do it in a vacuum chamber with reflective walls we could also heat water to 72 C by holding a cup full between 2 hands instead of just grabbing it with one.
The fact that a perfect black body, which by the way exists only in theory can emit (very few) high energy (short wave) photons at lower temperatures is as un-related as it can get with a "science" that is using a 30-35 % albedo earth as a "black body" and a "Yes Virginia" pseudo-logic.
And by the way CO2 does not emit any photons that are at a shorter wavelength than those it absorbed either.
In Spencer`s "Yes Virginia" quantum fraud it should..!!!

why do you keep making strawmen? and why are you purposely misunderstanding Spencer's experiment?

the plate is not the heater itself, it has a heat source imbedded in it that makes the plate radiate at 150F at equilibrium in the cooled chamber. when you add the second plate and wait for equilibrium, the first plate must still radiate the same amount of energy but the conditions have changed. because part of the heated plate is now radiating into an area that is warmer than the cooled walls there has to be a shift in where the radiation is escaping. the unhindered surfaces must increase their radiation to balance the energy loss needed to keep the equilibrium. more radiation equals higher temperature. QED. the increase in straight-to-the-wall radiation exactly matches the decrease in radiation from the 'shadow' cast by the second plate. the energy sequestered in the second plate as a heat sink makes no difference after equilibrium has been reached.

now you are adding the strawman of creating high energy photons to the mix. sheesh! do you guys honestly believe that that a body loses heat at the same rate in an environment of oC as it does in an environment of -100C? the body radiates the same amount by definition, so why does it lose heat more quickly in the colder environment? because the environment is also radiating! why are you guys being deliberately obtuse?

if you dont agree that the first plate in Spencer's experiment warms up then explain where the energy went. first law of thermodynamics

 

[IanC]

HEAT radiation does not flow from cool to warm. But EM radiation can and does.

The second law isn't just about heat transfer. It covers all energy transfer. Energy won't move from a low energy region to a higher energy region any more than heat will move from a cold region to a warm region.

The second law covers all energy transfer whether it be pressure in a balloon moving from inside to outside to water flowing downhill, to electricity running down a line.

The strictly defined physical term 'quantity of energy transferred as heat' has a resonance with the ordinary language noun 'heat' and the ordinary language verb 'heat'. This can lead to confusion if ordinary language is muddled with strictly defined physical language. In the strict terminology of physics, heat is defined as a word that refers to a process, not to a state of a system. In ordinary language one can speak of a process that increases the temperature of a body as 'heating' it, ignoring the nature of the process, which could be one of adiabatic transfer of energy as work. But in strict physical terms, a process is admitted as heating only when what is meant is transfer of energy as heat. Such a process does not necessarily increase the temperature of the heated body, which may instead change its phase, for example by melting. In the strict physical sense, heat cannot be 'produced', because the usage 'production of heat' misleadingly seems to refer to a state variable. Thus, it would be physically improper to speak of 'heat production by friction', or of 'heating by adiabatic compression on descent of an air parcel' or of 'heat production by chemical reaction'; instead, proper physical usage speaks of conversion of kinetic energy of bulk flow, or of potential energy of bulk matter,[40] or of chemical potential energy, into internal energy, and of transfer of energy as heat. Occasionally a present-day author, especially when referring to history, writes of "adiabatic heating", though this is a contradiction in terms of present day physics.[41] Historically, before the concept of internal energy became clear over the period 1850 to 1869, physicists spoke of "heat production" where nowadays one speaks of conversion of other forms of energy into internal energy.[42]

you guys keep mixing up common usage of words with fixed definitions. you interpret other peoples' informal language to suit your own purpose.

Spencer said in a layman article that cooler objects can indeed make warm objects warmer. he gave an example in simple terms. you then ignored his description of what happened and inserted your strawman version and declared a violation of the second law of thermodynamics (while ignoring your own violation of the first law).

objects above minus 273C radiate according to a planck curve distribution. true or false?

if two objects at the same temperature are side by side do they each emit and absorb the same amount of radiation from each other. yes or no. if yes then why isnt this a violation of the second law. if no then where did the radiation go?

you guys paint yourself into a corner, especially when you confuse macroscopic laws like the SLoT with the microscopic underpinnings that cause it. radiation is freely exchanged everywhere, net flow can only go from high to low.

 

[SSDD]

you guys keep mixing up common usage of words with fixed definitions. you interpret other peoples' informal language to suit your own purpose.

Again, I am not interpreting anything. It is you who is interpreting. I am telling you that energy, be it heat, radiation, gas under pressure, solid objects at rest, or any other sort of energy you care to name will not move spontaneously from a low energy state to a higher energy state.

If you believe it will, then you are living in a fantasy land.

Spencer said in a layman article that cooler objects can indeed make warm objects warmer. he gave an example in simple terms. you then ignored his description of what happened and inserted your strawman version and declared a violation of the second law of thermodynamics (while ignoring your own violation of the first law).

He gave an example that could only exist in his mind and engineers tore him down to the point that he either had to admit that he was dead wrong or run away. He chose to run away.

objects above minus 273C radiate according to a planck curve distribution. true or false?

Yes they radiate. So what. When you turn on the faucet, the water in the pipes runs out. There are forces at work, however, that determine which way that water can run and where it can go once it is out of the faucet. The fact that objects radiate does not necessitate that they radiate in every direction.

if two objects at the same temperature are side by side do they each emit and absorb the same amount of radiation from each other. yes or no. if yes then why isnt this a violation of the second law. if no then where did the radiation go?

Why do you keep going back to two objects of the same temperature. We aren't talking about objects of the same temperature. We are talking about energy transferrring from a cool object to a warm object. That is the mechanism for AGW, not two objects of the same temperature. You are going down the same lane as specer and it didn't work out well for him because he obviously didn't understand radiative transfer nearly as well as he though he did. He invented a mental experiment that he thought would support his belief in the magic, and his experiment was torn to shreds by people who actually do understand radiative transfer to the point where they can be held monetarily responsible if their understanding is found lacking. A position someone like roy spencer will never be in and as a result, his understanding is little more than a dalliance when compared to people whose livelyhoods depend on a complete and thorough understanding.

you guys paint yourself into a corner, especially when you confuse macroscopic laws like the SLoT with the microscopic underpinnings that cause it. radiation is freely exchanged everywhere, net flow can only go from high to low.

It is you who is in a corner and you are trying to extricate yourself by diverting the discussion to one considering two objects of the same temperature. Two objects of the same temperature isn't what got you into your corner. Your belief that energy (any sort of energy) can transfer from a low energy state to a higher energy state is what got you where you are and I believe that somewhere in your mind you are finally coming to grips with the fact that it simply can't happen.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, the fact that objects radiate certainly does not mean they radieat in evey direction. However, without constraints on them, that is exactly what they do. For sure gases do that, unless you put constraints on them as in a gaseous laser.

 

[percysunshine]

Polar bears eat baby seals.

 

[SSDD]

Well, the fact that objects radiate certainly does not mean they radieat in evey direction. However, without constraints on them, that is exactly what they do. For sure gases do that, unless you put constraints on them as in a gaseous laser.

A warmer surface of the earth below would seem to be a constraint considering the fact that energy won't move spontaneously from a low energy state (cool) to a higher energy state (warm).

 

[polarbear]

Well, the fact that objects radiate certainly does not mean they radieat in evey direction. However, without constraints on them, that is exactly what they do. For sure gases do that, unless you put constraints on them as in a gaseous laser.

What is remarkable is that of all the pro-AGW forists You are the only one who has it right. ...and only this part of Your statement needs to be qualified:

However, without constraints on them

If You want to convert the thermal radiation Watts to a temperature increase with a gas, then You must prevent all other avenues, such as expansion etc. Also You would have to find a way that the IR energy fraction that the CO2 absorbed is not expended to re-evaporate the already condensed water in cloud layers. Then and only then does the temperature increase by an equivalent amount of the absorbed Watts.
Only an ideal black body can convert radiation watts quantitatively to heat as in increased temperature...but a gas can not

Fact is, that:

CO2 can only re-emit IR of the same wavelengths that it absorbed....and fact is that a real earth with a 380 ppm CO2 atm. unlike the "Spencer hot plate" can not be irradiated with more 10 to [FONT=Arial, Geneva]15 µm IR than what would have been "incoming" from the sun through an atmosphere that contains no CO2 at all.
There is no way to make up, let alone INCREASE the thermal energy at the CO2 absorption frequency band that went missing on the down path with the far from ideal "black body" effect of an earth with a 30 -35 % albedo on the up path.
....But Spencer says he can,...
Let`s not forget that Spencer ultimately does not just want to "prove" that[/FONT] an insulated hot plate in a vacuum chamber looses heat slower than one that is not insulated...he`s been "explaining" to a whole bunch of wide eyed "Virginias" that this is how [FONT=Arial, Geneva] CO2 causes global warming by "radiative forcing"...with the same "extra energy" he conjures up with an electric hot plate where insulation merely saved energy.

Take a step back and think how non-sensational a more truthful statement would be, such as "a diminished rate of global cooling" as compared to how Spencer, Al Gore etc have spin doctored it into an increased rate of warming.

The only friends Spencer etc would have live in hot climate zones and the rest of the world would tell him to go to hell.

To alarm the public Spencer, M.Mann, Al Gore would have to begin blaming water vapor and declare the most important natural substance which like CO2 is an essential of life as we know it, to exist. Would they, then it would indeed be very difficult to point out the cheat with which they managed to carpet bag a lot of "Virginias" that are giving the IPCC the thumbs up to implement a world wide Carbon tax.

[/FONT]

 

[percysunshine]

PV=nRT

 

[IanC]

Why do you keep going back to two objects of the same temperature. We aren't talking about objects of the same temperature. We are talking about energy transferrring from a cool object to a warm object. That is the mechanism for AGW, not two objects of the same temperature. You are going down the same lane as specer and it didn't work out well for him because he obviously didn't understand radiative transfer nearly as well as he though he did. He invented a mental experiment that he thought would support his belief in the magic, and his experiment was torn to shreds by people who actually do understand radiative transfer to the point where they can be held monetarily responsible if their understanding is found lacking. A position someone like roy spencer will never be in and as a result, his understanding is little more than a dalliance when compared to people whose livelyhoods depend on a complete and thorough understanding.

you guys paint yourself into a corner, especially when you confuse macroscopic laws like the SLoT with the microscopic underpinnings that cause it. radiation is freely exchanged everywhere, net flow can only go from high to low.

It is you who is in a corner and you are trying to extricate yourself by diverting the discussion to one considering two objects of the same temperature. Two objects of the same temperature isn't what got you into your corner. Your belief that energy (any sort of energy) can transfer from a low energy state to a higher energy state is what got you where you are and I believe that somewhere in your mind you are finally coming to grips with the fact that it simply can't happen.

what an extraordinary lack of curiosity you have.

of course the example of two objects with the same temp is important! when you look at a local condition of most systems there are very little differences in temperature. what is the difference in temp one millimetre away in any direction when you examine a drop in the ocean, a wisp of air, a grain of sand? every particle in the universe is playing hot potato, trying to get rid of its energy faster than other particles can replace it with their own unwanted energy.

warmer objects produce more radiation. not only do they radiate in every direction but the wavelength is variable as can easily be discerned by examining a Planck curve that visually describes the probability of what frequency will be emitted. any wavelength on the curve is possible but the highest point is most likely.

in one round of exchange (one photon each) the warmer and cooler objects may both emit the same frequency, the warmer one may radiate a higher frequency, or the cooler object may radiate the more energetic photon. overall though, with many exchanges, the warmer object will radiate photons with an average frequency that is higher and it will radiate more of them. therefore there will be flow of energy to the cooler object.

objects at the same temperature simply swap photons until randomly generated and randomly orientated photons find an 'escape path'.

 

[IanC]

polarbear said-

Let`s not forget that Spencer ultimately does not just want to "prove" that an insulated hot plate in a vacuum chamber looses heat slower than one that is not insulated...he`s been "explaining" to a whole bunch of wide eyed "Virginias" that this is how CO2 causes global warming by "radiative forcing"...with the same "extra energy" he conjures up with an electric hot plate where insulation merely saved energy.

what on earth are you talking about??????????

Spencer said that the second plate changes the equilibrium by making part of the cold wall inaccessible to the heated plate. the energy loss to the wall exactly matches the energy input to the heated plate. the extra radiation from the insulation warmed plate into the still accessible cold wall exactly matches the decreased radiation into the cold wall that lies in the 'shadow' of the second unheated plate.

why do you purposely misconstrue just about everything in Spencer's thought experiment? I doubt that it is stupidity therefore it must be something else.