No Atmosphere, Atmosphere, Greenhouse Gas Atmosphere

[Toddsterpatriot]

Awareness is no more a requisite for emitters and energy than it is for rocks falling to earth......again, logical fallacy...since I pointed out the argument to ridicule fallacy to you did you decide to try it out?...it is still a fallacy. Since all observations are of energy moving in one direction, you have nothing with which to support your belief other than an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.

Since all observations are of energy moving in one direction

Here let me remind you of what the top physicists and institutions have to say about P = zero. Why do you think you know more than they do?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Wilhelm Wien Nobel Prize speech.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1911/wien-lecture.html
"[Equilibrium state] ... taken as a whole for many atoms in the stationary state, the absorbed energy after all becomes equal to that emitted..."

Optical Design Fundamentals for Infrared Systems Max J. Riedl
“at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity
Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibrium
In physics, radiative equilibrium is the condition where a steady state system is in dynamic equilibrium, with equal incoming and outgoing radiative heat flux

Thermal equilibrium | Open Access articles | Open Access journals | Conference Proceedings | Editors | Authors | Reviewers | scientific events
One form of thermal equilibrium is radiative exchange equilibrium. Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature.

What Causes the Greenhouse Effect? « Roy Spencer, PhD
Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htm
Imagine a large body that has a deep cavity dug into it. Imagine further that we keep that body at some absolute temperature T and that we have put a small body at a different temperature into the cavity. If the small body has the higher temperature, then it will radiate heat faster than it absorbs heat so that there will be a net flow of heat from the hotter body to the colder body. Eventually the system will come to thermal equilibrium; that is, both bodies will have the same temperature and the small body will emit heat as fast as it absorbs heat.

Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

This is what Max Planck said in 1914.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
Page 31: The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.

Page 50: "...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other..."

In Support of the A in AGW

So lets see a measured observation of energy moving both ways....oh, what's that? There are none?...OK.

So lets see a measured observation of energy moving both ways

Here you go, a graph of downward long-wave radiation over several 24 hour periods.

And when you get a chance, you never have explained how your one-way flow works while the cooler surface of the Sun emits toward the much hotter corona of the Sun.

 

[SSDD]

And when you get a chance, you never have explained how your one-way flow works while the cooler surface of the Sun emits toward the much hotter corona of the Sun.

Try actually reading something rather than simply assuming that the laws of thermodynamics are flawed...geez...what a goob....

Why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface: laws of physics still stand

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And when you get a chance, you never have explained how your one-way flow works while the cooler surface of the Sun emits toward the much hotter corona of the Sun.

Try actually reading something rather than simply assuming that the laws of thermodynamics are flawed...geez...what a goob....

Why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface: laws of physics still stand

Try actually reading something rather than simply assuming that the laws of thermodynamics are flawed..

They aren't flawed, your confused misinterpretation of them is flawed.

Why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface

Why do you assume I give a fuck why?
I want to know why the hotter corona doesn't prevent the surface from emitting toward the corona, as your stupid claims would suggest?

 

[SSDD]

And when you get a chance, you never have explained how your one-way flow works while the cooler surface of the Sun emits toward the much hotter corona of the Sun.

Try actually reading something rather than simply assuming that the laws of thermodynamics are flawed...geez...what a goob....

Why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface: laws of physics still stand

Try actually reading something rather than simply assuming that the laws of thermodynamics are flawed..

They aren't flawed, your confused misinterpretation of them is flawed.

Why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface

Why do you assume I give a fuck why?
I want to know why the hotter corona doesn't prevent the surface from emitting toward the corona, as your stupid claims would suggest?

You are really dense for someone who fancies himself to be quite bright...read the second law...energy doesn't spontaneously move from cool to warm...do you know what spontaneous means?...the article I provided is providing mechanisms for the energy movement...meaning that it isn't spontaneous...words mean things...and words used in physical laws are important...and the word spontaneous has a giant meaning in that context...learn something, you will feel better.

 

[Crick]

What stops it SID?

 

[SSDD]

What stops it SID?

Couldn't say...what actually causes gravity....gravity is a much more easily observed and understood phenomenon than energy transfer and yet, we really don't have the foggiest idea of the fundamental mechanism...but you speak of energy transfer as if we understand it completely right down to the sub atomic level...which we don't...not even close....we have some mathematical models which as of yet are unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable...and are likely to change much in the centuries to come as we begin to actually learn something about energy transfer so that we no longer have to guess and hypothesize.

 

[Crick]

The standard understanding of radiative heat transfer has no unknowns, SID. It doesn't require sentient matter able to throttle and aim its emissions and routinely violate special relativity. That should bother you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And when you get a chance, you never have explained how your one-way flow works while the cooler surface of the Sun emits toward the much hotter corona of the Sun.

Try actually reading something rather than simply assuming that the laws of thermodynamics are flawed...geez...what a goob....

Why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface: laws of physics still stand

Try actually reading something rather than simply assuming that the laws of thermodynamics are flawed..

They aren't flawed, your confused misinterpretation of them is flawed.

Why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface

Why do you assume I give a fuck why?
I want to know why the hotter corona doesn't prevent the surface from emitting toward the corona, as your stupid claims would suggest?

You are really dense for someone who fancies himself to be quite bright...read the second law...energy doesn't spontaneously move from cool to warm...do you know what spontaneous means?...the article I provided is providing mechanisms for the energy movement...meaning that it isn't spontaneous...words mean things...and words used in physical laws are important...and the word spontaneous has a giant meaning in that context...learn something, you will feel better.

the article I provided

The researchers used cutting-edge solar-imaging technology to observe the Sun’s chromosphere – a distinct region of the sun’s atmosphere sandwiched between the photosphere and the outer corona.


Your article says they can observe the chromosphere. Don't they know that photons (or waves) can't travel from the cooler atmosphere toward the hotter corona?

Were they fooled by their instruments?

 

[Wuwei]

I did...found this quote which settled the issue.

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.

Now remind us what a true blue goober you are by claiming that the above statement only applies to refrigerators....or add claims that aren't stated in the law by whining that it is talking about net energy flows when it says nothing whatsoever about net energy flows..go ahead.

You didn't respond to my question in post 198. Do you agree or disagree with any of the definitions I gave there?

I will make it simpler. Do you agree or disagree with the following definition of the second law of thermodynamics quoted from lecture notes at Harvard

http://cmcd.hms.harvard.edu/activities/_media/bcmp201/lecture5.pdf?id=bcmp201:class
Principle of maximum entropy (The second law of thermodynamics)
If a closed system is not in a state of statistical equilibrium, its macroscopic state will vary in time, until ultimately the system reaches a state of maximum entropy.

 

[IanC]

I did...found this quote which settled the issue.

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.

Now remind us what a true blue goober you are by claiming that the above statement only applies to refrigerators....or add claims that aren't stated in the law by whining that it is talking about net energy flows when it says nothing whatsoever about net energy flows..go ahead.

You didn't respond to my question in post 198. Do you agree or disagree with any of the definitions I gave there?

I will make it simpler. Do you agree or disagree with the following definition of the second law of thermodynamics quoted from lecture notes at Harvard

http://cmcd.hms.harvard.edu/activities/_media/bcmp201/lecture5.pdf?id=bcmp201:class
Principle of maximum entropy (The second law of thermodynamics)
If a closed system is not in a state of statistical equilibrium, its macroscopic state will vary in time, until ultimately the system reaches a state of maximum entropy.

SSDD doesnt acknowledge entropy. he has figured out that entropy quickly sends him back to his dunce's corner, so he ignores any reference to it and just screams even louder that all forms of energy exchange are heat, therefore atomic scale emissions are controlled by the SLoT.

 

[jc456]

I did...found this quote which settled the issue.

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.

Now remind us what a true blue goober you are by claiming that the above statement only applies to refrigerators....or add claims that aren't stated in the law by whining that it is talking about net energy flows when it says nothing whatsoever about net energy flows..go ahead.

You didn't respond to my question in post 198. Do you agree or disagree with any of the definitions I gave there?

I will make it simpler. Do you agree or disagree with the following definition of the second law of thermodynamics quoted from lecture notes at Harvard

http://cmcd.hms.harvard.edu/activities/_media/bcmp201/lecture5.pdf?id=bcmp201:class
Principle of maximum entropy (The second law of thermodynamics)
If a closed system is not in a state of statistical equilibrium, its macroscopic state will vary in time, until ultimately the system reaches a state of maximum entropy.

do you believe the earth is a closed system?

 

[IanC]

I did...found this quote which settled the issue.

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.

Now remind us what a true blue goober you are by claiming that the above statement only applies to refrigerators....or add claims that aren't stated in the law by whining that it is talking about net energy flows when it says nothing whatsoever about net energy flows..go ahead.

You didn't respond to my question in post 198. Do you agree or disagree with any of the definitions I gave there?

I will make it simpler. Do you agree or disagree with the following definition of the second law of thermodynamics quoted from lecture notes at Harvard

http://cmcd.hms.harvard.edu/activities/_media/bcmp201/lecture5.pdf?id=bcmp201:class
Principle of maximum entropy (The second law of thermodynamics)
If a closed system is not in a state of statistical equilibrium, its macroscopic state will vary in time, until ultimately the system reaches a state of maximum entropy.

do you believe the earth is a closed system?

the peanut gallery has arrived.

define a closed system, and give an example.

 

[jc456]

I did...found this quote which settled the issue.

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.

Now remind us what a true blue goober you are by claiming that the above statement only applies to refrigerators....or add claims that aren't stated in the law by whining that it is talking about net energy flows when it says nothing whatsoever about net energy flows..go ahead.

You didn't respond to my question in post 198. Do you agree or disagree with any of the definitions I gave there?

I will make it simpler. Do you agree or disagree with the following definition of the second law of thermodynamics quoted from lecture notes at Harvard

http://cmcd.hms.harvard.edu/activities/_media/bcmp201/lecture5.pdf?id=bcmp201:class
Principle of maximum entropy (The second law of thermodynamics)
If a closed system is not in a state of statistical equilibrium, its macroscopic state will vary in time, until ultimately the system reaches a state of maximum entropy.

do you believe the earth is a closed system?

the peanut gallery has arrived.

define a closed system, and give an example.

hahahahahahaahahahahahahahaaha I ask a question and you deflect to a question you want answered without even answering. Dude you're a hoot.

Is the earth a closed system? Can you answer that or not? I'm not answering your deflection.

 

[IanC]

I did...found this quote which settled the issue.

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.

Now remind us what a true blue goober you are by claiming that the above statement only applies to refrigerators....or add claims that aren't stated in the law by whining that it is talking about net energy flows when it says nothing whatsoever about net energy flows..go ahead.

You didn't respond to my question in post 198. Do you agree or disagree with any of the definitions I gave there?

I will make it simpler. Do you agree or disagree with the following definition of the second law of thermodynamics quoted from lecture notes at Harvard

http://cmcd.hms.harvard.edu/activities/_media/bcmp201/lecture5.pdf?id=bcmp201:class
Principle of maximum entropy (The second law of thermodynamics)
If a closed system is not in a state of statistical equilibrium, its macroscopic state will vary in time, until ultimately the system reaches a state of maximum entropy.

do you believe the earth is a closed system?

the peanut gallery has arrived.

define a closed system, and give an example.

hahahahahahaahahahahahahahaaha I ask a question and you deflect to a question you want answered without even answering. Dude you're a hoot.

Is the earth a closed system? Can you answer that or not? I'm not answering your deflection.

(deep sigh). the answer is obviously : NO

the more interesting question is....does heat flow differently in a closed or open system? work performed to heat or cool an object or space is obviously different. but does it affect the passive thermodynamic exchange afterwards?

No.

 

[Wuwei]

SSDD doesnt acknowledge entropy. he has figured out that entropy quickly sends him back to his dunce's corner, so he ignores any reference to it and just screams even louder that all forms of energy exchange are heat, therefore atomic scale emissions are controlled by the SLoT.

That's probably the only way he can handle thermodynamics. It's as simple minded as putting his hands over his ears and shouting, "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA..."

 

[Wuwei]

SSDD, I will even make it simpler for you. Here is a definition from an MIT lecture: 5.1 Concept and Statements of the Second Law
Second Law of Thermodynamics:

No process is possible whose sole result is the absorption of heat from a reservoir and the conversion of this heat into work.
​

Do you agree with that definition?

 

[Wuwei]

SSDD doesnt acknowledge entropy. he has figured out that entropy quickly sends him back to his dunce's corner, so he ignores any reference to it and just screams even louder that all forms of energy exchange are heat, therefore atomic scale emissions are controlled by the SLoT.

I think he is in his dunce's corner. If you search his posts for "entropy" you get 6 pages of references.

These are excerpts from an early post where it is obvious that he accepts entropy as a statement of the second law. He tries to convince KONRADV that entropy is a valid expression of the law.

CO2 Follows Temperature
Energy

The Second Law of Thermodynamics -

• Every energy transfer or transformation increases the entropy of the universe
  
  
• There is a trend toward randomness
  
  
• Energy must be spent to retain order - this spending of energy usually releases heat, which increases the entropy elsewhere

second law of thermodynamics -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
TITLE: principles of physical science
SECTION: Conservation of mass-energy
...energy is conserved provided that heat is taken into account. The irreversible nature of the transfer from external energy of organized motion to random internal energy is a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics.

6(e). Laws of Thermodynamics

Heat cannot be transfer from a colder to a hotter body. As a result of this fact of thermodynamics, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible.

 

[polarbear]

I did...found this quote which settled the issue.

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.

Now remind us what a true blue goober you are by claiming that the above statement only applies to refrigerators....or add claims that aren't stated in the law by whining that it is talking about net energy flows when it says nothing whatsoever about net energy flows..go ahead.

You didn't respond to my question in post 198. Do you agree or disagree with any of the definitions I gave there?

I will make it simpler. Do you agree or disagree with the following definition of the second law of thermodynamics quoted from lecture notes at Harvard

http://cmcd.hms.harvard.edu/activities/_media/bcmp201/lecture5.pdf?id=bcmp201:class
Principle of maximum entropy (The second law of thermodynamics)
If a closed system is not in a state of statistical equilibrium, its macroscopic state will vary in time, until ultimately the system reaches a state of maximum entropy.

do you believe the earth is a closed system?

the peanut gallery has arrived.

define a closed system, and give an example.

hahahahahahaahahahahahahahaaha I ask a question and you deflect to a question you want answered without even answering. Dude you're a hoot.

Is the earth a closed system? Can you answer that or not? I'm not answering your deflection.

Ok then let`s get rid of the "deflection" and post how the first law of thermodynamics defines a closed system and get on with it:
First law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia
There are some cases in which a process for an open system can, for particular purposes, be considered as if it were for a closed system. In an open system, by definition hypothetically or potentially, matter can pass between the system and its surroundings. But when, in a particular case, the process of interest involves only hypothetical or potential but no actual passage of matter, the process can be considered as if it were for a closed system.
See how simple it would have been to answer that. All you had to ponder if the earth is loosing mass out into the surrounding space...well is it?

 

[jc456]

I did...found this quote which settled the issue.

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.

Now remind us what a true blue goober you are by claiming that the above statement only applies to refrigerators....or add claims that aren't stated in the law by whining that it is talking about net energy flows when it says nothing whatsoever about net energy flows..go ahead.

You didn't respond to my question in post 198. Do you agree or disagree with any of the definitions I gave there?

I will make it simpler. Do you agree or disagree with the following definition of the second law of thermodynamics quoted from lecture notes at Harvard

http://cmcd.hms.harvard.edu/activities/_media/bcmp201/lecture5.pdf?id=bcmp201:class
Principle of maximum entropy (The second law of thermodynamics)
If a closed system is not in a state of statistical equilibrium, its macroscopic state will vary in time, until ultimately the system reaches a state of maximum entropy.

do you believe the earth is a closed system?

the peanut gallery has arrived.

define a closed system, and give an example.

hahahahahahaahahahahahahahaaha I ask a question and you deflect to a question you want answered without even answering. Dude you're a hoot.

Is the earth a closed system? Can you answer that or not? I'm not answering your deflection.

Ok then let`s get rid of the "deflection" and post how the first law of thermodynamics defines a closed system and get on with it:
First law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia
There are some cases in which a process for an open system can, for particular purposes, be considered as if it were for a closed system. In an open system, by definition hypothetically or potentially, matter can pass between the system and its surroundings. But when, in a particular case, the process of interest involves only hypothetical or potential but no actual passage of matter, the process can be considered as if it were for a closed system.
See how simple it would have been to answer that. All you had to ponder if the earth is loosing mass out into the surrounding space...well is it?

what is all the junk out in space? Does space debris enter the earth?

 

[Wuwei]

what is all the junk out in space? Does space debris enter the earth?

Yes indeed, many things hit the earth from outer space. You are probably not aware of it because cosmic rays are invisible to you. And meteorites seldom hit near you. Look for meteor shower alerts in the paper, go outside and you can see them for yourself. I hope this answers your question.