Physics question pertinent to global warming

[IanC]

That must explain why I can't take a photograph of an ice cube.

There is a big difference in reflected light (photons) and emitted photons

No kidding?

Do you agree with SSDD's interpretation of radiative heat transfer or are you with the rest of the world?

He could use a friend about now.

Actually, I don't "need" anything....I have stated that energy only flows in one direction...that being from warm to cool.....I can ask you for examples proving otherwise with complete confidence that you will be able to provide none....while I can provide every observation ever made to support my position.

Poor deluded SSDD. I don't think he even understands the concept of temperature, or energy, or work, or etc.

Riddle me this. Two exactly average air molecules, one at sea level and one a kilometre higher. Which has the higher temperature and which has more energy? Can either one emit a photon at the other?

 

[SSDD]

Poor deluded SSDD. I don't think he even understands the concept of temperature, or energy, or work, or etc.

And still no measured example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object.

Riddle me this.

Riddle me this...why can you not provide a single measured example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object? You keep talking but can't address the very simple request I keep making...I am willing to be convinced...just show me an example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object. You wan't me to accept what you believe on faith but I am afraid that I just don't see the emperor's clothes. Show me the observed, measured proof.

 

[SSDD]

Poor deluded SSDD. I don't think he even understands the concept of temperature, or energy, or work, or etc.

And still no measured example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object.

Riddle me this.

Riddle me this...why can you not provide a single measured example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object? You keep talking but can't address the very simple request I keep making...I am willing to be convinced...just show me an example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object. You wan't me to accept what you believe on faith but I am afraid that I just don't see the emperor's clothes. Show me the observed, measured proof.

What I am asking from you is far less than I ask from the climate wackaloons...all I am asking for is a couple of observed measured examples and yet, you can't deliver. Why is that?

 

[IanC]

Poor deluded SSDD. I don't think he even understands the concept of temperature, or energy, or work, or etc.

And still no measured example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object.

Riddle me this.

Riddle me this...why can you not provide a single measured example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object? You keep talking but can't address the very simple request I keep making...I am willing to be convinced...just show me an example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object. You wan't me to accept what you believe on faith but I am afraid that I just don't see the emperor's clothes. Show me the observed, measured proof.

What I am asking from you is far less than I ask from the climate wackaloons...all I am asking for is a couple of observed measured examples and yet, you can't deliver. Why is that?

Simple. Evaporation, an example I've given before. Water is often cooler than the air above it but that does not stop the occasional water molecule from randomly gaining enough kinetic energy to break away from the surface, taking the energy with it.

Do you care to answer my question about the two air molecules or will you just duck it, again.

 

[SSDD]

Simple. Evaporation, an example I've given before. Water is often cooler than the air above it but that does not stop the occasional water molecule from randomly gaining enough kinetic energy to break away from the surface, taking the energy with it.

Are you talking about the temperature of the body of water...or are you talking about the molecules that have become warm enough from the heat source to actually evaporate? Those molecules that are evaporating are warmer than the air...and liquid water isn't "often" cooler than the air...it is occasionally in the case of temperature inversions, but not often. Water heats the atmosphere...not the other way around.

By the way...evaporation, in and of itself is not a radiative energy transfer...it is the molecules themselves moving around. I am guessing that you know that but are willing to throw it out there even though it is misleading if it could help you convince someone...just like climate science....huh?

Do you care to answer my question about the two air molecules or will you just duck it, again.

Care to answer why you can't provide an observed, measured example of energy spontaneously moving from a cool object to a warm object...or will you duck and provide another thought experiment?

 

[Crick]

Turn two burners on your electric stove up to maximum and wait a few minutes til the elements are glowing red hot. Dim the lights so the glow may be seen clearly. Place a large cast iron pan on one of the burners and wait 20 minutes for it to get as hot as it can be gotten. Feel free to apply a propane torch to the pan to get it even hotter.

Now, being careful not to burn yourself, pick up the pan and hold it a foot or so above the other, glowing burner. If your contention is correct, the second burner should instantaneously stop glowing.

 

[SSDD]

Turn two burners on your electric stove up to maximum and wait a few minutes til the elements are glowing red hot. Dim the lights so the glow may be seen clearly. Place a large cast iron pan on one of the burners and wait 20 minutes for it to get as hot as it can be gotten. Feel free to apply a propane torch to the pan to get it even hotter.

Now, being careful not to burn yourself, pick up the pan and hold it a foot or so above the other, glowing burner. If your contention is correct, the second burner should instantaneously stop glowing.

Here is an idea...how about you provide an actual observed measured example. ..oh that's right there are none

 

[mamooth]

It's already been pointed out to you that cool LEDs illuminate hot surfaces, instantly sending your idiot theory into the trash pile.

You tried to weasel out of it before by claiming the LEDs were really hot. Really dumb, being that everyone can touch an LED and determine it's not running hot. What's more, if even a tiny portion of the LED was running hot, it would be strongly emitting radiation on a curve in accordance with Planck's law. But it doesn't, the LED only emits light at a single wavelength (not counting those very low energy emissions that all room temperature matter emits). The lack of that emission curve proves absolutely the LED is not running hot.

So, a cool LED illuminates hot objects. How does your theory account for this?

 

[SSDD]

It's already been pointed out to you that cool LEDs illuminate hot surfaces, instantly sending your idiot theory into the trash pile.

You tried to weasel out of it before by claiming the LEDs were really hot. Really dumb, being that everyone can touch an LED and determine it's not running hot. What's more, if even a tiny portion of the LED was running hot, it would be strongly emitting radiation on a curve in accordance with Planck's law. But it doesn't, the LED only emits light at a single wavelength (not counting those very low energy emissions that all room temperature matter emits). The lack of that emission curve proves absolutely the LED is not running hot.

So, a cool LED illuminates hot objects. How does your theory account for this?

It has been pointed out to you that LED's are not cool...they are kept at a low operating temperature via the use of incredibly large heat sinks. Sorry you don't grasp what that means. Conventional light bulbs are relatively cool also when compared to the temperature of the filament.

Here are a few examples of the massive heat sinks that LED bulbs require to keep them at their low operating temperature.. Maybe you should look up the difference between actual temperature and operating temperature.

 

[IanC]

Turn two burners on your electric stove up to maximum and wait a few minutes til the elements are glowing red hot. Dim the lights so the glow may be seen clearly. Place a large cast iron pan on one of the burners and wait 20 minutes for it to get as hot as it can be gotten. Feel free to apply a propane torch to the pan to get it even hotter.

Now, being careful not to burn yourself, pick up the pan and hold it a foot or so above the other, glowing burner. If your contention is correct, the second burner should instantaneously stop glowing.

Pretty good example. Especially if you cut the power to the heating elements at the switch over, and do it in a vacuum. It could easily be measured.

Any comments SSDD? Are you just going to say that only the radiation pointed away from the frying pan actually exists? Its a good catch-22.

 

[mamooth]

It has been pointed out to you that LED's are not cool...they are kept at a low operating temperature via the use of incredibly large heat sinks. Sorry you don't grasp what that means. Conventional light bulbs are relatively cool also when compared to the temperature of the filament.

So you're just handwaving away the inconvenient fact that an LED does not produce a Planck's law emission curve, one that it would have to produce if it were hot.

It doesn't matter if it has a heat sink. That's a pathetic diversion on your part. If the light-producing bits of a white LED are white-hot, they _must_ produce a wide spectrum of light in accordance with Planck's law. But they don't, they only produce a single frequency of light. Since they do not produce that wide-spectrum blackbody radiation, they are not white-hot. Period. End of story. Your theory is insanely stupid, directly contradicted by real-world examples.

 

[IanC]

Simple. Evaporation, an example I've given before. Water is often cooler than the air above it but that does not stop the occasional water molecule from randomly gaining enough kinetic energy to break away from the surface, taking the energy with it.

Are you talking about the temperature of the body of water...or are you talking about the molecules that have become warm enough from the heat source to actually evaporate? Those molecules that are evaporating are warmer than the air...and liquid water isn't "often" cooler than the air...it is occasionally in the case of temperature inversions, but not often. Water heats the atmosphere...not the other way around.

By the way...evaporation, in and of itself is not a radiative energy transfer...it is the molecules themselves moving around. I am guessing that you know that but are willing to throw it out there even though it is misleading if it could help you convince someone...just like climate science....huh?

Do you care to answer my question about the two air molecules or will you just duck it, again.

Care to answer why you can't provide an observed, measured example of energy spontaneously moving from a cool object to a warm object...or will you duck and provide another thought experiment?

So you now admit that water is made up of molecules with a range of kinetic energies, and that lower energy molecules can impart some of their energy to make faster ones even faster.

The very existence of these kinetic collisions is one of the main sources of blackbody radiation. A head on collision forms a high energy photon, a glancing blow a low energy one. Planck curves measure the range and quantity of these emissions. Two objects that differ by only 10C or 100C. Have virtually the same range, only total radiation and the amount st each wavelength varies. Any individual photon does not specify the temperature, only the 'average' does that. Likewise an amount of water can have a variety molecular kinetic energies, only the average determines the temperature.

You have used the laws governing the direction of energy flow between the averages of two large numbered objects, statistics, and extrapolated incorrectly that each individual interaction must obey the sames laws. They don't, otherwise there would be no need to take averages, everything would be equal and things like evaporation could not take place.

 

[SSDD]

Turn two burners on your electric stove up to maximum and wait a few minutes til the elements are glowing red hot. Dim the lights so the glow may be seen clearly. Place a large cast iron pan on one of the burners and wait 20 minutes for it to get as hot as it can be gotten. Feel free to apply a propane torch to the pan to get it even hotter.

Now, being careful not to burn yourself, pick up the pan and hold it a foot or so above the other, glowing burner. If your contention is correct, the second burner should instantaneously stop glowing.

The stupidity never stops with you does it? The second law, and consequently the SB equation say that energy doesn't spontaneously move from warm objects to cool objects....know what spontaneously means? Obviously not. The stove eye constitutes work...turn off the electricity and it stops glowing....hold the hot pan over the eye and apply the SB equation....which will tell you all about the one way energy transfer taking place with the magnitude of that transfer being determined by the temprature difference between the pan and the stove eye.

 

[SSDD]

Pretty good example. Especially if you cut the power to the heating elements at the switch over, and do it in a vacuum. It could easily be measured.

Any comments SSDD? Are you just going to say that only the radiation pointed away from the frying pan actually exists? Its a good catch-22.

Not a good example at all Ian...and very dissapointing on your part. You are clearly smarter than crick...and I am sure that you knew that the glowing stove eye constituted work being done and therefore there was no spontaneousl energy transfer happening. You knew it and still claimed publicly that it was a good example...you deliberately let crappy, untrue data pass as true in an effort to prove your point....turn off the eye....the work, and consequently, the glowing stops and then you have a one way energy transfer taking place between the stove and the pan with the magnitude of that transfer being determined by the temperature difference between the stove and the pan.

Interesting that you let admiral hairball's idiot comment about LEDs not being hot pass as well. I get them not being bright enough to wonder about the huge heat sinks that LEDs need...and not grasping that the number of lumens a LED bulb produces is due to the temperature of the light source itself...but you???? I was sure that you were smarter, than that and certainly more honest than that.

 

[Crick]

Ahhh, that cold eyeball watching it all happen. How could I have missed that one.

Tell you what Sid. It's the responsibility of anyone proposing a new hypothesis for evaluation to provide means of falsification. What tests can you propose that would allow the falsification of your contention regarding selective radiation? Recall that Karl Popper, a man whose work we both accept, states that hypotheses for which no means of falsification are possible, are pseudoscience. You've attempted to use the exact charge repeatedly wrt AGW. So, please tell us how we might attempt to falsify your selective radiation idea.

PS: I've just thought of a work around in the original hot pan experiment. Use a pan whose bottom is white. We would be able to see any glow from the hot burner reflecting from the bottom of the hot pan.

 

[SSDD]

Ahhh, that cold eyeball watching it all happen. How could I have missed that one.

Tell you what Sid. It's the responsibility of anyone proposing a new hypothesis for evaluation to provide means of falsification. What tests can you propose that would allow the falsification of your contention regarding selective radiation? Recall that Karl Popper, a man whose work we both accept, states that hypotheses for which no means of falsification are possible, are pseudoscience. You've attempted to use the exact charge repeatedly wrt AGW. So, please tell us how we might attempt to falsify your selective radiation idea.

PS: I've just thought of a work around in the original hot pan experiment. Use a pan whose bottom is white. We would be able to see any glow from the hot burner reflecting from the bottom of the hot pan.

The SB application for a radiator in surroundings other than a vacuum is expressed as a one way transfer between the radiator and its cooler surroundings with the magnitude of that transfer being determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings...

You want to get the law changed...don't talk to me. Till such time as it is changed, however, it says what it says. You want to try and falsify a physical law...go ahead...how? That is for you to work out.

Your white pan gimmick fails as well...still not spontaneous as work is being done and the glowing eye is warmer than the pan so why would you not expect to see light reflected? Give it up... you are wrong and will just look more and more stupid as you try to prove that a physical law is wrong. It is a physical law...and is expressed as it is for a reason...get a clue.

 

[mamooth]

SSDD, still no explanation as to why your imaginary white-hot LED doesn't emit a Planck's law radiation curve? Nobody is surprised, I'm sure. You won't even pretend you can face me any more.

Ian's challenge was a good one, so naturally you ran from that too. What would falsify your claims? You won't say, which is more proof that you're babbling cult pseudoscience. Everyone now defines you as an idiot, so why do you keep it up? Do you just enjoy the humiliation, getting off on being a martyr for your fringe cult of sky dragon slayers?

 

[SSDD]

SSDD, still no explanation as to why your imaginary white-hot LED doesn't emit a Planck's law radiation curve? Nobody is surprised, I'm sure. You won't even pretend you can face me any more.

Ian's challenge was a good one, so naturally you ran from that too. What would falsify your claims? You won't say, which is more proof that you're babbling cult pseudoscience. Everyone now defines you as an idiot, so why do you keep it up? Do you just enjoy the humiliation, getting off on being a martyr for your fringe cult of sky dragon slayers?

Poor hairball...you simply lack the self restraint required to let a conversation pass without jumping in to demonstrate how much you don't know...don't you. A LED emits a lot of lumens, but not much IR... a LED depends on conduction via its required large heat sink to stay within its operating temperature because it can't operate at a temperature high enough to allow heat to bleed off via IR...the LED creates heat...the semiconductor chip requires a huge heat sink to bleed off the heat it generates in order to keep it at its working temperature...in fact, most of the wattage that goes into a LED becomes heat. The actual light source in a LED is quite hot from millisecond to millisecond but the huge heat sinks associated with LED lights bleed that heat off very quickly...but not before the light was created....sorry hairball, but the actual light source of your "cool" LED light is quite hot and requires an enormous heat sink in order to conduct heat away rapidly.


And I am not making any claims...I am sticking to the SB law which describes a one way energy transfer from a radiator to its cooler surroundings...it is you and yours who are trying to say that an equation that clearly describes a one way energy flow is actually describing a two way energy flow....How do you falsify a physical law?...no idea...that's why I'm not trying.

 

[SSDD]

So you now admit that water is made up of molecules with a range of kinetic energies, and that lower energy molecules can impart some of their energy to make faster ones even faster.

Ian, if a water molecule has enough kinetic energy to escape from the body of water it was in, then it stands to reason that it has more energy than the body of water and certainly has more kinetic energy than the air....and sure, it can transfer energy to the air...the oceans heat the atmosphere...not the other way around. You simply can't come up with an observed two way energy transfer...no matter how hard you try.

 

[IanC]

So you now admit that water is made up of molecules with a range of kinetic energies, and that lower energy molecules can impart some of their energy to make faster ones even faster.

Ian, if a water molecule has enough kinetic energy to escape from the body of water it was in, then it stands to reason that it has more energy than the body of water and certainly has more kinetic energy than the air....and sure, it can transfer energy to the air...the oceans heat the atmosphere...not the other way around. You simply can't come up with an observed two way energy transfer...no matter how hard you try.

How did the water molecule get sufficient energy to break through the boundary if energy can never be transferred 'uphill'?

Oceans heat or cool the atmosphere predominantly according to the temperature differental, which can be in either direction.