Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[SSDD]

Same old lost arguments over and over...CMB was not observed with a radio telescope.

We went through this all before, and you could only come up with an non-existent meaningless answer. How did Penzias and Wilson know there is a CMB unless the signal went through the much warmer atmosphere to hit their telescope?

As I have already said and explained in much detail...resonant radio frequency.not CMB itself....and still the subject is so far over your head that you remain unable to comprehend the very idea....

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy....only true losers attempt to manipulate formulae via bad math in an attempt to make an unphysical thing physical....

So you are calling all scientists for the last hundred years true losers? and using bad math? My gosh, your hubris is reeking. But it actually isn't hubris, you are just playing a trollish game.

 

[SSDD]

If they actually believe unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models over observable, measureable, testable realty.....then yes. My bet is that they don't actually believe it like you...my bet is that unlike you, they are bright enough to separate what is real from what is a model and realize that it remains hypothetical till such time as reality bears it out...

 

[Wuwei]

As I have already said and explained in much detail...resonant radio frequency.not CMB itself....and still the subject is so far over your head that you remain unable to comprehend the very idea....

That "far over your head" crap again. Explain how the CMB got traveled through the warm atmosphere. It certainly was not a "resonant radio frequency".

 

[SSDD]

As I have already said and explained in much detail...resonant radio frequency.not CMB itself....and still the subject is so far over your head that you remain unable to comprehend the very idea....

That "far over your head" crap again. Explain how the CMB got traveled through the warm atmosphere. It certainly was not a "resonant radio frequency".

Yes....still far over your head...the whole thing has been explained to death...all you need do is go back to the original conversation...I am not going through it again.

 

[Wuwei]

If they actually believe unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models over observable, measureable, testable realty.....then yes. My bet is that they don't actually believe it like you...my bet is that unlike you, they are bright enough to separate what is real from what is a model and realize that it remains hypothetical till such time as reality bears it out...

Please try to think!!! All those scientists said that at equilibrium both emission and absorption of radiation occurs between objects at the same temperature. All of them.

 

[Wuwei]

Yes....still far over your head...the whole thing has been explained to death...all you need do is go back to the original conversation...I am not going through it again.

Don't be a coward. You can't explain it now, and you couldn't then.

 

[SSDD]

Yes....still far over your head...the whole thing has been explained to death...all you need do is go back to the original conversation...I am not going through it again.

Don't be a coward. You can't explain it now, and you couldn't then.

Everything was explained then...whining like an infant isn't going to get me to bring it all forward...you lost then and the thread is easy enough to find...look it up yourself and quit being such a lazy crybaby.

 

[Wuwei]

Yes....still far over your head...the whole thing has been explained to death...all you need do is go back to the original conversation...I am not going through it again.

Whining infant? lazy crybaby? You are desperate to resort to that trollish crap.

I will explain it for you as we left it.
The cold CMB at 2.7K passed through the warmer atmosphere and hit a radio telescope resonantly tuned to successive radio frequencies to get a plot that matched black body radiation near 0 degrees K. The resonance occured at ground level; not in the atmosphere.

 

[SSDD]

A resonant radio frequency is not CMB....Grab yourself a tissue and have a good cry over your inability to grasp that concept.

 

[Wuwei]

A resonant radio frequency is not CMB....Grab yourself a tissue and have a good cry over your inability to grasp that concept.

Of course it isn't ! That's what I have been telling you all along ! The CMB is from the distant universe and passes through the warm atmosphere. The resonant detector is on the ground. Your trollish boo hoo post is about the only thing our childish SSDD can muster at this point.

 

[MPS777]

You did... when there is a nearby warmer body.

Place an ice cube in an environment warmer than itself...now show me a measurement of energy emitting from that ice cube...What does P equal.

Just tell me why the handbook would bother to mention the temperature of the surroundings when this is a handbook for scientists and engineers? Everybody knows that makes no difference when vibrating particles radiate! Even you should know the reason even though you disagree because you don't believe believe radiation physics. That is such a trollish post.

It does mention the temperature of the surroundings....it says explicitly that if the object is cooler than the array, that the energy flux is negative...that is energy is being lost by the array to the cooler object...and if the object is warmer than the array, then the energy flux is positive..that is, the array is gaining energy from the warmer object. How much more straight forward and plainly could they state what I have been saying all along?

>>>”Place an ice cube in an environment warmer than itself...now show me a measurement of energy emitting from that ice cube...”

Just curious, if you agree with the following statement about thermal radiation:
A vibrating particle is a source of an electromagnetic field which propagates outwardly with the speed of light and is governed by the laws of optics.

Do you think the ice cube particles are vibrating? If so, where does the electromagnetic field generated by the vibrating ice molecules propagate to?

And about the Handbook (your own source) specifically says the flux involves energy from the object to the sensor:

[A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux (i.e., flux from the object minus flux
from itself).]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Awesome!

Work at the core allows matter at the surface to emit?
Any limit to this "work at a distance"?

It’s gas yes

Any limit to this "work at a distance"?

Makes it here

So no limit?

Of what?

Of work at a distance.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Quit ducking the question. How does the water molecule attain the threshold energy to evaporate if no interaction is allowed to push energy uphill?

I'm not ducking...I am laughing in your deluded face.....I am asking why evaporation can't be caused by energy moving down hill from a warmer object...are you so blind in your belief that you never even considered that possibility?

You say no natural spontaneous interaction is possible to boost the energy level of one molecule at the expense of other cooler molecules surrounding it. Therefore no evaporation would be possible. e

You really have gone off the deep end...I said that no energy moves spontaneously from cooler objects to warmer objects....that does not preclude energy moving from warmer objects to cooler objects...if water is evaporating, the energy to make it happen came from a warmer object than the water molecule...why would you think that only energy from a cooler object could make water evaporate?

Yet evaporation does happen. And it cools the liquid by removing the most energetic molecules, leaving the slower molecules behind which by definition will have a lower temperature.

The operative phrase there is left behind..

Explain how evaporation happens under your rules.

At its most basic level, evaporation happens when molecules that have absorbed energy from some heat source begin to collide...via collisions some molecules reach an energy level sufficient to escape the liquid form to the vapor form...The heat source is still the reason for evaporation and the energy is still rolling down hill...cooler water molecules aren't warming anything enough to cause evaporation...you have lost any semblance of reason ian.....what the hell has happened to you?

You really have gone off the deep end...I said that no energy moves spontaneously from cooler objects to warmer objects....that does not preclude energy moving from warmer objects to cooler objects...if water is evaporating, the energy to make it happen came from a warmer object than the water molecule...

A cup of 20 C water in 10 C air at night will see zero evaporation?

I await the latest epicycle.........

What, you figure it`s the 10 C air that causes water at 20 C to evaporate???
It evaporates as long as the vapor pressure is > than the partial pressure of H2O vapor in the air above it.
Certainly not because there is energy contributed by the 10 deg C air.

What, you figure it`s the 10 C air that causes water at 20 C to evaporate???

I do?

Certainly not because there is energy contributed by the 10 deg C air.

Do you think air has to contribute energy for evaporation to occur? I don't.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the wait continues for you to provide a single observed measurement of spontaneous two way energy flow...or spontaneous energy movement from a cool object to a warmer one.

Observation and measurement of the CMB, and emission of sun radiation through the hotter corona.

Same old lost arguments over and over...CMB was not observed with a radio telescope...a resonant radio frequency was observed....sorry that whole concept escapes you so badly...and the latest hypothesis is that Alfven waves are responsible for energy leaving the sun through the corona...in any event, no one is suggesting that it is the result of spontaneous energy movement besides you wack jobs...

CMB was not observed with a radio telescope...a resonant radio frequency was observed...

That gets funnier every time you post it.

 

[SSDD]

A resonant radio frequency is not CMB....Grab yourself a tissue and have a good cry over your inability to grasp that concept.

Of course it isn't ! That's what I have been telling you all along ! The CMB is from the distant universe and passes through the warm atmosphere. The resonant detector is on the ground. Your trollish boo hoo post is about the only thing our childish SSDD can muster at this point.

The resonant radio frequency was detected on the ground...if you want to measure actual CMB you must do it with satellites outside the atmosphere. I'm just not sure what is so difficult about this that you can't even grasp the concept.

 

[SSDD]

You did... when there is a nearby warmer body.

Place an ice cube in an environment warmer than itself...now show me a measurement of energy emitting from that ice cube...What does P equal.

Just tell me why the handbook would bother to mention the temperature of the surroundings when this is a handbook for scientists and engineers? Everybody knows that makes no difference when vibrating particles radiate! Even you should know the reason even though you disagree because you don't believe believe radiation physics. That is such a trollish post.

It does mention the temperature of the surroundings....it says explicitly that if the object is cooler than the array, that the energy flux is negative...that is energy is being lost by the array to the cooler object...and if the object is warmer than the array, then the energy flux is positive..that is, the array is gaining energy from the warmer object. How much more straight forward and plainly could they state what I have been saying all along?

>>>”Place an ice cube in an environment warmer than itself...now show me a measurement of energy emitting from that ice cube...”

Just curious, if you agree with the following statement about thermal radiation:
A vibrating particle is a source of an electromagnetic field which propagates outwardly with the speed of light and is governed by the laws of optics.

Do you think the ice cube particles are vibrating? If so, where does the electromagnetic field generated by the vibrating ice molecules propagate to?

And about the Handbook (your own source) specifically says the flux involves energy from the object to the sensor:
View attachment 186920
[A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux (i.e., flux from the object minus flux
from itself).]

Nice interpretation...since there is no radiation coming in from a cool object, then the flux is zero...The sensor would detect no thermal radiation from a cooler object....

You guys could put this whole topic to bed if you could just provide an actual observation and measurement of energy spontaneously moving from a cool object to a warm object. We are certainly capable of detecting very small energy movements...why then, do you suppose there are no measurements of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm? Answer: Because it doesn't happen except within the confines of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You did... when there is a nearby warmer body.

Place an ice cube in an environment warmer than itself...now show me a measurement of energy emitting from that ice cube...What does P equal.

Just tell me why the handbook would bother to mention the temperature of the surroundings when this is a handbook for scientists and engineers? Everybody knows that makes no difference when vibrating particles radiate! Even you should know the reason even though you disagree because you don't believe believe radiation physics. That is such a trollish post.

It does mention the temperature of the surroundings....it says explicitly that if the object is cooler than the array, that the energy flux is negative...that is energy is being lost by the array to the cooler object...and if the object is warmer than the array, then the energy flux is positive..that is, the array is gaining energy from the warmer object. How much more straight forward and plainly could they state what I have been saying all along?

>>>”Place an ice cube in an environment warmer than itself...now show me a measurement of energy emitting from that ice cube...”

Just curious, if you agree with the following statement about thermal radiation:
A vibrating particle is a source of an electromagnetic field which propagates outwardly with the speed of light and is governed by the laws of optics.

Do you think the ice cube particles are vibrating? If so, where does the electromagnetic field generated by the vibrating ice molecules propagate to?

And about the Handbook (your own source) specifically says the flux involves energy from the object to the sensor:
View attachment 186920
[A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux (i.e., flux from the object minus flux
from itself).]

Nice interpretation...since there is no radiation coming in from a cool object, then the flux is zero...The sensor would detect no thermal radiation from a cooler object....

You guys could put this whole topic to bed if you could just provide an actual observation and measurement of energy spontaneously moving from a cool object to a warm object. We are certainly capable of detecting very small energy movements...why then, do you suppose there are no measurements of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm? Answer: Because it doesn't happen except within the confines of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

You should tell the Handbook of Modern Sensors publishers that their figure is wrong.
Tell them radiation can only flow one way. Let us know their response.

 

[MPS777]

You did... when there is a nearby warmer body.

Place an ice cube in an environment warmer than itself...now show me a measurement of energy emitting from that ice cube...What does P equal.

Just tell me why the handbook would bother to mention the temperature of the surroundings when this is a handbook for scientists and engineers? Everybody knows that makes no difference when vibrating particles radiate! Even you should know the reason even though you disagree because you don't believe believe radiation physics. That is such a trollish post.

It does mention the temperature of the surroundings....it says explicitly that if the object is cooler than the array, that the energy flux is negative...that is energy is being lost by the array to the cooler object...and if the object is warmer than the array, then the energy flux is positive..that is, the array is gaining energy from the warmer object. How much more straight forward and plainly could they state what I have been saying all along?

>>>”Place an ice cube in an environment warmer than itself...now show me a measurement of energy emitting from that ice cube...”

Just curious, if you agree with the following statement about thermal radiation:
A vibrating particle is a source of an electromagnetic field which propagates outwardly with the speed of light and is governed by the laws of optics.

Do you think the ice cube particles are vibrating? If so, where does the electromagnetic field generated by the vibrating ice molecules propagate to?

And about the Handbook (your own source) specifically says the flux involves energy from the object to the sensor:
View attachment 186920
[A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux (i.e., flux from the object minus flux
from itself).]

Nice interpretation...since there is no radiation coming in from a cool object, then the flux is zero...The sensor would detect no thermal radiation from a cooler object....

You guys could put this whole topic to bed if you could just provide an actual observation and measurement of energy spontaneously moving from a cool object to a warm object. We are certainly capable of detecting very small energy movements...why then, do you suppose there are no measurements of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm? Answer: Because it doesn't happen except within the confines of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

Would you accept the data from a sensor that detected thermal radiation from an object cooler than itself, if the sensor was based on technology such as this?:
Near‐Room‐Temperature Mid‐Infrared Quantum Well Photodetector
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/adma.201103372

I think you’d reject data from any “powered” sensor devised by man. I think you’d just choose one active element or another in the sensor and say it voids the ‘spontaneity’ or some such.

 

[IanC]

You just said it again!

If no energy is allowed to spontaneously move from cool to warm then no water molecule can attain the threshold energy needed to break free of the liquid. Energy could only move down the ladder and very quickly all the allowable transfers would be made, leaving all the molecules with exactly the average kinetic speed and no further transfers would be possible.

You want to explain why you believe energy from a cooler object can provide the energy necessary to cause evaporation but energy from a warmer object can't? How might the molecule know, or care whether the energy came from a cooler object or a warmer object....guess we are lucky they don't care since they will be receiving no energy from cooler objects.

I am not talking about where the energy came from. I am talking about the distribution of energy in the water.

I say there is a range of kinetic speeds that is constantly being swapped back and forth by molecular collision. The average speed is the definition of temperature. A fast moving molecule near the surface will escape the liquid and take its energy with it, leaving the rest with a lower average energy.

You say there are no natural spontaneous interactions that increase the energy of an individual molecule, that it is forbidden by your version of the SLoT. That it never happens, ever. No molecule can speed up, no photon can be emitted at a molecule with more energy than the emitting one.

And yet collisions happen and radiation is emitted. Evaporation still takes place.

The second law describes the statistical probability of vast numbers of molecules having an even larger amount of interactions. It does not prohibit anything, it only makes various outcomes probable or inprobable.

The odds of any one H2O molecule having enough speed, in the right direction, close to the surface, is unimaginably small. Yet it happens.