Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[SSDD]

This is a measured quantity. Why do you have a problem with it? What is the figure you would prefer to use? 25% higher? That still leaves a massive deficit. 400 W output cannot be supported by an input of 200 W. Where is the missing energy coming from?

Why won't you tell us where YOU think the extra energy is coming from?

CO2 simply absorbs and emits the energy on to cooler pastures...what small bit of energy it actually gets to emit...the vast bulk is transferred to non radiative gasses and is moved via conduction....you believe that radiation is a large enough portion of the energy movement in the lower atmosphere to have an effect...another place where you have it all wrong

You're getting closer. The energy absorbed in the lower atmosphere by CO2 warms the air and decreases the surface conduction to the atmosphere.

If 15 micron radiation was not intercepted by CO2 and added to the total energy of the atmosphere, then it would simply escape to space like the radiation leaving through the Atmospheric Window.

Then the atmosphere would cool, allowing the surface to pass more heat to the atmosphere by conduction, cooling the surface.

It's all rather simple if you keep track of the energy flows.

The 15 micron radiation is irrelavent..a very small bit is absorbed by CO2 and then immediately emitted on to cooler areas of the atmosphere...radiation is all but irrelevant in the lower atmosphere. And pretending that you have the answer and that I am getting close is laughable model boy...you want a model that works...look to N&Z...theirs works everywhere and requires no ad hoc fudge factor...

 

[Wuwei]

According to your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...while every observation and measurement ever made is of one way gross energy movement from warm to cool. Again, failure to differentiate between what is real and what is the output of a model. When the 2nd law is changed to state that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm and it is fine so long as the net is from warm to cool, you be sure to let me know...till then, I am afraid that the 2nd law doesn't agree with you.

Nope. Two-way net flow is consistent with every observation and the 2nd law.
It's not just me you disagree with. It's all scientists for the last 100 years or so.

 

[IanC]

That wacky 2nd law allows two way thermal energy flow since more energy flows from the hot body than it receives from the colder body. That is according to QM, which we both know you don't believe. Do you care to give your QM mechanism for one way flow?

According to your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...while every observation and measurement ever made is of one way gross energy movement from warm to cool. Again, failure to differentiate between what is real and what is the output of a model. When the 2nd law is changed to state that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm and it is fine so long as the net is from warm to cool, you be sure to let me know...till then, I am afraid that the 2nd law doesn't agree with you.

The SLoT says heat can't flow spontaneously from cold to warm. It doesn't prohibit energy flowing in both directions.

 

[IanC]

Where on earth is 160Wm2 hitting the earth 24 hours a day?

Nowhere. What's your point?

The total surface of the Earth absorbs an amount of solar radiation that averages out to be 160w/m2.

Is this one of your wacko misunderstandings that says we can't know the average solar input unless every square nanometer is getting the exact same insolation?

 

[IanC]

And there is no "extra" energy. Most of it comes from the sun, some comes from within the earth...but there is no 'extra' energy to be found. If you can't account for it, then you aren't looking in the right place. The fact that you don't know where it comes from doesn't mean that it is the result of the magic of CO2.

Of course there is extra energy. The energy stored in the atmosphere is the extra energy.

For the same solar input you can have a large range of surface temperatures, depending on how much energy has been stored. The stored energy is simply energy that was held back from being lost to space.

We see the same principle in real life all the time. An oven or frying pan doesn't cook from the moment you turn on the power, it has to preheat. Once you turn the power off it doesn't immediately stop cooking, not until it loses the same energy that it stored.

 

[SSDD]

Of course there is extra energy. The energy stored in the atmosphere is the extra energy.

Extra? From what source other than the sun or the heat that the earth itself produces? Extra heat would, by definition come from somewhere else....where might that be? Magically multiplied by CO2?

 

[SSDD]

Where on earth is 160Wm2 hitting the earth 24 hours a day?

Nowhere. What's your point?

The total surface of the Earth absorbs an amount of solar radiation that averages out to be 160w/m2.

It is models all the way down with you, isn't it?...even when they are failures, you prefer models over reality.

 

[SSDD]

The SLoT says heat can't flow spontaneously from cold to warm. It doesn't prohibit energy flowing in both directions.

And the selective memory strikes again....we have already been through all this...heat is a form of energy...do I need to bring all the references from physics texts forward again...heat is energy and energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm...

 

[SSDD]

According to your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...while every observation and measurement ever made is of one way gross energy movement from warm to cool. Again, failure to differentiate between what is real and what is the output of a model. When the 2nd law is changed to state that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm and it is fine so long as the net is from warm to cool, you be sure to let me know...till then, I am afraid that the 2nd law doesn't agree with you.

Nope. Two-way net flow is consistent with every observation and the 2nd law.
It's not just me you disagree with. It's all scientists for the last 100 years or so.

Sorry guy, but it isn't...but do feel free to show me an observed measured example of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object made with an instrument at ambient temperature.

Of course, no such measurement will be forthcoming because no such measurement has ever been made....and why? Because it doesn't happen outside the realm of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models. Energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm. Again, let me know when the 2nd law is changed to say that it can.

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy, but it isn't...but do feel free to show me an observed measured example of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object made with an instrument at ambient temperature.

Of course, no such measurement will be forthcoming because no such measurement has ever been made....and why? Because it doesn't happen outside the realm of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models. Energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm. Again, let me know when the 2nd law is changed to say that it can.

I asked four times for you to give a mechanism that prevents thermal photons from hitting a warmer object. You never did and you never can because none exists. Your model of photons shunning hotter object is totally fraudulent.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Sorry guy, but it isn't...but do feel free to show me an observed measured example of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object made with an instrument at ambient temperature.

Of course, no such measurement will be forthcoming because no such measurement has ever been made....and why? Because it doesn't happen outside the realm of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models. Energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm. Again, let me know when the 2nd law is changed to say that it can.

I asked four times for you to give a mechanism that prevents thermal photons from hitting a warmer object. You never did and you never can because none exists. Your model of photons shunning hotter object is totally fraudulent.

Your killing me...

A photon vibrating at a lower rate, than an object it hits, has no positive effect. QM 101

This is like telling me a car going 100mph will gain speed if a car at 50mph strikes it. When it strikes there is a net energy loss as the mass must warm it to its resonating frequency before it is capable of re-emission..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Next your going to tell me that making a photon more energetic doesn't take energy consumption... This is another area of Trenbreth's logical fallacy and magically reproducing energy that he has gotten WRONG!

 

[SSDD]

I asked four times for you to give a mechanism that prevents thermal photons from hitting a warmer object. You never did and you never can because none exists. Your model of photons shunning hotter object is totally fraudulent.

Are you reading impaired or just stupid? I told you that I am not going to be fabricating a mechanism...just because we don't know the mechanism of a thing does not mean that it doesn't happen. Whenever you drop a rock, it falls and science has no clear idea of what the fundamental mechanism of gravity is...it's influence can, however be observed, measured, and quantified. It is not necessary to fully, or even partially understand the fundamental mechanism to acknowledge that gravity is.

I keep insisting that energy only moves spontaneously in one direction because there are no observations or measurements that suggest otherwise....there is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model that says otherwise but that is it. Energy can only be observed moving spontaneously from cool to warm...and it does not go unnoticed that whenever you are asked for some actual observed, measured evidence to the contrary, it never seems to materialize...why do you suppose that is? Are you so dishonest that you can't even bring yourself to admit that there are no such measurements?

 

[SSDD]

Next your going to tell me that making a photon more energetic doesn't take energy consumption... This is another area of Trenbreth's logical fallacy and magically reproducing energy that he has gotten WRONG!

They bring a whole new meaning to the word doofus. They like nothing more than calling other people who don't agree with them idiots and in all this time, I doubt that either one of them ever wondered why the very people who they love to call idiots keep zeroing in on the very questions that they can not answer, and asking for the data that could support their position but which does not exist. Do they suppose that it is just coincidence that the questions posed to them are the very questions that demonstrate that their beliefs only exist and happen within models?

 

[Wuwei]

I asked four times for you to give a mechanism that prevents thermal photons from hitting a warmer object. You never did and you never can because none exists. Your model of photons shunning hotter object is totally fraudulent.

Are you reading impaired or just stupid? I told you that I am not going to be fabricating a mechanism...just because we don't know the mechanism of a thing does not mean that it doesn't happen. Whenever you drop a rock, it falls and science has no clear idea of what the fundamental mechanism of gravity is...it's influence can, however be observed, measured, and quantified. It is not necessary to fully, or even partially understand the fundamental mechanism to acknowledge that gravity is.

I keep insisting that energy only moves spontaneously in one direction because there are no observations or measurements that suggest otherwise....there is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model that says otherwise but that is it. Energy can only be observed moving spontaneously from cool to warm...and it does not go unnoticed that whenever you are asked for some actual observed, measured evidence to the contrary, it never seems to materialize...why do you suppose that is? Are you so dishonest that you can't even bring yourself to admit that there are no such measurements?

Right. Generous of you to admit that you have no mechanism. Every measurement is consistent with a net two way thermal energy flow. Period. You disagree with 100 years of scientists. In calling me stupid, you are calling millions of scientists stupid. What does that make you. Eh?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry guy, but it isn't...but do feel free to show me an observed measured example of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object made with an instrument at ambient temperature.

Of course, no such measurement will be forthcoming because no such measurement has ever been made....and why? Because it doesn't happen outside the realm of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models. Energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm. Again, let me know when the 2nd law is changed to say that it can.

I asked four times for you to give a mechanism that prevents thermal photons from hitting a warmer object. You never did and you never can because none exists. Your model of photons shunning hotter object is totally fraudulent.

Your killing me...

A photon vibrating at a lower rate, than an object it hits, has no positive effect. QM 101

This is like telling me a car going 100mph will gain speed if a car at 50mph strikes it. When it strikes there is a net energy loss as the mass must warm it to its resonating frequency before it is capable of re-emission..

A photon vibrating at a lower rate, than an object it hits, has no positive effect. QM 101

I thought covailent bonds repel photons........

 

[IanC]

Where on earth is 160Wm2 hitting the earth 24 hours a day?

Nowhere. What's your point?

The total surface of the Earth absorbs an amount of solar radiation that averages out to be 160w/m2.

It is models all the way down with you, isn't it?...even when they are failures, you prefer models over reality.

Why do you consider math to be a model?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

According to your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...while every observation and measurement ever made is of one way gross energy movement from warm to cool. Again, failure to differentiate between what is real and what is the output of a model. When the 2nd law is changed to state that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm and it is fine so long as the net is from warm to cool, you be sure to let me know...till then, I am afraid that the 2nd law doesn't agree with you.

Nope. Two-way net flow is consistent with every observation and the 2nd law.
It's not just me you disagree with. It's all scientists for the last 100 years or so.

Sorry guy, but it isn't...but do feel free to show me an observed measured example of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object made with an instrument at ambient temperature.

Of course, no such measurement will be forthcoming because no such measurement has ever been made....and why? Because it doesn't happen outside the realm of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models. Energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm. Again, let me know when the 2nd law is changed to say that it can.

Energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm.

Are you saying energy can move from cool to warm if work is involved?

 

[IanC]

The SLoT says heat can't flow spontaneously from cold to warm. It doesn't prohibit energy flowing in both directions.

And the selective memory strikes again....we have already been through all this...heat is a form of energy...do I need to bring all the references from physics texts forward again...heat is energy and energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm...

All heat is energy but not all energy is heat.

The original SLoT described macroscopic movement of heat (not all forms of energy), and did not have an explanation for why the behavior emerged.

The SLoT is now described in terms of entropy, and the reasons for heat movement are explained.

Both versions give the same answers but only one gives the mechanism behind why it happens.

 

[SSDD]

Right. Generous of you to admit that you have no mechanism. Every measurement is consistent with a net two way thermal energy flow. Period. You disagree with 100 years of scientists. In calling me stupid, you are calling millions of scientists stupid. What does that make you. Eh?

Actually every measurement is consistent with the one way gross energy movement from warm to cool that the 2nd amendment describes...claiming two way net energy movement when it can't be observed or measured and appears only in models is just silly.

And yes, scientists can be stupid...look at history...how often have new hypotheses been wrong when everyone thought this is it?