Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[SSDD]

But, one must admit, nowhere near as hilarious as your refusal to consider the energy from the sun as one of the two radiative inputs to the Earth's surface.

Thanks for the laughs.

You wack jobs crack me up making up arguments to rail against...when did I ever refuse to consider the sun as a radiative input?...

 

[SSDD]

The kinetic energy of a warmer surface in contact with a cooler gas transfers both ways. The net energy always transfers from the warmer surface to the colder gas.

Nope...energy only moves from warm to cool unless you input some work to make it move in the other direction.

 

[SSDD]

Geez guy...use your brain..I just gave you the reason for the different temps and then went on to apply my position to every planet in the solar system with a substantial atmosphere...not needing to apply a greenhouse effect...the reason for the temperature difference between here and the moon is the lack of an atmosphere on the moon..but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the composition of the atmosphere

Note to X.Onasis: SSDD has cross-posted this ideal gas law planetary crap several times. This my reply to a reference he cited:

Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

The author depends on adiabatic systems which are very fleeting in nature and have no long term effect. There was a rampant use of fudge factors in his curve fitting effort which did not carry much significance, and as the author admits, his result is vastly different than what he physically attempted to show. It is disingenuous when SSDD disparages physics models, but nevertheless cherry picks a model which is physically not viable.

No long term effect other than to predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...and to far surpass any predictive capability of the failed greenhouse hypothesis.

And as to not being physically viable..once more you demonstrate how little you know...the model I used is the one upon which the international standard atmosphere is based...

 

[SSDD]

All Physics is a model.

Sure..and some models depict observable, measurable, quantifiable phenomenon...and some don't...belief in the ones that don't is blind faith...not science.

 

[IanC]

Pressure causes the gas to heat...it isn't colder atoms transferring energy to the warmer surface..it is warmer atoms transferring energy to a cooler surface... You are making the bald faced claim that cool atoms are causing a warmer object to get warmer..

Why do you so often use imprecise language?

Pressure doesn't cause the gas to warm up, but increased pressure does.

Adding energy from a cooler object does not 'heat' the warmer object because the warmer object is losing energy faster than it is gaining it. The warmer object is simply cooling less quickly than it would if it wasn't receiving energy from the cooler object.

The two flows are happening at the same time. While you can calculate the size of each flow, you cannot describe the effect without taking both into consideration, the net flow.

 

[Wuwei]

The kinetic energy of a warmer surface in contact with a cooler gas transfers both ways. The net energy always transfers from the warmer surface to the colder gas.

Nope...energy only moves from warm to cool unless you input some work to make it move in the other direction.

Finally you got it right. Yes. Net energy can transfer the other way with work.

 

[Wuwei]

No long term effect other than to predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...and to far surpass any predictive capability of the failed greenhouse hypothesis.

And as to not being physically viable..once more you demonstrate how little you know...the model I used is the one upon which the international standard atmosphere is based...

The author himself admits that he failed to predict what you think he predicted. You are putting words into the authors mouth that he did not make.

 

[IanC]

The kinetic energy of a warmer surface in contact with a cooler gas transfers both ways. The net energy always transfers from the warmer surface to the colder gas.

Nope...energy only moves from warm to cool unless you input some work to make it move in the other direction.

The hidden variable in so many of these discussions is entropy. It is difficult to describe, difficult to understand.

Yesterday CrusaderFrank had a cockamamie air pressure example but it suggested a better one.

Two tires, one at 64 psi the other at 0 psi. If you connect them and open the valve you get two tires at 32 psi.

What happens if you insert a device that turns the air flow into mechanical motion? You still end up with two tires at 32 psi. But you got extra mechanical motion out of the deal.

Entropy has increased, disorder out of order. Entropy can be harnessed, or not. While it is vaguely similar to potential energy, it is not.

Energy enters the terrestrial system as collimated high quality radiation, and leaves as diffuse low energy IR. The Watts balance. What does not balance is the entropy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The kinetic energy of a warmer surface in contact with a cooler gas transfers both ways. The net energy always transfers from the warmer surface to the colder gas.

Nope...energy only moves from warm to cool unless you input some work to make it move in the other direction.

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

Net loss? Not one way flow?

 

[SSDD]

The kinetic energy of a warmer surface in contact with a cooler gas transfers both ways. The net energy always transfers from the warmer surface to the colder gas.

Nope...energy only moves from warm to cool unless you input some work to make it move in the other direction.

Finally you got it right. Yes. Net energy can transfer the other way with work.

Are you just to stupid to read, or are you just congenitally dishonest...Do you have any idea how many times I have qualified the statement that energy does not move from cool to warm with the term spontaneous...or stated that you can only make energy move from cool to warm if you apply work?

a quick search yields numerous instances...here is one from January of last year....

Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

heat and energy always flow SPONTANEOUSLY from cold to warm...if you apply work, you can make heat and energy flow from cool to warm...as in an air conditioner.

Now is there going to be a whole other discussion on what actually constitutes work?

 

[SSDD]

No long term effect other than to predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...and to far surpass any predictive capability of the failed greenhouse hypothesis.

And as to not being physically viable..once more you demonstrate how little you know...the model I used is the one upon which the international standard atmosphere is based...

The author himself admits that he failed to predict what you think he predicted. You are putting words into the authors mouth that he did not make.

Care to cut and paste the statement in context?

 

[SSDD]

Pressure doesn't cause the gas to warm up, but increased pressure does.

Sorry ian, but that statement is not true...as has been pointed out to you before...Gareff's experiments repeatedly showed a temperature gradient in columns of air...if you are talking about air in a bottle that can reach something like equilibrium, then yes, an increase in pressure would be required to raise the temperature...not so in the open atmosphere where the warm air at the bottom of the column is constantly overturning...

Adding energy from a cooler object does not 'heat' the warmer object because the warmer object is losing energy faster than it is gaining it. The warmer object is simply cooling less quickly than it would if it wasn't receiving energy from the cooler object.

Since energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm, the claim is moot.

The two flows are happening at the same time. While you can calculate the size of each flow, you cannot describe the effect without taking both into consideration, the net flow.

Again, since there is no net flow...moot.

 

[Wuwei]

heat and energy always flow SPONTANEOUSLY from cold to warm...if you apply work, you can make heat and energy flow from cool to warm...as in an air conditioner.

Now is there going to be a whole other discussion on what actually constitutes work?

Nope. I already know what it is.

 

[Wuwei]

The kinetic energy of a warmer surface in contact with a cooler gas transfers both ways. The net energy always transfers from the warmer surface to the colder gas.

Nope...energy only moves from warm to cool unless you input some work to make it move in the other direction.

SSDD, you are slowing down. Is that all you got? You said atoms of a cool gas don't impart any energy to a warmer surface. They just "bounce". Scientists call that elastic collisions. You did not explain why you thought that possible. If they just bounce how does the surface get cooled by the colder gas?

If every molecule "bounced" off with the same input and output speed the cooler gas would not gain energy from the warmer surface, and heat would not flow. "Bouncing" at the atomic level is quite scientifically naive.

 

[Wuwei]

No long term effect other than to predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...and to far surpass any predictive capability of the failed greenhouse hypothesis.

And as to not being physically viable..once more you demonstrate how little you know...the model I used is the one upon which the international standard atmosphere is based...

The author himself admits that he failed to predict what you think he predicted. You are putting words into the authors mouth that he did not make.

Care to cut and paste the statement in context?

I already cited the article and gave the context. You can very easily find it in the article. You are the one who referenced it in the first place. Did you not read the reference you cited !?!

 

[Wuwei]

Since energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm, the claim is moot.

Again, since there is no net flow...moot.

You still haven't cited proof of that. There is none.

 

[SSDD]

No long term effect other than to predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...and to far surpass any predictive capability of the failed greenhouse hypothesis.

And as to not being physically viable..once more you demonstrate how little you know...the model I used is the one upon which the international standard atmosphere is based...

The author himself admits that he failed to predict what you think he predicted. You are putting words into the authors mouth that he did not make.

Care to cut and paste the statement in context?

I already cited the article and gave the context. You can very easily find it in the article. You are the one who referenced it in the first place. Did you not read the reference you cited !?!

Didn't expect you to be able to provide any support for your claim...so long as I keep the bar very low...you never disappoint.

 

[SSDD]

Since energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm, the claim is moot.

Again, since there is no net flow...moot.

You still haven't cited proof of that. There is none.

Of course I have...the second law of thermodynamics itself...in addition to every measurement ever made...

 

[Wuwei]

No long term effect other than to predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...and to far surpass any predictive capability of the failed greenhouse hypothesis.

And as to not being physically viable..once more you demonstrate how little you know...the model I used is the one upon which the international standard atmosphere is based...

The author himself admits that he failed to predict what you think he predicted. You are putting words into the authors mouth that he did not make.

Care to cut and paste the statement in context?

I already cited the article and gave the context. You can very easily find it in the article. You are the one who referenced it in the first place. Did you not read the reference you cited !?!

Didn't expect you to be able to provide any support for your claim...so long as I keep the bar very low...you never disappoint.

You still didn't read the reference you cited. Your own reference denied what you think it said.

 

[Wuwei]

Since energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm, the claim is moot.

Again, since there is no net flow...moot.

You still haven't cited proof of that. There is none.

Of course I have...the second law of thermodynamics itself...in addition to every measurement ever made...

Your "theory" of bouncing air molecules fails the laws of physics. If every molecule of a cooler gas hitting a warmer surface "bounced" off with the same input and output speed, the cooler gas would not gain energy from the warmer surface, and heat would not flow. How do you explain that molecules must simply "bounce"?