The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[Sunsettommy]

Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold.

What creates the "net" set up?

 

[IanC]

Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold.

What creates the "net" set up?

for any point, there is energy contained, energy out and energy in. energy in or out describes the change of temperature. energy contained is the temperature.

if you what me to answer your questions, I hope you will be willing to answer mine

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Now his gibberish (or should I say anti-gibberish?) all makes sense!!

What happens when gibberish meets anti-gibberish? Probably an explosion followed by vacuousness.

The energy released would cause runaway global warming.

 

[SSDD]

Your question is framed in a nonsensical way. Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold.

So you keep saying...but you don't seem to be able to come up with an observed, measured example of it...what you come up with in spades is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.

And if all this were as simple as your "mind" experiments suggest, surely there would be observed, measured examples...we both know that there aren't...because your mind experiments are terribly flawed.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Energy Absorbed by CO2 is emitted in three bands. In the spectral emissions chart below you will note two very narrow bands and one small band in the 12-16um band. (note: narrow bandwidth indicates very low energy residency time as the energy has no time to cool before it is re-emitted)

The spectral intensity of the first two bands CO2 emits is so low they are inconsequential as they carry little energy.

View attachment 201999

What effect does EM energy (blackbody) have on other gasses?

First we must determine wavelength, which will determine the energetic temperature. 16um = -80 Deg C.

How does energy emitted at -80 deg C warm anything? A black body will indeed absorb the energy it receives as a black body is always in a negative state. However, it is emitting energy at a much higher wavelength. When you apply energy, which is negative of the output energy you create a dampening state or cooling.

If you place a piece of steel in a chamber of CO2, at 1000ppm, heated to 400 deg F, its rate of cooling is unchanged from a chamber with no CO2. Now add water vapor to that chamber and the time increases. CO2 absent water vapor is a no go.

(note: narrow bandwidth indicates very low energy residency time as the energy has no time to cool before it is re-emitted)

Energy can cool?

16um = -80 Deg C.

You need to explain this claim more fully.

How does energy emitted at -80 deg C warm anything?

The same way any energy warms anything.

A black body will indeed absorb the energy it receives as a black body is always in a negative state. However, it is emitting energy at a much higher wavelength.

Higher wavelength than what? How do you know?
When you apply energy, which is negative of the output energy you create a dampening state or cooling.

Wow!!

So much gibberish.​

Introduction to Molecular Energy Transfer - 1st Edition

Enjoy!

Does this link contain your gibberish?
Is it a gibberish to science translator?
Negative states of energy?
Positive states of energy?

Just admit it, you were drunk when you posted that crap.

He never said "Negative states of energy" !!!! He said "Molecules will only accept energy in a negative state." and you substituted Molecules with energy hoping to ridicule him.
What he called "positive" refers to the excitation of the electron orbitals, positive being at a higher excitation level:

It is also true that electrons which already are at a higher excitation level can not absorb absorb more energy of the same wavelength where that transition occurred. That can only happen after the energy was emitted and the orbital is again at a lower excitation level. If it were otherwise then the molar absorptivity of CO2 would change when you radiate it with more energy of the wavelength for that particular absorption band.

He never said "Negative states of energy" !!!! He said "Molecules will only accept energy in a negative state."

A black body will indeed absorb the energy it receives as a black body is always in a negative state.

Energy in a negative state? You think that makes more sense? Okay, sure thing.

you substituted Molecules with energy

I did? Where? Link?

hoping to ridicule him.

Geez, how can you not ridicule his moronic gibberish? Did you ever
see his claim that "covailent bonds" prevent matter from absorbing photons from cooler matter?
Something about EM fields actually repelling photons from cooler emitters.
It was the funniest damn thing I ever heard.

What he called "positive" refers to the excitation of the electron orbitals, positive being at a higher excitation level:

He should have mentioned orbitals then. At least now, thanks to you, he's heard of them.
So, as long as you're defending him, what does negative mean? An orbital below ground state?

Yep... all this is funny when you don't have a clue..

Tell me, Can an excited CO2 molecule absorb energy?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

(note: narrow bandwidth indicates very low energy residency time as the energy has no time to cool before it is re-emitted)

Energy can cool?

16um = -80 Deg C.

You need to explain this claim more fully.

How does energy emitted at -80 deg C warm anything?

The same way any energy warms anything.

A black body will indeed absorb the energy it receives as a black body is always in a negative state. However, it is emitting energy at a much higher wavelength.

Higher wavelength than what? How do you know?
When you apply energy, which is negative of the output energy you create a dampening state or cooling.

Wow!!

So much gibberish.​

Introduction to Molecular Energy Transfer - 1st Edition

Enjoy!

Does this link contain your gibberish?
Is it a gibberish to science translator?
Negative states of energy?
Positive states of energy?

Just admit it, you were drunk when you posted that crap.

He never said "Negative states of energy" !!!! He said "Molecules will only accept energy in a negative state." and you substituted Molecules with energy hoping to ridicule him.
What he called "positive" refers to the excitation of the electron orbitals, positive being at a higher excitation level:

It is also true that electrons which already are at a higher excitation level can not absorb absorb more energy of the same wavelength where that transition occurred. That can only happen after the energy was emitted and the orbital is again at a lower excitation level. If it were otherwise then the molar absorptivity of CO2 would change when you radiate it with more energy of the wavelength for that particular absorption band.

He never said "Negative states of energy" !!!! He said "Molecules will only accept energy in a negative state."

A black body will indeed absorb the energy it receives as a black body is always in a negative state.

Energy in a negative state? You think that makes more sense? Okay, sure thing.

you substituted Molecules with energy

I did? Where? Link?

hoping to ridicule him.

Geez, how can you not ridicule his moronic gibberish? Did you ever
see his claim that "covailent bonds" prevent matter from absorbing photons from cooler matter?
Something about EM fields actually repelling photons from cooler emitters.
It was the funniest damn thing I ever heard.

What he called "positive" refers to the excitation of the electron orbitals, positive being at a higher excitation level:

He should have mentioned orbitals then. At least now, thanks to you, he's heard of them.
So, as long as you're defending him, what does negative mean? An orbital below ground state?

Yep... all this is funny when you don't have a clue..

Tell me, Can an excited CO2 molecule absorb energy?

Tell me, Can an excited CO2 molecule absorb energy?

Yes.

Now, tell me more about "a black body in a negative state"

 

[westwall]

Introduction to Molecular Energy Transfer - 1st Edition

Enjoy!

Does this link contain your gibberish?
Is it a gibberish to science translator?
Negative states of energy?
Positive states of energy?

Just admit it, you were drunk when you posted that crap.

He never said "Negative states of energy" !!!! He said "Molecules will only accept energy in a negative state." and you substituted Molecules with energy hoping to ridicule him.
What he called "positive" refers to the excitation of the electron orbitals, positive being at a higher excitation level:

It is also true that electrons which already are at a higher excitation level can not absorb absorb more energy of the same wavelength where that transition occurred. That can only happen after the energy was emitted and the orbital is again at a lower excitation level. If it were otherwise then the molar absorptivity of CO2 would change when you radiate it with more energy of the wavelength for that particular absorption band.

He never said "Negative states of energy" !!!! He said "Molecules will only accept energy in a negative state."

A black body will indeed absorb the energy it receives as a black body is always in a negative state.

Energy in a negative state? You think that makes more sense? Okay, sure thing.

you substituted Molecules with energy

I did? Where? Link?

hoping to ridicule him.

Geez, how can you not ridicule his moronic gibberish? Did you ever
see his claim that "covailent bonds" prevent matter from absorbing photons from cooler matter?
Something about EM fields actually repelling photons from cooler emitters.
It was the funniest damn thing I ever heard.

What he called "positive" refers to the excitation of the electron orbitals, positive being at a higher excitation level:

He should have mentioned orbitals then. At least now, thanks to you, he's heard of them.
So, as long as you're defending him, what does negative mean? An orbital below ground state?

Yep... all this is funny when you don't have a clue..

Tell me, Can an excited CO2 molecule absorb energy?

Tell me, Can an excited CO2 molecule absorb energy?

Yes.

Now, tell me more about "a black body in a negative state"

True, but only within an extremely narrow wavelength if my memory doesn't fail me.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Does this link contain your gibberish?
Is it a gibberish to science translator?
Negative states of energy?
Positive states of energy?

Just admit it, you were drunk when you posted that crap.

He never said "Negative states of energy" !!!! He said "Molecules will only accept energy in a negative state." and you substituted Molecules with energy hoping to ridicule him.
What he called "positive" refers to the excitation of the electron orbitals, positive being at a higher excitation level:

It is also true that electrons which already are at a higher excitation level can not absorb absorb more energy of the same wavelength where that transition occurred. That can only happen after the energy was emitted and the orbital is again at a lower excitation level. If it were otherwise then the molar absorptivity of CO2 would change when you radiate it with more energy of the wavelength for that particular absorption band.

He never said "Negative states of energy" !!!! He said "Molecules will only accept energy in a negative state."

A black body will indeed absorb the energy it receives as a black body is always in a negative state.

Energy in a negative state? You think that makes more sense? Okay, sure thing.

you substituted Molecules with energy

I did? Where? Link?

hoping to ridicule him.

Geez, how can you not ridicule his moronic gibberish? Did you ever
see his claim that "covailent bonds" prevent matter from absorbing photons from cooler matter?
Something about EM fields actually repelling photons from cooler emitters.
It was the funniest damn thing I ever heard.

What he called "positive" refers to the excitation of the electron orbitals, positive being at a higher excitation level:

He should have mentioned orbitals then. At least now, thanks to you, he's heard of them.
So, as long as you're defending him, what does negative mean? An orbital below ground state?

Yep... all this is funny when you don't have a clue..

Tell me, Can an excited CO2 molecule absorb energy?

Tell me, Can an excited CO2 molecule absorb energy?

Yes.

Now, tell me more about "a black body in a negative state"

True, but only within an extremely narrow wavelength if my memory doesn't fail me.

Correct, it can. However, it must release energy equal to that it receives in that same narrow band.

Molecules within black bodies are always in low or negative state, generally speaking, thus any energy they encounter, within the receiving bandwidth, will be absorbed.

CO2 therefore can not build energy stores where a black body can.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Your question is framed in a nonsensical way. Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold.

So you keep saying...but you don't seem to be able to come up with an observed, measured example of it...what you come up with in spades is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.

And if all this were as simple as your "mind" experiments suggest, surely there would be observed, measured examples...we both know that there aren't...because your mind experiments are terribly flawed.

What a confusing statement this is:

"Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold."

How does it become net when energy flows in ONE direction from high to low, hot to cold and so on.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your question is framed in a nonsensical way. Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold.

So you keep saying...but you don't seem to be able to come up with an observed, measured example of it...what you come up with in spades is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.

And if all this were as simple as your "mind" experiments suggest, surely there would be observed, measured examples...we both know that there aren't...because your mind experiments are terribly flawed.

What a confusing statement this is:

"Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold."

How does it become net when energy flows in ONE direction from high to low, hot to cold and so on.

How does it become net when energy flows in ONE direction from high to low, hot to cold and so on.

Because radiation doesn't flow "in ONE direction from high to low".

 

[Sunsettommy]

Your question is framed in a nonsensical way. Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold.

So you keep saying...but you don't seem to be able to come up with an observed, measured example of it...what you come up with in spades is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.

And if all this were as simple as your "mind" experiments suggest, surely there would be observed, measured examples...we both know that there aren't...because your mind experiments are terribly flawed.

What a confusing statement this is:

"Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold."

How does it become net when energy flows in ONE direction from high to low, hot to cold and so on.

How does it become net when energy flows in ONE direction from high to low, hot to cold and so on.

Because radiation doesn't flow "in ONE direction from high to low".

You are confused

Clausius statement[edit]
The German scientist Rudolf Clausius laid the foundation for the second law of thermodynamics in 1850 by examining the relation between heat transfer and work.[26] His formulation of the second law, which was published in German in 1854, is known as the Clausius statement:

Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.[27]

The statement by Clausius uses the concept of 'passage of heat'. As is usual in thermodynamic discussions, this means 'net transfer of energy as heat', and does not refer to contributory transfers one way and the other.

Heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system, which is evident from ordinary experience of refrigeration, for example. In a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when forced by an external agent, the refrigeration system.

bolding mine

The total amount energy in a closed system never goes up, thus net transfer concept is meaningless as the difference between two systems of high and low vanish when transfer is completed.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Earth is not a closed system. And we are not talking about heat flow, but radiation. Everything radiates if it is not at absolute zero. And a photon from a body does not care if it intercepts a warmer body than the one that emitted that photon. So, yes, radiation from a cooler body can add energy to a warmer body.

 

[SSDD]

Your question is framed in a nonsensical way. Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold.

So you keep saying...but you don't seem to be able to come up with an observed, measured example of it...what you come up with in spades is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.

And if all this were as simple as your "mind" experiments suggest, surely there would be observed, measured examples...we both know that there aren't...because your mind experiments are terribly flawed.

What a confusing statement this is:

"Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold."

How does it become net when energy flows in ONE direction from high to low, hot to cold and so on.

Ian is quite sure that it happens via bad algebra...that is by imposing the distributive property to an already elegant equation which describes a one way gross flow of energy, you can force energy to move from cool to warm.

 

[SSDD]

The Earth is not a closed system. And we are not talking about heat flow, but radiation. Everything radiates if it is not at absolute zero. And a photon from a body does not care if it intercepts a warmer body than the one that emitted that photon. So, yes, radiation from a cooler body can add energy to a warmer body.

So then you can provide observed, measured examples of energy moving spontaneously from cool regions to warm regions? Of course you can't...but you just had to speak up anyway didn't you?

 

[Old Rocks]

SSoDDumb, there is nobody on this board with a modicum of education that accepts your nonsense concerning radiation and energy. All you have is total ignoramuses like Silly Billy and his 'negative' energy agreeing with you.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Earth is not a closed system. And we are not talking about heat flow, but radiation. Everything radiates if it is not at absolute zero. And a photon from a body does not care if it intercepts a warmer body than the one that emitted that photon. So, yes, radiation from a cooler body can add energy to a warmer body.

"So, yes, radiation from a cooler body can add energy to a warmer body." DAFUQ??? Space at absolute zero is heating things? really?? on what planet?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your question is framed in a nonsensical way. Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold.

So you keep saying...but you don't seem to be able to come up with an observed, measured example of it...what you come up with in spades is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.

And if all this were as simple as your "mind" experiments suggest, surely there would be observed, measured examples...we both know that there aren't...because your mind experiments are terribly flawed.

What a confusing statement this is:

"Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold."

How does it become net when energy flows in ONE direction from high to low, hot to cold and so on.

How does it become net when energy flows in ONE direction from high to low, hot to cold and so on.

Because radiation doesn't flow "in ONE direction from high to low".

You are confused

Clausius statement[edit]
The German scientist Rudolf Clausius laid the foundation for the second law of thermodynamics in 1850 by examining the relation between heat transfer and work.[26] His formulation of the second law, which was published in German in 1854, is known as the Clausius statement:

Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.[27]

The statement by Clausius uses the concept of 'passage of heat'. As is usual in thermodynamic discussions, this means 'net transfer of energy as heat', and does not refer to contributory transfers one way and the other.

Heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system, which is evident from ordinary experience of refrigeration, for example. In a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when forced by an external agent, the refrigeration system.

bolding mine

The total amount energy in a closed system never goes up, thus net transfer concept is meaningless as the difference between two systems of high and low vanish when transfer is completed.

The German scientist Rudolf Clausius laid the foundation for the second law of thermodynamics in 1850 by examining the relation between heat transfer and work.

Great. Where did he discuss the movement of radiation between warmer bodies and cooler bodies?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, my ship is without power, hopelessly adrift in the emptiness of space, but no worries, we getting all the heat we need from the -370F on the ship's hull

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Earth is not a closed system. And we are not talking about heat flow, but radiation. Everything radiates if it is not at absolute zero. And a photon from a body does not care if it intercepts a warmer body than the one that emitted that photon. So, yes, radiation from a cooler body can add energy to a warmer body.

"So, yes, radiation from a cooler body can add energy to a warmer body." DAFUQ??? Space at absolute zero is heating things? really?? on what planet?

Space at absolute zero is heating things?

Matter at absolute zero does not radiate.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, my ship is without power, hopelessly adrift in the emptiness of space, but no worries, we getting all the heat we need from the -370F on the ship's hull

Frankie boi, you don't seem to be able to read even simple sentences with any degree of understanding. Specifically stated that matter at absolute zero does not radiate.