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

[CrusaderFrank]

Actually pressure alone is not work since nothing is moving. An isolated system at equilibrium is not doing work or receiving work.

Work (thermodynamics) - Wikipedia

There are several ways of doing work, each in some way related to a force acting through a distance.​

Second Law of Thermodynamics, heat always flows from cold to warm and never vice versa.

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.

I don't know much about it but got in an argument about the Third Law of Thermodynamics with my mom and in particular, entropy. I was asking her about how life emerged from chaos, she said there are small pockets of order in disorder.

The first consideration in such an argument is that the Earth is not a closed system...it receives energy and matter from outside itself and loses energy and matter to locations outside itself...

Secondly...the second law doesn't claim that the entropy of any, or all particular parts of a system must increase. If it did, ice could never form or vapor would never condense into liquid...

And yet...there were the temperature gradients..repeatable experiments demonstrating them.....and there was plenty of movement...do you think that the air in those columns was actually static?..

The random movement of a gas in a closed container is not work. The paper you cited claims it is a perpetual motion device of the second kind. Do you believe perpetual motion can be achieved?

Gravity exerts pressure...exerted pressure is work...like it or not, it is how it is. And the fact of the temperature gradients is still there and still repeatable...it gives far more credibility to the atmospheric thermal effect which warmer wackos claim can't exist..than the unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mechanism buy which you claim the greenhouse effect works.

Please read my posts again where I clearly defined the difference between the Second and Third Law. I have a lot of questions that I need answered. How does gravity escape a black hole when light cannot and both travel at the same speed? You will probably say Frame Dragging.which will boggle my mind.

gravity travels at the speed of light?

are there gravity particles?

 

[IanC]

Are you implying that the atmospheric hot spot should be 1 meter off the ground then?

Of course not.

If your premise were true than this is precisely where it would reside.

The atmospheric hotspot for the wavelength of 15 microns is at two meters. The mean path distance. It is different for other wavelengths. It is the location where the warmer surface deposits energy into the cooler atmosphere.

The missing tropospheric hotspot refers to the area in the atmosphere where energy is deposited from latent heat of phase change from water vapour precipitating. The cloud layer.

That this layer is not warming up in the predicted amounts is strong evidence that the climate models are not capturing the correct physics.

 

[IanC]

And gravity doesn't amount to weight moving downward?....is there no pressure difference between the top of the atmosphere, the middle of the atmosphere, and the bottom.

Gravity is a downward force. Atmosphere molecules move randomly all directions.

When does gravity stop pressing down on the atmosphere?

It doesn't. It's not doing work.
Work
refers to an activity involving a force and movement in the direction of the force.

That is splitting hairs. Gravity is always deflecting molecules towards the centre of the Earth. Kinetic collisions are pushing them up. The NET movement is zero, therefore no work is done under the specific definition of the term 'work'.

In the real world, solar insolation causes upward movement during the day, and gravity causes downward movement at night. Energy storage followed by energy release. In no small part caused by the harnessing of entropy increase.

 

[IanC]

I agree that O2 and N2 don't contribute to the greenhouse effect. Is that the only source of atmospheric radiation? Does a non GHG atmosphere still warm the surface?

Another way of asking the question is: If there were no GHG's would the earths BB radiation go unimpeded to space? I would think the earth would chill about as fast as if there were no atmosphere at all. I would be wrong if someone could think of another process that kept the heat in.

IR guns use wavelengths in the atmospheric window. Where does that radiation come from?

GHG's is the only thing I can think of right now.

Conduction to the atmosphere. The energy is stored as potential and kinetic, to be released later when the temperature gradient changes.

But yes, surface IR would escape freely, causing the surface to be cooler, because the atmosphere no longer recycles a portion of it back to the surface .

 

[IanC]

[Q Do you believe entropy properties are valid?

the second law is all about entropy...energy rolling down hill...always becoming less organized....energy moving from the warm surface of the earth to the cooler atmosphere is and example of entropy...and in addition, it is a natural process...and all natural processes are irreversible....no back radiation ever...

There are many processes that can be imagined. Only some of them are actually allowed by physical laws.

You imagine that radiation can be stopped or throttled down. Physical laws say that is impossible.

 

[IanC]

the second law is all about entropy...energy rolling down hill...always becoming less organized....energy moving from the warm surface of the earth to the cooler atmosphere is and example of entropy...and in addition, it is a natural process...and all natural processes are irreversible

That's right!

.no back radiation ever.

That's not right!
Where in the law of entropy does it say that? Nowhere. As long as the colder object received more energy than it emits, the entropy law is satisfied. Anyone can understand that.

the second law says no such thing...you say that..and your references say that...but the second law doesn't say that...an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model says that...but not the second law...

The second law is very general. Consider a cold object and a warm object. The entropy of the system will be given by some value S0. After a while the warm object will be colder and the cold object will be warmer. The entropy is a larger value S1. There is no place in the entropy representation that says the two objects cannot have a two way exchange of energy, with, of course, the end result that more energy went from the warmer to the colder object.

Again...that isn't what the second law says....I suppose you are arguing that the second law of thermodynamics is a "living" law....meaning that you can change it when it isn't convenient...face it guy...neither heat nor energy move spontaneously from cool objects to warm objects...

and again...is energy moving from the warmer surface of the earth to the cooler atmosphere a natural process? easy question...yes or no answer is all that is needed.

The SLoT is defined by changes in entropy. You imagined your version. And your imagination is wrong. It violates entropy.

 

[Wuwei]

And gravity doesn't amount to weight moving downward?....is there no pressure difference between the top of the atmosphere, the middle of the atmosphere, and the bottom.

Gravity is a downward force. Atmosphere molecules move randomly all directions.

When does gravity stop pressing down on the atmosphere?

It doesn't. It's not doing work.
Work
refers to an activity involving a force and movement in the direction of the force.

That is splitting hairs. Gravity is always deflecting molecules towards the centre of the Earth. Kinetic collisions are pushing them up. The NET movement is zero, therefore no work is done under the specific definition of the term 'work'.

In the real world, solar insolation causes upward movement during the day, and gravity causes downward movement at night. Energy storage followed by energy release. In no small part caused by the harnessing of entropy increase.

Wow. You are quoting my post of a year ago. It's easy to handle work with a solid and a uniform force. It's hard to deal with work at the atomic level in a gas. You have a uniform force down and a stochastic process up (and all other directions.) But yes, intuition leads to a net work of zero.

 

[mamooth]

gravity travels at the speed of light?

Yes. Read up on gravitational waves.

are there gravity particles?

Maybe. Maybe not. Some theories posit the existence of gravitons. The issue is being investigated.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

gravity travels at the speed of light?

Yes. Read up on gravitational waves.

are there gravity particles?

Maybe. Maybe not. Some theories posit the existence of gravitons. The issue is being investigated.

Unlike global warming, wheres the settled science on the speed of gravity?

 

[mamooth]

Unlike global warming, wheres the settled science on the speed of gravity?

The whole internet at your fingetips, I tell you where to look, and you still demand I educate you personally.

While I educate those willing to learn for free, you're clearly not in that category. Hence, if you wish my services as your tutor, you'll have to pay in advance to a paypal account, with my rates being $50/hr.

 

[IanC]

And gravity doesn't amount to weight moving downward?....is there no pressure difference between the top of the atmosphere, the middle of the atmosphere, and the bottom.

Gravity is a downward force. Atmosphere molecules move randomly all directions.

When does gravity stop pressing down on the atmosphere?

It doesn't. It's not doing work.
Work
refers to an activity involving a force and movement in the direction of the force.

That is splitting hairs. Gravity is always deflecting molecules towards the centre of the Earth. Kinetic collisions are pushing them up. The NET movement is zero, therefore no work is done under the specific definition of the term 'work'.

In the real world, solar insolation causes upward movement during the day, and gravity causes downward movement at night. Energy storage followed by energy release. In no small part caused by the harnessing of entropy increase.

Wow. You are quoting my post of a year ago. It's easy to handle work with a solid and a uniform force. It's hard to deal with work at the atomic level in a gas. You have a uniform force down and a stochastic process up (and all other directions.) But yes, intuition leads to a net work of zero.

I just followed SSDD'S quote back to there. I have been going forward instead of backwards. Perhaps the original discussion of Loschmidt is in this thread.

 

[IanC]

Here

So tell me what happens when they radiate at each other?

Here is a simple picture that maybe even you can understand. Suppose you are faced with an opponent and each of you has 100 baseballs. Both of you have a net behind you. You each throw the balls at each other's net at the same rate. At the end of 10 minutes, roughly how many balls do you think each opponent has in their net?

Curious, about how many hit the other side's balls? Do those make the net?

Good old retarded jc.

The analogy was to photons. Photons don't 'hit' each other. That is why the transfer of heat must be a net result of flows going in both directions.

 

[Wuwei]

I just followed SSDD'S quote back to there. I have been going forward instead of backwards. Perhaps the original discussion of Loschmidt is in this thread.

It may be in this thread:
Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

 

[IanC]

It seems you don't. All of those balls are thrown at the same time. If you really think none will hit in between never watched dodgeball. Let me take a pause and have you explain how they don't hit!

You still don't understand the analogy.
The balls are like photons. Thermal photons simply do not hit each other.
I thought I made it as simple as possible. I'm sorry you don't understand it as an analogy.

You were doing a-okay in the radiative transfer discussion we had. There was no need to degrade that interesting subject to the level where photons are becoming balls.
If light rays were colliding particle beams then it`s alright to use such an analogy.
It would have been better if you would have used the well explored subject of wave interference instead of balls hitting either a target or each other.

Wave interference? Are you kidding? Popeye would have absolutely no chance of understanding anything unless it was considerably dumbed down. The analogy was for him, not anyone else. Even then, he couldn't understand the analogy. He is the one who turned baseballs into huge dodge balls even though I tried twice to steer him away from collisions. JC, Billybob, and SSDD are all whacko in their understanding of science.

But getting back to your comment on wave interference. Black body radiation must be considered in terms of photons. That was how photons were hypothesized in the first place. Look up "ultraviolet catastrophe" and note Planck's solution.

If they really want to talk about EM waves they can only talk about superposition (uninteresting) not destructive interference since BB radiation is incoherent. Incoherent waves cannot cancel. Also those guys sometimes talk in terms of radio antennas canceling waves. Antennas can only redirect the coherent EM energy they can't destroy it because of the law of conservation of energy.

all you had to do was admit your analogy sucked and gone to something else. You didn't like that I pointed out that balls will hit each other if thrown at the same time from opposite directions in the same space. Seems you have no basic understanding of matter.

Good old retarded jc. Seems he has no basic understanding of light.

 

[IanC]

well factually speaking, SSDD was using the information to see what you all thought about what old socks posted. It was a trap post.

It was a trap post.

Yes. SSDD misinterpreted the info in the diagram and became trapped in his own errors.

what errors were his? And, what did he misinterpret? he merely copy and pasted the material from the university.

It seems you all misinterpreted his original post.

what errors were his?

The part where the Sun is radiating at -18C.

I never said that the sun was radiating at -18...more lies on your part...I said the graphic showed the incoming radiation from the sun at -18 degrees....do you never tire of lying?...but do feel free to point out any post i made where I said that the sun itself was radiating at -18....

never said that the sun was radiating at -18...

You did. Post #135.


Look at the damned graph....or any graph of the greenhouse effect...see the incoming solar radiation..that's one of your radiators...239.7wm^2....please tell me that you are aware that 239.7 wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....you are aware of that...aren't you?....


Now see the energy radiating up from the surface?....239.7 from the sun...and 239.7 from the atmosphere....two radiators...both radiating ...239.7wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees and suddenly you have a temperature of 29.85 degrees...

I am starting to think that you can't read a simple equation either...and I am betting that since you seem to realize that the sun is hot...that the climate science claim of the surface of the earth radiating at -18 degrees is just one more bit of bullshit upon which the greenhouse effect is based...

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect


...I said the graphic showed the incoming radiation from the sun at -18 degrees

Wrong. The graphic doesn't mention the temperature of the Sun. Or the temperature of the radiation.
You took the info from the graphic and misinterpreted it to say the Sun was radiating at -18C.

That error is on you and you alone.


please tell me that you are aware that 239.7 wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees...

Of the Earth's surface, not of the Sun.

The amount of radiation received from the sun is attenuated by the inverse square law. The quality of radiation is still that of a 5000K blackbody.

 

[IanC]

I never said that the sun was radiating at -18...more lies on your part...I said the graphic showed the incoming radiation from the sun at -18 degrees....do you never tire of lying?...but do feel free to point out any post i made where I said that the sun itself was radiating at -18...

As per usual, you are making a fundemental error. The radiation being received by the Earth from the Sun is still 5000K radiation, simply attenuated by the Area term in the S-B equation being calculated for transit through three dimensional space. There is still the same amount of order per watt to be used up as entropy increase. Radiation from a -18 source has very little order present to affect entropy driven processes.

The quality of energy coming from the Sun is much different than the quality of energy being 'backradiated' from the atmosphere.

 

[jc456]

I never said that the sun was radiating at -18...more lies on your part...I said the graphic showed the incoming radiation from the sun at -18 degrees....do you never tire of lying?...but do feel free to point out any post i made where I said that the sun itself was radiating at -18...

As per usual, you are making a fundemental error. The radiation being received by the Earth from the Sun is still 5000K radiation, simply attenuated by the Area term in the S-B equation being calculated for transit through three dimensional space. There is still the same amount of order per watt to be used up as entropy increase. Radiation from a -18 source has very little order present to affect entropy driven processes.

The quality of energy coming from the Sun is much different than the quality of energy being 'backradiated' from the atmosphere.

back radiation----LOL

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I never said that the sun was radiating at -18...more lies on your part...I said the graphic showed the incoming radiation from the sun at -18 degrees....do you never tire of lying?...but do feel free to point out any post i made where I said that the sun itself was radiating at -18...

As per usual, you are making a fundemental error. The radiation being received by the Earth from the Sun is still 5000K radiation, simply attenuated by the Area term in the S-B equation being calculated for transit through three dimensional space. There is still the same amount of order per watt to be used up as entropy increase. Radiation from a -18 source has very little order present to affect entropy driven processes.

The quality of energy coming from the Sun is much different than the quality of energy being 'backradiated' from the atmosphere.

back radiation----LOL

Pesky matter radiating in all directions.....

 

[jc456]

I never said that the sun was radiating at -18...more lies on your part...I said the graphic showed the incoming radiation from the sun at -18 degrees....do you never tire of lying?...but do feel free to point out any post i made where I said that the sun itself was radiating at -18...

As per usual, you are making a fundemental error. The radiation being received by the Earth from the Sun is still 5000K radiation, simply attenuated by the Area term in the S-B equation being calculated for transit through three dimensional space. There is still the same amount of order per watt to be used up as entropy increase. Radiation from a -18 source has very little order present to affect entropy driven processes.

The quality of energy coming from the Sun is much different than the quality of energy being 'backradiated' from the atmosphere.

back radiation----LOL

Pesky matter radiating in all directions.....

back radiation, LOL

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I never said that the sun was radiating at -18...more lies on your part...I said the graphic showed the incoming radiation from the sun at -18 degrees....do you never tire of lying?...but do feel free to point out any post i made where I said that the sun itself was radiating at -18...

As per usual, you are making a fundemental error. The radiation being received by the Earth from the Sun is still 5000K radiation, simply attenuated by the Area term in the S-B equation being calculated for transit through three dimensional space. There is still the same amount of order per watt to be used up as entropy increase. Radiation from a -18 source has very little order present to affect entropy driven processes.

The quality of energy coming from the Sun is much different than the quality of energy being 'backradiated' from the atmosphere.

back radiation----LOL

Pesky matter radiating in all directions.....

back radiation, LOL

Physics, just awful!