AGW: atmospheric physics

[SSDD]

Very well said, Ian.

You are obviously someone who knows something about physics and who has some respect for truth -- unlike the Denialist chatterbots which are programmed to lie, distort, insult and obfuscate. Why in the world are you consorting with such mindless devices?

Remember: If you sleep with dogs, don't be surprised if you get fleas.
.

Look around...it is you and yours who are lying, distorting, insulting (and you are especially guilty of hurling insult) and obfuscating. I am just repeating the second law of thermodynamics and you just don't seem to be able to get around that. It is a fundamental law of nature...one way gross energy movement...that's it and it destroys your hypothesis completely. Add the fact that you can't show the first bit of observed, measured evidence to support your claims and you have an even weaker case for your belief than fundamentalist, snake handling Christians.

 

[mamooth]

It is negated by the higher energy, it neither alters the star it is heading to by any measurable means nor is it making it "hotter". It's negated.

Could you describe the physical mechanism whereby this energy is "negated"? There's a Nobel Prize in it for you if you can validate your groundbreaking research into the just-invented field of "magic vanishing photons theory." For example, how does the photon know that it's heading for a hotter atom, and thus has to vanish?

Lets say the rock is disintegrated by one of your super mind rays that causes no explosion just de-materialization. Completely destroyed down to sub-atomic level. Now is that energy destroyed, converted, dissipated or nullified?

Okay, so you're postulating magical disintegration beams to prove ... heck, I can't figure out you're trying to prove. I just wonder why you think a story of a magic disintegration beam proves anything outside of your fantasy world where magic disintegration beams exist.

No one really knows why the 2nd law is still observed at the microscopic and sub levels.

But it's not observed at the atomic level. We do know that. That would be the point. A single atom doesn't give a shit about the 2nd Law, which only applies to systems of many atoms. Single atoms do, however, give a shit about conservation of energy, which your wacky theory violates big time.

Now don't blow a head gasket junior, but it's one of those little things no one gets really.

That would come as quite a surprise to all the scientists of planet earth, being they _do_ get it. The photon is simply freakin' absorbed by the hotter atom and heats it up more. We know that because we observe it happening.

The energy isn't destroyed, and it isn't intelligently redirected, and it isn't turned into more energy either. It is simply negated or some explain it as "absorbed by the incoming higher energy, either way like to describe it is fine, because we really haven't been able to observe the phenomenon yet at the degree it would take to answer the question.

Okay, that's progress in the "magic vanishing photon theory". We now learn the energy moves into a mystery dimension that no one really knows about, because it's a mystery. And thus, Conservation of Energy is upheld. One wonders though, how much energy this mystery dimension can keep absorbing until it goes blooey and destroys all of creation. You really need to flesh out the theory more, and quickly, as the fate of the universe rides on it, not to mention your Nobel Prize.

 

[mamooth]

I'll try again....Now do they heat one another to any noticeable measurement?

Of course they do. Equilibrium and conservation of energy require it.

No.. Why? Because they are in equilibrium with one another. No energy gained because they negate one another.

You use the word "equilibrium" a lot, but you have no concept of what it actually means.

Here's how your case works.

2 stars. Say the energy output of their fusion processes is "X".

That means, to be in equilibrium, the radiation of the two stars out into the universe beyond has to be "X".

However, problem. Put the stars close together, and a significant portion of each star's radiation hits the other star and does _not_ go out to the universe.

Call that, say, 0.01X. So, only 0.99X is going out to the universe, while 1.00X is being produced. Not in equilibrium.

Hence, stars get a little hotter (being they are absorbing energy from the other star), until they radiate about 1% more. When they reach that state, 0.99X + 0.01X = 1.00X goes out to the universe again, and equilibrium is restored.

That is what equilibrium is. Remember black-body radiation? How does that exist if your claims are correct? It couldn't, it wouldn't, and there is the crux of the matter...

I have no idea where you came up with such a bizarre claim. Your logic is not like our mere earth logic.

TADA!!!!! Equilibrium at work...

That was ... meaningless. It had nothing to do with the issue. Why on earth did you think it did?

Now please try and discipline your mind. This is not a simple matter of grabbing a theory out of context and claiming "eureka I've done it". It's too complex and alien for that. In your haste to prove your claim, you forgot how equilibrium works and about black-body radiation...

You fail hard at understanding both equilibrium and black-body radiation.

You have a very poor grasp of common sense, especially of how to set up the geometry of a problem. Those are traits you share with most denialists. Most denialists simply suck at understanding how to solve a physics problem, since they've had zero training in the matter.

Training matters. Statistical thermodynamics is a Junior-level college topic for a Physics major, but essentially no denialist knows thermo beyond a high school level. Hence, they all fail hard at it. They lack the training to even understand how little they know of the topic.

 

[gslack]

A rock on a hillside has potential energy correct? I mean one push and there it is kinetic energy. Lets say the rock is disintegrated by one of your super mind rays that causes no explosion just de-materialization. Completely destroyed down to sub-atomic level. Now is that energy destroyed, converted, dissipated or nullified? Well it's not destroyed because that violates the known laws. It's not converted because it was a special mind ray we made up just like your "nuke" story, and it wasn't designed for energy/matter transformation. It could have possibly been dissipated but we really wouldn't be able to measure the change anyway because the variance would be too minuscule. So it would most likely have been negated, because it doesn't actually violate any of the laws and it's the best explanation we can give...

Well, it will certainly take many times the lifetime of the universe before anyone could derive any intelligible content from that paragraph !!

Some CIA technicians definitely need to repair and up-grade their economy-model gslack chatterbot. It has definitely failed the Turing test for human intelligence.

Whatever could this bucket of rusty micro-chips be distorting from its el-cheapo science programming? From what broken file of vocabulary items did it derive "de-materialization"?

The only way the rock could be "de-materialized" is if an equal mass of the appropriate anti-matter were brought in contact with it -- and then there would be one hell of an explosion!!

Perhaps this chatterbot verbal flailing is supposed to mean that all the electro-magnetic and other bond-forces are disrupted, and the constituent elementary particles float off into the aether?

The science programming of the gslack chatterbot is so defective that it does not contain the information that no bonds -- electro-magnetic, gravitational, or whatever -- are ever formed without giving up energy. The structures form by falling down an energy potential well. You cannot send a rock from the Earth into outer space without supplying at least escape-velocity energy. The same is true for all the electro-magnetic and other bonds which hold molecules, atoms and nuclei together. Energy was given up when the bonds were formed and the particles fell down potential wells. There are no exceptions to this fact -- otherwise, the First Law of Thermodynamics would be violated.

I imagine that people of low intelligence and inadequate education are fooled by the apparent exceptions of the energy given off in nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. The energy given off in these reactions can only derive from the constituent particles being re-shuffled and thereby falling further down their respective energy-wells. To return the lead and helium nuclei in fission back to uranium nuclei would require at least as much energy as was released in the fission reaction. To raise the protons and neutrons of helium back to the energy level of being two deuterium nuclei would require paying back the energy released in the fusion reaction.

The blindingly obvious proof of this fact is that the mass of a helium nucleus is less than the combined mass of two deuterium nuclei by precisely the amount of energy that was released in the fusion reaction.

Therefore, it is obvious, on all counts, that the gslack chatterbot is excreting gibberish and has failed the Turing test for human intelligence.
.

LOL, so your defense is to argue the make-believe mind ray....ROFL....

Whats with all the circle talk? What You are reciting is not applicable here.. again and trying to pretend some kind of higher intellect...

Stop posturing fool, no one's buying it.. Any comment on your previous false quote???

You quoted a false claim regarding poincare and tried to pass it off as genuine. Now you try and pass of unrelated material in the same manner..

IS there anything about you that's genuine???

 

[gslack]

It is negated by the higher energy, it neither alters the star it is heading to by any measurable means nor is it making it "hotter". It's negated.

Could you describe the physical mechanism whereby this energy is "negated"? There's a Nobel Prize in it for you if you can validate your groundbreaking research into the just-invented field of "magic vanishing photons theory." For example, how does the photon know that it's heading for a hotter atom, and thus has to vanish?

Lets say the rock is disintegrated by one of your super mind rays that causes no explosion just de-materialization. Completely destroyed down to sub-atomic level. Now is that energy destroyed, converted, dissipated or nullified?

Okay, so you're postulating magical disintegration beams to prove ... heck, I can't figure out you're trying to prove. I just wonder why you think a story of a magic disintegration beam proves anything outside of your fantasy world where magic disintegration beams exist.



But it's not observed at the atomic level. We do know that. That would be the point. A single atom doesn't give a shit about the 2nd Law, which only applies to systems of many atoms. Single atoms do, however, give a shit about conservation of energy, which your wacky theory violates big time.

Now don't blow a head gasket junior, but it's one of those little things no one gets really.

That would come as quite a surprise to all the scientists of planet earth, being they _do_ get it. The photon is simply freakin' absorbed by the hotter atom and heats it up more. We know that because we observe it happening.

The energy isn't destroyed, and it isn't intelligently redirected, and it isn't turned into more energy either. It is simply negated or some explain it as "absorbed by the incoming higher energy, either way like to describe it is fine, because we really haven't been able to observe the phenomenon yet at the degree it would take to answer the question.

Okay, that's progress in the "magic vanishing photon theory". We now learn the energy moves into a mystery dimension that no one really knows about, because it's a mystery. And thus, Conservation of Energy is upheld. One wonders though, how much energy this mystery dimension can keep absorbing until it goes blooey and destroys all of creation. You really need to flesh out the theory more, and quickly, as the fate of the universe rides on it, not to mention your Nobel Prize.

AAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!Wrong again junior...

You can't think on this level we just saw it again.Stop trying to pretend, you can't fake understanding...

You can't understand the real concepts here and completely misunderstand theory versus observed fact. Fact is as I said before we just don't know what happens to energy on the micro and sub levels, no one does, its all theory and speculation.

You have your camp who believes the answer is some kind of variability in the first and second laws, and the realist camp who know they do not know yet and just accept the fact that the 1st and 2nd laws hold. Why not they always hold any other time...

Again, like it or not, buying the story of the first camp (your side)means that you can create perfect machines, and a perpetual motion machine is a viable pursuit... I call that retarded and ignorant, but you seem to be okay with it...

Please go and google more things you don't understand junior. I find your ignorance amusing..LOL

 

[gslack]

Calssic numan sock-think.. Don't like the outcome of an experiment, just keep changing it till you get the answer you want. Nice... Explains a lot...

 

[numan]

LOL, so your defense is to argue the make-believe mind ray....ROFL....

Whats with all the circle talk? What You are reciting is not applicable here.. again and trying to pretend some kind of higher intellect...

Stop posturing fool, no one's buying it.. Any comment on your previous false quote???

You quoted a false claim regarding poincare and tried to pass it off as genuine. Now you try and pass of unrelated material in the same manner..

IS there anything about you that's genuine???

Isn't it obvious that the ersatz verbiage above is the output of a computer chatterbot?

It's no better than similar non-sequiturs I remember from primitive Turing machine prototypes from the early 1960's !!
.

 

[gslack]

LOL, so your defense is to argue the make-believe mind ray....ROFL....

Whats with all the circle talk? What You are reciting is not applicable here.. again and trying to pretend some kind of higher intellect...

Stop posturing fool, no one's buying it.. Any comment on your previous false quote???

You quoted a false claim regarding poincare and tried to pass it off as genuine. Now you try and pass of unrelated material in the same manner..

IS there anything about you that's genuine???

Isn't it obvious that the ersatz verbiage above is the output of a computer chatterbot?

It's no better than similar non-sequiturs I remember from primitive Turing machine prototypes from the early 1960's !!
.

"ersatz verbiage"

LOL, you don't see the irony in your choice of words there???

Pot meet kettle....

 

[mamooth]

AAAHHHHHH!!!!!!Wrong again junior...

No, that will not win you the Nobel Prize for your new "Magical Vanishing Photons" theory. It will just get people to think, correctly, that you're a chickenshit who cuts and runs when his idiot claims get laughed at.

I have never before seen any single person create a theory as dumb as the "magical vanishing photons" theory. I didn't think it was possible for someone to be stupid enough to make such a claim that was so at odds with observed reality. And yet here, we have four denialists spouting it -- SSDD, PolarBear, Gslack and Westwall. Each one spouts a slightly different version, but that just means each of them is retarded in his own special way, like special little retarded snowflakes.

This is one crazy cult you guys have formed. Normal humans would think that if their theory requires them to formulate an entirely new branch of magical vanishing photon physics, then it might possibly not be correct. But no, not you guys. You've all reinforced the crazy of each other and sent it to heights undreamed of, like a good cult should.

and a perpetual motion machine is a viable pursuit

No matter how often you and Westwall babble about how you're making a perpetual motion machine, you still can't do it. Just like PolarBear is not going to able to make a heatsink with fins melt from backradiation. Those things are not possible, and repeating the claim and wishing real hard will not make them possible.

Let's go over some of your greatest hits again.

According to you, if you shine two heat lamps on an object, it won't get any hotter than if you shine one heat lamp on it.

A 4-year-old understands intuitively that your theory is laughable. It really is that dumb. Yet against all reason, you cling to it. Why? Because you'd be ejected from the cult here if you dared display cognitive abilities on par with a 4-year-old. And nothing is more important to you than the cult.

 

[gslack]

AAAHHHHHH!!!!!!Wrong again junior...

No, that will not win you the Nobel Prize for your new "Magical Vanishing Photons" theory. It will just get people to think, correctly, that you're a chickenshit who cuts and runs when his idiot claims get laughed at.

I have never before seen any single person create a theory as dumb as the "magical vanishing photons" theory. I didn't think it was possible for someone to be stupid enough to make such a claim that was so at odds with observed reality. And yet here, we have four denialists spouting it -- SSDD, PolarBear, Gslack and Westwall. Each one spouts a slightly different version, but that just means each of them is retarded in his own special way, like special little retarded snowflakes.

This is one crazy cult you guys have formed. Normal humans would think that if their theory requires them to formulate an entirely new branch of magical vanishing photon physics, then it might possibly not be correct. But no, not you guys. You've all reinforced the crazy of each other and sent it to heights undreamed of, like a good cult should.

Aand a perpetual motion machine is a viable pursuit

No matter how often you and Westwall babble about how you're making a perpetual motion machine, you still can't do it. Just like PolarBear is not going to able to make a heatsink with fins melt from backradiation. Those things are not possible, and repeating the claim and wishing real hard will not make them possible.

Let's go over some of your greatest hits again.

According to you, if you shine two heat lamps on an object, it won't get any hotter than if you shine one heat lamp on it.

A 4-year-old understands intuitively that your theory is laughable. It really is that dumb. Yet against all reason, you cling to it. Why? Because you'd be ejected from the cult here if you dared display cognitive abilities on par with a 4-year-old. And nothing is more important to you than the cult.

Okay junior you just showed your immaturity... Nice work, keep it up.. Lying about our claims and editing our posts will not help you here...

But what it WILL do is get you noticed by everyone for being a juvenile troll.. Perhaps eventually a mod will see your behavior and take exception to it...

Not gonna play with you if you are going to lie about what I said... Matter of fact,if you were smart you wouldn't try this crap with me. The backlash will go badly for you.

 

[polarbear]

An electron is energy... as I understand, the smallest discrete bit of energy possible of electromagnetic radiation.

Another bit of ga-ga incoherence from one whose Dummheit the Gods themselves struggle in vain to correct!! It never ends! It just goes on and on and on!!

Surely no one who was not raised on a garbage dump in Calcutta could oink such total ignorance of basic physics!

An electron is not a photon! A photon is not an electron! One is ponderable matter! The other is imponderable radiation! One is a half-spin fermion, obeying Fermi-Dirac statistics; the other is an integer-spin boson, obeying Bose-Einstein statistics!

I swear that I could not dream up such total mental chaos as vomits in every utterance that this foolish, foolish man comes up with!!
.

Get a load of this. First the "erudite numan" hands out physics grades praising people that have photons from red stars bombarding blue stars like little magic bullets and now he`s copy/pasting wikipedia phrases in here, but has absolutely no clue what`s behind the buzzwords.
You know shit about physics and photons:
Snell`s law:

Light speed in a vacuum = 3*10^5 km/ s , in glass it is 2* 10^5 km/s
The frequency, the wavelength and the energy of the mass-less photons stay the same even though light travels only at 2/3 of c through glass
So what happened ?
If f= velocity / wavelength and the velocity is only 2/3 rd. in the glass did the wavelength get shorter so that the equation remains valid ?
That can`t be else the photons just gained a shitload of energy just as soon as they encountered the glass.
You are the physics expert, so you tell me...!
If photons had a mass then m *50 000 000 000 km^2 / s ^2 energy would have gone missing, like as in "absorbed"..???..."heating up the glass"..??
Photons don`t have a mass and don`t transfer "thermal energy" to the glass, no energy was "absorbed" because photons don`t behave like the silly little bullets that you all use in your stupid "back radiation" examples.
They obey wave mechanic and for you to get a specific energy flux, be that light or any other electromagnetic wave you have to increase the square meters by the square of the distance to get the same photon energy flux in watts per m^2 , .....
...or wait in seconds by the square of the distance longer to get the same same number of watt seconds energy, as you would get from a closer light source .
It`s called the "Poynting factor" something I`m sure you never even heard of.
Else you would not be applauding the Siamese cat every time it craps
thermodynamic fuming cat shit turds in here instead of her "nuclear reactor" litter box .
Photons have little to do with general thermodynamics, all they have in common with thermodynamics is a thermal energy equivalent and they don`t turn into equivalent "heat" unless all other avenues are denied.
You idiots figure, every time a photon is "absorbed" it has to heat something up.
Then I`m also sure you have no idea that you can absorb almost all the sunlight with welder`s glasses and that glass does not heat up at all.
You can also block light completely with 2 polarizing filters and nothing gets heated up or reflected.

You and your socks have no idea about physics let alone photons, absorption or emission spectroscopy .
The only thing you loudmouth libtards can do is being loudmouths, that spend 24/7 on ego trips in internet forums such as this one or reading "skeptical science.org" crap and posting it here.
None of you have what it would take to make a living in applied science and seeing when and how much you and your moron brigade posts day after day all day long it`s obvious that nobody else has any use for you.
First you kept praising IanC, + the Siamese psycho + the phony "journalist" from Finland a.ka. "Saigon" when they were trying to figure out how by how much a few photons from a "red star" like Bethelgeuse could heat up a hotter star like the sun which is 640 light years from that red star and exposes only hydrogen plasma to the red star and now you pretend to know about Fermi-Dirac statistics and Bose-Einstein statistics.
I mistakenly thought that IanC would be smart enough to think about how many watt seconds of energy the sun has been radiating out at a rate of 383 yottawatts watts during the same time it takes to get "heated" with a single pico watt second's worth of photons from a 640 light year distant red star.
And now all this bullshit,... coming from the same idiot that said only a week ago that solar wind is blowing away the earth's water and that limestone can be "oxidized" with oxides in the earth's crust to generate enough CO2 so that our atmosphere will burst like the membrane of an egg.
Infuckingcredible how full of bullshit you are. Even worse that the fake "I used to run nuclear reactors" and the phony Googled DD214.

Stick to playing fiddle or dress up like Papa Pinguin (like you said you did) and go "study" again in China where you have seen the same "hard wired computers" as the on/off button that the phony "Nuclear watch officer" called "hard wired logic".
So what exactly did you "study" there?
Government enforced abortion methods, like the ones you were suggesting in your "Numan footprint" thread?
Had your mama known how you turned out she would have aborted you!

 

[IanC]

Not at all. The laws of thermodynamics are laws of nature...not laws of systems. I only pointed out that to neuman because his reference was specific to closed systems and therefore irrelavent to this discussion.

there are so many things that seem to be incomprehensible to you. you dont seem to understand the difference between 4000K light from 150M kilometres away and 300K IR from a metre away. if you magnify sunlight you can heat something up to nearly 4000K. sunlight is 'ordered' because it is all going in one direction (relative to us), IR is idffuse and unordered in the atmosphere, and unable to be useful. electricity is even more ordered, which is why it is so useful.

Appeal to complexity doesn't change the fact that the second law says that heat won't move from cool to warm and energy won't go from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. Make the universe as complicated as you wish, but the transfer of energy is a fundamental process which must obey certain laws....one of those being energy won't move spontaneously from low temperature objects to high temperature objects. If your hypothesis isn't in accordance with that law...it is a failure right out of the gate.

the laws of thermodynamics are statistical descriptions of the consequences of physical mechanisms. you cannot point out which physical mechanisms control the prohibition of radiation while the textbook descriptions of radiation disagree with your 'variation'.

I am not appealing to complexity. the sun is the source of energy for both the surface and the atmosphere. there is a difference between the source of energy and the description of how a bolus of energy flows through the system. the surface and atmosphere are not sources of energy, they are containers of energy that are heavily affected by heatsinks and are in a state of near equilibrium in our charged up system.

on a different note, even a star is a system in equilibrium. the core is producing energy at a temp of millions of degrees but the surface is only thousands of degrees. it is a conundrum to me to describe a red giant which is powered by an even hotter core but is so large in diameter that the surface is radiating at a cooler temp than smaller stars.

back to earthly things. once the sun has heated up the surface, and the atmosphere, charged the heatsinks, put evapotranspiration into effect, thermals, etc, etc and everything is in equilibrium, mankind came along and added CO2 which slightly changed one part of the calculation, which obviously must change all the other pieces of the equilibrium. while I think that the disturbance is almost completely compensated by the other parts of the equilibrium others think it is not, and build computer programs based on CO2 being a dominant climate factor. they could be right but I dont think so.

we are arguing about the radiative process near the surface. temperature differentials between the surface and the immediate air above it are typically small. the temp of the air compared to the air a few meters above it are smaller still. the radiation going up only slightly overmatches the radiation coming down. it comprises of a swap of nearly identical radiation with a slight preponderance outward, unless of course you think radiation stops if there is no temperature differential.

you made a comment that radiation is more effective than conduction or convection. that is absolutely preposterous. why do we use thermos containers and double pane windows? if you mean that all the energy that leaves the earth is by radiation, that is true but convection, conduction and latent heat from phase change are the heavy lifters from the surface to the upper atmosphere.

 

[IanC]

I'll try again....

Two stars equal in heat and energy in a perfect vacum (meaning absolute zero ambient temps etc and so on). Facing one another far enough away to avoid any other energy transfer but radiation. The distance negates any surface heat transfer to one another, the only energy transfer is by radiation.. Keep up admiral socks...

Now do they heat one another to any noticeable measurement? No.. Why? Because they are in equilibrium with one another. No energy gained because they negate one another. That is what equilibrium is. Remember black-body radiation? How does that exist if your claims are correct? It couldn't, it wouldn't, and there is the crux of the matter...

Now same two equal stars, same parameters save one change. place a rotating ball in the center. perfect rotation, no wobble or variance of any kind, no atmosphere, just a solid spherical mass equal distance from the two stars.

What happens to the sphere? it heats up until it reaches equilibrium with the energy output of the two heat sources, then it stops increasing. It doesn't stop when it matches the temps of the two stars or when it matches the two stars combined output, but heats up until it reaches the temperature the energy out put of the two stars that the distance, parameters and environment will allow.

TADA!!!!! Equilibrium at work...

Now please try and discipline your mind. This is not a simple matter of grabbing a theory out of context and claiming "eureka I've done it". It's too complex and alien for that. In your haste to prove your claim, you forgot how equilibrium works and about black-body radiation...

now my head hurts and I am going back to insulting you geniuses...

why do your comments never seem to have a point?

a common example of how two heat sources add to each other is two briquets, or lumps of coal or charcoal embers in a campfire will be more red on the coincident sides than the outward sides because they are losing less heat when radiating towards a warmer object than to the cooler outside that doesnt radiate back as strongly. and yes I realize there are confounding factors but that doesnt negate the radiation angle.

 

[gslack]

Not at all. The laws of thermodynamics are laws of nature...not laws of systems. I only pointed out that to neuman because his reference was specific to closed systems and therefore irrelavent to this discussion.

there are so many things that seem to be incomprehensible to you. you dont seem to understand the difference between 4000K light from 150M kilometres away and 300K IR from a metre away. if you magnify sunlight you can heat something up to nearly 4000K. sunlight is 'ordered' because it is all going in one direction (relative to us), IR is idffuse and unordered in the atmosphere, and unable to be useful. electricity is even more ordered, which is why it is so useful.

Appeal to complexity doesn't change the fact that the second law says that heat won't move from cool to warm and energy won't go from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. Make the universe as complicated as you wish, but the transfer of energy is a fundamental process which must obey certain laws....one of those being energy won't move spontaneously from low temperature objects to high temperature objects. If your hypothesis isn't in accordance with that law...it is a failure right out of the gate.

the laws of thermodynamics are statistical descriptions of the consequences of physical mechanisms. you cannot point out which physical mechanisms control the prohibition of radiation while the textbook descriptions of radiation disagree with your 'variation'.

I am not appealing to complexity. the sun is the source of energy for both the surface and the atmosphere. there is a difference between the source of energy and the description of how a bolus of energy flows through the system. the surface and atmosphere are not sources of energy, they are containers of energy that are heavily affected by heatsinks and are in a state of near equilibrium in our charged up system.

on a different note, even a star is a system in equilibrium. the core is producing energy at a temp of millions of degrees but the surface is only thousands of degrees. it is a conundrum to me to describe a red giant which is powered by an even hotter core but is so large in diameter that the surface is radiating at a cooler temp than smaller stars.

back to earthly things. once the sun has heated up the surface, and the atmosphere, charged the heatsinks, put evapotranspiration into effect, thermals, etc, etc and everything is in equilibrium, mankind came along and added CO2 which slightly changed one part of the calculation, which obviously must change all the other pieces of the equilibrium. while I think that the disturbance is almost completely compensated by the other parts of the equilibrium others think it is not, and build computer programs based on CO2 being a dominant climate factor. they could be right but I dont think so.

we are arguing about the radiative process near the surface. temperature differentials between the surface and the immediate air above it are typically small. the temp of the air compared to the air a few meters above it are smaller still. the radiation going up only slightly overmatches the radiation coming down. it comprises of a swap of nearly identical radiation with a slight preponderance outward, unless of course you think radiation stops if there is no temperature differential.

you made a comment that radiation is more effective than conduction or convection. that is absolutely preposterous. why do we use thermos containers and double pane windows? if you mean that all the energy that leaves the earth is by radiation, that is true but convection, conduction and latent heat from phase change are the heavy lifters from the surface to the upper atmosphere.

The bolded and underlined part, BULLSHIT!!!!

You trying to claim the statistical mechanics interpretation as thee interpretation, covering all aspects... That's a bald-faced lie Ian.. You should know better..

Either you don't know the distinction, or you don't understand there is one, either way it's misleading and inaccurate to make that claim... The 2nd law is an absolute law in the macroscopic. In the micro and sub levels it is used as a statistical law because that's the only way they can use it, due to the fact they can't actually see, the processes only their effects. They use it because they just can't explain what goes on not because it allows two-way energy flow...

Now please go and make that miracle machine that shows this process in action... I'd like to have infinite energy from a finite source....

 

[gslack]

I'll try again....

Two stars equal in heat and energy in a perfect vacum (meaning absolute zero ambient temps etc and so on). Facing one another far enough away to avoid any other energy transfer but radiation. The distance negates any surface heat transfer to one another, the only energy transfer is by radiation.. Keep up admiral socks...

Now do they heat one another to any noticeable measurement? No.. Why? Because they are in equilibrium with one another. No energy gained because they negate one another. That is what equilibrium is. Remember black-body radiation? How does that exist if your claims are correct? It couldn't, it wouldn't, and there is the crux of the matter...

Now same two equal stars, same parameters save one change. place a rotating ball in the center. perfect rotation, no wobble or variance of any kind, no atmosphere, just a solid spherical mass equal distance from the two stars.

What happens to the sphere? it heats up until it reaches equilibrium with the energy output of the two heat sources, then it stops increasing. It doesn't stop when it matches the temps of the two stars or when it matches the two stars combined output, but heats up until it reaches the temperature the energy out put of the two stars that the distance, parameters and environment will allow.

TADA!!!!! Equilibrium at work...

Now please try and discipline your mind. This is not a simple matter of grabbing a theory out of context and claiming "eureka I've done it". It's too complex and alien for that. In your haste to prove your claim, you forgot how equilibrium works and about black-body radiation...

now my head hurts and I am going back to insulting you geniuses...

why do your comments never seem to have a point?

a common example of how two heat sources add to each other is two briquets, or lumps of coal or charcoal embers in a campfire will be more red on the coincident sides than the outward sides because they are losing less heat when radiating towards a warmer object than to the cooler outside that doesnt radiate back as strongly. and yes I realize there are confounding factors but that doesnt negate the radiation angle.

Ian again you have totry and change the parameters until you get the results you want....

You just don't get it do you.. My experiment was simple and eliminated any other methods of heat transfer, yours adds all sorts of variables and you think it proves you are correct.. It doesn't it only shows you can turn milk into butter if you churn it enough.. Damn dude it's not that hard.. You are supposed to be so smart.. WTH??

We tried this before and you did the same things... You posted a thought experiment by some ding-dong luke-warmer and when it was shown flawed you altered the parameters in every post.. Seriously man, get a grip.. You're wrong.. Sorry but you just are man..

You cannot justify back-radiation, but hey no biggie neither can they... Get over it, you were had..

 

[IanC]

I never said anything about forbiding radiation. The second law says that energy won't spontaneously move from a cool object to a warm object. Short of the cool object simply not radiating in that direction, what other plausible explanation is there? We know that if we wire a 12 v batter to a 6 v battery, electricity only runs one way along the wire...we know that water only flows one way in a hose...we know that marbles roll down hill, we know that rocks fall when dropped....what is so different about radiation not spontaneously moving from a warm body to a cool one?

This, of course, is the crux of the matter.

It doesn't seem to sink in for you, no matter how many times people point out that radiation is fundamentally different than matter, you keep thinking that principles pertaining to matter apply to photons.

Every bit of matter in the universe above 0K is playing 'hot potato' by emitting photons to get rid of its energy before photons from elsewhere build it up again. Once emitted, a photon continues on its path until it reaches another bit of matter. There is no 'cancelling out', and it continues in a straight line in the random direction that it was created on. Warmer objects create more photons and at slightly higher energy wavelengths...than cooler objects.

Very well said, Ian.

You are obviously someone who knows something about physics and who has some respect for truth -- unlike the Denialist chatterbots which are programmed to lie, distort, insult and obfuscate. Why in the world are you consorting with such mindless devices?

Remember: If you sleep with dogs, don't be surprised if you get fleas.
.

I really only care about the truth, or at least the closest we can come to it. nothing we say here on the message board actually amounts to much.

who are you talking about when you say "Denialist chatterbots which are programmed to lie, distort, insult and obfuscate"? as I see it, it is people like Michael Mann who lie, distort, insult and obfuscate. the majority of scientists (even climate scientists) are honest and honourable, why then do they not come down on charlatans like Mann? where are the honest scientists who should be denouncing the distortions and misdirections of Marcott2013?

would you be OK with the police lying, cheating and manipulating evidence to frame a guilty criminal? how about an innocent citizen who only looks guilty by circumstantial evidence?

there is lots of equivicable evidence out there. warmists like Old Rocks and Saigon actually think melting ice is direct proof against CO2!

 

[IanC]

I'll try again....

Two stars equal in heat and energy in a perfect vacum (meaning absolute zero ambient temps etc and so on). Facing one another far enough away to avoid any other energy transfer but radiation. The distance negates any surface heat transfer to one another, the only energy transfer is by radiation.. Keep up admiral socks...

Now do they heat one another to any noticeable measurement? No.. Why? Because they are in equilibrium with one another. No energy gained because they negate one another. That is what equilibrium is. Remember black-body radiation? How does that exist if your claims are correct? It couldn't, it wouldn't, and there is the crux of the matter...

Now same two equal stars, same parameters save one change. place a rotating ball in the center. perfect rotation, no wobble or variance of any kind, no atmosphere, just a solid spherical mass equal distance from the two stars.

What happens to the sphere? it heats up until it reaches equilibrium with the energy output of the two heat sources, then it stops increasing. It doesn't stop when it matches the temps of the two stars or when it matches the two stars combined output, but heats up until it reaches the temperature the energy out put of the two stars that the distance, parameters and environment will allow.

TADA!!!!! Equilibrium at work...

Now please try and discipline your mind. This is not a simple matter of grabbing a theory out of context and claiming "eureka I've done it". It's too complex and alien for that. In your haste to prove your claim, you forgot how equilibrium works and about black-body radiation...

now my head hurts and I am going back to insulting you geniuses...

why do your comments never seem to have a point?

a common example of how two heat sources add to each other is two briquets, or lumps of coal or charcoal embers in a campfire will be more red on the coincident sides than the outward sides because they are losing less heat when radiating towards a warmer object than to the cooler outside that doesnt radiate back as strongly. and yes I realize there are confounding factors but that doesnt negate the radiation angle.

Ian again you have totry and change the parameters until you get the results you want....

You just don't get it do you.. My experiment was simple and eliminated any other methods of heat transfer, yours adds all sorts of variables and you think it proves you are correct.. It doesn't it only shows you can turn milk into butter if you churn it enough.. Damn dude it's not that hard.. You are supposed to be so smart.. WTH??

We tried this before and you did the same things... You posted a thought experiment by some ding-dong luke-warmer and when it was shown flawed you altered the parameters in every post.. Seriously man, get a grip.. You're wrong.. Sorry but you just are man..

You cannot justify back-radiation, but hey no biggie neither can they... Get over it, you were had..

what was your point? you never said what your point was. the sphere would obviously be hotter between the two stars, right? it is always taking in radiation, whereas if it was only next to one star it would have a 'night time' to lose energy. again, what is your point?

 

[IanC]

Either you don't know the distinction, or you don't understand there is one, either way it's misleading and inaccurate to make that claim... The 2nd law is an absolute law in the macroscopic. In the micro and sub levels it is used as a statistical law because that's the only way they can use it, due to the fact they can't actually see, the processes only their effects. They use it because they just can't explain what goes on not because it allows two-way energy flow...

Now please go and make that miracle machine that shows this process in action... I'd like to have infinite energy from a finite source....

the second law is not absolute, just statistically probable to the point of absurdity. can you prove otherwise?

in the microscopic world, the possible range of range of radiation wavelengths is large. a molecule, atom, ion or electron may at anytime receive a photon of higher energy than is the statistical norm for the temperature, leading to a fluxuation at that locale. if everything only received average or less than average packets of energy then the temperature would have to be decreasing.

can you point out anyone who has claimed a perpetual motion machine? until you can why dont you let that strawman take a rest.

 

[gslack]

why do your comments never seem to have a point?

a common example of how two heat sources add to each other is two briquets, or lumps of coal or charcoal embers in a campfire will be more red on the coincident sides than the outward sides because they are losing less heat when radiating towards a warmer object than to the cooler outside that doesnt radiate back as strongly. and yes I realize there are confounding factors but that doesnt negate the radiation angle.

Ian again you have totry and change the parameters until you get the results you want....

You just don't get it do you.. My experiment was simple and eliminated any other methods of heat transfer, yours adds all sorts of variables and you think it proves you are correct.. It doesn't it only shows you can turn milk into butter if you churn it enough.. Damn dude it's not that hard.. You are supposed to be so smart.. WTH??

We tried this before and you did the same things... You posted a thought experiment by some ding-dong luke-warmer and when it was shown flawed you altered the parameters in every post.. Seriously man, get a grip.. You're wrong.. Sorry but you just are man..

You cannot justify back-radiation, but hey no biggie neither can they... Get over it, you were had..

what was your point? you never said what your point was. the sphere would obviously be hotter between the two stars, right? it is always taking in radiation, whereas if it was only next to one star it would have a 'night time' to lose energy. again, what is your point?

My point was clear but you had to read the entire post, not pick out a fragment and go with it. Your pointing out something out of context, and then asking me what my point was. In its context it was clear, but taken out of the whole it wasn't...

Here it is again. Read it if you want to understand the point, if you can't be bothered to read it fully, then the clarification is your fault not mine...

"Two stars equal in heat and energy in a perfect vacum (meaning absolute zero ambient temps etc and so on). Facing one another far enough away to avoid any other energy transfer but radiation. The distance negates any surface heat transfer to one another, the only energy transfer is by radiation.. Keep up admiral socks...

Now do they heat one another to any noticeable measurement? No.. Why? Because they are in equilibrium with one another. No energy gained because they negate one another. That is what equilibrium is. Remember black-body radiation? How does that exist if your claims are correct? It couldn't, it wouldn't, and there is the crux of the matter...

Now same two equal stars, same parameters save one change. place a rotating ball in the center. perfect rotation, no wobble or variance of any kind, no atmosphere, just a solid spherical mass equal distance from the two stars.

What happens to the sphere? it heats up until it reaches equilibrium with the energy output of the two heat sources, then it stops increasing. It doesn't stop when it matches the temps of the two stars or when it matches the two stars combined output, but heats up until it reaches the temperature the energy out put of the two stars that the distance, parameters and environment will allow.

TADA!!!!! Equilibrium at work..."

now notice the first part explained the experiment and laid the parameters. It was simple. Notice the next part added the sphere and went on.. The point was trying to explain the difference between two equal heat sources in equilibrium with one another and the effect of black-body radiation, versus the same two heat sources interacting with another body at equal distance from each of them, and how the added sphere changes the parameters regarding black-body and equilibrium of the 3 bodies.

The two stars alone are in equilibrium negating any added heat from one another. The environmental parameters made conduction and convection non-factors, making radiation the only transfer method. That being the case and the fact that two bodies in equilibrium do not add any heat but rather remain in equal balance, negates any claims that they can effect noticeable change to each respective temperature.

Adding the sphere to the system at equal distance to the two stars, showed how the system changed. The "equilibrium" would now be different, effected by the third body,the distance between that 3rd body and its twin heat sources as well as distance. Rotation insured that the sphere would be in as near constant sunlight as allowable, negating any day/night complexities to confound the concept needlessly.

The last full paragraph I wrote you responded to, actually explained the entire thing... I underlined it above.. Now that its clarified further, reading what came before it by the numan sock brigade should make the entire clear...

Just TRY and read what you are attacking first..

 

[gslack]

Either you don't know the distinction, or you don't understand there is one, either way it's misleading and inaccurate to make that claim... The 2nd law is an absolute law in the macroscopic. In the micro and sub levels it is used as a statistical law because that's the only way they can use it, due to the fact they can't actually see, the processes only their effects. They use it because they just can't explain what goes on not because it allows two-way energy flow...

Now please go and make that miracle machine that shows this process in action... I'd like to have infinite energy from a finite source....

the second law is not absolute, just statistically probable to the point of absurdity. can you prove otherwise?

in the microscopic world, the possible range of range of radiation wavelengths is large. a molecule, atom, ion or electron may at anytime receive a photon of higher energy than is the statistical norm for the temperature, leading to a fluxuation at that locale. if everything only received average or less than average packets of energy then the temperature would have to be decreasing.

can you point out anyone who has claimed a perpetual motion machine? until you can why dont you let that strawman take a rest.

Don't have to Ian, physicist already have, the world proves it all the time.

Again you are taking the statistical mechanics interpretation used expressly FOR that field, and trying to equate it to situations and parameters where it was not intended.

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Derivation from statistical mechanics

Further information: H-theorem
Due to Loschmidt's paradox, derivations the Second Law have to make an assumption regarding the past, namely that the system is uncorrelated at some time in the past; this allows for simple probabilistic treatment. This assumption is usually thought as a boundary condition, and thus the second Law is ultimately a consequence of the initial conditions somewhere in the past, probably at the beginning of the universe (the Big Bang), though other scenarios have also been suggested.[24][25][26]

Given these assumptions, in statistical mechanics, the Second Law is not a postulate, rather it is a consequence of the fundamental postulate, also known as the equal prior probability postulate, so long as one is clear that simple probability arguments are applied only to the future, while for the past there are auxiliary sources of information which tell us that it was low entropy[citation needed]. The first part of the second law, which states that the entropy of a thermally isolated system can only increase is a trivial consequence of the equal prior probability postulate, if we restrict the notion of the entropy to systems in thermal equilibrium.

Here's the difference in the two...

Clausius statement
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.[9] 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.[10]
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.

[edit]Kelvin statement
Lord Kelvin expressed the second law as
It is impossible, by means of inanimate material agency, to derive mechanical effect from any portion of matter by cooling it below the temperature of the coldest of the surrounding objects.[11]

[edit]Principle of Carathéodory
Constantin Carathéodory formulated thermodynamics on a purely mathematical axiomatic foundation. His statement of the second law is known as the Principle of Carathéodory, which may be formulated as follows:[12]
In every neighborhood of any state S of an adiabatically isolated system there are states inaccessible from S.[13]

now all those explanations of the second law and none of them not one specifies it as a "statistical" law.. Why? Because they deal with what they can see and experience directly in the real world. The "statistical" interpretation deals with what they cannot see or directly experience in the real world.

Again one is actual and based on real experience, the other is speculation based on mathematical concepts that attempt to explain what they cannot.

You are confusing the two or unaware there is a distinction. Either way, when your theories and mathematical equations conflict with what you can see and experience, it's time to check your math or concepts..

Quantum theory doesn't explain everything, even those working in the field admit this freely. It does answer a lot, but not enough to throw out the natural laws. String theory, and others are attempts to cover these issues in the hopes of one universal theory encompassing quantum and macro. None of these are the full answer yet either.

That's the difference between learning the math, and learning to think...They are not mutually exclusive..