how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[IanC]

I don't actually understand SSDD's reasoning but shouldn't the Moon's gravity shut off when directed at the earth? What is the difference between the net gravity between two objects and the net flow of heat?

The force of gravity changes with the inverse square of the distance between objects. Move the moon closer to earth and gravity changes both here and on the moon. Gravity isn't a matter of direction as is the case with radiation but as objects move closer or further away from each other gravity changes just as the temperature differental between objects alters the direction they radiate.

The laws of thermodynamics describe this, but you reject the satements of the laws because they don't mesh with your belief in the magic. You prefer unprovable, unstestable hypothesis instead.

Why do you have no problem believing that the effect of gravity is a net force but then insist then turn around and insist that thermodynamics are not a net result? Not only that, but some strange unknown unpublished natural mechanism prohibits ANY energy going against the net flow, right down to any photon anytime.

Your beliefs are awfully hard to reconcile with reality and standard descriptions of interactions. Every particle radiating in random directions with net flow simply being a composite of all radiation not only simplifies the explanation but removes the necessity of some bookkeeping system to decide which emissions are allowed.

If graviitons were discovered, would you argue that particles of matter would only be allowed to emit them in certain directios according to local conditions?

 

[Abraham3]

Wikipedia's article on Thermodynamics

Zeroth law of thermodynamics: If two systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other.
This statement implies that thermal equilibrium is an equivalence relation on the set of thermodynamic systems under consideration. Systems are said to be in thermal equilibrium with each other if spontaneous molecular thermal energy exchanges between them do not lead to a net exchange of energy. This law is tacitly assumed in every measurement of temperature.
******************************************************************************
SSDD, If you actually believe some unknown force or process is blocking the transfer of heat energy from a cold object to a hot object, you need to break out the old textbooks and start over.

 

[PMZ]

People are easily confused because EM radiation can be a source of heat. But if you consider a radio/TV transmission antenna, it clearly sends energy to receiving antennas completely independent of temperatures. An outside and therefore at least occasionally cold transmitter has no trouble sending signals to warmer receivers.

 

[itfitzme]

"the temperature differental between objects alters the direction they radiate. "

You made that up, all by yourself. I believe your confounding thermal energy, in the form of kinetic energy, with that of IR radiation. This is combined with a lack of distinction between objects in thermal contact, in which there is a thermal gradient, and objects that are distinctly seperated for which energy is transfered by IR radiation.

There is no "temperature" field that governs the propogation of energy. Heat and temperature of macro measures of the average kinetic energy of a volume of molecules. Conservation of energy and momentum governs the transfer of energy between molecules of varying kinetic energy during a collision.

A low temperature gas has a spread of kinetic energies that are, on average, lower than the higher temperature gas. Still, the higher temperature gas does have some molecules with lower kinetic energies than are found in the cooler temperature gas.

Energy is transfered at the boundary, between the high and low temperature mediums, by the collision of molecules which then transfer kinetic energy. A thermometer is a device for which the fluid or gas expands as the average kinetic energy increases.

At any particular moment, there may be found, in the cooler body (gas), a high kinetic energy molecule at the boundary. And, simularly, at any particular moment, there may be found, in the hotter body, a low kinetic energy molecule at the boundary. At any particular moment, a low kinetic energy molecule from the hotter body may impact with a high kinetic energy molecule in the cooler body. Despite the average thermal gradient between the two, there is a instantaneous and differentially minute transfer of kinetic energy from the cooler body to the warmer body. On average, there are more higher kinetic energy molecules in the hotter body than in the cooler body, thusly, on average, the net transfer of energy is from hotter to cooler.

Similarly, two objects not in thermal contact may exchange energy in the form of infared electromagnetic energy. The hotter body emits more IR radiation than the cooler body. At any instance of time, a molecule in the cooler body may be found to emit a photon which, given the appropriate but otherwise random direction, us absorbed by the warmer body for no other reason than the fact that the photon came into proximity with a molecule in the warmer body.

There is no "thermal field" that modulates the transfer of energy between to bodies.

There is no such statement of "the temperature differental between objects alters the direction they radiate."

It is important to understand what energy is, as opposed to heat and temperature. Energy is the potential to do work, in the form of kinetic energy, gravitational and electomagnetic energy.

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x mass x velocity squared.
Gravitational potential energy = m g h.
Electrostatic energy is potential energy of
Energy equals work.
Work = force times distance.
Force = E q, where E is the electrostatic field and q a charge.
Moving an electron a distance in an electrostatic field requires work to be performed
Energy (Work) = E q times distance.
Electromagnetic energy of a photon is given by its wavelength E = hc/wavelength.

When a molecule absorbs a photon, that energy is not transfered directly into translational kinetic energy. It is transfered into vibrational energy which must then be transfered into translational kinetic energy in a collision.

Temperature and heat are measurements of gross properties large bodies of matter. They are not specific forms of energy. They are qualitative descriptions. They tell us something about what we can expect from large bodies of molecules. They tell us nothing about a specific molecule at a specific time. Nor do the laws of thermodynamics, which are statistical relationships governing large bodies of molecules, have any specific bearing on the transfer of electromagnetic radiation between bodies that are not in thermal contact.

Temperature does not govern the exchange or movement of photons between bodies except in that a body at a temperature tends to emit a particular spectrum of energy.

One thing that might be said is that all electromagnetic energy that impacts upon a body is either absorbed or passes through it.

A photon has momentum. Momentum is a vector quantity. Momentum is conserved. A photon cannot change direction without something causing the momentum to change direction. So, when a photon impacts the boundary of a mass, it is either absorbed or passes through.

As there is no "temperature field" that exists between two bodies not in thermal contact, there is no electrostatic field that exists between two electrically neutral bodies of some temperature, there is no process by which a cooler bodies is restricted from emiting a photon in the direction of a hotter body. When that photon reaches the hotter body, it is either absorbed or passes through. If the photon is on a trajectory that puts a molecule of the hotter body directly in it's path, or for the sake of quantum mechanical correctness, a whole thick mass of molecules in it's path, it will be absorbed.

There is simply no generalized property statement as "the temperature differental between objects alters the direction they radiate. "

It is nonsense beyond the specific case of two bodies in thermal contact, that is, sharing a boundary where kinetic energy can be transfered. It is only true in the context of the average, net flow of kinetic energy of the molecules. It is not true for any specific molecule.

 

[itfitzme]

People are easily confused because EM radiation can be a source of heat. But if you consider a radio/TV transmission antenna, it clearly sends energy to receiving antennas completely independent of temperatures. An outside and therefore at least occasionally cold transmitter has no trouble sending signals to warmer receivers.

It is preferable to have a cold transmitter as it reduces the thermal noise and thereby increases the signal to noise ratio. What you want, if we are to consider things in terms of "temperature", is all the energy to be constrained to the signal.

 

[PMZ]

People are easily confused because EM radiation can be a source of heat. But if you consider a radio/TV transmission antenna, it clearly sends energy to receiving antennas completely independent of temperatures. An outside and therefore at least occasionally cold transmitter has no trouble sending signals to warmer receivers.

It is preferable to have a cold transmitter as it reduces the thermal noise and thereby increases the signal to noise ratio. What you want, if we are to consider things in terms of "temperature", is all the energy to be constrained to the signal.

You must be one of those EEs who don't know that the 2ond Law of Thermodynamics makes broadcasting impossible.

 

[itfitzme]

People are easily confused because EM radiation can be a source of heat. But if you consider a radio/TV transmission antenna, it clearly sends energy to receiving antennas completely independent of temperatures. An outside and therefore at least occasionally cold transmitter has no trouble sending signals to warmer receivers.

It is preferable to have a cold transmitter as it reduces the thermal noise and thereby increases the signal to noise ratio. What you want, if we are to consider things in terms of "temperature", is all the energy to be constrained to the signal.

You must be one of those EEs who don't know that the 2ond Law of Thermodynamics makes broadcasting impossible.

Yep, you got me there.

 

[itfitzme]

"The force of gravity changes with the inverse square of the distance between objects. Move the moon closer to earth and gravity changes both here and on the moon. Gravity isn't a matter of direction as is the case with radiation but as objects move closer or further away from each other gravity changes just as the temperature differental between objects alters the direction they radiate."

The electrostatic force field changes with the inverse square of distance as well. It is, E~= q/r^2. They both change with the inverse square because the surface area of the sphere goes as the inverse of radius. It is a geometric property of three dimensional space.

Conveniently, masses have this tendency to be spherical, like planets and stars. Gravity is particularly weak by comparison to the electrostatic force. The net result is that we experience gravity on two levels, one being nearly constant as we are in a very small range near the earth so wieght doesn't change all that much, or we are working at this orbital mechanics level where the Earth acts as a point source.

Electric charge is exactly the same, acting as a point source, with the field going as the inverse of radius. Electric charge, though, is rather small so our experience with it is more along the lines of electrical currents. We also don't experience oscillating masses so gravity waves, while theoretically possible, haven't been much use in engineeering.

So, we get this nifty difference that, while gravitational mass is either approximately a flat surface or a sphere, and on scales of 60 miles, 1000 miles, 24000 miles, etc. Charge comes in much smaller scales with line point charges, line charges, and parallel plates, surface charges. And we get to play with oscillating charge so we get nifty things like radio waves.

But as fields go, mass field or electric field, it's the same, going as 1/r^2 for point sources, 1/r for line sources, and constant for surfaces.

There is no "temperature" field.

There is electromagnetic energy and gravitational energy.

 

[PMZ]

One additional point is that all masses attract each other in proportion to their mass. Each of us attracts earth as well as earth attracting us. The earth's attraction is, of course more than our attraction by the ratio of its mass to ours. We each are attracted by every mass in the universe but the immense distances make the attraction infinitesimal . Even more infinitesimal is our attraction of each and all of the heavenly masses.

Like radiation gravity requires no medium to work and seems to exist despite all of the nothing between heavenly masses.

Very curious.

 

[itfitzme]

SSDD's idea seems most like the concept of the caloric. Prior to 1900, before Einstein firmly established that atoms do exist, the concept that materials contain some sort of "fluid" which accounts for "heat energy" was still a valid consideration. Both concepts, the caloric idea and the statistical mechanical idea were held to some level of believe by the scientific community. As the existance of the atom wasn't firmly proven by experiement, the concept that heat was the result of the average kinetic energy of individual molecules was not firmly established. Lacking definitive proof of molecules, the concept of the caloric still had some standing. It was Einsteins paper of brownian motion that proved, beyond any doubt, that molecules and atoms exist. This buried the concept of the caloric permanently and statistical mechanics became the understanding of thermodynamics and heat transfer.

At a molecular level, the energy we understand as "heat" is, in fact, the average kinetic energy of individual "ultimate particles", molecules. This energy manifests itself most apparently as expansion in volume of materials. If we put a volume of mercury in a tube, as temperature increases, the volume increases. As the cross section of the tube is fixed, it is the height of the mercury that increases. And, given the well known formula of PV=nRT, at standard temperature and pressure, V=nRT/P. V = height time cross section area. Height = nRT/(PA). Bingo, we have a thermometer.

The reason this works is because the kinetic energy of the molecules works against the opposing forces of a) gravity and b) external pressure.

Classical thermodynamics attempts to describe the general behavior of large volumes of ultimate particles. Heat is the average kinetic energy of the molecules as they go wizzing about, banging into each other and the walls of the container. Entropy quantifies the number of configurations that the energy can take on over sufficient amount of time to be statistically relavent.

All of the molecules in a volume of gas can be arranged in a finite number of three dimensional configurations. The energy can be spread between the individual molecules in a limited number of ways, with some being a bit slow, the majority at the average speed, and some being very fast.

At any moment in time, it is possible that all the molecules will be bunched up into one corner of a volume. It is possible that they will all be bunched up in any of the other corners. As far as location in the volume is concerned, the only restrictions are a) no two can occupy the same space at the same time and b) Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as applied to the smallest increment of volume, to which there is only so much in a larger volume.

At any moment in time, any particular molecule can have a kinetic energy from zero to infinite, constrained only by the fact that, a) on average, the total energy of the system is what it is and b) Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as applied to the smallest increment of kinetic energy, to which there are only so many increments over the total spread from zero to infinity.

The result of all this counting of arrangements of locations and velocities is entropy, a count of the total number of ways that the ultimate particles can be arranged. S=k*ln(#ways).

That said, at the boundary of a volume of gas, the molecules are banging away at the boundary, which we assume to be an infinitely thin membrane of no affect, which is then banging away at the external molecules. When a fast moving molecule in the gas collides with a slow moving molecule in the external environment, the fast one gets slower and the slow one gets faster, in accordance with the dynamics of collisions where momentum and energy are conserved. And, energy is transfered across the boundary, moving out of the system. When a slow moving molecule in the gas collides with a fast moving molecule in the outside environment, the energy is transfered the other direction.

On average, there are more fast moving molecules in a hotter body than in a colder body so the net transfer is from hot to cold. At any instance, there are numerous opportunities for energy to be transfered from the cold to hot body, just not as many as the other way round.

As the temperature increases or decreases, the amount of energy increases or decreases, thus the number of ways it can be arranged increases and decreases. Thusly, the entropy increases and decreases. Entropy is, though, not a thing. It is simply a statistical accounting of the number of possible arrangements. At no instance of time are all of the number of possible arrangements expressed.

As such, there is no caloric, no "heat fluid". There is no "heat field" and no instantaneous property of matter and energy that moderates the direction of transfer of instantaneous energy that is dependent upon the overall energy of the system.

Entropy is simply a statistical accounting and helps describe the statistical and probabilistic tendencies of large volumes of matter when it comes to the movement of energy in and out of the system.

It simply points out that, over time, energy gets spread out equally amoung all the possible ways that it can get spread out.

 

[SSDD]

Why do you have no problem believing that the effect of gravity is a net force but then insist then turn around and insist that thermodynamics are not a net result? Not only that, but some strange unknown unpublished natural mechanism prohibits ANY energy going against the net flow, right down to any photon anytime.

The second law is why I don't believe that thermodynamics is a net result. It says that it is not possible for energy or heat to move from cool to warm. Call me crazy, but I happen to beleive the laws of physics. If you can show an experiment that proves the law wrong and that heat and energy actually do move from cool to warm or from higher entropy states to lower entropy states I would be interested in seeing it.

Your beliefs are awfully hard to reconcile with reality and standard descriptions of interactions.

Actually, it is the standard descriptions of interactions that are hard to reconcile with reality since every observation ever made shows energy transfer being a one way gross movement. No observation of net movement ever.

Every particle radiating in random directions with net flow simply being a composite of all radiation not only simplifies the explanation but removes the necessity of some bookkeeping system to decide which emissions are allowed.

Again, you state that is if it were observed proven fact. It isn't.

If graviitons were discovered, would you argue that particles of matter would only be allowed to emit them in certain directios according to local conditions?

Are "gravitons" EM radiation?

 

[SSDD]

Wikipedia's article on Thermodynamics

Zeroth law of thermodynamics: If two systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other.
This statement implies that thermal equilibrium is an equivalence relation on the set of thermodynamic systems under consideration. Systems are said to be in thermal equilibrium with each other if spontaneous molecular thermal energy exchanges between them do not lead to a net exchange of energy. This law is tacitly assumed in every measurement of temperature.
******************************************************************************

First, anyone who turns to wiki for real information is an idiot.

SSDD, If you actually believe some unknown force or process is blocking the transfer of heat energy from a cold object to a hot object, you need to break out the old textbooks and start over.

I don't believe I have ever said that some unknown force blocks anything. Does an unknown force block a rock from falling up? Or does an unexplainable force cause it to fall down?

I have said that energy from a cooler object does not radiate from a cool object to warmer objects. Any description of how that may happen is entirely a product of your apparently deficient imagination (see the falling rock example) as I have made no attempt to describe how it happens that energy doesn't move from cool to warm. I have only pointed out that the second law says that it does not.

 

[SSDD]

People are easily confused because EM radiation can be a source of heat. But if you consider a radio/TV transmission antenna, it clearly sends energy to receiving antennas completely independent of temperatures. An outside and therefore at least occasionally cold transmitter has no trouble sending signals to warmer receivers.

Read up on frequencies and what happens if two transmitters are transmitting on the same frequency when both are transmitting at the same power and one is transmitting with a higher output than the other.

 

[SSDD]

"The force of gravity changes with the inverse square of the distance between objects. Move the moon closer to earth and gravity changes both here and on the moon. Gravity isn't a matter of direction as is the case with radiation but as objects move closer or further away from each other gravity changes just as the temperature differental between objects alters the direction they radiate."

The electrostatic force field changes with the inverse square of distance as well. It is, E~= q/r^2. They both change with the inverse square because the surface area of the sphere goes as the inverse of radius. It is a geometric property of three dimensional space.

Conveniently, masses have this tendency to be spherical, like planets and stars. Gravity is particularly weak by comparison to the electrostatic force. The net result is that we experience gravity on two levels, one being nearly constant as we are in a very small range near the earth so wieght doesn't change all that much, or we are working at this orbital mechanics level where the Earth acts as a point source.

Electric charge is exactly the same, acting as a point source, with the field going as the inverse of radius. Electric charge, though, is rather small so our experience with it is more along the lines of electrical currents. We also don't experience oscillating masses so gravity waves, while theoretically possible, haven't been much use in engineeering.

So, we get this nifty difference that, while gravitational mass is either approximately a flat surface or a sphere, and on scales of 60 miles, 1000 miles, 24000 miles, etc. Charge comes in much smaller scales with line point charges, line charges, and parallel plates, surface charges. And we get to play with oscillating charge so we get nifty things like radio waves.

But as fields go, mass field or electric field, it's the same, going as 1/r^2 for point sources, 1/r for line sources, and constant for surfaces.

There is no "temperature" field.

There is electromagnetic energy and gravitational energy.

And yet the fact remains that there has never been an observed instance of either energy nor heat spontaneously moving from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD's idea seems most like the concept of the caloric. .

Actually, any "ideas" are from your own minds. I have not made any attempt to either describe why or how neither heat nor energy moves from higher entropy states to lower entropy states. I have only stated that is what the second law says. All of these "ideas" and "explanations" are from your own fevered brains. You get so wrapped up in your own little circle jerk, that you fail to notice that you are discussing descriptions that have never been made. I have simply stated the second law.

The rest is spew from you guys and your own mental masturbation, in an attempt to justify your belief that energy does spontaneously move from higher entropy states to lower.

 

[orogenicman]

SSDD's idea seems most like the concept of the caloric. .

Actually, any "ideas" are from your own minds. I have not made any attempt to either describe why or how neither heat nor energy moves from higher entropy states to lower entropy states. I have only stated that is what the second law says. All of these "ideas" and "explanations" are from your own fevered brains. You get so wrapped up in your own little circle jerk, that you fail to notice that you are discussing descriptions that have never been made. I have simply stated the second law.

The rest is spew from you guys and your own mental masturbation, in an attempt to justify your belief that energy does spontaneously move from higher entropy states to lower.

So, you imagine that we sit behind our monitors and masturbate? That's just sick.

If you stick a hot coal on a metal grate inside a cold refrigerator, where do you imagine the heat goes?

 

[SSDD]

So, you imagine that we sit behind our monitors and masturbate? That's just sick.

I see you can't grasp the concept of mental masturbation. Don't worry, you really weren't expected to.

If you stick a hot coal on a metal grate inside a cold refrigerator, where do you imagine the heat goes?

The second law says that the energy will radiate into the cooler surroundings. Do you think it will go somewhere else?

 

[orogenicman]

So, you imagine that we sit behind our monitors and masturbate? That's just sick.

I see you can't grasp the concept of mental masturbation. Don't worry, you really weren't expected to.

To be frank, I generally don't think with my dick. Why do you?

If you stick a hot coal on a metal grate inside a cold refrigerator, where do you imagine the heat goes?

The second law says that the energy will radiate into the cooler surroundings. Do you think it will go somewhere else?

I agree. So why are you quoting Abraham on a question I asked??

 

[SSDD]

To be frank, I generally don't think with my dick. Why do you?

Still don't grasp the concept I see. Perhaps if you actually looked up the term.

 

[orogenicman]

I see you can't grasp the concept of mental masturbation. Don't worry, you really weren't expected to.

To be frank, I generally don't think with my dick. Why do you?

Still don't grasp the concept I see. Perhaps if you actually looked up the term.

No need. You are providing plenty of examples right here in your own responses. Congratulations. Now, did you learn how to quote people all on your own or did you need mommy's help?

You really should learn how to properly quote people.