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

[SSDD]

Do you understand this?

Thermal radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nothing there even begins to prove two way net energy flow. If you believe it does, then you know even less than I had given you credit for. If you knew half of what you beleive you know, you would just walk away and shut the hell up because if you knew as much as you think you know, you would know that no proof exits or is likely to ever exist.

I realize that. That's why I didn't claim it did.

And yet, you reference it in response to a challenge to prove net two way flow.

me ask again. Do you believe that all objects warmer than absolute zero continuously and always radiate EM energy at a wave length and intensity proportional to their absolute temperature?

Of course. What I don't believe is that they must radiate in every direction...especially a direction in which the energy would move to a lower entropy state.

 

[SSDD]

Prove it is gross flow.

I don't need to. The second law says that it is not possible for either heat or energy to move from cooler objects to warmer objects....energy doesn't spontaneously move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.

go study statistical mechanics and look up "einstein brownian motion thermodynamics" It's all there. And, while you are at it, stop lying and dodging the obvious, that you have no proof it is gross flow and that your science knowledge hasn't gotten past the 1800's.

There is nothing like proof of two way net energy flow there. You believe in an unprovable mathematical concept which can not be demonstrated in the real world because the real world simply won't cooperate.

And again, I don't need to prove anything. The statement of the second LAW of thermodynamics backs me up.

ability and quantification of all substances to absorp, reflect, or transmit EM is easily measured and endlessly cataloged. For the energy that they absorb their reaction in contact with, or separate from, other matter has been fully understood for well over 100 years.

And the proof of two way net energy flow just keeps not rolling in. Again, there is nothing in that statement that even begins to justify the claim of net two way energy flow and every observation ever made supports my claim of one way gross energy flow in accordance with the Second LAW of Thermodynamics.

keep raising the question of how much of that, if any, you personally know and understand. That's both irrelevant, and unknowable, by anybody but you.

The Second Law says one way gross flow...it is you who is claiming otherwise as if it were proven fact when in reality, every observation ever made supports one way gross energy flow from lower entropy states to higher entropy states.

 

[PMZ]

Nothing there even begins to prove two way net energy flow. If you believe it does, then you know even less than I had given you credit for. If you knew half of what you beleive you know, you would just walk away and shut the hell up because if you knew as much as you think you know, you would know that no proof exits or is likely to ever exist.

I realize that. That's why I didn't claim it did.

And yet, you reference it in response to a challenge to prove net two way flow.

me ask again. Do you believe that all objects warmer than absolute zero continuously and always radiate EM energy at a wave length and intensity proportional to their absolute temperature?

Of course. What I don't believe is that they must radiate in every direction...especially a direction in which the energy would move to a lower entropy state.

So, we're making progress. You believe in radiation and EM energy.

But, you also believe that EM radiation is either preferentially attracted to only objects warmer than the emitting object, or repelled by colder objects.

Which do you think that it is? Both?

 

[PMZ]

I don't need to. The second law says that it is not possible for either heat or energy to move from cooler objects to warmer objects....energy doesn't spontaneously move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.



There is nothing like proof of two way net energy flow there. You believe in an unprovable mathematical concept which can not be demonstrated in the real world because the real world simply won't cooperate.

And again, I don't need to prove anything. The statement of the second LAW of thermodynamics backs me up.

And the proof of two way net energy flow just keeps not rolling in. Again, there is nothing in that statement that even begins to justify the claim of net two way energy flow and every observation ever made supports my claim of one way gross energy flow in accordance with the Second LAW of Thermodynamics.

keep raising the question of how much of that, if any, you personally know and understand. That's both irrelevant, and unknowable, by anybody but you.

The Second Law says one way gross flow...it is you who is claiming otherwise as if it were proven fact when in reality, every observation ever made supports one way gross energy flow from lower entropy states to higher entropy states.

Describe an experiment that proves one way flow of radiated EM.

 

[PMZ]

Good Wikipedia explanation of the difference between statistical and quantum mechanics.

Black-body radiation[edit source]
Main article: Planck's law


Intensity of light emitted from a black body at any given frequency. Each color is a different temperature. Planck was the first to explain the shape of these curves.
In the last years of the nineteenth century, Planck was investigating the problem of black-body radiation first posed by Kirchhoff some forty years earlier. It is well known that hot objects glow, and that hotter objects glow brighter than cooler ones. The reason is that the electromagnetic field obeys laws of motion just like a mass on a spring, and can come to thermal equilibrium with hot atoms. When a hot object is in equilibrium with light, the amount of light it absorbs is equal to the amount of light it emits. If the object is black, meaning it absorbs all the light that hits it, then it emits the maximum amount of thermal light too.
The assumption that blackbody radiation is thermal leads to an accurate prediction: the total amount of emitted energy goes up with the temperature according to a definite rule, the Stefan–Boltzmann law (1879–84). But it was also known that the colour of the light given off by a hot object changes with the temperature, so that "white hot" is hotter than "red hot". Nevertheless, Wilhelm Wien discovered the mathematical relationship between the peaks of the curves at different temperatures, by using the principle of adiabatic invariance. At each different temperature, the curve is moved over by Wien's displacement law (1893). Wien also proposed an approximation for the spectrum of the object, which was correct at high frequencies (short wavelength) but not at low frequencies (long wavelength).[5] It still was not clear why the spectrum of a hot object had the form that it has (see diagram).
Planck hypothesized that the equations of motion for light are a set of harmonic oscillators, one for each possible frequency. He examined how the entropy of the oscillators varied with the temperature of the body, trying to match Wien's law, and was able to derive an approximate mathematical function for black-body spectrum.[6]
However, Planck soon realized that his solution was not unique. There were several different solutions, each of which gave a different value for the entropy of the oscillators.[6] To save his theory, Planck had to resort to using the then controversial theory of statistical mechanics,[6] which he described as "an act of despair … I was ready to sacrifice any of my previous convictions about physics."[7] One of his new boundary conditions was
to interpret UN [the vibrational energy of N oscillators] not as a continuous, infinitely divisible quantity, but as a discrete quantity composed of an integral number of finite equal parts. Let us call each such part the energy element ε;
—Planck,*On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum[6]
With this new condition, Planck had imposed the quantization of the energy of the oscillators, "a purely formal assumption … actually I did not think much about it…" in his own words,[8] but one which would revolutionize physics. Applying this new approach to Wien's displacement law showed that the "energy element" must be proportional to the frequency of the oscillator, the first version of what is now termed "Planck's relation":

Planck was able to calculate the value of h from experimental data on black-body radiation: his result, 6.55 × 10−34 J·s, is within 1.2% of the currently accepted value.[6] He was also able to make the first determination of the Boltzmann constant kB from the same data and theory.[9]


Note that the (black) Raleigh-Jeans curve never touches the Planck curve.
Prior to Planck's work, it had been assumed that the energy of a body could take on any value whatsoever – that it was a continuous variable. The Rayleigh-Jeans law makes close predictions for a narrow range of values at one limit of temperatures, but the results diverge more and more strongly as temperatures increase. To make Planck's law, which correctly predicts blackbody emissions, it was necessary to multiply the classical expression by a complex factor that involves h in both the numerator and the denominator. The influence of h in this complex factor would not disappear if it were set to zero or to any other value. Making an equation out of Planck's law that would reproduce the Rayleigh-Jeans law could not be done by changing the values of h, of the Boltzmann constant, or of any other constant or variable in the equation. In this case the picture given by classical physics is not duplicated by a range of results in the quantum picture.
The black-body problem was revisited in 1905, when Rayleigh and Jeans (on the one hand) and Einstein (on the other hand) independently proved that classical electromagnetism could never account for the observed spectrum. These proofs are commonly known as the "ultraviolet catastrophe", a name coined by Paul Ehrenfest in 1911. They contributed greatly (along with Einstein's work on the photoelectric effect) to convincing physicists that Planck's postulate of quantized energy levels was more than a mere mathematical formalism. The very first Solvay Conference in 1911 was devoted to "the theory of radiation and quanta".[10] Max Planck received the 1918 Nobel Prize in Physics "in recognition of the services he rendered to the advancement of Physics by his discovery of energy quanta".

 

[itfitzme]

Yeah, SSDD continues to hold on to his bullshit, "The second law says that it is not possible for either heat or energy to move from cooler objects to warmer objects....energy doesn't spontaneously move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state."

The second law says no such thing. He can't do the math so he has no clue what it measures. Rather, he read some general statement on a physics for idiots website and now thinks he's a genius.

 

[itfitzme]

Prove it is gross flow.

I don't need to. The second law says that it is not possible for either heat or energy to move from cooler objects to warmer objects....energy doesn't spontaneously move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.

go study statistical mechanics and look up "einstein brownian motion thermodynamics" It's all there. And, while you are at it, stop lying and dodging the obvious, that you have no proof it is gross flow and that your science knowledge hasn't gotten past the 1800's.

There is nothing like proof of two way net energy flow there. You believe in an unprovable mathematical concept which can not be demonstrated in the real world because the real world simply won't cooperate.

And again, I don't need to prove anything. The statement of the second LAW of thermodynamics backs me up.

The second law says no such thing. Your a moron that can't count, can't do math, and can't do physics.

 

[PMZ]

SSDD says that he doesn't have to prove anything because his version of what the 2ond Law says is a given.

Not bad for a politician.

Here's what I want to be true, and if you empower me, I will make it come true, I promise.

 

[itfitzme]

He has replaced "heat" with "energy" and overgeneralized thermo. By his own reckoning, he continues to lie.

 

[PMZ]

I know a whole lot about frequency and amplitude.

Obviously, you don't or you wouldn't keep asking the question....but is fun to watch you pretend to know and try to compare apples to watermelons.

I asked a simple question. How do cold transmission antennas broadcast to warm receiving antennas? You have no answer because your kiddie version of the 2ond Law of Thermodynamics says that they can't. Empirically wrong. Proof that you have no idea what your talking about.

Gee, who's surprised?

 

[SSDD]

So, we're making progress. You believe in radiation and EM energy.

If course, who doesn't?

, you also believe that EM radiation is either preferentially attracted to only objects warmer than the emitting object, or repelled by colder objects.

And you demonstrate once more that you are stuck on stupid. Why do you think that I must believe in some preference on the part of energy. Do you think a dropped rock prefers to fall to earth? Do you think it is repelled by the sky? Do you think a marble set on an incline prefers to roll down hill, do you think the top of the incline repels it somehow? Do you think that air in a punctured balloon prefers being outside or that it is repelled by the balloon? Or do you think that these things behave as they do because there is no choice involved but are simply doing the only thing they can do because natural forces demand that they do what they do?

Why do you believe there is magic in an object not radiating towards a warmer object, but have no problem at all with energy moving in only one direction down a power line...in the direction of more entropy? Every energy exchange is in the direction of more entropy and no observation has ever been made where energy moved spontaneously in the direction of less entropy.

do you think that it is? Both?

What I think is that you are an idiot with a very small mind with very limited thinking critical thinking skills. You have no problem with natural forces causing most things, but believe only magic can drive the most fundamental physical law of the universe.

 

[SSDD]

Describe an experiment that proves one way flow of radiated EM.

Put a warm thermometer in a bucket of ice. Name one repeatable, real world, experiment that provides observed proof of two way net energy flow.

 

[SSDD]

Good Wikipedia explanation of the difference between statistical and quantum mechanics.

Black-body radiation[edit source]
Main article: Planck's law


Intensity of light emitted from a black body at any given frequency. Each color is a different temperature. Planck was the first to explain the shape of these curves.
In the last years of the nineteenth century, Planck was investigating the problem of black-body radiation first posed by Kirchhoff some forty years earlier. It is well known that hot objects glow, and that hotter objects glow brighter than cooler ones. The reason is that the electromagnetic field obeys laws of motion just like a mass on a spring, and can come to thermal equilibrium with hot atoms. When a hot object is in equilibrium with light, the amount of light it absorbs is equal to the amount of light it emits. If the object is black, meaning it absorbs all the light that hits it, then it emits the maximum amount of thermal light too.
The assumption that blackbody radiation is thermal leads to an accurate prediction: the total amount of emitted energy goes up with the temperature according to a definite rule, the Stefan–Boltzmann law (1879–84). But it was also known that the colour of the light given off by a hot object changes with the temperature, so that "white hot" is hotter than "red hot". Nevertheless, Wilhelm Wien discovered the mathematical relationship between the peaks of the curves at different temperatures, by using the principle of adiabatic invariance. At each different temperature, the curve is moved over by Wien's displacement law (1893). Wien also proposed an approximation for the spectrum of the object, which was correct at high frequencies (short wavelength) but not at low frequencies (long wavelength).[5] It still was not clear why the spectrum of a hot object had the form that it has (see diagram).
Planck hypothesized that the equations of motion for light are a set of harmonic oscillators, one for each possible frequency. He examined how the entropy of the oscillators varied with the temperature of the body, trying to match Wien's law, and was able to derive an approximate mathematical function for black-body spectrum.[6]
However, Planck soon realized that his solution was not unique. There were several different solutions, each of which gave a different value for the entropy of the oscillators.[6] To save his theory, Planck had to resort to using the then controversial theory of statistical mechanics,[6] which he described as "an act of despair … I was ready to sacrifice any of my previous convictions about physics."[7] One of his new boundary conditions was
to interpret UN [the vibrational energy of N oscillators] not as a continuous, infinitely divisible quantity, but as a discrete quantity composed of an integral number of finite equal parts. Let us call each such part the energy element ε;
—Planck,*On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum[6]
With this new condition, Planck had imposed the quantization of the energy of the oscillators, "a purely formal assumption … actually I did not think much about it…" in his own words,[8] but one which would revolutionize physics. Applying this new approach to Wien's displacement law showed that the "energy element" must be proportional to the frequency of the oscillator, the first version of what is now termed "Planck's relation":

Planck was able to calculate the value of h from experimental data on black-body radiation: his result, 6.55 × 10−34 J·s, is within 1.2% of the currently accepted value.[6] He was also able to make the first determination of the Boltzmann constant kB from the same data and theory.[9]


Note that the (black) Raleigh-Jeans curve never touches the Planck curve.
Prior to Planck's work, it had been assumed that the energy of a body could take on any value whatsoever – that it was a continuous variable. The Rayleigh-Jeans law makes close predictions for a narrow range of values at one limit of temperatures, but the results diverge more and more strongly as temperatures increase. To make Planck's law, which correctly predicts blackbody emissions, it was necessary to multiply the classical expression by a complex factor that involves h in both the numerator and the denominator. The influence of h in this complex factor would not disappear if it were set to zero or to any other value. Making an equation out of Planck's law that would reproduce the Rayleigh-Jeans law could not be done by changing the values of h, of the Boltzmann constant, or of any other constant or variable in the equation. In this case the picture given by classical physics is not duplicated by a range of results in the quantum picture.
The black-body problem was revisited in 1905, when Rayleigh and Jeans (on the one hand) and Einstein (on the other hand) independently proved that classical electromagnetism could never account for the observed spectrum. These proofs are commonly known as the "ultraviolet catastrophe", a name coined by Paul Ehrenfest in 1911. They contributed greatly (along with Einstein's work on the photoelectric effect) to convincing physicists that Planck's postulate of quantized energy levels was more than a mere mathematical formalism. The very first Solvay Conference in 1911 was devoted to "the theory of radiation and quanta".[10] Max Planck received the 1918 Nobel Prize in Physics "in recognition of the services he rendered to the advancement of Physics by his discovery of energy quanta".

So prove two way net flow. I see that volumes have been written on the topic but not one sentence has ever been written describing an actual observation.

 

[SSDD]

Yeah, SSDD continues to hold on to his bullshit, "The second law says that it is not possible for either heat or energy to move from cooler objects to warmer objects....energy doesn't spontaneously move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state."

The second law says no such thing. He can't do the math so he has no clue what it measures. Rather, he read some general statement on a physics for idiots website and now thinks he's a genius.

Of course that's what it says...which is why you are so frustrated. If the statement of the second law spoke of statistics you would have an argument...it doesn't. It is a statement made in absolute terms...energy never moves spontaneously from a hither entropy state to a lower entropy state.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD says that he doesn't have to prove anything because his version of what the 2ond Law says is a given.

Not bad for a politician.

Here's what I want to be true, and if you empower me, I will make it come true, I promise.

I have no version of the second law. I only have the statements that physics has provided over the years. None of them say anything about statistics, or QM. They all say that energy does not spontaneously move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state. There are numerous ways of saying it, but they all say the same. I have never provided a statement of the second law of my own making...the one I use most often comes from the physics department of the University of Georgia. Do you want to tell me that they are not credible?

Your argument has failed, you have become frustrated and resorted to lying and character assasination. Congratulations on behaving exactly like the loser you are.

 

[SSDD]

He has replaced "heat" with "energy" and overgeneralized thermo. By his own reckoning, he continues to lie.

Sorry, but I haven't. I have never invented a statement on the second law. If lies are being told, it is you and yours who are telling them. Here, from the physics department of the University of Georgia:

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object

This is not my statement. It is a perfectly valid statement from a physics department whose reputation is sterling. Both energy and heat are covered and neither replaces the other.

 

[Abraham3]

This entire Second Law 'discussion' is a diversion, just as was the 'discussion' on quantum mechanics.

Climate sensitivity calculations need to take into account the total increase in global heat content: atmosphere, land surface and the entire depth of the ocean. Doing so indicates the only change in heat accumulation rate lately has been upward. The best estimate of climate sensitivity is still ~3C/doubling.

 

[SSDD]

I know a whole lot about frequency and amplitude.

Obviously, you don't or you wouldn't keep asking the question....but is fun to watch you pretend to know and try to compare apples to watermelons.

I asked a simple question. How do cold transmission antennas broadcast to warm receiving antennas? You have no answer because your kiddie version of the 2ond Law of Thermodynamics says that they can't. Empirically wrong. Proof that you have no idea what your talking about.

Gee, who's surprised?

I have told you repeatedly that if you take the time to learn about frequency and amplitude, and how they are slaves to the second law as well, you would not need to keep asking such a stupid question. Clearly you are under the impression that heat is the only form of energy. If you actually understand frequency and amplitude as you claim, and grasp how the second law governs them, then why do you keep asking such a stupid and pointless question?

 

[Abraham3]

Ssdd=troll

 

[PMZ]

Ssdd=troll

He's either a near professional troll or the slowest among us by a mile. You're probably just trying to give him a break by using the troll alternative.